Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by Supposn, Sep 12, 2019.
The nose under the tent to a federal monopoly.
Federal reinsurance of explicit medical preventative and screening procedures.
Discouraging insurers “annual deductibles” of medical insurance coverage.
Federal general funding will provide reinsurance for explicitly listed and described best medical preventative and screening procedures The description of the procedures specify for which patient's symptoms or conditions recommend applying these explicit procedures. The medical insurers that acceptance of this federal reinsurance, will be reimbursed at 50% of Medicare's allowable charge as their entire compensation for these procedures and they will pro-actively offer this coverage to their clients at no additional cost. Additionally, they will not enforce “deductible” exclusions,(e.g. annual deductible amounts) that are gaps of their client's amount of insurance coverage.
[The purpose of insurers fees per visit or insurance of less than full cost is to prevent over-usage of medical insurance. What then is the purpose of additional annual deductibles of coverage, other than to reduce medical insurers' cost and prices? Annual deductibles are particularly hinder lower rather than higher-income earners exercising their access to their insurance benefits.]
This federal reinsurance is provided equitably and at no cost to both government and non-governmental medical insurance plans. Too often, the consequences of persons not receiving such medical preventative and screening procedures are more individuals' and our nation's deaths, disabilities, suffering, and financial costs. The purpose of this reinsurance is to reduce medical insurance prices.
Maxdeath, I'm proposing we accept higher federal taxes or debt if consequences are improved medical insurance at no greater cost to client's costs, and no net increase of costs to the aggregate taxpayers and medically insured persons and families of no greater than the median annual incomes. (the tax consequences upon those of greater than the median annual incomes would be of no proportionally substantial increase).
The proposals of federal reinsurance of explicit medical preventative and screening procedures and the discouraging insurers “annual deductibles” of medical insurance coverage, would be offered to both government and non-governmental medical insurance plans. they would reduce those plans costs and prices.
Higher medical costs increase medical insurers prices and reduce numbers of younger healthier insurance purchasers. This, in turn, increases per client costs and pricing of medical insurance.
These are not proposals for universal or otherwise comprehensive medical insurance. They are some extent of socialized medical insurance but are not socialized medicine to any extent.
The proposal would reduce medical insurance prices and better assure healthcare providers will be more promptly and fully-paid, thus bolstering their financial sustainability.
Federal subsidy of catastrophic medical expenditures.
Catastrophic medical expenditures are initially enacted by medical service and goods providers. In emergencies, those providers are legally required to medically stabilize the patient. Financial deficits due to legal and/or humane imperatives for providing medical treatments are destabilizing factors to medical services and goods providers if they cannot pass on those costs.
Due to the costs of collection and costs of uncollectable accounts (which are particularly the case for uninsured catastrophic medical costs), hospitals and clinics are impelled to increase their per-unit prices.
Some of those uninsured costs are paid by charities and our governments, (i.e. current and future federal, state, and local taxpayers), but that's usually after those deficits have induced price increases.
Federal catastrophic medical expenditures would significantly subsidize medical goods and service providers costs due to patients' catastrophic procedures and treatments. It would be applicable to U.S. legal resident patients regardless if they are or are not otherwise medically insured.
Reimbursement per individual patient would begin when the costs due to the patient's catastrophic medical costs reach or are nominated to reach an annual catastrophic cost amount threshold. (That cost amount threshold is annually pegged to a Consumer-Price index number). The reimbursement of the medical goods and services providers' direct costs on the patient's behalf are on a sliding scale. Provider's reimbursement begins at 10% of their annual costs on behalf of the patient, and continue to increase at a rate of an additional 1% per hundred dollars of incremental increases of the annual direct costs beyond the catastrophic cost amount threshold. The maximum federal catastrophic reimbursement per patient is 50% of annual direct costs on the patient's behalf.
It's expected that medical providers of uninsured patients would mutually agree to designate a patient's primary medical financial manager for consolidating and administrating the transfer of reimbursement between the federal government and themselves. If an uninsured patient has multi medical providers, a medical provider choosing to perform their own catastrophic cost coordination with federal administrators would likely be reducing their own and other providers' entitled compensation.
The purpose of federal government subsidy of direct catastrophic medical costs is to reduce medical goods, services, and insurers net costs, thus their passed on prices. Higher medical costs increase medical insurers prices and reduce numbers of younger healthier insurance purchasers. This, in turn, increases insurers' per client costs and pricing of all (government and non-governmental) medical insurance.
Don't want to rely on government for health care. Sorry. If you want to send them your money, they can set something up like this for you, and those who agree with you. There's no reason to force the rest of us to play along.
DBlack, if you’re paying for any substantial portion of your medical insurance and copayments, and you’re paying income taxes, this proposal would be of net reduction of your net out-of-pocket expenses unless your taxable income’s greater than that of the average income taxpayer.
(Unlike the median income taxpayer’s income, less than 20% of USA income taxpayers earn more than the average income taxpayer’s annual income). There now exists some form of federal subsidy or price reducing regulation within EVERY medical insurance plan that qualified for the Affordable Care Act. If you’re medically insured, whoever is paying for your insurance is somewhat relying on the federal government to reduce their costs.
I'm sure it would. Lot's of proposed welfare state programs would benefit me personally, but the would leave our children with a dangerously powerful government. Preventing that is more important to me than saving a few dollars via mandated efficiency.
??? Have you been toking up with danielpalos?
Yes, and that needs to be corrected.
Separate names with a comma.