Meanwhile, at the Capital...

4cylndrfury wrote:

Swank Force One wrote: What do health insurance companies protect you from?

Simply: Not being able to afford to stay alive. Now, in a previous post, I mentioned that part of the problem, as I see it, is that medical care has become incredibly expensive due to medical providers needing to cover their asses - unnecessary medical procedures being performed to avoid a negligence suit among other things. As well as the problem of providers charging their patients more in order to cover the malpractice insurance (*gasp*) costs incurred by them - the docs pass the cost of insuring them against a suit on to us. Fix these problems that have driven costs up, and the ACA may not have been necessary

Now you're on the right track. In addition to greatly decreasing the cost of a claim to you should you be so unlucky to have to receive medical attention, they also protect you from fraud. Whether you are a victim directly, or if someone else in your same "pool" were targeted, the fraudulent payments would still indirectly come out of your money.

Saying that all insurance companies do is take in premiums and pay claims, would be hideously simplistic and inaccurate.

Bobzilla wrote: .....The LAST thing I want them involved with is my berkeleying HEALTH....

This is a common phrase that is heard. I am curious how this relates to the elderly? (In which case it would seem to turn into "government - get out of my medicare")

Honestly, I think it would get pretty scary if the government wasn't involved in your healthcare (I think there are a number of aspects you may not be considering).

Besides, someone is making the decisions (that you appear to be afraid of, i.e. "death panels"). It's either going to be the government, or a private company. I really don't think a private company has any advantage in looking out for your best interests over the government.

In reply to 4cylndrfury:

The cost of health care is really the culprit here. The questions to ask are:

Why is it so high? What can be done to bring it down? Why are we all ignoring this fact and choosing instead to focus on the small peanuts?

RX Reven' wrote: Instead, we should minimize the waste and then apply the savings to increasing compassion.

Someone who actually works in surgery may have to correct me, but this is what my cousin (with the heart defect) told me goes on at her job as a surgical tech:

Case in point: surgical packs.

A surgical pack contains all the things a doctor should or might need for a surgery. Think of it as a tune-up kit, you get all the parts you need in one nice big box. When you go for a procedure the doctor doesn't have to tell the techs they need this or that, they just need to get him a procedure pack and they are all set. Surgery happens, doctors uses some of the stuff in the pack, and the rest goes in the garbage. Doesn't matter if they used one sponge or the entire kit, you get billed for the whole kit. And since the kit has been opened, it can't be used for anyone or anything else.

(Luckily there are some non-profit groups who put bins out for hospitals to place these unused items, which are then sorted and sent overseas to hospitals in need.)

Swank Force One wrote: In reply to 4cylndrfury: The cost of health care is really the culprit here. The questions to ask are: Why is it so high? What can be done to bring it down? Why are we all ignoring this fact and choosing instead to focus on the small peanuts?

Why aren't we going after it? Because any attempt to fix the problem is political suicide. Thanks to the now limitless $$$ that can be dumped into a campaign by a company (sorry, "person") it is almost guaranteed that any politician crazy enough to take on the medical industry will be wiped out at the polls, or if they do manage to get elected they will be blacklisted by other politicians who favor their career over their constituents.

In reply to aircooled:

I'm still waiting on my free cable box.

In reply to slefain:

Just curious; that sounds incredibly wasteful, but how did they arrive at that? Did it end up costing less than having a person standing there fetching indvidually-wrapped items when averaged across procedures?

It sounds crazy, but I have to assume there was some reason. Maybe it was a really dumb reason. Maybe it was manufacturers deciding that they can sell more implements if they bundle them, in which case it's a racket. Just curious.

ransom wrote: In reply to slefain: Just curious; that sounds incredibly wasteful, but how did they arrive at that? Did it end up costing less than having a person standing there fetching indvidually-wrapped items when averaged across procedures? It sounds crazy, but I have to assume there was some reason. Maybe it was a really dumb reason. Maybe it was manufacturers deciding that they can sell more implements if they bundle them, in which case it's a racket. Just curious.

I'm guessing more of the latter.

There's so much like that in the medical industry it's scary. Also the drug industry.

slefain wrote:

Swank Force One wrote: In reply to 4cylndrfury: The cost of health care is really the culprit here. The questions to ask are: Why is it so high? What can be done to bring it down? Why are we all ignoring this fact and choosing instead to focus on the small peanuts?

Why aren't we going after it? Because any attempt to fix the problem is political suicide. Thanks to the now limitless $$$ that can be dumped into a campaign by a company (sorry, "person") it is almost guaranteed that any politician crazy enough to take on the medical industry will be wiped out at the polls, or if they do manage to get elected they will be blacklisted by other politicians who favor their career over their constituents.

I just got done explaining this to Bob on our local forum. It's easier and more lucrative to ignore the problem and instead fabricate a huge scapegoat to get some bullE36 M3 token bill passed through to cause an uproar that has been argued about for years, and will continue to be argued about for years to come.

All in the name of "fixing..... something." It's astounding how few people understand what's going on here.

These guys aren't morons. They've just played an elaborate joke on everyone.

Swank Force One wrote: ....Why is it so high? What can be done to bring it down? Why are we all ignoring this fact and choosing instead to focus on the small peanuts?

This is one reason I mentioned those other countries. They all have MUCH lower overall medical costs then the US. It may or may not be all about the insurance companies or government involvement, but it's pretty hard to say that the government involvement doesn't have something to do with it.

BTW- when the Swiss (big pharma industry) went "Gubmit HC", the industry screamed (price controls etc.). Interestingly, they are not doing that bad because....

...wait for it..

... they still make so much money off the US market! (argh, so now we are effectively supporting other countries healthcare!)

Of course, we all know the REAL reason for all this:

Swank Force One wrote: ...These guys aren't morons. They've just played an elaborate joke on everyone.

BTW - thanks for replying to these questions.

It's nice to have someone talk about these things from perspective other then what they have heard / read.

HiTempguy wrote:

bravenrace wrote: Not at all. You just misunderstood what I said.

At the end of the day, it is the evil big bad guberment that makes it even possible. If left to normal everyday shortsighted people, we'd end up with... a system like you guys currently have.

Bobzilla said: Canada is always accepting more people to pay their taxes.

Bob, first of all dude, take it easy. You have seriously been getting in a lot of fights on GRM lately. CHILL buddy! I know these topics can be exciting and get us worked up, but step back for a second and pause. Anywho, Canadians on average pay no more tax than the typical American. That is fact. You're suggestion that people are "flat denied any life saving medical treatment" is not the point. First, a proper healthcare system is preventative. SECOND, your system may allow people to receive said treatment, and then it bankrupts them for the rest of their lives... might as well be dead at that point.

You're actually wrong. According to this: http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/50eef524ecad04766900000c-960/tax%20rates%20ranking%20100k.jpg The INCOME tax rate between the US and Canada is 18.7% and 29.4% respectively. SALES tax rates are 3-9% for the US and 13-19% for Canada.

Now... I don't know about you but that's a lot more taxes.

Eh, no need to thank me. I'm pretty sure it's because i'm insane. I keep posting the same things in these threads for the last 4-5 years and the same end result is always achieved: Nothing. I wouldn't necessarily hold anything i post any higher than anyone else, either. I'm just another guy on the internet.

These are pretty much like Democrat vs. Republican and religion threads.

But seriously... i forget who was raising hell about some surplus that Wellpoint or UHC had in the last one of these threads, but i've taken a new position since then, and that whole rant/rave was pretty laughable in retrospect.

So like I said before.... I'd prefer not having to call Kia of Mexico to get my parts at a decent rate.

Bobzilla wrote: So like I said before.... I'd prefer not having to call Kia of Mexico to get my parts at a decent rate.

Wouldn't bother me.

Of course.... i already buy parts and tools from GASP China. Because i'm cheap and will pursue the best deals at any cost.

Swank Force One wrote: Eh, no need to thank me. I'm pretty sure it's because i'm insane....

They make a pill for that you know?

If you can't afford the prescription Prescott Pharmaceuticals may be able to help...

Prescott Pharmaceuticals:

The tingling tells you it's working, the class action lawsuit tells you it's Prescott.

Dr. Stephen T. Colbert D.F.A.

aircooled wrote:

Swank Force One wrote: ...These guys aren't morons. They've just played an elaborate joke on everyone.

BTW - thanks for replying to these questions. It's nice to have someone talk about these things from perspective other then what they have heard / read.

yeah, this^^^

slefain wrote: Case in point: surgical packs. A surgical pack contains all the things a doctor should or might need for a surgery. Think of it as a tune-up kit, you get all the parts you need in one nice big box. When you go for a procedure the doctor doesn't have to tell the techs they need this or that, they just need to get him a procedure pack and they are all set. Surgery happens, doctors uses some of the stuff in the pack, and the rest goes in the garbage. Doesn't matter if they used one sponge or the entire kit, you get billed for the whole kit. And since the kit has been opened, it can't be used for anyone or anything else.

My hospital did a cost analysis prior to implementing the "pack" system for many items like IV start kits, surgical kits, and suture removal kits. We found that for the kits involved with routine tasks like IV starts it was not cost effective to pack items in bundles, but in areas like a surgical suite, where everything must be sterile and accessible quickly and efficiently, packs are much more cost effective than getting everything needed for individual surgeries a la carte.

It certainly is frustrating to see the amount of waste produced in medical care, and I mean solid waste as well as financial waste. But in most circumstances either the waste is required due to infection control, or is more cost-effective than the alternative.

Bobzilla wrote: You're actually wrong. According to this: http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/50eef524ecad04766900000c-960/tax%20rates%20ranking%20100k.jpg The INCOME tax rate between the US and Canada is 18.7% and 29.4% respectively. SALES tax rates are 3-9% for the US and 13-19% for Canada. Now... I don't know about you but that's a lot more taxes.

Uh, well that info is plain wrong lol. There is the GST (5%) and and typically PST (7-8%) or the HST which is a combined sales tax of 13%-15%. So yea... right off the bat, it's wrong. As for income tax, I'd be interested to see how they came to the conclusion of what our tax rates are. Your graph really doesn't mean anything. Canada doesn't have a flat tax on income (federally, provincially it varies), but it certainly isn't 30% as I'd know, considering I pay taxes

I would also argue that there are more ways than just simply being taxed on your income federally and by province/state. Overall, I stand by my statement that our tax levels do not in any way make a large difference in our overall tax home income levels compared to our counterparts in the US.

Datsun1500 wrote:

rotard wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: If I am born with a birth defect I should expect someone else to pick up the cost of that issue? Why? Serious question, why is it up to someone else to have that burden? It sucks, but sometimes life sucks. I think you should be able to to get insurance that will cover everything except the pre existing condition, but expecting someone else to cover the cost of the pre existing condition seems unreasonable. Where will that money come from? I understand some people are born with issues that are not any fault of theirs, but those issues are not the fault of the insurance companies either, why should they pay for them?

Your heart-warming attitude inspires me.

Sometimes life sucks. Some people accept that, and move on. Some people feel the need to blame something else. If you feel the need to make everything perfect, do it with your money, not mine. People without insurance still get the treatment they need. I have never walked into a hospital that had a line of dying people outside because they were "too poor" to get help.

Bingo. Insurance does not determine whether or not people are allowed to get treatment.

Datsun1500 wrote:

rotard wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: If I am born with a birth defect I should expect someone else to pick up the cost of that issue? Why? Serious question, why is it up to someone else to have that burden? It sucks, but sometimes life sucks. I think you should be able to to get insurance that will cover everything except the pre existing condition, but expecting someone else to cover the cost of the pre existing condition seems unreasonable. Where will that money come from? I understand some people are born with issues that are not any fault of theirs, but those issues are not the fault of the insurance companies either, why should they pay for them?

Your heart-warming attitude inspires me.

Sometimes life sucks. Some people accept that, and move on. Some people feel the need to blame something else. If you feel the need to make everything perfect, do it with your money, not mine. People without insurance still get the treatment they need. I have never walked into a hospital that had a line of dying people outside because they were "too poor" to get help.

Because they either don't go to a doctor because they can't afford it, go bankrupt because they can't afford it, or just plain skip the bill so that you pay more for your visit.

We already subsidize those that don't have insurance. But we don't get to give them the preventative care that may have let them avoid the visit in the first place.
Or they have insurance and make a doctor's appointment, so they avoid the higher costs and wait of the ER in the first place.

The hospitals WOULD turn away the sick and dying without insurance if they COULD. Instead they just make it up somewhere else (your wallet).

alfadriver wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: yeS! Let's grow the gov't even MORE! That will fix it. I've never seen a gov't agency completely overstep it's bounds, come in at 4 times the cost and fix absolutely nothing before. Look, you want complete gov't oversight, move to Europe. LEave us the berkeley alone.

So you are ok with a healthcare company denying you some basic service so that they shareholders profit more? We are not talkign about an OEM radiator, but giving you the most up to date heart opreartion.

I'm the one who bitched about BCBS of SC (one of those so-called non profits) holding a HUGE surplus while denying claims for my daughter's asthma meds claiming her eligibility had ended. Which was complete bullE36 M3 because they had been accepting my money for a year and a half.

When it comes down to a tug of war between my kid's health and the shareholders, the shareholders can go berkeley themselves.

EDIT: These are the same shiny happy people who finally paid for her meds after I raised hell and wrote a blistering letter to the local newspaper. I then change employers, get another policy with the same company and coverage of her asthma is denied for six months as a 'preexisting condition'.

Yeah, I've heard all the arguments for that. They are bullE36 M3 designed to maximize profit at the expense of the policy holder and all I have to say is: if the ACA was good for one thing it was getting rid of that goddamn preexisting condition thing.

HiTempguy wrote:

Bobzilla wrote: You're actually wrong. According to this: http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/50eef524ecad04766900000c-960/tax%20rates%20ranking%20100k.jpg The INCOME tax rate between the US and Canada is 18.7% and 29.4% respectively. SALES tax rates are 3-9% for the US and 13-19% for Canada. Now... I don't know about you but that's a lot more taxes.

Uh, well that info is plain wrong lol. There is the GST (5%) and and typically PST (7-8%) or the HST which is a combined sales tax of 13%-15%. So yea... right off the bat, it's wrong. As for income tax, I'd be interested to see how they came to the conclusion of what our tax rates are. Your graph really doesn't mean anything. Canada doesn't have a flat tax on income (federally, provincially it varies), but it certainly isn't 30% as I'd know, considering I pay taxes I would also argue that there are more ways than just simply being taxed on your income federally and by province/state. Overall, I stand by my statement that our tax levels do not in any way make a large difference in our overall tax home income levels compared to our counterparts in the US.

Your sales tax varies from province to province, just like ours does. Your highest province showed a 15% sales tax (Nova) PLUS the GST... so my 13-19% is spot on. Here's the Link: http://www.ey.com/GL/en/Services/Tax/Worldwide-VAT--GST-and-Sales-Tax-Guide---XMLQS?preview&xml=~ec1mages~taxguides~VAT-2013~VAT-CA.xml

As for your question on income tax rates, it's from this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/how-low-are-us-taxes-compared-to-other-countries/267148/ It figures the income tax rate at $100,000 annual income. At $300k income you jump to almost 39% compared to the US at 25%.

So you pay double the sales tax, plus 15% more income tax. How is that even CLOSE to being the same again?

Thanks for playing.

In reply to Curmudgeon,

Ah yes... the thread that made me not want to enter one of these threads again.

Looks like Canadians also pay almost 3 times the gas tax we pay as well ($1.36 average per gallon compared to our 49.5 cents).

Yep, y'all don't pay any more taxes at all than us Americans. 100% the same. WEll, as long as you don't count double the sales tax, triple the gas taxes and at least 10% more income taxes. Who would count that anyway, right?