What, no thread on health care yet?

MitchellC wrote: The way I approach health insurance is that it should be used for catastrophic emergencies only. I have a pretty good rate through my employer right now, but there was a period where I purchased it on the private market, and it was about $100 per month for a really high deductible. I only want to use insurance if I have something catastrophic happen, anyway.

Bingo. That is the model under which insurance works. Start trying to pay for everything, and the model fails.

Knurled wrote:

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: I fail to see the issue with this. You pay in, you get paid. If you selectively pay out based upon need then you must allow me to selectively pay in or you are just garnishing my wages.

It's not supposed to be a guaranteed return - it's a societal safety net. It's like the local SCCA's loaner helmets. I helped pay for them, but I don't feel cheated if I don't use them. I have the helmet situation handled. Now, I COULD borrow a helmet, but this would be screwing over someone who needs it more than I do.

it started as a social safety net but its firmly entrenched as any other entitlement.

regarding the scca analogy you are choosing to pay a fee to a club which is entirely withinin your right to not join if you disagree with their helmet policy or for any reason. but by simply earning a living you are forced to pay into SS and medicare.

MrJoshua wrote: $37 a month here Mitchell, and im ooooooooooooold compared to you.

Please tell more.

As a Canadian, I am pleased with my health care plan. It is a "safety net" -- I don't go and have cosmetic surgery, or visit the doctor "just because". Triage happens here, just like other jurisdictions -- if I need immediate emergency care I get it. If I can't get it locally, I am transported to where it is offered (most likely by air ambulance if it is an emergency). Are there wait times for non-essential services. Yes. If I need to, I could drive south and not face the wait times.

It is a question about taxes and priorities. Our household income is extremely generous, and I am grateful every day for what we have. I don't feel overtaxed, even though taxes approach 50 percent of my gross income. I believe in the programs and services that those taxes fund, and that they help others less fortunate then myslef get ahead because of easier access to quality education, health care, and other programs.

It is a completely different political philosophy, and it works for me. SvRex, I'd buy you a beer, too, for many reasons.

I think you guys are just trying to get me drunk...

SVreX wrote:

MrJoshua wrote: $37 a month here Mitchell, and im ooooooooooooold compared to you.

Please tell more.

38yo non smoker with mild asthma as my only health concern.

BCBS of Florida Blue Options BC 090 BS 590

$250 deductible in network $750 out of network

Coinsurance (they pay) 80% in network, 60% out of network

Max out of pocket $2500 in network, $5000 out of network

Max lifetime benefit $5,000,000

Well child Coinsurance (they pay) 80% no benefit maximum

Emergency room deductible $2500 (which quite intentionally is the same as my max out of pocket so after $2500 I am 100% covered)

Outpatient/inpatient/specialist/labs/physician visits standard $250/$750 deductible and 80% in network 60% out of network coinsurance with $2500 max out of pocket.

ZOO wrote:

racerdave600 wrote: SS and medicare alone are getting close to bankrupting the country, and this makes them pale in comparison.

I would have guessed that military spending had more to do with it than SS and medicare. I feel badly for all of you -- it sounds like the worst of all possible solutions to the issue.

I'll preface this by saying I'm not a fan of wars, nor do I bow before the alter of Bush, but there is a big difference between spending for the two. Social programs tend to be big black holes of disappearing money, but spending on war issues tend to employ people, and mainly in high paying jobs. Government contractors benefit from war surplus spending and weapons development to a large degree, and it is a huge industry. It also promotes faster technology growth than would otherwise have been possible.

My area used to be almost entirely supported by this kind of spending. So while the reasons for the spending may suck to the extreme, there are benefits from it economically. (these people pay more taxes and buy goods and services)

If you're simply dumping money down the hole of entitlements, the return on the money spent is not nearly as productive. I would say a lot of the people in charge now need to go back to school to study economics, but they're right on track for what they are trying to accomplish.

I won't get into it all now, but the other day I had a conversation with my brother in law who is pretty high up in a large transportation company, and the Obama people are working on limiting the hours a driver can drive in a day to 6. This would be devastating to the economy far beyond what most people can grasp. Costs of everything you use would jump significantly and the struggling companies (and there are many) could simply close their doors.

Karl Marx would be proud....

racerdave600 wrote: As far as insurance premiums there is no way they are not going up. They have been mandated by law to give more benefits with no more income. Where do you think that money is going to come from in the long run. This bill did ZERO to actually reduce any costs. It adds costs in and then it tells other parties to pick up the tab. A lot of the waste that goes on with insurance companies is government mandated. You should see the paperwork that goes into a medicare claim. Back to insurance companies though, they are going to have to raise rates to stay in business, and then the govt. will use that excuse to get rid of them totally. There is no way around this as it currently sits. Businesses have to make a profit to stay in business, period. The Great OBlosi can't wave his hand over it and make it not so no matter what CNN tells you.

Why can't everyone just understand this? There's a reason EVERY major health insurance company was bitterly against this. And it wasn't because they're greedy. It's because they want to stay in business, and honestly, we are all NOT out to rape your wallet, because that drives satisfaction down, and our business goes down the drain.

But because nobody understands, the insurance company is going to be the bad guy in all this.

wrap your head around this one (WARNING: completely useless flounder ahead)
while we are all arguing about this sh_tty health care plan, we are not talking about how jobs keep slipping out through the borders.

I already look at my paycheck, and try to avoid thinking about the deductions bit, as I know there is little or nothing I can do in the immediate future about that. If it goes up, I will make do with whats left.

Ask me what Im scared sh_tless about: Waking up tomorrow, getting a shower, eating some ceral, drinking my coffee, driving a half hour to work, and seeing the lights out. I Have a pretty good hourly job making enough money that if worse came to worse, I could keep the heat on and the water running at home and not lose the house. There wouldnt be much left after all that, so I would be buying top ramen like its no ones business. Ive been here going on 5 years now, and I have worked hard to get to where I am. If I did lose my job, I think finding anything close to what I have now would be next to impossible. That frightens me more than slowly realizing I have been had by the O (I was a big supporter once upon a time...that zeal is QUICKLY fading)

zomby woof wrote:

Jensenman wrote: So how would you suggest this be addressed? No flame, I really want to know.

You won't like the answer, because I am Canadian. I like our system. It works.

ZOO said: I feel badly for all of you -- it sounds like the worst of all possible solutions to the issue

I agree with this. You have the most expensive health care in the world, and now you're at the mercy of the insurance companies. As long as the insurance companies are involved, you will have a second rate health care system. Don't you think there is something wrong with the system, when you read stuff like what SVreX posted? I do.

I'm not singling you out, trust me...

But care to explain why the insurance companies are what's tanking the health care system?

tuna55 wrote:

SVreX wrote:

tuna55 wrote:

MrJoshua wrote:

Jensenman wrote:

zomby woof wrote:

SVreX said: I have 5 children. We have never been able to sustain insurance. We've had it at times, but there were always big cost increases that meant we had to drop it. Last time I checked, basic coverage for my family would cost $2200 per month. That would be $26,400 in after tax dollars per year- more than half my income. No chance.

That's sad. This is the problem with your healthcare system, and it hasn't been addressed.

So how would you suggest this be addressed? No flame, I really want to know.

I would suggest removing the monopoly health insurance providers have on health care so those who chose to pay out of pocket can do so more easily, tort reform to reduce a doctors overhead, and allowing international purchases of prescription medications so the US quits subsidizing the worlds prescription drug supply. Those 3 things were beginning to take place already and the government that cares so much about us stopped them.

Bing! And the ability to purchase insurance across state lines. I also think that insurers should be encouraged (not exactly sure how, I know, it's tough) to sell similar policies to people outside of work, such that the employer had the choice to add something to your paycheck to compensate you for having to buy the stuff. This way health insurance could be more like car insurance. They compete for you, you get bids, the look at health history, you look at customer service, etc... You could buy or opt out of cancer insurance, etc...

Tuna and Mr Joshua have got it. All I need is some effort to control costs and encourage a real competitive market. I don't need pity or socialism. My family is in a heck of a lot better position than most. Especially most families who have learned to depend on government handouts. I'll go out on a limb and say better than all families who have learned to depend on government handouts.

Glad to see we are on the same track - my Dad does it the same way you do. he stockpiles cash for emergencies. He pays in cash. He's always had excellent health care. There is no real connection between health insurance and health care quality.

You get it. Seems few people do.

This is not that new. A wise Frenchman wrote about the new American government 175 years ago..

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers it can bribe the public with the public's money."

Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy in America" - 1835

NYG95GA wrote: This is not that new. A wise Frenchman wrote about the new American government 175 years ago.. "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers it can bribe the public with the public's money." Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy in America" - 1835

Painfully true. And as we rapidly approach the time when LESS than 50% of people in the U.S. pay income tax, it's only going to get uglier. Personally, I hope the collapse happens sooner than later.

93celicaGT2 wrote: I'm not singling you out, trust me... But care to explain why the insurance companies are what's tanking the health care system?

Sure you're singling me out, you're just being nice about it

Profit at the expense of your health.

Who do you trust more (or who do you distrust less), your government, or the insurance companies? I'll take the government every time.

I'm sure the people who work for the insurance companies are nice, but your health is not their first priority.

zomby woof wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote: I'm not singling you out, trust me... But care to explain why the insurance companies are what's tanking the health care system?

Sure you're singling me out, you're just being nice about it Profit at the expense of your health. Who do you trust more (or who do you distrust less), your government, or the insurance companies?

Considering how the government performs when administering entitlement programs, give me insurance companies every time.

Business operations are based on efficiency, a concept alien to government. One can argue the profit-incentive can and does lead to denial or limitation of some services, but, the exact same thing will occur with government oversight and its' eventual takeover of health-care.

The "reform" in its' current form benefits about 10% of the country's population and that is a significant number. But the remainder will experience serious downgrading of their current service levels. The people know it, the insurance companies know it and certainly the proponents in government know it.

The big difference is that government is lying through its' collective teeth reach its' goal.

zomby woof wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote: I'm not singling you out, trust me... But care to explain why the insurance companies are what's tanking the health care system?

Sure you're singling me out, you're just being nice about it Profit at the expense of your health. Who do you trust more (or who do you distrust less), your government, or the insurance companies?

Well... i promise, i'm really not. I think at least a third of the population is with you in what you think. You just happened to voice it for them. I'm asking the question of all of you.

But you just answered my question. Here's my reply:

Health insurance =! health care.

Yes, they profit at the expense of your health. (kindof. they make more money if never get sick, so i guess they profit at the expense of your GOOD health.) No, the profits aren't anywhere near the percentage you would expect. The government profits FAR more from you, me, or whoever. And one important point is missed. The insurance companies save YOU a buttload of money. (unless you're 100% healthy and NEVER go to the doctor in your lifetime.)

The anger is completely misplaced. The insurance companies actively try to keep their rates as low as possible while still staying in the black, because that's what makes the consumer happy, and increases their membership, let's them grow.

Premium rate increases are REACTIONARY. If you were to see an EOB over here from an insurance company, it would probably be easier to understand.

As for your question? I trust the insurance company FAR more than the government.

Take what i say with a grain of salt if you wish, since i could be viewed as biased. (I work for the biggest insurance company in the US.) I prefer to think of my view as "informed" or "the counterview to the uninformed."

The problem is that the vast majority of what the average person knows about insurance is merely what they see being paid to the insurance company. They don't know anything else other than "Man.... i just had to pay that out." It stops there.

You don't want to see what would happen if the insurance companies didn't exist. We play a part in regulating providers' charges. But we can only regulate to a point, and then after that point, the provider drops their contract, and we can no longer save you money with that provider.

93celicaGT2 wrote: A portion of the email that was sent to me from a corporate mucky muck.

As you heard from Angela Braly earlier today, the US House of Representatives voted to pass the Reconciliation Act of 2010 late last night, with a 220-211 vote. The Senate will take up the reconciliation bill this week. In the meantime, President Obama plans to sign the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act into law on Tuesday, March 23. The new law will significantly change the health care landscape and the way in which we operate. Throughout the reform discussion, our State Plan Presidents and many of our associates were actively involved in providing feedback to our public officials – we are disappointed that the legislation does not do enough to reduce cost, or improve quality. We continue to believe that cost and quality are two important elements to building a system that will help move our country on a sustainable path to providing affordable coverage for all Americans.

Zomby Woof, i quoted myself to show what i'm talking about.

We didn't need Health INSURANCE reform. We need Health CARE reform.

This wasn't it.

The above is an excerpt from a statement from the Vice President of my company. And it's the truth.

93celicaGT2 said: You don't want to see what would happen if the insurance companies didn't exist

I'm living the dream.... in Canada

In reply to MrJoshua:

I expect your $37/mo rate will be increasing soon as some of the cost controls that allow BCBS to offer affordable health insurance are now becomm ing illegal.

4cylndrfury wrote: Ask me what Im scared sh_tless about: Waking up tomorrow, getting a shower, eating some ceral, drinking my coffee, driving a half hour to work, and seeing the lights out.

These two issues are related. I know some small business owners (up to a hundred employees), and they are saying they'll likely need to layoff some people due to this healthcare bill and the new rules being put in place. I won't delve into the details as I'm only partialy aware of why this is the case, but I guarantee there will be people losing their job because of this legislation. I hope they can find new work in the governement (which will eventually be the only job option available until the pool of willing lenders dries up).

zomby woof wrote:

93celicaGT2 said: You don't want to see what would happen if the insurance companies didn't exist

I'm living the dream.... in Canada

Entirely different situation.

From a US standpoint, you don't want to see what would happen if the insurance companies went away and nothing else was fixed.

We currently have a decent regional insurance provider through work, our employer required a basic no frills plan and a high option plan to be spec'd for the company of 85 people. It costs me about $200.00 per week to provide insurance for Leann the two boys and myself. While (@)$10,400 is a lot of money I figure that a small payment compared to the $98,000 worth of bills they paid for since Trevor was born.

The system needs a "group" exemption for the "group" of people currently uninsured. If it would get SVreXs costs down from $2200.00 to $800.00 then he could afford to feed the Challenge car!

poopshovel wrote:

NYG95GA wrote: This is not that new. A wise Frenchman wrote about the new American government 175 years ago.. "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers it can bribe the public with the public's money." Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy in America" - 1835

Painfully true. And as we rapidly approach the time when LESS than 50% of people in the U.S. pay income tax, it's only going to get uglier. Personally, I hope the collapse happens sooner than later.

I'm with you. I'd rather our generation suffer through the riots, than the next.

93celicaGT2 wrote:

zomby woof wrote:

93celicaGT2 said: You don't want to see what would happen if the insurance companies didn't exist

I'm living the dream.... in Canada

Entirely different situation. From a US standpoint, you don't want to see what would happen if the insurance companies went away and nothing else was fixed.

Yes, yes I do because insurance today is far from what insurance is intended to be. Insurance is for EMERGENCIES not just because I got a sniffle and think going to the doctor should never cost me more than $15 out of pocket. If insurance companies went away, and the govt didn't try to fix the problem through legislation, the problem would fix itself.

zomby woof wrote:

93celicaGT2 said: You don't want to see what would happen if the insurance companies didn't exist

I'm living the dream.... in Canada

We've got about 10 - 50 million people (depending on how you skew the data to serve your political needs,) I'd abso berkeleying lutely LOVE to send your way! And unlike most of your 'new immigrants' most of these ones (give or take the 13 - 18 million who were never citizens of this country in the first place,) speak english, and don't run around screaming "Praise Allah! Jihad!" It's a WIN-WIN!!!

I don't know the source, admittedly, but I have little time to dig deep. I have heard the numbers similar to this everywhere, so I'll repost with a reasonable amount of confidence...

Everyone that keeps talking about greedy insurance companies that make so much money should turn red when they see things like this: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SoMLoWBKM4I/AAAAAAAAK4g/wKdZyg5LxQ0/s1600-h/profits.bmp

They just don't make that much money. Even if they did, I'd still be OK with that, assuming that I got the choice to pick whichever one I wanted (which we really don't have now, which is the part of the health insurance reform we actually need).