acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 36,573
An employer funded plan.Is this friend of yours on an employer-subsidized health insurance plan? A self funded plan? A government plan?
An employer funded plan.Is this friend of yours on an employer-subsidized health insurance plan? A self funded plan? A government plan?
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.
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.
The problem is no one knows how good their insurance is until they have a serious illness.I was actually referring to both the "my insurance is great" examples and the "my insurance is horrific" examples. Across hundreds of millions of people I expect most people fall between the two extremes there. One very big problem is that when it gets bad it gets very, very bad indeed: lose your house, lose your savings, lose your job, and die anyway kind of bad. Which is why more weight should be put on the "things need fixing" side than the "everything's okay" side.
And if you're talking about me I wasn't admonishing you for not knowing how to read your medical bills (they are indeed confusing and most of the people who can read them are either in the industry or have a complex --and therefore horrific-- medical insurance experience); I was pointing out that because you didn't know what the allowables line meant you were reaching a quite incorrect conclusion that insurors don't have control over the charges.
Everyone who isn't extremely rich is one diagnosis away from utter ruin. No matter how good they imagine their insurance is.The problem is no one knows how good their insurance is until they have a serious illness.
That day when they say the medical treatment you require is experimental and is not covered.Everyone who isn't extremely rich is one diagnosis away from utter ruin. No matter how good they imagine their insurance is.
Not really. Someone was murdered by a loon. I don't consider that a political issue.I detest that they moved the assassination thread of the Healthcare executive to the Current Events thread even though it clearly wasn't so much a Current Events thread as it was about US Politics
I stopped there.I do agree with Michael Moore
I'd laugh. If it wasn't so sad.Not really. Someone was murdered by a loon. I don't consider that a political issue.
I stopped there.
Anyway, despite its obvious flaws, no, private health care should not end. You go to a govt model and a) taxes will skyrocket b) quality of care will go down, as it always does with govt-ran things.
1) Even if we assume those numbers are correct, sorry, not sure what that means exactly. Does it mean people spend on average 1.6 to 5 times as much in the US as other Western nations for their care? Or is it (for example) "an x-ray in other Western nations costs $1000, but in the US it costs $1600-5000" (regardless of who pays) kind of thing?The US spends anywhere from 160% to 500% more per person on healthcare spending than other Western nations.
Again, perhaps, if you conveniently cherry pick this to other Western nations, but regardless, correlation does not imply causation FYI. Life expectancy isn't all about healthcare/its costs and to imply so...that's the real laugh-fest.And also has lower life expectancy than any of them.
No, you're right it doesn't. But there was no cherry picking involved. The US spends a minimum of 55 percent more per person and as as much as 500% in healthcare spending than any European nation plus Canada, New Zealand, Australia or Japan. What wasn't compared was nations where living conditions and lifestyles were dramatically different. Our healthcare system is very much a failure at delivering quality healthcare to all of its citizens.1) Even if we assume those numbers are correct, sorry, not sure what that means exactly. Does it mean people spend on average 1.6 to 5 times as much in the US as other Western nations for their care? Or is it (for example) "an x-ray in other Western nations costs $1000, but in the US it costs $1600-5000" (regardless of who pays) kind of thing?
2) This is a gross oversimplification regardless. Comparing health spending in the US to other countries is complicated, as each country has unique political, economic, and social attributes that contribute to its spending. Further, people's situations vary widely as well.
But I guess that doesn't matter to you.
3) Why conveniently cherry pick this to other Western nations? What, the rest of the world count?
Again, perhaps, if you conveniently cherry pick this to other Western nations, but regardless, correlation does not imply causation FYI. Life expectancy isn't all about healthcare/its costs and to imply so...that's the real laugh-fest.
I thought it was the most inefficient?i'm curious what non-western countries should the us be compared to that would fundamentally change the argument that the us healthcare model is
among the most inefficient in the world
well, me too. but i guess i'm open to the idea there may be some non-western country we've cherry picked out that makes the us the second most inefficient healthcare system in the world. for example, perhaps that one island where those cannibals shoot arrows at anyone that gets near the shore line is worse. we don't know. why that distinction would be important, i also don't know. still the elephant in the room of how bad private market insurers have failed to manage the costs of healthcare.I thought it was the most inefficient?
Ironically, someone I know is on an experimental treatment for MS, and it's subsidized almost entirely by the pharmaceutical company that makes it.That day when they say the medical treatment you require is experimental and is not covered.
Ironically, someone I know is on an experimental treatment for MS, and it's subsidized almost entirely by the pharmaceutical company that makes it.
The problem is no one knows how good their insurance is until they have a serious illness.
It's kind of amazing if you think about it. If the basic denial rate is over 1% (and it almost certainly is) then there are probably millions of Americans who think they have health insurance, are paying Billions of dollars for health insurance, but don't actually have health insurance.The problem is no one knows how good their insurance is until they have a serious illness.
The denial rates are usually based on two criteria, if I am reading this right: experimental procedure or unnecessary procedure? Experimental/unapproved I can kind of understand. Insurers want to pay for what works, not throw dice around. Unnecessary would be based on what the doctor agreed to as being necessary for reimbursement, per their agreement?It's kind of amazing if you think about it. If the basic denial rate is over 1% (and it almost certainly is) then there are probably millions of Americans who think they have health insurance, are paying Billions of dollars for health insurance, but don't actually have health insurance.
Free education, free roads, free parks, free police, free fire protection, free judicial system. None of this of course is actually free. It is basically insurance of a sort. What it doesn't have is the capitalist skimming 5, 10, 20 or 50 percent off the top.It's nice to hear about countries that can just go have the government provide free stuff for them, and have people work for them for free. It just sounds odd to an American ear. Like, I wouldn't expect a plumber to come fix a bad leak for free, or a heating guy come fix my heater when it was below freezing. Police and firefighters come at no charge, but that's more of a "protecting the wider community" thing. Things for your personal benefit tend to have price tags attached.
*glances at property tax bill*Free education,
Again, wide public benefit, not geared towards a specific individuals needsfree roads, free parks, free police, free fire protection,
Lolfree judicial system.
Everyone from the plumber to the oil companies to groceries and right on down the line is dipping their beaks for their own profit. Not sure why individual health care is the exception. I mean, we don't get aggro with the water company or grocery store, and they are keeping us alive at their own profit, too. It's not just the capitalists (who are actually providing a service here, much like car insurance and taxation and all the other Ponzi scemes). Knock the insurance guys out and we are paying those staggering doctor bills out of pocket, which would be impossible for most- and especially the poor.None of this of course is actually free. It is basically insurance of a sort. What it doesn't have is the capitalist skimming 5, 10, 20 or 50 percent off the top.
Agreed. But Fanucci need not dip his beak.Everyone from the plumber to the oil companies to groceries and right on down the line is dipping their beaks for their own profit. Not sure why individual health care is the exception. I mean, we don't get aggro with the water company or grocery store, and they are keeping us alive at their own profit, too. It's not just the capitalists (who are actually providing a service here, much like car insurance and taxation and all the other Ponzi scemes). Knock the insurance guys out and we are paying those staggering doctor bills out of pocket, which would be impossible for most- and especially the poor.
All in, I'd like to see Medicare expanded to provide basic care available to all, and Cadillac upgrades available for workers who want the royal treatment, as I have the good fortune to be afforded by my BC/BS..
I never implied what you are saying. The image has a break down for people in fair/poor health. 5% rate theirs as poor. That doesn't mean it's all roses but it does seem people don't actually hate their insurance.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
Right, and profit needs to be de-incentivized when the stakes are actual lives. That's a good a time as any to say "this really shouldn't be about making a ton of loot, especially when your profit means someone else goes without health care".Agreed. But Fanucci need not dip his beak.
The doctors, yes, the nurses yes, the electricians yes, the guy who cuts my hair, yes. Some stockholder who only adds money is not required. This meal need not that ingredient. It costs too much and adds neither flavor or nutrients.
Yup. This is a problem that the whole "Private Sector" has that the Government doesn't. A layer of profit-skimming middlemen. Now, if a privately run organization can make a system more efficient overall in comparison to the government, then sure, let them skim some or all of that efficiency in terms of profit. But with US healthcare it is pretty clear that that is not happening. We have every other country in the world to look at for healthcare policies and outcomes, and by any objective standard you can name we are paying champagne quality prices for beer quality healthcare.Agreed. But Fanucci need not dip his beak.
The doctors, yes, the nurses yes, the electricians yes, the guy who cuts my hair, yes. Some stockholder who only adds money is not required. This meal need not that ingredient. It costs too much and adds neither flavor or nutrients.
works about as well as private market healthcareTell the people in the Chicago fire how individual-specific firefighting is.
Eta: My house goes roasty toasty and it's taking out the three that are within 12 feet of it on three sides.
I assume your parents charged you for your housing, clothes, food and medical expenses.It's nice to hear about countries that can just go have the government provide free stuff for them, and have people work for them for free. It just sounds odd to an American ear. Like, I wouldn't expect a plumber to come fix a bad leak for free, or a heating guy come fix my heater when it was below freezing. Police and firefighters come at no charge, but that's more of a "protecting the wider community" thing. Things for your personal benefit tend to have price tags attached.
i agree and if us private insurance did a better job at managing healthcare costs and providing quality healthcare the numbers would simply be different than they are. but all the us model has got are high costs and a bunch of other average or worse data points on quality of care. and some surveys that people are ok with this i guessYup. This is a problem that the whole "Private Sector" has that the Government doesn't. A layer of profit-skimming middlemen. Now, if a privately run organization can make a system more efficient overall in comparison to the government, then sure, let them skim some or all of that efficiency in terms of profit. But with US healthcare it is pretty clear that that is not happening. We have every other country in the world to look at for healthcare policies and outcomes, and by any objective standard you can name we are paying champagne quality prices for beer quality healthcare.
Immediate family? Sure. Random strangers? Not so much.I assume your parents charged you for your housing, clothes, food and medical expenses.
If not, then your baseline experience is that people work for free for you and you for them.
Immediate family? Sure. Random strangers? Not so much.
Want me to describe what I also do with my wife that would likely get me arrested if I even suggested it to random young women?
Public opinion of it doesn't change the fact that it is inefficient and less effective than many other systems of health care.I never implied what you are saying. The image has a break down for people in fair/poor health. 5% rate theirs as poor. That doesn't mean it's all roses but it does seem people don't actually hate their insurance.
That's just what I told the heating guy when my unit went out in the freezing cold and I couldn't afford the repair! He had an anatomically unlikely suggestion in response. Should I send him your contact info?The point is that there is nothing odd for you or anyone to be taken care of when you needed it most.
Yeah, and I quite willingly do my share of work for others, unpaid. We all do. Tell the doctors and hospitals all about it, not me.What you should realize that the odd thing is a system that frowns upon helping people who can't afford the price of the help - people LIKE helping each other. Insurance hotline workers who have to reject claims feel like ◊◊◊◊ about it, it destroys them mentally and physically.
Did you forget to read this thread? UHCs profits were down, not up. And their margins fell well within the Fed's requirements for how much had to go to direct health care coverage. Maybe the ire here should be directed at the federal government?If it ain't the insurance people, how come they make record profits year after year???
by the definition of the term, they are overcharging and/or underperforming.
Public health actually is for the wider community. Reasonable public access to basic health care is good for the economy. The working poor lose productivity when they (or their kids, or their parents) are out of commission with preventable and treatable conditions.(...) that's more of a "protecting the wider community" thing. Things for your personal benefit tend to have price tags attached.