What are the best conservative health-care solutions or reforms for those with little money?

[Jacinth]

I know there needs to be "tort" reform, or a clamping down on frivolous lawsuits, unnecessary tests on patients, etc...

Obviously, anything the liberal agenda touches turns to communism, and our freedoms are lost little by little.
ObamaCare and anything like it (RomneyCare) is miserable and would be a nightmare.

But right now, having health insurance is next to unaffordable for many, and paying out of pocket is only practical for occasional check-ups.

Can someone lay out the good practical alternatives to what we have now vs. what the Left wants? What has been done before and worked..., etc...

[IbelieveinJesus]

Typically, Conservatives look for a market based, personal responsibility solutions, which includes wedding HSA's and high deductible insurance plans. They also seek to allow folks to cross state lines, tort reform, etc... See McCain's plan from the 2008 election.

-Ted

[out of the box]

While I support tort reform from a philosophical perspective, malpractice suits make up only 2% of health care costs. So even if we eliminate the ability to ever, ever sue a doctor no matter how negligent they are, insurance costs wouldn't drop by any noticeable amount whatsoever.

[Wally]

Medical coverage needs to be tackled piece by piece. There are so many contributing factors
And federal actions normally just add costs. but some items to factor:

Insurance - premiums, liability, tort, all of it vicious and feeding on each other.

There needs to be both ownership (hospitals are supposed to be non-profit) and rationale: People make mistakes and often medicine is a best-educated guess.
Its not 100% and people can die. There is a limit to pain and suffering. Criminal neglect on the other hand is its own issue.
Tort insurance drives good doctors away. Office visits become complex diagnosis procedures because the physician requires
tons of extra lab tests so not to get sued. Insurance premiums grafted into every procedure price to help cover costs.
Dog eating its tail sometimes.


Bills need to be paid. Services are not free. There is some amount of tax (or premium) that shares the burden amongst us all.
However that burden must be fair, or a matter of compassion. Meaning charities need to be involved as much as INS.

Cost of supplies - servces. Hospitals try to be efficient. HIPAA and blood-borne pathogens have directly increased cost of health care.
Just the extra paperwork alone adds millions (billions is my guess).
The medicines themselves, rubber gloves, Nitrale if alergic, non resusable, all costs money. Some can be expected simply because its needed (aids protection)
But some stuff has so many costs added in, asprin in a hospital that costs 4x OTC? Definately there are ways to save, and business is normally frugal enough to find them.

Staffing, salaries, and from my personal experience, there are plenty of underpaid medical workers. But I've seen the other extreme - $600 for a doctor to tell me what I already knew.

We still have a great system. It needs work. That is something MSM should focus on instead of how our illustrious CinC will fix it all through more buracracy.



Business knows health care is a benefit that attracts and keeps quality workers, it is also the greatest costing benefit.

HRA - HSA self funding/health captives are lucrative means of providing healthcare. They also have to be well managed and espouse ways to reduce claims
through wellness programs. It is a nice 2-way street but some employees see it as invasive.

It does touch on the mindset: I'll live the way I want to. (and everyone else picks up the tab)

Helthcare is not a simple problem, but if attacked piece by peice, alot of good things can get done.

Legislation should motovate the changes needed, not take controll.

[Homesick777]

Tort insurance drives good doctors away. Office visits become complex diagnosis procedures because the physician requires
tons of extra lab tests so not to get sued. Insurance premiums grafted into every procedure price to help cover costs.
Dog eating its tail sometimes.

Agreed. I've seen multiple investigative reports on TV in the last year that all the extra tests and procedures that doctors order to cover themselves in the hopes of having a defense against potential lawsuits increases overall health care costs by 20-30%. I don't think that even factored in the excessive cost of malpractice insurance which would go down significantly with tort reform. Imagine if we could shave 40% off of today's costs? That would be a whole new ball game.

[Robinbobbin]

A really simple way to alleviate the problem for a lot of folks would be to allow people to carry or purchase insurance accross state lines. It would also allow many smaller regional insurers into the broader market allowing competition against some of the large insurers.

[Hootmon]

While I support tort reform from a philosophical perspective, malpractice suits make up only 2% of health care costs. So even if we eliminate the ability to ever, ever sue a doctor no matter how negligent they are, insurance costs wouldn't drop by any noticeable amount whatsoever.

Lawsuit avoidance drives up the number of unnecessary tests that are done.

[Reason&Hope]

When I came to Washington state 20 years ago, the State Insurance Commissioner at the time spent a lot of effort forcing insurance companies to cover an increasing array of services (mental health, pre-existing conditions, drug rehab . . . ) and to increase coverage of all services.

At first, it seems like a benefit to people: big, rich insurance company has to pay for more of what I want. yee-haw.

But the requirements and regulations cost the companies so much that there were 2 results:
1. Costs went up for everyone, significantly.
2. Many insurance companies simply left the state. Fewer competitors led to higher consumer costs.
3. Fewer people could afford insurance and stopped buying plans, which raised the costs for everyone else. (Because the risk pool could be spread to fewer people.)

Good intentions of providing more coverage led to less all-around coverage and higher costs. This is what happens when government interferes in the market.

As to solutions, lift stringent requirements and allow people to shop for insurance that suits them. (Personally, we have a high deductible, HSA-funded plan and I wish Gov. Gregoire had allowed us to get this sooner.) For a solution that a lone person could have, hm. There are some Christian pooled-market plans out there.