General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Isuckatlife
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnasSplenium View Post
Also, Im not assuming i'm invincible. I have no conditions now. I have insurance. If I get a chronic condition, i still have insurance. Now, if my policy lapses I am probably fucked six ways to sunday. But they can't just drop me for getting cancer

Thats the sad thing. they can just drop you for cancer by finding any discrepancy in your paperwork and history with the company
__________________
asdf7uas0897fa09s87df0as89d7f809as7df0a98sd7f0a98sd7f
Old 03-04-2010, 12:50 PM Isuckatlife is offline  
Reply With Quote
#61  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnasSplenium View Post
I think you are greatly mislead and there are a lot more people than you think. I certainly don't care. Everyone with any kind of respectable job already has satisfactory coverage, and they do not want expensive change.

I'm already paying into systems that will give me nothing back like social security. How bout one more? SOUNDS GREAT.

Same here. I agree.
Old 03-04-2010, 02:39 PM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#62  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Vaccines have one of the best returns on investment of any medical treatment, and the autism link is 100% pure with no evidence.
Very true on both points.

Quote:
How does anyone with a pre-existing condition get affordable coverage unless insurers are forced to provided covered (or the government offers it)?
I agree the pre-existing clause should be made illegal across the board. Once this happens though, most of the rest of the arguement for government run healthcare loses steam and becomes a moot point.

Quote:
The point is to kill off the employer based system while not penalizing consumers too badly. The employer based system has proven to be hideously inefficient, throwing it back to the market should more than make up for any losses to government inefficiency.
The employer based insurance system is a benefit that works to recruit workers to that specific employment. This system is not inefficient, because it balances according to take home pay (either you make a little less, but more of the premium is paid by the employer or you make more, but have to pay more out of pocket towards the premium). If your employer doesn't offer health insurance as a benefit, you still have the option to purchase it yourself, and tailor what you pay to what you need (this would become even better priced with the interstate shopping option). And employer based insurance is not the cause of increasing health care costs.... Blame that on the ambulance chasing lawyers and stupidly high lawsuits. Limit lawsuits across the board, and instantly hospital and medical equipment costs go down, and malpractice insurance for hospitals and doctors would plummet... thereby reducing health insurance premiums.

Quote:
Not really, it's just reshuffling tax money. Instead of Medicaid paying out directly to doctors, we'll just buy private insurance for people.
People have the option to buy private insurance now.

Quote:
It gives poor people an incentive to find reasonably priced health insurance and let providers compete to offer services, instead of just relying on Uncle Sam as we do now.
It would give poor people more of a government handout, and cause them to have less incentive to work hard and strive for a job with improved health care benefits. The last thing we need in this country is more people demanding handouts.
Old 03-04-2010, 03:41 PM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#63  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
I agree the pre-existing clause should be made illegal across the board. Once this happens though, most of the rest of the arguement for government run healthcare loses steam and becomes a moot point.
Well...sort of. It would make insurance more expensive and make it so more people would be unable to afford it.
Quote:
The employer based insurance system is a benefit that works to recruit workers to that specific employment. This system is not inefficient, because it balances according to take home pay (either you make a little less, but more of the premium is paid by the employer or you make more, but have to pay more out of pocket towards the premium).
That's how it would work ideally, but that's not ACTUALLY how things work out. People don't know the true cost of their insurance (see all the idiots in various threads who think they get "free" insurance from work) and this inflates costs. You're adding an unnecessary step between the service and the customer, it would make a lot more sense to just pay people more and let them buy their own insurance. People will always accept the employer based health insurance now, for various reasons: you don't get increased pay if you decline it, and buying health insurance on your own is horribly expensive when it's even available.
Quote:
If your employer doesn't offer health insurance as a benefit, you still have the option to purchase it yourself, and tailor what you pay to what you need (this would become even better priced with the interstate shopping option).
Interstate insurance is a straight up payoff to the insurance companies unless there's national regulation, as discussed earlier in this thread. It would lower costs, albeit at the direct cost of crappier coverage for most everyone.

As far as purchasing insurance yourself, you can (well, most people can, as long as you don't have a pre-existing condition), but it'll be much more expensive than a group rate in almost all cases. I (with a PEC) would have to pay something like $17k a year, vs 3-4k on a group plan. It's just untenable.

The other related issue here is that medical services themselves are much more expensive for customers without insurance, which basically forces people to have comprehensive insurance. That's the real problem, not so much the insurance system. The providers are the biggest problem.
Quote:
And employer based insurance is not the cause of increasing health care costs.... Blame that on the ambulance chasing lawyers and stupidly high lawsuits. Limit lawsuits across the board, and instantly hospital and medical equipment costs go down, and malpractice insurance for hospitals and doctors would plummet... thereby reducing health insurance premiums.
This is demonstrably not true. Legal payouts are less than 1% of medical costs, even malpractice is a very small fraction and isn't increasing much at all. States with strict tort reform (eg, Texas) have seen no decrease in costs and have the same level of cost increases as other states. Even the "defensive medicine" rational has never been demonstrated to be a reasonable explanation for cost increases.

There's really just no empirical reason to think tort reform would save more than a few % of the total bill, and that's at the cost of legitimate victims.

The tremendous cost of medical care is due largely to a terribly flawed system on the provider end where we pay for service instead of solutions. There's no bad test when you're a doctor, within ethical limits. If we adopted a Mayo clinic style model, paying doctors to fix people instead of per test, we'd be a lot better off. Take the self interest out of the equation and costs would go down.
Quote:
It would give poor people more of a government handout, and cause them to have less incentive to work hard and strive for a job with improved health care benefits. The last thing we need in this country is more people demanding handouts.
Poor people already get Medicaid, this system would be superior in close to every way regarding what you're talking about here. The tax credit is the same across the board, so there's no disincentive to working, unlike with Medicaid.
Old 03-04-2010, 04:12 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#64  

Badger_sly
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Well...sort of. It would make insurance more expensive and make it so more people would be unable to afford it.
It would possibly raise insurance premiums at first, but when interstate insurance shopping becomes available and lawsuits are limited, the decrease in premiums would far outweigh any initial rise.

Quote:
That's how it would work ideally, but that's not ACTUALLY how things work out.
That is how employer based insurance works in the real world now. Every person that contemplates taking job A vs. job B is making that choice of pay vs. benefits.

Quote:
People don't know the true cost of their insurance (see all the idiots in various threads who think they get "free" insurance from work) and this inflates costs. You're adding an unnecessary step between the service and the customer, it would make a lot more sense to just pay people more and let them buy their own insurance. People will always accept the employer based health insurance now, for various reasons: you don't get increased pay if you decline it, and buying health insurance on your own is horribly expensive when it's even available.
People who receive employer based insurance get statements of annual benefits, which lists their and their employers health insurance premium costs. Whether those people actually read those statements is up to them. So people have the option to know. And as I stated before, people have the option to choose which job with which benefits they want... higher pay vs. better health coverage, or whatever balance they feel comfortable with. And when shopping is available between states, buying insurance yourself will be easier and cheaper. Currently it's not so bad since you can tailor your coverage to what you want (deductibles, copays, etc).

Quote:
Interstate insurance is a straight up payoff to the insurance companies unless there's national regulation, as discussed earlier in this thread.
That was simply your opinion earlier, and I haven't seen any basis for it yet.

Quote:
As far as purchasing insurance yourself, you can (well, most people can, as long as you don't have a pre-existing condition), but it'll be much more expensive than a group rate in almost all cases. I (with a PEC) would have to pay something like $17k a year, vs 3-4k on a group plan. It's just untenable.
And that "group rate" you're referring to is employer based insurance with is cheaper at a group rate. And as I stated, pass a law to get rid of the PEC clauses, and the rest of your arguement is a moot point.

Quote:
The other related issue here is that medical services themselves are much more expensive for customers without insurance, which basically forces people to have comprehensive insurance. That's the real problem, not so much the insurance system. The providers are the biggest problem.
You're changing your point, but it is false, so you're not helping your original points. Emergency room visits cost more, obviously, but they are not meant as primary initial care. Make it a law that you have to pay up front for services to use an emergency room if you don't have insurance, and then you'll see those people will start making appointments and paying the cheaper non-emergency route.

Quote:
This is demonstrably not true. Legal payouts are less than 1% of medical costs, even malpractice is a very small fraction and isn't increasing much at all. States with strict tort reform (eg, Texas) have seen no decrease in costs and have the same level of cost increases as other states. Even the "defensive medicine" rational has never been demonstrated to be a reasonable explanation for cost increases..... There's really just no empirical reason to think tort reform would save more than a few % of the total bill, and that's at the cost of legitimate victims.
That's a poor example because Texas has the longest border with Mexico. Seal that border and their tort reform will have a much higher impact (see emergency room explanation above). And it's common knowledge that limiting lawsuits and stopping the ambulance chasers will dramatically decrease the malpractice insurance costs to hospitals and doctors. Here's some examples of how stupidly expensive malpractice insurance is for doctors. Cut those by 75% and our medical costs will drop dramatically.:
Quote:
http://www.ehow.com/about_5514154_av...insurance.html
Low Cost States
Minnesota has some of the lowest malpractice costs for doctors. However, the cost of insurance in Minnesota varies widely by specialty. Internal medicine, general surgery and obstetrics are three of the areas monitored by groups like the Government Accountability Office. As of 2009, the average cost for malpractice insurance for general surgeons hovered around $10,000 per year; for internal medicine, $4,000 per year; and for OB/GYNs, up to $17,000 per year.

Malpractice liability insurance rates in California, on the other hand, depend largely upon demographics, and so average rates may vary from place to place. Some of the largest insurers also deviate from one another widely in terms of how much insurance costs. At the low end, doctors in internal medicine may only pay $6,000 per year from premium coverage. However, in 2009, OB/GYNs could end up paying more than $55,000 per year for insurance coverage. Insurance for general surgeons can cost between $22,000 per year and $34,000 per year.
Average Cost States
Pennsylvania malpractice insurance falls in the middle with respect to average cost. Rates differ between the major insurers due to demographic and claims differences. In 2009 base rates for general surgery could be as low as $28,000 annually or as high as $50,000. Internal medicine malpractice insurance costs varied between around $6,000 to $11,000. Obstetricians/gynecologists could find themselves paying up to $64,000 or more for coverage.
High Cost States
While Nevada malpractice insurance rates are between middle to high in comparison with all other states, doctors of many types in Nevada---including general internists, pediatricians, and general practice doctors---earn a higher average salary than doctors in any other state. In 2009 one of the highest rates of insurance in Nevada is for OB/GYNs, who may pay between $85,000 for malpractice liability insurance per year up to $142,000 per year for a premium plan by a prominent insurance company. Although the average annual salary for such doctors is around $180,000 in 2009, malpractice insurance can still be a huge financial burden.

Florida has some of the highest rates of liability insurance. Moreover, the deviation between low and high averages varies in Florida more widely than in almost any other state. For instance, a doctor in internal medicine in Florida could expect to pay in excess of $56,000 per year for insurance as in 2009, in contrast with Minnesota's $4,000. General surgeons paid in between $90,000 per year and $175,000 per year or more. OB/GYNs once again could expect the highest rates, with liability coverage ranging from $100,000 to $200,000 per year.
Quote:
The tremendous cost of medical care is due largely to a terribly flawed system on the provider end where we pay for service instead of solutions. There's no bad test when you're a doctor, within ethical limits. If we adopted a Mayo clinic style model, paying doctors to fix people instead of per test, we'd be a lot better off. Take the self interest out of the equation and costs would go down.
Our insurance pays for services that find a solution. If you think your doctor is constantly pursuing the wrong route or is too slow, then find a different doctor. You have that choice unless the government takes it from you some day.

Quote:
Poor people already get Medicaid, this system would be superior in close to every way regarding what you're talking about here. The tax credit is the same across the board, so there's no disincentive to working, unlike with Medicaid.
Go back and reread your first post in this thread.
Quote:
Provide federal money to low income families to buy private plans, instead of providing Medicaid.
As I said, your government care would be even more of a handout to the poor, and, less of an incentive to work.
Old 03-05-2010, 01:57 PM Badger_sly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#65  

Gibonius
 
Trimming to the more essential points for brevity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badger_sly View Post
People who receive employer based insurance get statements of annual benefits, which lists their and their employers health insurance premium costs. Whether those people actually read those statements is up to them. So people have the option to know. And as I stated before, people have the option to choose which job with which benefits they want... higher pay vs. better health coverage, or whatever balance they feel comfortable with. And when shopping is available between states, buying insurance yourself will be easier and cheaper. Currently it's not so bad since you can tailor your coverage to what you want (deductibles, copays, etc).
The less transparency in the market, the less responsive it is. This is a bad thing. If it weren't for the tax benefit, no one would want their employer to be buying their insurance for them and they would be more rational in what plans they picked.
Quote:
That was simply your opinion earlier, and I haven't seen any basis for it yet.
Let's go through this then:

You can already buy policies from national insurance companies. There are a number of them, and any company is free to sell policies across state lines so long as they meet the regulations of the state they're selling to.

In light of this fact "let companies sell policies across state lines" is code for "Let companies ignore state regulations by selling from states with less regulation." This is bad for consumers, especially since you will need to research the laws of another state to figure out how your insurance company might try to shaft you down the line.

It might bring prices down, but it's not worth the decrease in consumer protections.

Quote:
You're changing your point, but it is false, so you're not helping your original points. Emergency room visits cost more, obviously, but they are not meant as primary initial care. Make it a law that you have to pay up front for services to use an emergency room if you don't have insurance, and then you'll see those people will start making appointments and paying the cheaper non-emergency route.
I wasn't talking about emergency room visits. If I go to get an MRI (etc) without insurance, it may cost me triple what an insurance company pays when one of their customers gets the exact same service. This is true nearly across the board. Uninsured customers should pay the same rates as insured customers. That way, you can at least have the choice of going without insurance and get care at a reasonable rate.

Quote:
Cut those by 75% and our medical costs will drop dramatically.:
As high as those numbers may seem, they're fairly low in terms of the entire costs of the system. And the only way you'll see a 75% decrease in malpractice is if you cut the awards so low that people with valid complaints get shafted.
Quote:
Our insurance pays for services that find a solution. If you think your doctor is constantly pursuing the wrong route or is too slow, then find a different doctor. You have that choice unless the government takes it from you some day. If you look at the Mayo Clinic approach, they have extremely high success rates with low resource consumption. The doctor has no financial incentive to order more tests, only to cure the patient.
Our insurance pays for services, whether they find solutions or not. The services must be medically relevant, but our providers are not even remotely efficient with resources. Customers generally want the most medical care they can get, since they're detached from the cost, and they're usually not well enough informed to know whether the doctor is taking the wrong route or not.

Quote:
As I said, your government care would be even more of a handout to the poor, and, less of an incentive to work.
If a poor family gets a $1000 tax credit for buying medical care instead of $1000 worth of Medicaid payouts, how is that more of a payout and a greater disincentive to work?

Last edited by Gibonius; 03-05-2010 at 03:18 PM..
Old 03-05-2010, 03:12 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#66  

Jason
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
I wasn't talking about emergency room visits. If I go to get an MRI (etc) without insurance, it may cost me triple what an insurance company pays when one of their customers gets the exact same service. This is true nearly across the board. Uninsured customers should pay the same rates as insured customers. That way, you can at least have the choice of going without insurance and get care at a reasonable rate.

Hmm... I am going to disagree with this one. The problem is that the "insurance" price is artificially inflated because the insurance company, specifically medicare/medicaid in this example, only pays around 60% of the price and expects the hospital to just take it in the ass for the rest. Double the list price and you get just as much money, but the tag looks twice as high. If you shop around for an MRI and indicate that you and not insurance will be paying, you can pay less than even the Medicare/Medicaid/Insurance rate. The typical hospital price rate for an MRI is $2000. I can get one for $380 right now if I wanted to. Slightly more if it is a brain scan, but still under $1000.
Old 03-05-2010, 04:09 PM Jason is offline  
Reply With Quote
#67  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason View Post
Hmm... I am going to disagree with this one. The problem is that the "insurance" price is artificially inflated because the insurance company, specifically medicare/medicaid in this example, only pays around 60% of the price and expects the hospital to just take it in the ass for the rest. Double the list price and you get just as much money, but the tag looks twice as high. If you shop around for an MRI and indicate that you and not insurance will be paying, you can pay less than even the Medicare/Medicaid/Insurance rate. The typical hospital price rate for an MRI is $2000. I can get one for $380 right now if I wanted to. Slightly more if it is a brain scan, but still under $1000.

That's why I said it may cost triple. The MRI I got was quoted at $1800, the insurance paid around $500 bucks for it and I paid 20% of that. If I had walked in there without insurance, they may have given me a lower price, or they might have charged me $1800. If you actually have time to shop around, it can work out, but it's a ridiculously confusing and obtuse system. For emergencies you're just fucked without insurance.
Old 03-05-2010, 04:28 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#68  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:05 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.