2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber language law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I heard a comment about getting rid of insurance companies. I work at an insurance company and agree that the fact that insurance companies have moved towards not covering people who need it is a problem. But what insurance companies are good at doing is 1) tracking eligibility and benefit info and 2) paying claims. Insurance companies are good at holding data and matching payment to the right providers. In other words, they are effective middlemen and no one is really ready to take over that role.

With Drugs and devices, since there is so much money that can be made in the US with these products, americans get these products first and pay for them. Countries that have price fixes or control introduction of new technologies get these products after these companies have made all the money that they can in the US. Every health care country has some form of rationing. With some countries, it's access to complex procedures, with some its access to certain drugs. In the US, we ration care by providing everything to some and nothing to some. If we want to reduce what we will pay for drugs and devices, we will have to recognize that we will not be able to access new products as quickly as we want.

posted 5 years ago
view in context

With regards to the vineyard scenario, the fact that Albert needs a benefit administrator to evaluate the health care system is part of the problem. Employers should not have to spend more time thinking about health care but rather think about their business.

I think that businesses should contribute towards the pool and small/large contribution can be determined by what level of administration they can absorb. Ideally, it would be a simple payroll deduction or tax that would remove the need to have a benefit administrator. Payroll taxes for benefits are common so I hope this would be appropriate for businesses and simple enough that it would work for them.

Businesses don't necessarily take immigration status into account for hiring so we shouldn't take that into account for health care.

posted 5 years ago
view in context