"Large employers are far more likely to provide some health care coverage; small ones do not, because health care premiums are very high and because they don't have the bargaining power of the larger firms who can provide volume to health insurance companies in return for lower premiums. So your plan doesn't address the crux of the problem, and it will also drive premiums up even further, since cost of coverage is linked to how much coverage is purchased."
USA Today article on above: http://www.usatoday.com/money/smallbusiness/2006-10-08-employ-usat_x.htm
santosh: mandate large business, government subsidize small businesses. exemptions provide loopholes.
robin: "I feel very strongly, on the other hand, that the 40 million Americans who are unemployed, or are employed but without health insurance, should recieve coverage, mandated by the federal government. I assume there is no daylight between us on that aspect. Our difference comes in WHAT is covered. If ALL procedures are covered for ALL illnesses for ALL people who have no incentive to take care of themselves, people will keep coming into point-of-care with late-stage problems, and either the taxpayer or corporations have to foot the bill. There isn't enough money for that."
santosh: obviously rather than the above i support a single payer system, but im thinking realistically. expanding coverage doesn't mean providing coverage for anything. in fact, covering more people may mean not covering more elective procedures for anyone, but that's a good tradeoff.
robin: if you favor expanded coverage, then why are you hating on things like MinuteClinics in CVS and Walmart type stores for screening, and on online doctors?
santosh: the issue here is quality of health care. internet doctor guy doesnt take insurance so he's just exploiting rich people in a hurry. those people would be better off if they saw a doctor in person, and we shouldnt enable people to get riskier healthcare if they can get less risky healthcare. i have no problem with things like minuteclinics for large-scale screenings, ESPECIALLY for people with no insurance. the issue is for people who do have insurance, is this a time-saving strategy? Again, that makes these people take on a risk by not seeing an actual doctor, and currently i dont think its difficult enough to see a doctor (if you DO have insurance) to validate that. i would much MUCH rather just pay for the uninsured to have insurance so everyone can have healthcare without some people that have less time or money shouldering increased risk.
robin, you rock dude.
santosh: mandate large business, government subsidize small businesses. exemptions provide loopholes.
robin: "I feel very strongly, on the other hand, that the 40 million Americans who are unemployed, or are employed but without health insurance, should recieve coverage, mandated by the federal government. I assume there is no daylight between us on that aspect. Our difference comes in WHAT is covered. If ALL procedures are covered for ALL illnesses for ALL people who have no incentive to take care of themselves, people will keep coming into point-of-care with late-stage problems, and either the taxpayer or corporations have to foot the bill. There isn't enough money for that."
santosh: obviously rather than the above i support a single payer system, but im thinking realistically. expanding coverage doesn't mean providing coverage for anything. in fact, covering more people may mean not covering more elective procedures for anyone, but that's a good tradeoff.
robin: if you favor expanded coverage, then why are you hating on things like MinuteClinics in CVS and Walmart type stores for screening, and on online doctors?
santosh: the issue here is quality of health care. internet doctor guy doesnt take insurance so he's just exploiting rich people in a hurry. those people would be better off if they saw a doctor in person, and we shouldnt enable people to get riskier healthcare if they can get less risky healthcare. i have no problem with things like minuteclinics for large-scale screenings, ESPECIALLY for people with no insurance. the issue is for people who do have insurance, is this a time-saving strategy? Again, that makes these people take on a risk by not seeing an actual doctor, and currently i dont think its difficult enough to see a doctor (if you DO have insurance) to validate that. i would much MUCH rather just pay for the uninsured to have insurance so everyone can have healthcare without some people that have less time or money shouldering increased risk.
robin, you rock dude.
No comments:
Post a Comment