• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Healthcare

peteweaver

Graduate Poster
peteweaver
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
1,006
What are your opinions on healthcare ?
Do you think countries should have nationalised healthcare providers like Britains NHS, to support those who cannot afford private health insurance ?
 
Rolfe said:
Erk. It's groundhog day!

Maybe a poll would be interesting?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Curious. I can't seem to find any other postings on the Forum on this topic. You would think that a large number of Members would want to talk about the issues involved. :rolleyes: :scared:
 
I don't like "healthcare". I don't even know what that is.

I prefer health care. Its two words.

Anyways, I think Obama's plan with a big fat non-profit member owned co-op sounds okee dokee.

And btw, Kaiser-Permanente sells insurance for individuals for $175 a month. GHI has similar insurance for $450 a month.

Kaiser is non-profit. GHI is for-profit.
 
Last edited:
parky76 said:
And btw, Kaiser-Permanente sells insurance for individuals for $175 a month. GHI has similar insurance for $450 a month.

Kaiser is non-profit. GHI is for-profit.
Click to expand...

GHI is also only available in New York, and Kaiser is not available in New York. And frankly, I suspect the plans are not that similar - if you can't be bothered to check insurance plans are even available to the same people, I doubt you really confirmed that the coverage is really equivalent.
 
Ziggurat said:
GHI is also only available in New York, and Kaiser is not available in New York. And frankly, I suspect the plans are not that similar - if you can't be bothered to check insurance plans are even available to the same people, I doubt you really confirmed that the coverage is really equivalent.
Click to expand...

ok...fine. Kaiser seems to have co-pays that are a little more expensive. but thats it.
 
WildCat said:
You can't compare plans in different states.
Click to expand...

my sister lives 10 miles north of San Fran and got the same price quote.

lets face it, GHI is looking to make the big bucks and Kaiser is non-profit. Operating costs only.

thats why they can charge soo much less.

Health insurance should not be an industry looking to please investors and shareholders.
 
Last edited:
parky76 said:
my sister lives 10 miles north of San Fran and got the same price quote.

lets face it, GHI is looking to make the big bucks and Kaiser is non-profit. Operating costs only.

thats why they can charge soo much less.

Health insurance should not be an industry looking to please investors and shareholders.
Click to expand...
parky, different states have different rules and regs insurance companies must follow. You simply cannot compare plans offered in different states.

Why don't you list your sister's zip code and compare? Use this: https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/Census.fs
 
parky76 said:
Anyways, I think Obama's plan with a big fat non-profit member owned co-op sounds okee dokee.
Click to expand...
Why do you need Obama's plan for this?

And it's not like people who can't afford health care will be able to afford to own their piece of a member-owned co-op. Those costs still have to be paid by someone else.

Why not just have a plan that provides medical care to the destitute, and leaves all the rest of it alone? Those of us who can afford our own health care don't really need a government mandate to form health co-ops. We can do that for ourselves, if we want to.
 
The cheapest plan Kaiser offers in the 94952 (just north of San Francisco) for a male my age (42) is $244/month with a $1,500 deductible, 0% coinsurance and $30 office visit. It goes up to $341/month with no deductible.

But if I select a $50 office visit it goes down to $265/month.

I have to admit, those are some pretty low rates compared to the others, Blue Cross of California wants $265 for a no-deductible plan with a $35 office visit but a whopping 40% coinsurance!

I don't think Illinois has any co-ops unfortunately.
 
theprestige said:
Why not just have a plan that provides medical care to the destitute, and leaves all the rest of it alone?
Click to expand...


Well, you have to define "destitute".

Given how astronomical the costs of some illnesses can be, and given the difficulties some people experience in securing insurance cover they can afford, and given the whole rescission minefield, you have to accept that people who have some assets may still be entirely unable to meet the costs of their healthcare.

So, do you require that everyone be reduced to the position of "destitute" before they are eligible for assistance? People who might be productive members of society, who were supporting themselves in every other way, must be reduced to beggary before the state will contribute to their healthcare. Do you really think this is an economically sensible way to treat your human resources?

Then you have to define the "health care" that will be provided to these people. Are you going to give them everything? No "death panels"? If they might see an extra month of life with an expenditure of $50,000, will you authorise it? Even failing that, will you go the whole hog for joint replacements and chemotherapy and diabetic stabilisation and maintenance care?

If you are, how can you require those people who are above the "destitute" level to fund this, and yet leave them to sink or swim on their own? Don't you ever get tired of funding socialised medicine that you yourself cannot access?

Or did you think just to get away with sub-third-world gutter-level "care" for the dregs of society, once unpayable bills have forced previously productive members of society into that gutter?

Nice utopia you have there.

Rolfe.
 
Kaiser is cheap because of their business model, not because they're non-profit. Because they own the delivery system (doctors, hospitals, etc.) they can manage costs and care much better than a normal insurer. Doctors and hospitals don't have an incentive to run unnecessary tests because they're on the same team as the insurer.

Profit margins in health insurance run at about 5% of premiums. There's not a whole lot of meat on them bones. And I can pretty much guarantee that Kaiser is still pricing margin into their rates. Non-profit just means that that margin isn't distributed to shareholders.

Lots of people don't like Kaiser because you don't get as much freedom as you would with a Blue Cross PPO. But given the cost problems we need to address in the US, the Kaiser model may be the way of the future.

And premiums in New York state are expensive across the board and it has nothing to do with profit. The market in that state has been regulated to within an inch of its life. Most insurance carriers avoid it like the plague, meaning there's not much competition. Also, it is a guaranteed issue market without an insurance mandate. Given how expensive rates are in New York, that underscores the purpose of coupling a mandate to any type of guaranteed issue insurance reform.
 
boooeee said:
Kaiser is cheap because of their business model, not because they're non-profit. Because they own the delivery system (doctors, hospitals, etc.) they can manage costs and care much better than a normal insurer. Doctors and hospitals don't have an incentive to run unnecessary tests because they're on the same team as the insurer.
Click to expand...


Which is pretty much the same principle as the NHS, just on a smaller scale. But it's BAD when the government does it!

boooeee said:
Profit margins in health insurance run at about 5% of premiums. There's not a whole lot of meat on them bones. And I can pretty much guarantee that Kaiser is still pricing margin into their rates. Non-profit just means that that margin isn't distributed to shareholders.
Click to expand...


In US health insurance, only about 78% of income is actually spent buying healthcare. And even that covers a lot of unnecessary tests, and the inflated prices the USA pays for drugs.

In countries where insurance is regulated to deliver universal healthcare, about 95% of income is spent on buying healthcare.

boooeee said:
Lots of people don't like Kaiser because you don't get as much freedom as you would with a Blue Cross PPO. But given the cost problems we need to address in the US, the Kaiser model may be the way of the future.

And premiums in New York state are expensive across the board and it has nothing to do with profit. The market in that state has been regulated to within an inch of its life. Most insurance carriers avoid it like the plague, meaning there's not much competition. Also, it is a guaranteed issue market without an insurance mandate. Given how expensive rates are in New York, that underscores the purpose of coupling a mandate to any type of guaranteed issue insurance reform.
Click to expand...


Maybe I'm hallucinating, but when you talk about the body funding the healthcare also owning the delivery systems, and then you exend that to mandating that everyone participate, and that everyone be guaranteed benefits - you seem to me to be describing the NHS.

Rolfe.
 
theprestige said:
Why not just have a plan that provides medical care to the destitute, and leaves all the rest of it alone?
Click to expand...

Here is a big part of the problem:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/06/new_study_shows_medical_bills.html

Sixty-two percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were linked to medical expenses. ... Of those who filed for bankruptcy in 2007, nearly 80 percent had health insurance.
Click to expand...

You may think you can afford health care. Then you have a stroke and find out the meaning of "rationed care" when your insurance company stops paying the bill because you have hit your limit or violated some trap clause in your contract.
 
Ohmer said:
Here is a big part of the problem:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/06/new_study_shows_medical_bills.html
Click to expand...

The criteria used to define what counts as a "medical cause" are, well, absolute crap. For example, if you had uncovered medical bills of over $1000, your bankruptcy was considered as having a medical cause. But damned few people declare bankruptcy over just $1000, and they probably have other expenses (housing, taxes) which are significantly larger than that. If we adopt a similar definition for bankruptcies due to "tax causes", I bet we could arrive at even higher percentages.

Also included is people who missed work for 2 weeks because of a medical condition. So if a medical condition causes you to lose your job, and the loss of income leads to bankruptcy, that counts as a "medical cause". OK, fine, but such a case need have nothing to do with medical expenses, and such bankruptcies could happen under any health care system.

Given the incredibly broad definitions used, the fact that the numbers are high is not at all surprising. And they are of no use in determining how many people are forced into bankruptcy because of high medical bills, because that's not what they measured.
 
Last edited:
And if people have a level of manageable debt, and it is a medical event that pushes them over the edge, the straw that broke the camel's back - you want to say this was nothing to do with the medical event?

And you must also bear in mind that if someone loses their job because of a health problem, they may also lose their health insurance. So it may be extremely relevant.

[Good, God, you can lose your job in America because you are off sick for two weeks? :jaw-dropp Give me socialism any day, thanks!]

Rolfe.
 
Okay, picking a healthcare thread at random, I have a question.

If, magically, a universal health care system were implimented in the USA, then wouldn't those who already have healthcare with their jobs want a payrise equivalent to the cost of the healthcare they're now getting for free? Being as there are tax breaks on the healthcare isn't this going to end up costing employers more? Or at least hacking off a whole strata of society who will view themselves as poorer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom