There are so many problems with your response I don't know here to start.
As for the so-called "type of contract" I assume you're talking about the extents of coverage and such. That was part of the problem with the current health insurance system, too many people were being sold plans which were nothing more than legal scams. Everything was fine as long as you never actually had to be treated for something serious because if you were your policy was automatically cancelled no matter how many years you had been paying premiums without any big claims. That's NOT a 'health insurance' policy, it's a 'you better not get sick' policy.
As for the so-called 'opt-out' idea, this would cause several problems. First is that people would continue to not be treated for preventable conditions leading to poor outcomes and impacts on society in general including more people walking around with communicable diseases and/or missing work thus increasing the cost to businesses for time lost and productivity impacts. And then there would still be the costs imposed on the system by people going to the ER for non-emergency care or would you suggest that we make it illegal for hospitals to treat uninsured individuals? And then there's the problem that someone might just wait until they become truly ill, like with cancer or after being involved in an accident, and they suddenly decide that YES they really do need to buy insurance. That will not work if preexisting conditions no longer prevents people from getting insurance or would you be willing to allow insurance companies to deny insurance to anyone they chose, because if so, we'd be right back to where we were. In fact, this was the rational for the recommendations made by the Heritage Foundation, you know, that 'ultra liberal' think tank, that there be be NO opt-out and that insurance coverage had to be mandatory, what they themselves called the 'Individual Mandate', or this would not work since insurance companies would go bankrupt if people could simply go ON and OFF coverage anytime they wanted to. And this is what conservatives and Republicans in general liked about this propsal (at the time), this idea of 'individual responsiblity', which is always a big deal with the Right, except of course when it's being promoted by someone they consider as being an 'illegitmate' president.
As for proscribing generic drugs versus patented ones, have you looked as what's happening in the pharmaceutical industry lately with the abuse of the patent system? There's been cases where formulas were changed by adding some totally inert ingredient which technically changes the 'formula' and thus means that s new patent can be applied for another 21 years. Or the big companies buying up the little guys making the generics and simply shutting them down or reducing the production to a level where only the patented ones are readily available. Also convincing doctors, with kickbacks and other 'considerations', to only prescribe the patented drugs.
A good example is Nexium, a drug that has been on the market for years but it has remained very expense and without any apparent generic subsitute. My wife is on Nexium and even with our very good insurance plan, the cost is running close to $100/month and it's the only thing that works as she has tried all of the so-called 'alternatives'.
And as for this idea that insurance companies should simply tell people to go overseas the get treatment where, as you put it, "health care is less expencive". Well since the United States is the ONLY industrialized country in the world that has NOT had some sort of 'national health care' system or mandatory coverage (remember,
only in America is it legal for insurance companies to make a profit selling basic health care insurance) of course it would be cheaper to go to Germany or Switzerland for medical care. But how long do you think that would last if suddenly every plane to Europe was filled with Americans looking for a discount on their medical care?
I'm sorry, but someone's got to do a better job than that if you're going to suggest that the current plan will never work.
John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:
To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
