Comments on: 3 Common Sense Solutions to Fixing Health Care

By: Nate Bomberger

Nate Bomberger — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:30:42 +0000

So lets spread the risk over many many different companies (competition). Huh?? Tort reform is a good thing – but 1-3% is kinda high in projected savings according to MOST estimates.

Sure, lets make sure the middle class has that money put away for healthcare, but making it easier for them to spend their pretax dollars on healthcare?

I think it is admirable that you are running for public service. But you need to learn more about this debate before I would consider you a real fiscal conservative. I would definitely vote for someone on the right that had the balls to present the MOST cost effective measure out there – spread the risk over the entire population. Single-payer.

By: Nate Bomberger

Nate Bomberger — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:30:21 +0000

It is a fact that the most effective way to control costs AND spend the least amount of money is to lump everyone into the same policy. Spread the risk over the entire population. I find it difficult to understand what is so hard for people to comprehend this.

Single-payer. Of course the political environment will not allow this to happen. And the right will scream about government run healthcare. The left doesn't have the balls. How about doing something different and basing your entire argument on facts??? But to think that a for-profit insurance industry is the right way to makes no sense.

By: Patrick Barron

Patrick Barron — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:03:57 +0000

Exactly right! Increase competition, tort reform, and expanding healthcare savings accounts will do more for expanding coverage than any socialist plan currently being considered by Congress.

By: William Welch

William Welch — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:56:43 +0000

The "credible sources" estimate of tort reform of 1-3% savings is so low because it doesn't pick up the savings from medical providers backing off the practice of defensive medicine due to their fear of frivolous and ruinous lawsuits. Steve's three suggestions for cost savings should be taken seriously and not dismissed because they don't address other medical insurance issues. His strategy of attacking the critical issue of cost containment first makes a lot of sense, even if it doesn't have a lot of short term political appeal.The hyperbolic trajectory of medical costs in this country is one of the most important job growth issues of this decade.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 21:56:47 +0000

Allowing interstate competition would reduce costs because insurers could offer plans from states with the weakest consumer regulations. That would reduce both the cost and quality of health care plans in lockstep without affecting the cost of the underlying medical services – people would just have to tap into their own reserves to pay the difference.

Tort reform is a good idea, but would probably have a very small impact on health care costs. Most credible sources put it in the 1-3% range.

HSAs are good for certain people, but they are unpopular and even if they were crafted as well as possible, few people would choose to lock up money in advance to be used exclusively on medical expenses. Anyway, they don't provide support for catastrophic care, which is what insurance is meant to solve.

Your suggestions are fine, but they don't come close to addressing the whole problem. This plan won't affect the abuse of the emergency room system by people who choose not to have their own health insurance. It won't affect people with pre-existing conditions, people who are bankrupted after they hit their plan's maximum lifetime payout, or people who get kicked off of a plan when they are sick.

I look forward to seeing your plan cover free-riders, high-risk individuals and the bankruptcies that come from catastrophic illnesses.

By: ps3 consoles

ps3 consoles — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:51:05 +0000

This a very clear and concise video, i mean it makes perfect sense. Funny how powerful common sense is yet most ignore it