Why the murder of Healthcare Insurance CEO should end Private Health Insurance

[Thermal]

Nonsense. I know of no one that is happy with the service of their health insurance company. And my experience with insurance companies my entire life has never been good. They seem to be efficient when it comes to collecting premiums and difficult when it comes to ever paying a claim. That is if they pay it. Or should I say, when the partially pay it.

I've said more than once that I couldn't be happier with my Horizon BC/BS. They pay everything with a smile, absurd though I find the billing to be. No denials or bills handed to us.

 

[thaiboxerken]

This biennial study of USA's health care and health insurance is below. It does not paint the pretty picture that Rdwight is trying to present to us.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/surveys/2024/nov/state-health-insurance-coverage-us-2024-biennial-survey

 

[Darat]

This is just not accurate. They provide a service that the majority of people are happy with. They profit by increasing their customer base. People upset that they don't receive what they think they deserve can't just be distilled down to 'evil insurance'.

What are some of the most egregious cases you've seen? There are definitely outliers but almost everytime i see a complaint of their heartless actions the accusation doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.


Yes, other UHC systems do it cheaper. I am talking about what would happen here. Our baseline is much higher. Everytime we have expanded access, cost and wait tims have increased.

Even with your Swiss example it doesn't appear their costs decreased. Percentage of gdp up, cost per citizen up. Wait times appear to be fine but we are talking about a population under 9 million in a much smaller area to service. You can say it's worth it but can't we start with the understanding there is a cost?

Reduce the administration costs:

 

[acbytesla]

I've said more than once that I couldn't be happier with my Horizon BC/BS. They pay everything with a smile, absurd though I find the billing to be. No denials or bills handed to us.

That's one.

 

[Thermal]

Reduce the administration costs

Lol, ya hand things over to the US Federal Government if you want to reduce administration costs. I have a tattoo on my ass in those very words

Eta: also, reducing administration costs from 9 to two percent is a 7% reduction. We don't have a problem with our costs being 7 ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ percent too high.

 

[dirtywick]

They do, but it's within noise range. The care providers largely stick to their guns and don't come down much. That's why the average doctor is pulling $350k per year. They are not being paid by cash and carry patients, man. They get the lion's share of that money from the insurance providers.

right, so like i was saying insurance companies have done a poor job at keeping costs down

 

[Thermal]

right, so like i was saying insurance companies have done a poor job at keeping costs down

...right...right, because it's not the job of the insurers to set the rates. It's their job to reimburse at the rates charged. Which it is not their job to set. If charges are higher, it's the insurers job to raise premiums, not coerce the care provider.

Do you think car insurance companies tell auto mechanics that they need to drop their rates to minimum wage? Or tell Ford and Chevy that they're charging too much for that fender? They just pay the bill.

 

[Darat]

...right...right, because it's not the job of the insurers to set the rates. It's their job to reimburse at the rates charged. Which it is not their job to set. If charges are higher, it's the insurers job to raise premiums, not coerce the care provider.

Do you think car insurance companies tell auto mechanics that they need to drop their rates to minimum wage? Or tell Ford and Chevy that they're charging too much for that fender? They just pay the bill.

Certainly in the UK car insurers do not just pay the bill.

 

[Thermal]

Certainly in the UK car insurers do not just pay the bill.

They do here. In fact, in my state, they reimburse at higher than prevailing area rates. "Insurance jobs" are generally the best paying work, whether for auto or homeowner's claims and the like.

 

[dirtywick]

...right...right, because it's not the job of the insurers to set the rates. It's their job to reimburse at the rates charged. Which it is not their job to set. If charges are higher, it's the insurers job to raise premiums, not coerce the care provider.

Do you think car insurance companies tell auto mechanics that they need to drop their rates to minimum wage? Or tell Ford and Chevy that they're charging too much for that fender? They just pay the bill.

are the rates not based around the prices insurance companies negotiate to pay?

i mean, they have a role in keeping costs low here. they're just failing miserably, they don't care and bill you the difference, and take a huge cut for themselves. it's not good.

 

[TragicMonkey]

...right...right, because it's not the job of the insurers to set the rates. It's their job to reimburse at the rates charged. Which it is not their job to set. If charges are higher, it's the insurers job to raise premiums, not coerce the care provider.

Do you think car insurance companies tell auto mechanics that they need to drop their rates to minimum wage? Or tell Ford and Chevy that they're charging too much for that fender? They just pay the bill.

You don't know what "allowables" are, apparently. Look at your medical bill. Actually read the whole thing. You'll see several numbers. Likes so:

Date of Service: 12/25
Procedure: Labor and delivery, in manger
Charges: $1750
Allowable: $1000
Insurance paid: $800
Patient responsibility: $200

What's happening above is Dr Angel charged $1750 for his services, supplies, labor, etc. But your insurance (Annunication Health Care) has set the allowable to $1000: that's the maximum price Dr Angel, per his agreement with Annunciation, is allowed to charge for that particular service. He can try to charge more, but Annunciation will not pay more-- and neither will its patients. Dr Angel agreed to that. It's contractual. If he wishes to change that he'll have to wait until the next contract negotiation--and if he demands too much Annunciation may decide not to participate with Dr Angel-- they'll send their patients to someone else.

So, the maximum charge is now $1000. Dr Angel eats that $750, whether it was real costs or inflated. Now Annunication's contract with its patient, you, comes into play. You have pretty good coverage: 80% for maternity. So Annunciation pays 80% of that allowable $1000, or $800. The remaining $200 is on you, the patient.

The point is, the insurors definitely do NOT pay whatever the providers may charge, they very much DO "tell Ford and Chevy they're charging too much". It's a contract. These things are negotiated and agreed upon and both providers and insurors spend a great deal of time and energy and research into fighting on each and every line item in the contracts. That's why companies change insurances, that's why insurors stop coverage with particular providers, and vice versa. Why do you think some doctors and hospitals don't take X brand insurance? Why do you think most insurors have "networks" of providers they send their customers to? It's all in contracts. And the insurors absolutely and definitely do "set the rates". The providers agree, or don't do business with them.

eta: it's also why in some practices I've worked in one of the most highly-paid employees was the person in charge of insurance contract negotiations. Particularly the drugs. Getting an insuror to pay an extra percent of a particular cancer drug can spell tens of millions of bucks right there by itself.

 

[Thermal]

You don't know what "allowables" are, apparently. Look at your medical bill. Actually read the whole thing. You'll see several numbers. Likes so:

Date of Service: 12/25
Procedure: Labor and delivery, in manger
Charges: $1750
Allowable: $1000
Insurance paid: $800
Patient responsibility: $200

What's happening above is Dr Angel charged $1750 for his services, supplies, labor, etc. But your insurance (Annunication Health Care) has set the allowable to $1000: that's the maximum price Dr Angel, per his agreement with Annunciation, is allowed to charge for that particular service. He can try to charge more, but Annunciation will not pay more-- and neither will its patients. Dr Angel agreed to that. It's contractual. If he wishes to change that he'll have to wait until the next contract negotiation--and if he demands too much Annunciation may decide not to participate with Dr Angel-- they'll send their patients to someone else.

So, the maximum charge is now $1000. Dr Angel eats that $750, whether it was real costs or inflated. Now Annunication's contract with its patient, you, comes into play. You have pretty good coverage: 80% for maternity. So Annunciation pays 80% of that allowable $1000, or $800. The remaining $200 is on you, the patient.

The point is, the insurors definitely do NOT pay whatever the providers may charge, they very much DO "tell Ford and Chevy they're charging too much". It's a contract. These things are negotiated and agreed upon and both providers and insurors spend a great deal of time and energy and research into fighting on each and every line item in the contracts. That's why companies change insurances, that's why insurors stop coverage with particular providers, and vice versa. Why do you think some doctors and hospitals don't take X brand insurance? Why do you think most insurors have "networks" of providers they send their customers to? It's all in contracts. And the insurors absolutely and definitely do "set the rates". The providers agree, or don't do business with them.

eta: it's also why in some practices I've worked in one of the most highly-paid employees was the person in charge of insurance contract negotiations. Particularly the drugs. Getting an insuror to pay an extra percent of a particular cancer drug can spell tens of millions of bucks right there by itself.

Yes, that's the theory. If it worked in practice, we would not have some of the highest paid doctors on the planet and human history.

It doesn't happen on the hoof. Like I said (I think on the other thread), I look at my wife's coverage statements in the way I sometimes stare at roadkill. Thousands and thousands of dollars for essentially little to nothing. The doctors aren't "eating" anything, except perhaps a surf and turf for lunch. No doggie bags, like the peons they provide care to, either. Quintiple billing assures they can "eat" that 20% that the insurer did not cover.

 

[thaiboxerken]

BC/BS is pretty good insurance, I used to have it at my job. Then corporate made a decision and offer me United, which isn't very good. This is another problem with health insurance in the USA, it is tied to work benefits which limits choice.
Also, did you not see that health care costs are inflated because of collusion between insurance and providers?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Yes, that's the theory. If it worked in practice, we would not have some of the highest paid doctors on the planet and human history.

It doesn't happen on the hoof. Like I said (I think on the other thread), I look at my wife's coverage statements in the way I sometimes state at roadkill. Thousands and thousands of dollars for essentially little to nothing. The doctors aren't "eating" anything, except perhaps a surf and turf for lunch. No doggie bags, like the peons they provide care to. Quintiple billing assures they can "eat" that 20% that the insurer did not cover.

Yes, yes, all doctors are millionaires and every bill is a lie. That's why rural America is abounding with fully-staffed hospitals.

 

[rdwight]

If you are not able to read and understand a study, you shouldn't refer to it or try to summarize it.
Your claim was:

It says nothing about "emergency department wait times."

And "increased medical utilization" is actually a positive change! It means that people who wouldn't otherwise get healthcare and prescription drugs because they can't afford them now get them, so it's no wonder that costs rise! They don't rise because healthcare gets more expensive. They rise because people get healthcare. Increased medical utilization is good - unless it's because people, for whatever reason, got more ill than they would otherwise have been, which doesn't seem to have been the case.

Combined with "a reduction in financial strain from medical costs," there's nothing but improvement And it says nothing about increased wait times!!!! Expanding Medicaid was an improvement!



I know from experience that you are not a big fan of providing documentation for your claims, but still ....

Now you!

Sorry, that study didn't specify wait times. It specified an increase in use. According to this study on ER usage based on that data it was increased 40% over the control group. Sure, increasing usage 40% more by 8% of the population doesn't necessarily mean longer wait times but seems pretty likely, no? This study focusing on ER wait times in states that expanded medicaid found a 10% increase. Have something that refutes this?

Once again, the convo i am having is on the premise that costs and wait times will rise. If you want to argue that it is worth it, it would be easier if you conceded that it will happen. Or show some reason it wouldn't.

And on me not providing documentation, you literally have a post underneath the one you quoted of me doing just that. I just don't feel the need to have a back and forth about your positions when you won't state them and expect me to read between the lines. If you post articles and videos portraying a view, don't be surprised if I find them representative of your opinion.

 

[TragicMonkey]

BC/BS is pretty good insurance, I used to have it at my job. Then corporate made a decision and offer me United, which isn't very good. This is another problem with health insurance in the USA, it is tied to work benefits which limits choice.
Also, did you not see that health care costs are inflated because of collusion between insurance and providers?

In my view, it's not collusion between insuror and provider, but conflict. And the customers/patients are victims of the fallout in their eternal battle.

 

[Thermal]

Yes, yes, all doctors are millionaires and every bill is a lie. That's why rural America is abounding with fully-staffed hospitals.

No, I was responding to exactly what your post prompted me to take note of, as if I had not already done so. Myy wife recently had an in-person consultation with a doctor (some species of neurologist, iirc) about a sleeping problem. We went through the nurse stuff, taking blood pressure and all that, then he walked in, introduced himself, looked over her records electronically forwarded to him by her other care providers, then said he couldn't do anything to help as it was not his area (he was a cutter or something and there was nothing to cut up). He spent just under 10 minutes with us.

On his (fully covered) billing statement, he had charged for six separate consultations at I believe it was $839 apiece. He spoke to no other people before, during or after our visit, by his own acknowledgement. This was in addition to the office visit charges and MA/nurse billings.

So what am I supposed to think? He consulted six times because he looked over charts from five other doctors (in the same space of ten minutes), speaking to none of them? It was close to a $6000 bill to have her blood pressure and temperature checked and for him to say there was nothing he saw in his area of expertise to treat. Am I supposed to think this was a one off? Cuz I've seen it on every statement I've ever had the masochism to give a once over.

 

[acbytesla]

I wouldn't ever argue that the rest of the medical system isn't as much to blame as the insurers. I had a hernia surgery decades ago. I was assure the procedure was fully covered minus $250. A relatively simple procedure. It was an outpatient procedure. In and out within a few hours.

Since I don't trust anyone when it pertains to money, I did everything in my power before the procedure to understand every cost from what the hospital charged, the surgeon, the anesthesiologist etc. Probably the hardest thing I ever did. They have different charges for everything based entirely on the individual insurer. It was a morass of complexity. Which I'm convinced is deliberate. They don't want anyone to know.

Then the bill came. I wasn't charged with $250 in out of pocket expenses. But $2,300. But being the jerk I am, I immediately went to war. Which was difficult to do. One charge was for a consultation from a Doctor I had never heard of. It was more than my personal physician and almost as much as the surgeon billed. (which was covered) I was threatened over and over that I must pay this unknown doctor. Instead I filed suit against the Doctor. They dropped the demand and I only paid the $250.

Any system as convoluted as this is not out of service. It is because confusion equals profits.

 

[rdwight]

Nonsense. I know of no one that is happy with the service of their health insurance company. And my experience with insurance companies my entire life has never been good. They seem to be efficient when it comes to collecting premiums and difficult when it comes to ever paying a claim. That is if they pay it. Or should I say, when the partially pay it.

This biennial study of USA's health care and health insurance is below. It does not paint the pretty picture that Rdwight is trying to present to us.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/surveys/2024/nov/state-health-insurance-coverage-us-2024-biennial-survey

This KFF survey has 81% rating their insurance as excellent or good. Only 3% as poor.

 

[theprestige]

Nonsense. I know of no one that is happy with the service of their health insurance company. And my experience with insurance companies my entire life has never been good. They seem to be efficient when it comes to collecting premiums and difficult when it comes to ever paying a claim. That is if they pay it. Or should I say, when the partially pay it.

Jesus Cristina that's terrible! My condolences. Who do you work for? Why is their health care benefit such total ass?

 

[Dabop]

I wouldn't ever argue that the rest of the medical system isn't as much to blame as the insurers. I had a hernia surgery decades ago. I was assure the procedure was fully covered minus $250. A relatively simple procedure. It was an outpatient procedure. In and out within a few hours.

Since I don't trust anyone when it pertains to money, I did everything in my power before the procedure to understand every cost from what the hospital charged, the surgeon, the anesthesiologist etc. Probably the hardest thing I ever did. They have different charges for everything based entirely on the individual insurer. It was a morass of complexity. Which I'm convinced is deliberate. They don't want anyone to know.

Then the bill came. I wasn't charged with $250 in out of pocket expenses. But $2,300. But being the jerk I am, I immediately went to war. Which was difficult to do. One charge was for a consultation from a Doctor I had never heard of. It was more than my personal physician and almost as much as the surgeon billed. (which was covered) I was threatened over and over that I must pay this unknown doctor. Instead I filed suit against the Doctor. They dropped the demand and I only paid the $250.

Any system as convoluted as this is not out of service. It is because confusion equals profits.

I recently suffered a mild stroke (brain aneurysm) which required an ambulance trip from where I crashed the truck, to the nearest hospital, a second one to a larger hospital that could do the testing needed (the first was a small rural hospital- with 4 beds lol), and nearly a week in hospital where I had multiple scans/tests etc...
For the first week after I got out, I had to go every two days for a checkup, then weekly checkups after that...

Total cost to me was...
zero...
All covered under Medicare here...

 

[theprestige]

I wouldn't ever argue that the rest of the medical system isn't as much to blame as the insurers. I had a hernia surgery decades ago. I was assure the procedure was fully covered minus $250. A relatively simple procedure. It was an outpatient procedure. In and out within a few hours.

Since I don't trust anyone when it pertains to money, I did everything in my power before the procedure to understand every cost from what the hospital charged, the surgeon, the anesthesiologist etc. Probably the hardest thing I ever did. They have different charges for everything based entirely on the individual insurer. It was a morass of complexity. Which I'm convinced is deliberate. They don't want anyone to know.

Then the bill came. I wasn't charged with $250 in out of pocket expenses. But $2,300. But being the jerk I am, I immediately went to war. Which was difficult to do. One charge was for a consultation from a Doctor I had never heard of. It was more than my personal physician and almost as much as the surgeon billed. (which was covered) I was threatened over and over that I must pay this unknown doctor. Instead I filed suit against the Doctor. They dropped the demand and I only paid the $250.

Any system as convoluted as this is not out of service. It is because confusion equals profits.

What a bizarre narrative. When I went in for multiple emergency abdominal surgeries, my insurance had no problem paying for almost all of it. Along with a three week stay in a modern recovery facility.

Similarly, my dental insurance has never balked at paying for as much tooth maintenance and repair as I can possibly endure in any given year.

How did you end up with such a terrible insurance plan? Are you self funded on the government exchanges? Skipped open enrollment with your employer and got the default (total ass) plan intended for healthy twenty year-olds?

 

[thaiboxerken]

This KFF survey has 81% rating their insurance as excellent or good. Only 3% as poor.

View attachment 58254

That doesn't tell the entire story though, does it. The worse health a person is, the less they are satisfied with their health insurance. It is my opinion that healthy people are satisifed because they aren't having to deal with denials and the amount of hoops theat insurance companies use to delay or deny people. I think people should take a look at the KFF survey and read the whole thing. It isn't the chocolate rivers that you imply.

KFF Survey of Consumer Experiences with Health Insurance | KFF

The survey finds nearly six in 10 people with health insurance experienced a problem using their insurance in the past year, with even larger shares reporting problems among people who are sick or who have mental health needs. It includes data for people with different types of coverage...

www.kff.org

 

[TragicMonkey]

Lordy, we got two people taking their personal experiences as proof of how it must be for everyone. Too bad there's not some sort of skepticism-adjacent site they could peruse to figure out why that doesn't work.

 

[thaiboxerken]

In my view, it's not collusion between insuror and provider, but conflict. And the customers/patients are victims of the fallout in their eternal battle.

It is a good reason to get rid of the profit motive.

 

[theprestige]

That's one.

According to polls, that's literally 80% of the population. Maybe we should try to understand how you and everyone you know ended up in the other 20%.

 

[lionking]

I recently suffered a mild stroke (brain aneurysm) which required an ambulance trip from where I crashed the truck, to the nearest hospital, a second one to a larger hospital that could do the testing needed (the first was a small rural hospital- with 4 beds lol), and nearly a week in hospital where I had multiple scans/tests etc...
For the first week after I got out, I had to go every two days for a checkup, then weekly checkups after that...

Total cost to me was...
zero...
All covered under Medicare here...

Yes, same as a recent hospital visit and follow-ups for me. I still have private insurance, not for emergencies like this, but for elective treatment and a private room if hospitalised.

 

[thaiboxerken]

From that same satisfaction survey:

• Despite rating their insurance positively, most insured adults report experiencing problems using their health coverage; people in poorer health are more likely to report problems. A majority of insured adults (58%) say they have experienced a problem using their health insurance in the past 12 months – such as denied claims, provider network problems, and pre-authorization problems. Looking at responses by health status, two-thirds (67%) of adults in fair or poor health experienced problems with their insurance, compared to 56% of adults who say they are in at least “good” physical health. Notably, about three in four insured adults who received mental health care in the past year, or who use a lot of health care (defined as more than ten provider visits in a year) experienced insurance problems. At least half of adults across insurance types say they experienced a problem, though the nature of problems people experienced varied somewhat more based on their type of coverage.

 

[Random]

According to polls, that's literally 80% of the population. Maybe we should try to understand how you and everyone you know ended up in the other 20%.

Well, one big reason for the large number of people who are happy with their health insurance company is that large numbers of people have not had an illness or injury that makes them unprofitable to their health insurance company. Paying $5,000 a year for health insurance that pays for $1,200 a year in medicine and doctors visits annually? Yeah, you and your health insurance company are going to get along great.

Develop a long-term debilitating illness that costs $100k a year to treat? That's when you find out the real quality of your insurance policy.

 

[theprestige]

Well, one big reason for the large number of people who are happy with their health insurance company is that large numbers of people have not had an illness or injury that makes them unprofitable to their health insurance company. Paying $5,000 a year for health insurance that pays for $1,200 a year in medicine and doctors visits annually? Yeah, you and your health insurance company are going to get along great.

Develop a long-term debilitating illness that costs $100k a year to treat? That's when you find out the real quality of your insurance policy.

My partner has such an illness. The company that manufactures their treatment waives almost the entirety of the cost. Their insurance provider picks up the rest, less a nominal co pay.

 

[acbytesla]

What a bizarre narrative. When I went in for multiple emergency abdominal surgeries, my insurance had no problem paying for almost all of it. Along with a three week stay in a modern recovery facility.

Similarly, my dental insurance has never balked at paying for as much tooth maintenance and repair as I can possibly endure in any given year.

How did you end up with such a terrible insurance plan? Are you self funded on the government exchanges? Skipped open enrollment with your employer and got the default (total ass) plan intended for healthy twenty year-olds?

It was almost 2 decades ago. I don't remember the insurance company. But they wouldn't pay this unknown Doctor because somehow he was out of plan. It was bizarre. To this day, I have no idea what service he provided. I could get through to the Doctor's office but never was able to speak to any of the doctors outside of my personal physician. It was always some billing person who either claimed ignorance or threatened me with collections. Being healthy all my life, I never paid attention to the employee health insurance benefits before then.

 

[Thermal]

Lordy, we got two people taking their personal experiences as proof of how it must be for everyone.

Funny thing, that- we have others doing the exact same thing on the other side of the narrative. Odd that you only call out two that aren't parroting the unsupported bald claims.

Too bad there's not some sort of skepticism-adjacent site they could peruse to figure out why that doesn't work.

Indeed. Why, would you believe a poster just recently admonished me for not correctly reading a one page coverage statement (written in refreshingly straightforward English, which I fortunately have a limited command of), and when responded to, no reply was forthcoming, as would be expected in a skeptical discussion. You know, one where bald claims are made with a sweeping "everybody knows this", yet are not borne out in actual experience.

 

[Thermal]

Well, one big reason for the large number of people who are happy with their health insurance company is that large numbers of people have not had an illness or injury that makes them unprofitable to their health insurance company. Paying $5,000 a year for health insurance that pays for $1,200 a year in medicine and doctors visits annually? Yeah, you and your health insurance company are going to get along great.

Develop a long-term debilitating illness that costs $100k a year to treat? That's when you find out the real quality of your insurance policy.

Fair point, but again, my experience: they make a ton off me. Maybe a minor visit per year, if that. My wife though, I'm pretty confident she depletes her annual premium every freaking month of her life. They smile and notify us that they paid the bill.

 

[theprestige]

It was almost 2 decades ago. I don't remember the insurance company. But they wouldn't pay this unknown Doctor because somehow he was out of plan. It was bizarre. To this day, I have no idea what service he provided. I could get through to the Doctor's office but never was able to speak to any of the doctors outside of my personal physician. It was always some billing person who either claimed ignorance or threatened me with collections. Being healthy all my life, I never paid attention to the employee health insurance benefits before then.

Twenty years ago? You don't remember the key details? You ignorantly stumbled upon an out of plan provider by accident?

That certainly explains why your anecdote ends less happily than mine. Are you sure you know, from personal experience, what the health insurance market is up to you these days?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Twenty years ago health insurance was way worse, it was like the wild west.

 

[theprestige]

Twenty years ago health insurance was way worse, it was like the wild west.

2004? Nah, my insurance was pretty well locked down by that point. No wild west nonsense at all.

Again, who was your provider in 2004? Why? Was it your employer giving you the shaft?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why does it matter? The fact that any insurance company could do it is a problem. The fact that a person needs to go through an employer to get affordable insurance is a problem. Health care should not be tied to employment. It should be a right.
And yes, it was a problem in 2004. The ACA address many concerns but it is merely a stop-gap, in my opinion, until we can get universal health care.

 

[acbytesla]

Twenty years ago? You don't remember the key details? You ignorantly stumbled upon an out of plan provider by accident?

That certainly explains why your anecdote ends less happily than mine. Are you sure you know, from personal experience, what the health insurance market is up to you these days?

Since I have never been ill. All I really know about are the premiums. I haven't been sick or injured since I was a child. Weirdly, I was in and out of the hospital a lot before I was 16. A hospital almost killed me when I was 9. The nurse broke a hypodermic needle in me and told no one. I developed sepsis. And then was exposed to another patient with some virus. I lost half my body weight and spent weeks in critical care.

But I have never spent a night in one since then. Outside of the hernia surgery, I had a cut on my neck that required stitches and that is it. Not a broken bone. Never been sick beyond a cold. From a personal health perspective I have been very lucky. But I have a good friend who developed cancer. Non-Hodgkins lymphoma. He has been constantly warring with his insurance company.

 

[Thermal]

Why does it matter? The fact that any insurance company could do it is a problem. The fact that a person needs to go through an employer to get affordable insurance is a problem.

You dont have to, by any means. It makes sense to deal with a large group though, because they have more buying power. Like any Ponzi sceme, the more bodies you have paying in, the better it works.

Health care should not be tied to employment. It should be a right.
And yes, it was a problem in 2004. The ACA address many concerns but it is merely a stop-gap, in my opinion, until we can get universal health care.

Agreed on the ACA only being a step in the right direction, but if you don't have insurance, a hospital will treat you and try to work something out, even if it means them taking a hit. You kind of do have a right to health care. If you want a Cadillac treatment with free eyeglasses and dental, that's maybe going beyond a right?

 

[theprestige]

Since I have never been ill. All I really know about are the premiums. I haven't been sick or injured since I was a child. Weirdly, I was in and out of the hospital a lot before I was 16. A hospital almost killed me when I was 9. The nurse broke a hypodermic needle in me and told no one. I developed sepsis. And then was exposed to another patient with some virus. I lost half my body weight and spent weeks in critical care.

But I have never spent a night in one since then. Outside of the hernia surgery, I had a cut on my neck that required stitches and that is it. Not a broken bone. Never been sick beyond a cold. From a personal health perspective I have been very lucky. But I have a good friend who developed cancer. Non-Hodgkins lymphoma. He has been constantly warring with his insurance company.

Is this friend of yours on an employer-subsidized health insurance plan? A self funded plan? A government plan?