Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Liberals, instead of directly going to government run health care?

Why not try less dramatic reforms, such as tort reform? We can lower the amount of malpractice suits, lowering the cost of malpractice insurance. Hospitals will spend less, and they will lower prices to compete for business. If they lower their prices, they can make more money by getting more patients, even if they're getting less from insurance agencies. Lowering costs will be profitable, so they will lower costs.

Let health insurance agencies cross over state lines to increase competition, lowering prices.

Offer tax cuts to hospitals and insurance agencies for affordable insurance or affordable health care. We can work out deals with them and say 'if you give a total amount of discounts of x amount of dollars, you will not have to pay that in taxes. They're going to spend the same amount of money either way. But if they offer discounted care, they'll get good publicity. So they might as well take the good publicity and get more patients. Also, when one hospital lowers their prices, others will have to too, since this is the law of competition.

Make health insurance tax deductible.

Obviously, these are far from perfect, but you can help fix them. They're mainly based on promoting competition.


Okay, look at it this way. It's all about profit for the hospitals, at least most of the time. If they can cut costs, they can charge less. By charging less, insurance agencies will go to them. People will go to them.

It's the idea of competitive pricing. Lower prices, gain more customers, eventually, you have enough customers to outweigh the losses of the price cuts.

This is simple economics.

Update 2:

1. Never said I was rich.

2. Am I not at least trying to think of ways to cut insurance costs? Instead of letting the government run something so valuable as health care, why not work on cutting the costs?

29 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Law suits costs are such a small percentage of the cost of health care. There are a lot of IF'S.

    What happens if the industry doesn't pass along those savings? I have no confidence that the industry just keep the money. Which side of the issue do cons stand on? States rights OR bigger Government. It seems at odds to be for the feds regulating insurance crossing state lines but not competing with them.

    Source(s): liiffee
  • justa
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    How about cutting profits for insurance companies? Oops, that's pretty much a no-no isn't it? We haven't really got the right to go into a private company and tell them how much profit they can and cannot make, its un-American.

    Making health insurance tax deductible isn't going to keep costs down, it will just make it hurt people less in their minds, but actually those deductions will have to be made up somewhere down the line. In the meantime, businesses already have a deduction for providing insurance and group plans already cost less than individual plans. Know what? Many businesses don't want the hassle and are dropping their plans for ordinary employees and keeping them for the upper echelons. The very people who could afford to pay for their own insurance. Hospitals and doctors aren't like most businesses, for one thing, their biggest source of income is insurance companies. The insurance company tells the hospital and doctor what they will pay for any given operation or problem, then the Dr and hospital either take it or leave it, and if they won't sign the contract, they don't get approval to treat patients with that insurer.

    Is a legal Mafia.

    Its not a competing sort of thing, medical equipment costs millions, and duplication of services in an area can be an economic problem, not to mention simply impractical.

    I live in NY and my health insurance is in Texas, I've never figured out why people talk about an interstate problem, unless its that they want to write insurance under a different states laws, so they can not cover as much as is mandated in the other state. Which is a nice way of saying they want to avoid protections for the customer.

    Hospitals and doctors, even tort reform aren't whats raising costs to the consumer up to 38% its profit margins that insurance companies want even as they are paying out less in coverages, and have multi billion dollar profits. And pay their officers millions of dollars.

    A public option would avoid the highest costs of extreme salaries and eliminate the profit incentive.That's going to cut the cost of insurance, and that's what the customer pays.That's also the only way to have competition in the insurance industry, not one of them will be cutting costs to get business. They will send you a pen.

  • cantcu
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Sure, Tort reform.

    You should not be allowed to sue the physician that just murdered you by removing your only good kidney or cut off the wrong leg. Cut out Tort and you have essentially cut-out any mechanism to create an incentive for a physician to practice safe. They get to kill you at whim and you have no say. What a wonderful right-wing idea. You act like people actually collect all those big awards, of which there are few.

    In my state you have to go before a board, most physicians, before you are even allowed to sue!

    "Offer tax cuts to hospitals and insurance agencies for affordable insurance or affordable health care"

    Hospitals are non-profit and Anthem, for instance made, $2.1 BILLION in profits last quarter while they just asked for a 39% increase.. Why don't we just ask them to give a little of those massive profits back that they made off of poor people or by denying benefits?

    Do you actually think hospitals will charge less! That will NEVER happen and you know it!

  • 1 decade ago

    It's never been about government run health care. Health Care Reform is simply that. It's reform not takeover. It is meant to control costs for most of us and ensure that the forty million who don't have coverage are covered. One piece of the reform is a public option, which would bring down costs for everyone. This would be done through competition. Blue Cross blue Shield is raising premiums 39% this year. Are you Okay with that? Another part of the piece is making it harder for insurance companies dropping people. Last year alone 2.5 million Americans were dropped. The CBO has determined that at most tort reform will save 3% in costs. That is simply a red herring thrown out by Republicans to obscure the facts that insurance Companies are raising their rates by 15 to 40% every year while making record profits. Just like the stories about government run health care and death squads are out and out lies to prevent meaningful reform.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Tort reform will not dramatically affect the cost of health insurance.

    When the government spends the money, it goes directly to where it is meant to go.

    When the government gives money to private entities the money goes wherever the private entities see fit. They lower their rates. Or they could pocket the profits.

    Remember a few years ago when consumer prices started going up? After the tax cuts and anti-labor policies?

  • Fern O
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    That's all Republicans talk of is tort reform. It's all about "fixing" the dollar amount. They can't seem to understand that every malpractice claim is not created equal. The only way to fix health care in the country is through a public option to drive down costs. Period.

  • sugg
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    because a) we do not want the authorities controlling our own lives a lot with the abortion surcharge and how older human beings ought to ought to describe their circumstances to forums and b) the authorities has a tendency to make a screw up businesses it takes over. i do not want to ought to attend hours for medical doctors or have some in good structure telling me that I easily ought to attend months for a technique, like is the case in Canada and the united kingdom. further, even if the Democrats talk bipartisan, the fact is that neither Pelosi or Reid will enable any of the Republican plans on the floor for debate--there are 3 a minimum of. finally, there is an aura as if the Democrats do not want us to understand what's quite in this component.

  • Bob H
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    In England, Drs get a bonus every time a patient improves his life style; stops smoking, loses weight. etc. In the US, Drs get a bonus from the drug companies for the number of pills they prescribe. The drugstore then sells the lists of prescriptions to insurance companies, who use it to find Pre-existing conditions. We kill over twice the people with prescribed drugs as with illegal drugs. Tort reform won't help that. Smoking is almost extinct in the US but the 50th pl in life expectancy and 37th pl in health care hasn't budged.

  • 1 decade ago

    Its going to be interesting to see how it goes with the upcoming congressional get togethers on health care. obama says leave your partisan politics at the door.

    Ive wondered why obama, pelosi and others on this issue cant just start with what both parties agree upon. But the last statment I heard by Biden was the republicans only want to discuss the parts of the plan that they agree with...

    So basically Biden is saying they wont accept what both parties agree upon.

    If everyone agreed on buying across state lines, and that was it, then make that a law and then work on reforming more of it afterwards...

    It seems Obama and his team wont start with what people agree upon its a whopper of a huge sweeping change or nothing.

    I like the things you mentioned, tort reform, buying across state lines for competition, as well as insurance plan portability so you can take it with you if you leave an employer etc..

  • 1 decade ago

    I like your thinking and I think this is a reasonable alternative to have lower costs with out completely change the structure of health care and reduce the quality. we all want a more affordable health care, that is a mutual ground we all can share, but what people don't realize is that universal health care and government run health care are basically the same thing and they are full of problems. our current system has problems too but we can fix them and we don't need the government to fix it. the funny thing is that those who support universal health care say how wonderful it is and how affordable it is, but what they don't tell you that universal health care has a lot of problems more than private health care and it sounds too good to be true. chances are it is too good to be true! there is no such thing as perfect health care and those who support universal health care are saying its the perfect health care, its not, its a disaster health care. they look at Europe and Canada and say their health care systems work very well but why are Europeans and Canadians coming here to get surgery and recover quicker and more comfortably when they get our health care compare to long waits in line, poor treatment, getting treatment late for which they have no reason to be late, care is poor quality and all of that? taking politics out of the equation, universal health care is worse than private health care because its government control. here are some site saying how wonderful universal health care is






    I'm sure it sounds too good to be true because it is too good to be true! look at it for what it really is, here are the facts






    Source(s): I don't support universal health care at all so I strongly oppose it Independent
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.