FACT: The Selective Service allows people to serve in any branch of the military they wish.

If a private insurer were to offer even vaguely affordable insurance that a) covered all illnesses, no matter what ‘pre-existing conditions’ you might have, b) you could not get dumped from for any reason other than non-payment of premiums and c) paid for procedures performed and didn’t change their minds and disallow them after they were performed–that company would completely dominate the industry in short order, become a Fortune 100 company rapidly, and eliminate the need for government health care.
Why has nobody jumped on this huge opportunity?

Because consumer choice isn’t the primary determinant of insurance chosen. Insurance companies primarly work through employer-provided programs, so it becomes a question not of what consumers want, but what other corporations want in their group coverage, which is mainly a question of affordability for a moderate coverage level. Pre-existing conditions, dumping, chargebacks, doctor choice, and decisional autonomy aren’t factors in that equation.

.

sanschag Says:

Given that virtually all industrialized countries manage to insure everybody, with better results by merely all measures, and for less, generally significantly less, cost, why is the US so inept? Why can’t we do it as well? (I know, I know, insurance co.’s)

Because we still have Republicans. Once they are eliminated, things will improve.

.

Cats r Flyfishn Says:

This morning, one of the pundits on MSNBC said that doctors and the medical profession would be against single payer health care. That’s not true. The medical profession would love to submit one form to receive payment and only need to submit it ONCE. In the current situation, every insurance company has its own forms and it may take several submissions over several months BEFORE the doctor gets paid.

Absolutely. If you run a business, it’s more important to be able to have a consistent and accurate picture of future revenue, rather than roll the dice with each billing. Then you can determine your own success. As it is, a doctor has to deal with multiple agencies that have muliply different policies, and often won’t know how much they’ll get paid (or whether) until weeks after submitting an invoice. That’s no way to run a business, even if occasionally you hit the jackpot on a procedure.

Furthermore, having to gear your care towards higher-paying procedures in order to stay in business is no way to actually treat health conditions.

A myth is a metaphor, not a lie: a vessel for going from ignorance to understanding. Historically, they have served humanity in a dual function: as marsupial pouches, second wombs in which to complete our gestation; and burlap sacks, as in “easy as drowning kittens in a burlap sack.”

Myths are used for delivering people into either the Promised Land, or the hands of their butchers, depending on the intentions of the myth-makers. I call the latter, “to myth-jack.”

There are a lot of good articles regarding this method recently.

The most hair-curling of all is this, from Ray McGovern:

Obama is no shrinking violet. Just the same, it may be useful to warn him not to succumb to the particular brand of “shock and awe” that can be induced by ostensibly sexy intelligence to color reactions of briefees, including presidents. I have seen it happen. [Retrieved 5:55 AM Pacific 23 Dec 08 from http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/110708c.html

For weeks, Obama held firm, insisting that the issue was more complicated than his interviewers wanted to admit. He argued that there were many factors behind Iraq’s changed security environment. But ultimately he caved in while being interrogated on Sept. 4 by Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly.

"I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated," Obama confessed to O'Reilly. "It's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."

Obama may have judged that continued resistance was futile. But his surrender on the “successful surge” myth may have other long-term consequences. [Retrieved 5:50 AM Pacific 23 Dec 08 from http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/121808.html]

The Ponzi Scheme Presidency
Tom Englehardt
(via Antiwar.com)
In this sense, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and the various neocons in the administration were fundamentalist idolaters – and what they worshipped was the staggering power of the U.S. military. They were believers in a church whose first tenet was the efficacy of force above all else. Though few of them had the slightest military experience, they gave real meaning to the word bellicose. They were prejudiced toward war.

1) If anyone believes that health care isn’t already rationed by insurance companies, they’re crazy. Anytime a company defines a payout for contracted services, i.e., procedures that are listed as covered in the insurance agreement, as “losses”, there is a problem.

Good point! Several times when my daughter visited me (several day visits), either she or her daughter were sick and needed to see a doctor. Just a simple doctor’s office visit would have been fine. My daughter lives in a different state than I do so instead of going to the ER, she went to one of the walk-in Family Care facilities. Her insurance would not pay for this visit because this health facility was not “in network” so she had to pay for the visit out of pocket.

You are correct in stating that the current system already rations care.

1) If anyone believes that health care isn’t already rationed by insurance companies, they’re crazy. Anytime a company defines a payout for contracted services, i.e., procedures that are listed as covered in the insurance agreement, as “losses”, there is a problem.

2) In my mind, the arguments against universal care are pointless. It’s been done, many times. Given that virtually all industrialized countries manage to insure everybody, with better results by merely all measures, and for less, generally significantly less, cost, why is the US so inept? Why can’t we do it as well? (I know, I know, insurance co.’s)

Paul

MYTH: The government will ration care. “The Left’s idea of limiting Medicare spending is to have bureaucrats tell Mom she cannot have the cancer treatment she wants. [Washington Times, 12/28/2008]

Interesting. Current facts: The conservatives in Congress will decide when a person is brain dead or not just by watching a video. The conservatives in Congress will decide if stem cell research will benefit people with MS or Parkinson’s Disease.

It’s so bad today that most physicians support a government run health care system whereas when Hillary was trying to construct a government health care plan most physicians were against it.

Putzes, every single one.

It used to be the right-wing talking points were all anyone heard. Now they all get debunked on the net, usually within minutes.

which is why Big Pharma paid Billy Tauzin so handsomely for sheparding through Congress legislation FORBIDDING the Govt from participating in negotiations over the costs of pharmaceuticals…

I mean, the very concept of insurance is, the larger the pool, the greater the savings to each member in the pool. Right? So it stands to reason that the largest possible insurance pool (i.e. the country) would be generate maximum savings.

–Doctors: A government program will likely bargain to reduce payments to doctors for all visits and certain types of treatments. Compared to their European counterparts, American doctors are far overpaid.

–Attorneys: To reduce the financial burden on doctors so they don’t quit under a system of lower payments, the government will need to reform tort law to limit malpractice damages and thus lower malpractice insurance costs. Malpractice attorneys (well, those who represent plaintiffs) will object to that.

Top quality health care isn’t cheap. In order to insure everyone without breaking the Treasury, which is under particular strain these days, we’ll have to lower costs overall and thus lower the incomes of those who benefit from the current system (drug companies, equipment manufacturers, hospitals, AND attorneys, AND doctors). Those are some powerful constituencies to face down. Can the new Congress and White House do it?

We shall see.