A recent Los Angeles Times article stated that people have lost homes and businesses over medical bills.
Would price controls on health care reduce bankruptcies. What would be the side effects of price controls?Would Price Controls on Health Care Reduce Bankruptcies?
There are a significant number of people who have medical bankruptcies. About 1.5 million folks a year declare bankruptcy. More than half are over medical bills. Of those, 75% have health insurance.
';Aldrich’s situation is ';asinine'; but increasingly common, said Dr. Deborah Thorne of Ohio University. Thorne, co-author of a widely quoted 2005 study that found medical bills contributed to nearly half of the 1.5 million personal bankruptcies filed in the U.S. each year, said that ratio has likely worsened since the data was gathered. ... Like Aldrich, Thorne said, three-quarters of the individuals in the study who declared bankruptcy because of health problems were insured.';
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20201807/
Therefor, it is clear that (1) having insurance the way it is allowed to be done now does NOT protect people from bankruptcy which is THE purpose of insurance anb (2) price controls can't work because insurance IS a form of price control.
The problem is that the health care field has been hijacked by government (state and fed) and that there are only a handful of large insurers. They routinely violate contract and antitrust law for their own financial benefit at the expense of the insured and also taxpayers and doctors. Those problems MUST be corrected otherwise disaster is the only possible result.
Linda Peeno, MD testified that SHE had often denied treatment JUST to save the insurance company money http://www.thenationalcoalition.org/DrPe…
Furthermore:
';the vast majority of health insurance policies are through for-profit stock companies. They are in the process of “shedding lives” as some term it when “undesirable” customers are lost through various means, including raising premiums and co-pays and decreasing benefits (Britt, “Health insurers getting bigger cut of medical dollars,” 15 October 2004, investors.com). That same Investors Business Daily article from 2004 noted the example of Anthem, another insurance company. They said the top five executives (not just the CEO) received an average of an 817 percent increase in compensation between 2000 and 2003. The CEO, for example, had his compensation go from $2.5 million to $25 million during that time period. About $21 million of that was in stock payouts, the article noted.
A 2006 article, “U.S. Health Insurance: More Market Domination, More CEO Compensation”
(hcrenewal.blogspot.com) notes that in 56 percent of 294 metropolitan areas one insurer “controls more than half the business in health maintenance organization and preferred provider networks underwriting.'; In addition to having the most enrollees, they also are the biggest purchasers of health care and set the price and coverage terms. “’The results is double-digit premium increases from 2001 and 2004—peaking with a 13.9 percent jump in 2003—soaring well above inflation and wages increases.’'; Where is all that money going? The article quotes a Wall Street Journal article looking at the compensation of the CEO of UnitedHealth Group. His salary and bonus is $8 million annually. He has benefits such as the use of a private jet. He has stock-option fortunes worth $1.6 billion.';
--Save America, Save the World by Cassandra Nathan pp. 127-128
';Insurance Companies Robbing Patients
Robbing patients to pay CEOs leads to unprecedented medical insurance corporation greed.
Thursday, January 3, 2008 8:52 AM
By: Michael Arnold Glueck %26amp; Robert J. Cihak, The Medicine Men';
http://www.newsmax.com/medicine_men/medi…
We do NOT have a free market in health care--but there are pockets of it and those work:
http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbe…
A doctor owned and run hospital that sees everyone gets care, no matter what happens to the bottom line.
http://www.simplecare.com/ a doctor-driven group where reasonable rates are charged.
Note you can go to a walk-in clinic at Wal-Mart or CVS or the like in many cities and get many of the most typical reasons for seeing a doc addressed for under $100.
The price of LASIK has DROPPED dramatically over a decade. Plastic surgery is CHEAP. Compare a major procedure like a tummy tuck with the bill an uninsured patient will get for a medically necessary appendectomy WITHOUT complications.
Contrast that with other ';governmental'; solutions, such as Hillarycare on the state level, aka Romney's ';solution'; of forcing everyone to buy insurance WITHOUT REFORMING INSURANCE. Costs are skyrocketing in Taxachusetts:
';Massachusetts announced that spending on its health care plan would increase by $400 million in 2008, a cost expected to be borne largely by taxpayers.';
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/200…
Last modified: January 29. 2008 5:03AM
California tried UHC:
';California Senate Panel Rejects Health Coverage Proposal
JESSE MCKINLEY AND KEVIN SACK
SAN FRANCISCO — In a blow to universal health care coverage in California and possibly to its prospects nationwide, a State Senate committee on Monday rejected a sweeping plan by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that would have offered insurance to millions of uninsured residents.
The Senate Health Committee defeated the plan 7 to 1, with three abstentions, as Democrats and Republicans alike said they found it too nebulous and potentially too costly for a state facing a $14.5 billion deficit.
“This bill is not only not perfect, it is flawed,” said State Senator Sheila James Kuehl, Democrat of Los Angeles and chairwoman of the committee, who voted against it.
...
But last Wednesday, as the California Senate committee heard testimony on the bill, Massachusetts announced that spending on its health care plan would increase by $400 million in 2008, a cost expected to be borne largely by taxpayers.
Shortly after the vote, Assemblyman Michael N. Villines of Fresno, the chamber’s Republican leader, praised it as a rejection of “a massive government-run health care scheme.”
On the Democratic side, there were concerns about the so-called “individual mandate,” which would have required all Californians to carry and pay for insurance, except those in economic hardship....';
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/200…
Last modified: January 29. 2008 5:03AM
UHC doesn't work anywhere:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_ca…
Only sensible plan I've located--catastrophic care (plus preventative which is moral and cost-effective) and fully VOLUNTARY:
QUALITY, ACCESSIBLE, AFFORDABLE health care for all.
That means preventative care (physical with follow up). Real medication (no Medicare ';donut holes'; the really ill are ripped off again.) No bogus ridiculously low ';caps'; on needed medical procedures. No abuse of the ER. No paying for the silly with the sniffles to go to the doc for free. No more bankruptcies over medical bills. I want THIS plan that ends abuse of the taxpayer, takes the burden off employers, provides price transparency, and ends the rip-off of the US taxpayer at the hands of greedy insurance CEOs (which has been repeatedly documented).
http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.htm…
Read the PDF, not the blurb, for the bulk of the plan. Book is searchable on Amazon.com
Cassandra Nathan's Save America, Save the WorldWould Price Controls on Health Care Reduce Bankruptcies?
Perhaps they would reduce bankruptcies by a little. It depends on the circumstances.
Side effects would be lower quality health care.
