• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

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

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.

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.
 
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.
The problem is no one knows how good their insurance is until they have a serious illness.
 
Everyone who isn't extremely rich is one diagnosis away from utter ruin. No matter how good they imagine their insurance is.
That day when they say the medical treatment you require is experimental and is not covered.
 
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
Not really. Someone was murdered by a loon. I don't consider that a political issue.

I do agree with Michael Moore
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.
 
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.
I'd laugh. If it wasn't so sad.

The US spends anywhere from 160% to 500% more per person on healthcare spending than other Western nations. And also has lower life expectancy than any of them.

But I guess that doesn't matter to you.
 
The US spends anywhere from 160% to 500% more per person on healthcare spending than other Western nations.
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?


And also has lower life expectancy than any of them.
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'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
 
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.
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.
 
I thought it was the most inefficient?
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'm always slightly baffled by the assertion that all of the public demands cadillac heath care as the goal. I've always personally, and suspected most people, would be VERY happy with less fraught access to just ok health care. Back when I was uninsured and living in a decently organized town, the city clinic worked great for me. The fact that even this level of access is not available for so many people is imo the biggest problem. People who never go to the doctor because they don't have $70 and are scared of being billed. For example, when ACA was rolled out, the working poor in states that didn't participate in the medicaid expansion that was supposed to cover the people who couldn't afford the cheapest plans.
 
Ironically, someone I know is on an experimental treatment for MS, and it's subsidized almost entirely by the pharmaceutical company that makes it.

Must be nice. I was on a chemo most of this year that was moving out of the experimental stage and the company partially subsidized the cost. Still was to the tune of thousands of dollars until the deductible was hit. Sadly it did not work.

Meanwhile my insurance company just denied the chemo treatment my doctor wanted to use on me, I have to use a different chemo. My Oncologist is very good at weaving through Insurance red tape and rejections but he can't do everything.
 
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.
 
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 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?

Really could use some data on exactly what gets denied and on what grounds.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
Free education,
*glances at property tax bill*
free roads, free parks, free police, free fire protection,
Again, wide public benefit, not geared towards a specific individuals needs
free judicial system.
Lol
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.
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..
 
certainly there's as much wide public benefit to people's health relative to needing help with putting out your house fire is a specific individual need
 
Tell 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.
 
Last edited:
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..
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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".

As the UK model has been described here, doctors work at lower rates through the NHS, and hustle higher paying work outside of those confines. We have a similar thing with GPs over here; new docs are specializing more, because that's where the money is. UKians get problems like no one wanting to be a dentist because it doesn't pay, so people are walking around for half a year with toothaches. Not something Americans are hearing.
 
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.
 
Tell 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.
works about as well as private market healthcare
 
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 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.
 
Last edited:
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.
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 guess
 
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?
 
In the absence of a powerful State that either can and will intervene to assure competition, or provide a basic service for free as the baseline, Capitalism will always try to squeeze consumers with higher prices and lower service - everything else would be contrary to shareholder value.
 
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?

The point is that there is nothing odd for you or anyone to be taken care of when you needed it most.
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.
 
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.
Public opinion of it doesn't change the fact that it is inefficient and less effective than many other systems of health care.
 
The point is that there is nothing odd for you or anyone to be taken care of when you needed it most.
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?
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.
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.

We keep glossing over who is actually demanding these costs. It ain't the insurance people. They're managing a Ponzi scheme on our behalf. It really ain't their fault that a routine doctor visit comes with a bill that rivals the GDP of small nations.
 
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.
 
lol it’s absolutely their fault. their job is to manage healthcare costs. and they’re supposed to do it more efficiently than the government can.
 
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.
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?

Thompson, the highest paid person in UHC by far (as CEO making $10 million per year), cost policy holders 20 cents per year each. While we can rightfully be disgusted by his pay, it ain't the problem.by a long shot. Nor are the 3% profit margins that UHC made.

The physical cost of health care is the bulk of the problem. If we got that under control, the insurance would be like our car insurance, manageable enough for virtually everyone.
 
(...) that's more of a "protecting the wider community" thing. Things for your personal benefit tend to have price tags attached.
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.
 
The cost is both the insurance companies and the providers. Did no one watch the Adam Ruins video I posted?
 
Back
Top Bottom