Insurance industry trying to shut down doctors catering to the uninsured

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/gurley/detail?entry_id=41696&tsp=1

Wow, good thing we have that glorious insurance industry out looking for the public health! [/libertarian/conservative]

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well, the market will solve it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Blech, doctors should be able to do what they want.

[12th Doctor]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/gurley/detail?entry_id=41696&tsp=1

Wow, good thing we have that glorious insurance industry out looking for the public health! [/libertarian/conservative]

I never claimed the the insurance companies weren't mainly out to make money.  However, what I have always maintained is that junk lawsuits, people making repeated medical visits for minor problems simply because they have the insurance (my stepfather is a hypochondriac, so I know how these people operate) and other unnecessary pressures are what make it hard for them to make money, thus they do outrageous things like this.  If medical costs could be significantly reduced by taking certain measures, than lower cost insurance would be available.

Insurance companies are assholes, I don't deny that.  However, that is the nature of almost any business.  And I still think a mostly private health care system, if properly managed, which ours is not, works better than a National Health service.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Insurance companies are assholes, I don't deny that.  However, that is the nature of almost any business.  And I still think a mostly private health care system, if properly managed, which ours is not, works better than a National Health service.

Give me an example of a country with a "properly managed" private system that works better than a national one.

[12th Doctor]

Insurance companies are assholes, I don't deny that.  However, that is the nature of almost any business.  And I still think a mostly private health care system, if properly managed, which ours is not, works better than a National Health service.

Give me an example of a country with a "properly managed" private system that works better than a national one.

Off the top of my head, there really isn't one.  This, in large part, has to do with lack of examples.  All the European countries have gone to a national system, which is actually part of the reason bills in the United States are so high.  Companies can't charge what they would like in Europe or Canada, so they charge extra here.

And it is not a matter of them simply wanting more money, either.  The R&D costs for medical research are off the charts, and most of that is done in the United States, and most of it takes place here in part because the government does not absolutely lord over prescription drug companies here.  I have a friend who works for a generic drug company, and she tells me how difficult it is to work with the Europeans, because their inspectors and guidelines just for sales are insane.

And its not as though our health care system as a whole is that bad.  Any treatment that is developed here might cost alot when it first becomes available, but it becomes fairly standard within 10 years.  If we took away the ability of companies to make a profit, that would change entirely, because there wouldn't be the money to develop many new treatments, and the ones that would come out would be so exclusive that it would be decades before they could be covered on a government plan.

As the quote has often been said:

"If we had left it up to the government to create a cure for polio, then you would have the finest iron lung in the world, but no vaccination."

Because the money to come up with truly innovative solutions, like those being explored by the University of Pittsburgh, would not be there.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Why not just have both public and private options then? It's what we have for education, among other things.

And the system is "that bad" if you don't have insurance. I actually dont have insurance myself, though I can afford it, because I figure it's not worth the money ($80 a month vs. maybe $200-300 a year) and the companies just try to deny coverage whenever possible anyway (the real problem.)

[12th Doctor]

Why not just have both public and private options then? It's what we have for education, among other things.

And the system is "that bad" if you don't have insurance. I actually dont have insurance myself, though I can afford it, because I figure it's not worth the money ($80 a month vs. maybe $200-300 a year) and the companies just try to deny coverage whenever possible anyway (the real problem.)

I am in no way opposed to offering a public option to those who really need it.  Most states have one.

I am opposed to a public option for those making anything above what we would consider "working class" (upper-lower class), and I would even attach some provisos onto that income level (for instance, family size, dependents, economic viability ie how many people in the family can legitimately work).

I am also one of those uninsured Americans, though I have to admit, I have family members with considerable personal wealth, so that is a fall back for me that others don't have, should I be in dire need for treatment.  But still, I don't go on doctor's visits for anything that is not an emergency, because I can't afford it.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Insurance companies are assholes, I don't deny that.  However, that is the nature of almost any business.  And I still think a mostly private health care system, if properly managed, which ours is not, works better than a National Health service.

Give me an example of a country with a "properly managed" private system that works better than a national one.

Off the top of my head, there really isn't one.  This, in large part, has to do with lack of examples.  All the European countries have gone to a national system, which is actually part of the reason bills in the United States are so high.  Companies can't charge what they would like in Europe or Canada, so they charge extra here.

And it is not a matter of them simply wanting more money, either.  The R&D costs for medical research are off the charts, and most of that is done in the United States, and most of it takes place here in part because the government does not absolutely lord over prescription drug companies here.  I have a friend who works for a generic drug company, and she tells me how difficult it is to work with the Europeans, because their inspectors and guidelines just for sales are insane.

And its not as though our health care system as a whole is that bad.  Any treatment that is developed here might cost alot when it first becomes available, but it becomes fairly standard within 10 years.  If we took away the ability of companies to make a profit, that would change entirely, because there wouldn't be the money to develop many new treatments, and the ones that would come out would be so exclusive that it would be decades before they could be covered on a government plan.

As the quote has often been said:

"If we had left it up to the government to create a cure for polio, then you would have the finest iron lung in the world, but no vaccination."

Because the money to come up with truly innovative solutions, like those being explored by the University of Pittsburgh, would not be there.

Health insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit in Minnesota.  They must be non-profit entities.  And yet we have some of the most corrupt, sh**tty insurance companies in the country.

HMOs were also invented here.  Another product of a theoretically good idea gone totally wrong.

We need to make the guidelines for malpractice stricter to reduce malpractice suits, reduce unnecessary testing, and frankly, severely reduce the administrative costs.

I think the government should tell the insurance companies that they need to hold their overhead costs to 15% of all operating expenditures or risk fines.

[dead0man]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/gurley/detail?entry_id=41696&tsp=1

Wow, good thing we have that glorious insurance industry out looking for the public health! [/libertarian/conservative]

Which libertarians have defended the medical insurance industry?  What the docs and patients in your link are doing is awesome and should be encouraged everywhere (assuming it works well).  The more options the better.  As SuperSoulty said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lets give the state a little blame here too.  Why are there massive regulations for insurance companies?  Do these doctor "concierge"s get togethers not need any regulation?  What is the difference?  Why did the state govts cave when the insurance companies came calling?  Because they won't get re-elected if they lose the insurance companies contributions?  If the people are so freaking stupid not to see this and keep voting the cowards back in then they kind of deserve to have pussy politicians.

Again, I'm 100% behind things like this.  I think they are great ideas.  Govts and insurance companies that fight them are giant asshats.