Who's side do you take in the malpractice problem in the U.S.?

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Dis
that's probably the only reason we don't have universal health care. I can't see doing non profit health insurance companies unless they are goverment run. And if we are going to do that, we should provide health coverage to everyone.

I was kinda thinking the same thing. I don't see how an insurance company could be non-profit, unless it was Govenment subsidized. But then you'd have the government looking over your medical bill and deciding what they were going to pay. Not a good thing.

How would a non-profit Health Insurance Company work? Stick with the same type of rates but give "dividend" type credits/checks to all policy holders? I don't know enough about non-profit or insurance.

[pchang]

Blue Cross

Is an association of health insurance/care providers. I know that Blue Shield (the CA member that I use) is non-profit. I'm pretty sure many other member organizations are non-profit too. However, these guys are not cheap (my membership is heavily subsidized by my employer). I do not think these guys contribute in any way to universal health coverage.

[Zkribbler]

Kaiser-Permanente is also non-profit but it looks like it will be supporting our bill in California to provide universal healthcare.

The problem with healthcare in America is the insurance-caused bureaucracy. Most countries spend 5-10% of their healthcare dollars on administration. Depending on who's study you look at, America spends 20-50% of its healthcare on administration. (Most studies put the percentage at 25-33%)

There are 10,000 health insurance plans in California. When you go into a doctor's office, they have to check to see if which plan you're in, whether you're still in that plan, what coverage is unually provided by that plan and if the plan still covers the procedure in question.

Currently, SB 840 is making its way through the California Legislature. It would provide for comprehensive universal coverage for California residents.

Although SB 840 provides far more coverage than insurance plans, and although SB 840 covers everyone in California included the 7 million currently uninsured, SB 840 would cost Californians $7 billion less that the current system because administration costs would drop down to 5% of each heath caredollar.

Kaiser Permanente is leaning towards supporting the bill. The Permanente portion of the company -- which is the insurance half -- would take it in the neck. However, the Kaiser portion -- which provides medical care -- would have a crack at 7 million more potential patients.

[St Leo]

I am on the side of public healthcare, whether state or federal.

[chequita guevara]

Go California!

[Theben]

Originally posted by Donegeal
The only side I take is the one that is against insurance companies.

Nothing like taking a personal injury (a serious one) and playing three way snail-mail tag between the hospital, insurance company and victim. And then putting it all into an impersonal numbers game just so a profit could be made.

Hmm... I usually don't like to complain about something and not give a possible solution to the problem, but I just never had a solution to the problem with evil corprate insurance companies. But I just came up with a possible answer.

Not sure how it would work, but what if insurance companies were somehow required to be non-profit? Would something like this be possible?

That would be the single-payer option that Clinton and the '93 congress didn't bother with.