URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Even Greener Pastures
  HTML https://evengreener.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: General Discussion
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 14294--------------------------------------------------
       A great Republican idea...You‘ll be healthier if we take away yo
       ur healthcare
       By: SHL Date: April 11, 2019, 10:46 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       This is one of those „only in the USA“ stories that‘s too crazy
       to be believed, but is real.
  HTML https://prospect.org/article/another-gop-brainstorm-youll-be-healthier-if-we-take-away-your-health-care-struck-down-court
       #Post#: 14568--------------------------------------------------
       Re: A great Republican idea...You‘ll be healthier if we take awa
       y your healthcare
       By: MartinSR Date: April 20, 2019, 1:52 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I'm not sure if I understood this article well. It's probably
       because I know nothing about the US health system. The
       impression I got after reading it is that (at least in a few
       states) you have to work to benefit from the health insurance.
       And losing your job or getting the disease which is considered
       incurable and prevents you from doing your job, results in
       losing your health insurance. As I said I don't know your
       healthcare system, so I don't know what are the options (if any)
       for those who are no longer eligible for the health insurance.
       I may say as I see it in my country (at least what I'm aware
       of).
       Here you have to pay the health insurance  - it's rather small
       amount of money every month, so even people with the smallest
       possible income can pay it. It is normally payed by your
       employer or by yourself (In case you are self-employed). If
       you're diagnosed as unable to do any work the social security
       pays it for you (But you have to follow their rules to not lose
       it). When you lose your job, you have to register as unemployed
       - you get a small amount of money during the next few months and
       you are insured (But again - you have to follow their rules and
       not refuse if they find a job for you). The children are insured
       by default.
       Our major problem with this insurance system is that the amount
       of money entering it is rather small and the insurance covers
       theoretically everything you can think of (As long as it is
       saving life or health, so things like plastic surgery are
       covered only in very specific cases). So when your doctor orders
       a specialist procedure for you, they put you on the waiting
       list. For some types of procedures you may wait even 10 years or
       longer. For example when you are ordered to have a brain CT scan
       because of returning headaches  - you wait 3 to 9 months. I was
       put on the list for the knee arthroscopy once and the estimated
       date was after 3 years or so (they called me after 2 years, but
       I was no longer interested, because my knee was much better  -
       so the system worked perfectly in my case).
       Of course there are other options. You can always pay for the
       procedure to have it earlier. Many people use other shortcut.
       They go to the hospital waiting room or Emergency ward. The
       doctor there has to examine you, before he decides is it
       emergency or not (And sometimes he needs additional procedures
       like CT scans to be sure about it - he isn't interested in
       meeting the lawyer in case he refused the patient). So you have
       your CT instantly instead of in a couple of months. You must be
       only prepared to wait several hours in the waiting room because
       there are many people interested in this form of healthcare.
       And here we get another negative side - seriously ill patients
       are waiting together with those who try to go around the normal
       queue... And we have cases of the death in a waiting room from
       time to time...
       #Post#: 14584--------------------------------------------------
       Re: A great Republican idea...You‘ll be healthier if we take awa
       y your healthcare
       By: NealC Date: April 20, 2019, 9:20 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       It is a tough issue, and will only get tougher as our population
       ages.  There is no silver bullet to fix it all, it has to be a
       dynamic compromise between wait time (rationing), Doctor
       salaries, tort reform (what lawyers can sue for), cost, and even
       health care panels (better known in the US as "Death Panels").
       I would like to see a truly free enterprise based system loosed
       in the US to create solutions between insurance companies,
       doctors and hospitals.  We have not seen that yet, and I think
       it can work.  If we can't make it work, then I am open to a
       government based plan.
       The current situation in the US, which is neither truly free or
       truly government is a 'worst of both worlds' hybrid
       Frankenstein's monster.
       #Post#: 14617--------------------------------------------------
       Re: A great Republican idea...You‘ll be healthier if we take awa
       y your healthcare
       By: SHL Date: April 20, 2019, 6:19 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Like Neal said, the US system as it now exists is a Frankenstein
       monster. It costs twice or more than twice what the same thing
       in other countries with nationalized systems costs and many are
       left Uninsured in addition.
       The thing about the US system is it grew to become extremely
       complex, not by design, but by a complex number of historical
       reasons. The vast majority have access to some sort of
       healthcare (I could look up the numbers of uninsured but it`s
       all online for the interested. It`s not like people are dying in
       the streets- the rich wouldn’t like that anyway. It wouldn`t
       make the streets look too pretty). It`s just that we devised
       over the years multiple ways of paying for this through various
       insurance sources and it`s a jumbled mess.
       Keep in mind, the problem with insurance, as a general rule, is
       that when you add insurance to the cost of any commodity, you
       automatically inflate the price of that service. That´s why
       healthcare costs are out of control in the US. And I don`t think
       this is the kind of thing private insurance will fix. The theory
       behind the competition model is simple enough: add more doctors,
       more medical facilities, more insurers to the mix, and the
       competition will bring the price down because people will lower
       their prices to beat the competition. This works fine in some
       service areas, selling computers, or tomatoes, but not all. In
       healthcare and with auto insurance rates it doesn`t seem to work
       too well. But, in non-insurable services it works great. (Think
       of the airline industry. Deregulation in the late 70s caused
       airfares to plummet. Flying anywhere now is cheaper than it ever
       was, and it costs no more in the US to fly than anywhere else in
       the world.)
       But healthcare isn`t like that.
       Here, employers all have to have workers compensation insurance.
       That´s for on-the-job employee injuries. That covers healthcare,
       and work disability costs and even permanent disability. So,
       that`s one source of healthcare insurance. Car insurance is
       another. Then we have military service coverage for people
       actively in military service and their dependents; coverage for
       those retired from the military, and those who were in it for
       awhile but didn`t serve 20 years. Those two are separate
       government operated systems. Then there is government sponsored
       coverage for the older folks, age 65+, called Medicare. But it`s
       not entirely free for all, and is complex in terms of what
       additional payments have to go along with it. Some pay
       $500/month out of pocket for it. Some pay nothing, like my mom.
       She`s 91 and is double-covered by both the military system
       (because my dad was a retired colonel in the Air Force) and
       Medicare.  So, for her, with blended health insurance together,
       her double coverage, she pays nothing for healthcare, just like
       in Norway. She doesn`t like the military coverage so elects the
       private hospitals and doctors, but it`s still all free for her.
       That`s because the military pays a premium to Medicare for her.
       See, it`s highly complex.
       Then there`s government health insurance coverage for the very
       poor called Medicaid- not to be confused with MediCARE, they are
       totally different. It`s only for the very poor, usually
       unemployed but not always within certain guidelines- again more
       complexity. (I can`t recall if it`s available for individuals or
       only individuals with a child(ren)). It´s medicaid that was the
       subject of the article. Two states wanted to make people do some
       work, the very poor who could qualify for it, but were NOT sick,
       just to earn it, and that is what the court invalidated. The
       title of the story is misleading in this respect.
       Then there is private insurance systems of a variety of sort
       paid partly by employers and party through deductions from
       paychecks by workers. They are highly variable in what they
       cover and what co-pays are applied. Again, extraordinarily
       complicated.
       Again, as Neal said, it really is a Frankenstein monster of
       sorts. It we had a national healthplan covering everybody, we
       wouldn’t need workers compensation, or car insurance to pay for
       anything other than property damage (because the national health
       insurance would cover all injuries), and you would need a much
       smaller military healthcare system only for people actively
       enlisted and overseas. You wouldn`t need Medicare or Medicaid
       either.  So, it`s finding a way of unraveling all this
       complexity that`s a huge part of the problem.
       So, it is the biggest mess the US has at the moment, I`d say, at
       the social level.
       #Post#: 14621--------------------------------------------------
       Re: A great Republican idea...You‘ll be healthier if we take awa
       y your healthcare
       By: NealC Date: April 20, 2019, 7:04 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I disagree with your point that it does not work with Auto
       Insurance, the insurance model works wonderfully there.  Auto
       insurance is so tied to actuarial tables now, you can call up
       any number of companies tell them the make, model of your car
       and the state you live in and get a quote in minutes.  Geico is
       a cash machine for Warren Buffett, a guaranteed rate of return.
       We will know we have conquered the beast in health insurance
       when you can make a similar call to an insurance company, choose
       the services you want, and get a quote in minutes.  I would love
       to see if a private plan could work, because of my general
       hatred for government and my belief in their horrible
       inefficiency.  But it would take far more will and leadership
       than is currently available in Washington.
       #Post#: 14622--------------------------------------------------
       Re: A great Republican idea...You‘ll be healthier if we take awa
       y your healthcare
       By: SHL Date: April 20, 2019, 8:01 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=NealC link=topic=963.msg14621#msg14621
       date=1555805069]
       I disagree with your point that it does not work with Auto
       Insurance, the insurance model works wonderfully there.  Auto
       insurance is so tied to actuarial tables now, you can call up
       any number of companies tell them the make, model of your car
       and the state you live in and get a quote in minutes.  Geico is
       a cash machine for Warren Buffett, a guaranteed rate of return.
       We will know we have conquered the beast in health insurance
       when you can make a similar call to an insurance company, choose
       the services you want, and get a quote in minutes.  I would love
       to see if a private plan could work, because of my general
       hatred for government and my belief in their horrible
       inefficiency.  But it would take far more will and leadership
       than is currently available in Washington.
       [/quote]
       Car insurance is based on risk tables, yes, as health insurance.
       But, the differences are enormous. I only cited auto insurance
       as one of many sources that pays medical bills under certain
       conditions (car accidents). I`m not aware of any studies on it,
       but car insurance rates are usually pretty low and fairly
       stable. That`s because people often go their entire lives and
       never make a car insurance claim. But, how many people can get
       away with never going to the doctor in their entire lives?
       Nobody.
       The principle of insurance inflating the costs of services is
       easily proved. Why are University tuition rates through the
       moon? Because of the student loan program and government
       insurance guaranteeing against defaults. Without the government
       insurance backing it up, it would be very hard to get loans for
       school (how many lenders are going to hand out unsecured loans
       to people of $150,000? Ah, probably none, except to people who
       don`t need them anyway, like millionaires. It´s just too risky).
       I did personal injury law (yep, that bottom-feeder ambulance
       chasing type) for 10 years in the 90s working for some older
       guy. Everyday, he`d have a stack of anywhere from 10-20 cases on
       his desk and spend the day on the phone with the insurance
       companies settling the cases-all car accident cases. They
       usually settled for between $10,000 and $20,000 a piece at the
       time, with him keeping a fee of 1/3. Now, down the street, about
       mile from us, was the courthouse, where these sorts of cases had
       to be filed and, if necessary, tried. The court had never in its
       entire 25 or 30 year history ever have a jury award more than
       $4,000 on ANY case it ever had had. Yet, we were settling these
       cases down the street for 4 times that amount or more everyday.
       Why was that? I asked the old man once about it, and said I
       thought it was curious. Being the wise old gent that he was, he
       just sat me down one day and said, „Steve, it`s just insurance.
       You know that. Whenever you add insurance to the value of any
       commodity or service, you just automatically inflate its value.“
       True. The insurance companies found it more cost effective to
       pay $15,000 to us, than to spend $15,000 on attorney fees and
       have their insured drivers (who would surely be unhappy) being
       dragged into court defending a case they all knew they`d win
       anyway. It was just made good business sense.
       Has competition driven the costs down? Maybe a little, but I
       rather doubt it.
       But, health insurance, by contrast, is a monster of epic size
       and proportion compared to car insurance. And far more expense
       and complex.
       *****************************************************