Related Posts
Hi,
Does Nagarro provides internet reimbursement?
I really think that the insurance policy given by mediassist is way more expensive for parental insurance, means who will pay for 50k+ premium and that too for large copay, I guess the leadership team should intervene here....Parental insurance is really important for any employee and most of the time is only needed.
Recently I used parental insurance and found that the insurance company only paid for 50% of the total bill.
Tavisca JPMorgan Chase
More Posts
What will be in hand salary.???
Rising Star
How much do big 4 FDD partners make all in?
Additional Posts in Consulting
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Yes it’s a good idea. Untying insurance from employment is desperately needed. Public option will be more expensive as private insurers will just use it as an excuse to offload everyone high risk to the public one.
Fundamentally, insurance lowers costs to individuals by spreading risk across as large a group as possible. At the most basic level you miss the opportunity to spread the risk out to its maximum size. On top of that, you won’t get the savings from consolidating administrative costs to a single entity and you miss out of leverage for negotiating prices with healthcare providers.
After that it depends a little more on implementation. Due to the increased competition, the private insurers would respond by raising prices and seeking to limit higher risk individuals, relegating them to the public option. If you treat the public option like a state run enterprise (i.e. funded by premiums instead of taxes) and don’t untether insurance from employment, you can potentially get the scenario where the private plans continue to raise prices, but the employee subsidy still keeps most people on them, and the public option essentially becomes a very expensive high risk pool, since it won’t be able to deny people. Then it would either need to fund by increasing premiums (potentially losing the savings of a public option) or by federal subsidies.
You can go with the other method where everyone is automatically enrolled in a public option that everyone pays for if they don’t get in private insurance. But this would essentially just put private insurers into an expensive death spiral until they collapse, or it would create a two tiered system where some healthcare providers only accept the expensive private option and everyone on the public option is stuck with fewer options and worse service. Better to rip off the band aid and enact single payer healthcare.
Single payer needs to happen. It will, however, take many years to deal with the underlying infrastructure changes. Expanding public options now while working towards a single payer system is the best path imo
The only viable path is to convince 80% of the Americans that it’s a good idea. So far, it’s failing.
On the surface it sounds great, but there are a lot of considerations. The private insurance sector employs millions of people. Secondly, hospitals systems will be hit really hard because the rates they receive from Medicare are significantly lower than what they get through private insurers. That in turn could have rippling effects, might push people away from the medical field at a time where we have a shortage of doctors. And lastly, more of a moral question - if you can afford a higher quality of care (shorter wait times, advanced treatments, etc) should you be able to buy it over others?
Like any Us gov program. Implementation will be tough but policy makes sense. We’re lagging behind other developed economies in terms of health equity.
I like a public option first.
I realize and agree that europe is able to do healthcare better than the US. However, the US govt cant even figure out how to deliver mail on Sundays, and would rather see them out compete private healthcare models before I give up my insurance
I’m super liberal, but Medicare for all is too big a change to implement on the time scale discussed during the primaries. I think Warren and Sanders we’re discussing making it policy within a couple years?? That’s just ludicrous. Our healthcare system is so complex and intertwined with private insurance, that the only way we can really make changes is gradually. Start with a public option that is subsidized so that everyone has access. Then in 5-10 years make it illegal to have health insurance through your employer (or something similar). Improve step by step from there. Too bad that will never happen either. I’m pretty sure even this crisis won’t make Americans agree enough to hold politicians’ feet to the fire and make real changes.
E being ranked 34th on overall healthcare outcomes?
No. I like public option better.