Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #101

    Jul 29, 2009, 07:19 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Do you think that system, run by the same people who handle the DMV and the Post Office, is going to provide BETTER coverage than the private system. You're off your rocker.
    Hello again, El:

    Since the government can't run squat, then you shouldn't be afraid of the government competing with the insurance companies head to head. But, you are, and we know why.

    We ALSO know exactly who is off whose rocker.

    excon
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #102

    Jul 29, 2009, 07:28 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    of course I do . I know I can because I already have supplemental insurance to cover my specific concerns.
    Hello again, tom:

    Let's bring this discussion down to earth. Let's say you OWN the policies above. Let's say that you were very careful to read about all the exclusions that they WON'T cover, and you found the ideal insurance to cover YOUR specific concerns...

    Then you catch something you didn't expect to catch, and it's not covered. Your insurer tells you that you're out of luck. Do you THEN think you can shop elsewhere for a policy that will cover your NEWFOUND concerns??

    You may think so, but I'm here to tell you, you're going to DIE of your newfound disease before you find an insurer.

    excon

    PS> You're not going argue, are you, that your insurance company will pay for EVERYTHING you might catch?? If so, what's all that little teeny writing filling 100's of pages in your policy?? Is it listing ALL the things they're going to cover?? Nahhh, it isn't.
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #103

    Jul 29, 2009, 07:28 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, El:

    Since the government can't run squat, then you shouldn't be afraid of the government competing with the insurance companies head to head. But, you are. WE know exactly who is off whose rocker.

    excon
    Even you admit it's an incremental step to universal, single payer care so I don't know how you can say that with a straight face.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #104

    Jul 29, 2009, 07:36 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Even you admit it's an incremental step to universal, single payer care so I don't know how you can say that with a straight face.
    Hello again, Steve:

    I HATE government... So, you can imagine my surprise when I visited my local Social Security office. There wasn't a wait, and they took care of my problems IN ONE VISIT!

    Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Medicare is actually PAYING my bills and NOT giving me any sh*t.

    Now, the DMV is another matter.

    excon

    PS> Let me ask you this, Mr. Government hater... If you hate 'em so much, WHY does one have to be respectful to the ONE person who represents government POWER where it meets the road against your average citizen?? That would be with a COP.
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #105

    Jul 29, 2009, 07:42 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, tom:

    Let's bring this discussion down to earth. Let's say you OWN the policies above. Let's say that you were very careful to read about all the exclusions that they WON'T cover, and you found the ideal insurance to cover YOUR specific concerns...

    Then you catch something you didn't expect to catch, and it's not covered. Your insurer tells you that you're outta luck. Do you THEN think you can shop elsewhere for a policy that will cover your NEWFOUND concerns????

    You may think so, but I'm here to tell you, you're gonna DIE of your newfound disease before you find an insurer.

    excon

    PS> You're not going argue, are you, that your insurance company will pay for EVERYTHING you might catch???? If so, what's all that little teeny writing filling 100's of pages in your policy??? Is it listing ALL the things they're going to cover????? Nahhh, it isn't.
    I'm not tom but the only exclusions I'm aware of are pre-existing conditions which are usually covered after a year, and they may not cover certain expensive medications without a fight if other effective meds are available. And generally, if you get your insurance at work as a new hire or during the annual open enrollment pre-existing is waived. That's how it is here in Texas anyway.
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #106

    Jul 29, 2009, 07:48 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Steve:

    I HATE government... So, you can imagine my surprise when I visited my local Social Security office. There wasn't a wait, and they took care of my problems IN ONE VISIT!

    Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Medicare is actually PAYING my bills and NOT giving me any sh*t.
    Miracles happen.

    Now, the DMV is another matter.
    I've never had a problem with the DMV (we don't have one). In Texas it's the DPS that runs that show and the Texas DPS is a top-notch agency if ever there was one.

    PS> Let me ask you this, Mr. Government hater... If you hate 'em so much, WHY does one have to be respectful to the ONE person who represents government POWER where it meets the road against your average citizen?? That would be with a COP.
    LOL, from one government hater to another, my hatred and distrust for the government doesn't lead me to do stupid things like get belligerent with the cops. They have more firepower than I generally have at my immediate disposal.
    asking's Avatar
    asking Posts: 2,673, Reputation: 660
    Ultra Member
     
    #107

    Jul 29, 2009, 08:02 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    There are plenty of group plans out there that are not employer-based. There is even a group for "consultants" (people who are self-employed or even unemployed) that pretty much anyone can join that gives pretty good medical benefits. The cost for a family of 4 five years ago was about $500-800/mo. I don't know what it is now. Or you could pay out of pocket
    I've been looking for a group plan that's cheaper, but nothing yet. And I'm looking into catastrophic coverage.

    As for what rates were 5 years ago, I can tell you that five years ago, my monthly premium was $270 (and I had regular work, too). Today, my premium is $1400/month and my co-pays are also 4 times as much. And that's just one person, not a family. So your $500-$800 could easily translate into $2000 to $3200 if there's any comparison at all.

    The premium took half my income last year, and that was before it went up last week. And I'm trying to support two kids. The much vaunted private health care system just isn't working for me.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #108

    Jul 29, 2009, 08:02 AM

    PS> You're not going argue, are you, that your insurance company will pay for EVERYTHING you might catch??
    I don't expect my insurance will cover everything . In fact ;I wish there was stuff I did not have to shell out for. Take a lot of the garbage I'm covered for that I don't need and let me convert it on my own to a catastrophic care plan and I'd be better off. I no more need to cover massage therapy or going to the gym than I need to get auto insurance to cover my oil change. You buy home insurance to cover a fire ;not to put a new coat of paint on the shingles .

    Are you saying that somehow there is a magic solution to cover all risks ? Absurd ! Life is full of risks and most of them you don't buy insurance to cover.

    I'm saying a lot of the current costs of insurance is to cover things I'll never have to deal with . These are not things the insurance companies decided to cover me on .These are things that Federal and State governments mandate should be covered. Across the board ;the costs I pay to subsidize health care ; be it Medicare ,Medicaid ,VAs ,and even the system that has my primary insurer being decided by my employer are government creations with mandates that drive up the costs I pay out in premiums and taxes. None of them work well and I have no reason to think that another government created entity would work any better .

    I pay the extra for supplementals because the gvt mandated plans are insufficient and I am REDUCING the risk by taking on the additional expense. Am I making sure I cover everything ? Nope and there is no way ANY plan will do that . But my chances of getting the care I need are much better than it would be if I had NO choices .
    Yes ,I pay for them .But it would cost me less if I did not have to insure myself and family against things I know we won't need.
    asking's Avatar
    asking Posts: 2,673, Reputation: 660
    Ultra Member
     
    #109

    Jul 29, 2009, 08:03 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Then you catch something you didn't expect to catch, and it's not covered. Your insurer tells you that you're outta luck. Do you THEN think you can shop elsewhere for a policy that will cover your NEWFOUND concerns????

    You may think so, but I'm here to tell you, you're gonna DIE of your newfound disease before you find an insurer.
    Prezactly.
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #110

    Jul 29, 2009, 08:08 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, El:

    Since the government can't run squat, then you shouldn't be afraid of the government competing with the insurance companies head to head. But, you are, and we know why.

    We ALSO know exactly who is off whose rocker.

    excon
    I'm not worried about them competing. I'm worried about them using the power of the government to ELIMINATE competition. They aren't willing to compete head to head with private insurance companies, because they know that they can't. That's why they are going to use the power of the purse... the power to take losses that would ruin any commercial enterprise, and the power to tax commercial entities while not paying taxes themselves... to simply drive all other insurance companies out of business. In that way, they never have to compete with the private sector. Either that, or they'll do what Canada and the UK did and make private insurance companies illegal.

    Either way, they'll never compete with private insurance companies. They can't and they know it. So they'll just eliminate the competition.

    Elliot
    asking's Avatar
    asking Posts: 2,673, Reputation: 660
    Ultra Member
     
    #111

    Jul 29, 2009, 08:20 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    ...and they may not cover certain expensive medications without a fight if other effective meds are available.
    But they get to define both "expensive," and "effective." It's their call, not the patient's. If you're lucky, your doctor will go to bat for you, but there's no guarantee of that and no guarantee the insurer will agree with the doctor. They can and do just say no to anything just short of provoking a law suit.

    I've had the insurer refuse to cover drugs because the doctor did not prescribe a generic, except there is no generic for that drug. I've had them refuse to cover something because of a paperwork snafu and I was told they would reimburse me. Because the drug needed to be taken at regular intervals, I had to buy it myself. Then I filled out the paperwork for a reimbursal and they turned me down with no explanation even though they normally covered it.
    asking's Avatar
    asking Posts: 2,673, Reputation: 660
    Ultra Member
     
    #112

    Jul 29, 2009, 08:30 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    I'm not worried about them competing. I'm worried about them using the power of the government to ELIMINATE competition. They aren't willing to compete head to head with private insurance companies, because they know that they can't. That's why they are going to use the power of the purse... the power to take losses that would ruin any commercial enterprise, and the power to tax commercial entities while not paying taxes themselves... to simply drive all other insurance companies out of business. In that way, they never have to compete with the private sector. Either that, or they'll do what Canada and the UK did and make private insurance companies illegal.

    Either way, they'll never compete with private insurance companies. They can't and they know it. So they'll just eliminate the competition.

    Elliot
    Government has been subsidizing private health insurers for years. I'm all for eliminating the subsidy AND the insurers. You make that sound like a bad thing. As a group, health insurers are not contributing to the common good.

    And there's nothing sacrosanct about competition. I don't see any competition with my local fire district and they do a great job.
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #113

    Jul 29, 2009, 08:31 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Either way, they'll never compete with private insurance companies. They can't and they know it. So they'll just eliminate the competition.
    Exactly, and excon knows this. Has the government ever successfully competed with private enterprise anywhere? UPS and FedEx are putting the postal service out of business, what makes anyone think bureaucrats can run 15 percent of our economy better than the private sector?
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #114

    Jul 29, 2009, 08:36 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by asking View Post
    But they get to define both "expensive," and "effective." It's their call, not the patient's. If you're lucky, your doctor will go to bat for you, but there's no guarantee of that and no guarantee the insurer will agree with the doctor. They can and do just say no to anything just short of provoking a law suit.

    I've had the insurer refuse to cover drugs because the doctor did not prescribe a generic, except there is no generic for that drug. I've had them refuse to cover something because of a paperwork snafu and I was told they would reimburse me. Because the drug needed to be taken at regular intervals, I had to buy it myself. Then I filled out the paperwork for a reimbursal and they turned me down with no explanation even though they normally covered it.
    Like tom and I'm sure most everyone else I've acknowledged it ain't perfect, but it's much better than as tom put it, allowing "an over-bloated central planning government to make the call on whether you are worthy of treatment or not based on an abstract formula concocted by egg heads like Singer who are the modern equivalent of eugenicist."

    The wheel does not need to be reinvented to fix this.
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #115

    Jul 29, 2009, 08:41 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by asking View Post
    I've been looking for a group plan that's cheaper, but nothing yet. And I'm looking into catastrophic coverage.

    As for what rates were 5 years ago, I can tell you that five years ago, my monthly premium was $270 (and I had regular work, too). Today, my premium is $1400/month and my co-pays are also 4 times as much. And that's just one person, not a family. So your $500-$800 could easily translate into $2000 to $3200 if there's any comparison at all.
    You are indeed in a tough situation. I get that.

    I also get the fact that you do have coverage right now. Not the coverage you WANT, maybe not even the coverage you need, but you are still covered. And there are still options for getting the care you need, even if your insurance DOESN'T cover it. Under a government plan, if you aren't covered for that service, you don't get that service. Period. There is no other option.

    The premium took half my income last year, and that was before it went up last week. And I'm trying to support two kids. The much vaunted private health care system just isn't working for me.
    I understand. Being separated, I'm trying to support a wife and two kids, as well as payments on two homes, food, utilities, etc. on a moderate-high 5-figure salary, paying $1500/month for COBRA. I get how expensive it is. I know what it's like to be strapped for cash even if you are earning a decent living that is well above the national average.

    So... which is better for you? Losing half your income to private health insurance, where you have more options, or losing it to the government in the form of taxes. Tax rates in European countries and Canada that have nationalized health care (all federal and local taxes included) start in the 60% range (France is close to 70%, the UK is 59%). If their example is correct, you will actually be paying more in taxes than you do in medical insurance premiums.

    Yes, insurance can be expensive. Medical CARE is expensive. But...

    Keep in mind that medical outcomes in the USA are better in almost every area than in any other country in the world. Our cancer survival rates are SIGNIFICANTLY higher. Our heart condition survival rates are significantly higher. Our organ transplant results are better. In just about every medical procedure, our outcomes are better.

    People like to point to the fact that our life expectancy rates are lower than in other countries, and use that as a sign of poor medical care. However, the fact is that life expectancies are not just a function of medical care. They are also a function of crime rates, accidents, genetics, lifestyles, etc. What a recent study found (I will try to find the source for you) is that when adjusted for homocide rates and for automobile accidents, our life expectancies are actually the highest in the world. And a good portion of that can be attributed to better medical care.

    The point is that, yes, medical are in the USA is expensive. Medical insurance in the USA, when not covered by an employer is expensive. But it is also the best in the world. And even those who are uninsured, and never pay a single medical bill because they are poor... even those who are bankrupted by their medical bills (which, believe it or not is a rather rare event)... even those who have to struggle to make the monthly payments... every single one of those people are benefitting from this better medical care. The homeless guy in an ER is getting the same standard of care as the insured guy walking into the same ER, and that standard of care is the highest in the world. And that is ONLY true because of the economic factors that drive that system... profitability and competition. Profitability drives the best and brightest to become medical service providers, and profitability and competition drive companies to develop new breakthroughs. Eliminate these two factors and the things that drive our system to be the best in the world are GONE. The best and brightest will no longer become providers (why spend 9 years becoming a doctor when there's no financial incentive... easier and more profitable to become an accountant), and companies will stop developing new breakthroughs (why spend $200 million - $1 billion developing a new drug if I'm not going to be able to recoup my expenses... easier to just distribute aspirin).

    Nationalizing health care is the worst thing that can happen for EVERYONE in this country, because EVERYONE benefits from our medical system being the best in the world... whether they can afford coverage or not.

    Elliot
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #116

    Jul 29, 2009, 08:55 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Nationalizing health care is the worst thing that can happen for EVERYONE in this country, because EVERYONE benefits from our medical system being the best in the world... whether they can afford coverage or not.
    Hello again, El:

    I don't know who this World Health Organization is, but THEY don't think we have the best.. In fact, they rank us two levels ahead of Cuba. That's good, ain't it? We beat Cuba.

    The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems.
    Source: WHO World Health Report

    Rank Country

    1 France
    2 Italy
    3 San Marino
    4 Andorra
    5 Malta
    6 Singapore
    7 Spain
    8 Oman
    9 Austria
    10 Japan
    11 Norway
    12 Portugal
    13 Monaco
    14 Greece
    15 Iceland
    16 Luxembourg
    17 Netherlands
    18 United Kingdom
    19 Ireland
    20 Switzerland
    21 Belgium
    22 Colombia
    23 Sweden
    24 Cyprus
    25 Germany
    26 Saudi Arabia
    27 United Arab Emirates
    28 Israel
    29 Morocco
    30 Canada
    31 Finland
    32 Australia
    33 Chile
    34 Denmark
    35 Dominica
    36 Costa Rica
    37 United States of America
    38 Slovenia
    39 Cuba
    40 Brunei
    41 New Zealand
    42 Bahrain
    43 Croatia
    44 Qatar
    45 Kuwait
    46 Barbados
    47 Thailand
    48 Czech Republic
    49 Malaysia
    50 Poland
    51 Dominican Republic
    52 Tunisia
    53 Jamaica
    54 Venezuela
    55 Albania
    56 Seychelles
    57 Paraguay
    58 South Korea
    59 Senegal
    60 Philippines
    61 Mexico
    62 Slovakia
    63 Egypt
    64 Kazakhstan
    65 Uruguay
    66 Hungary
    67 Trinidad and Tobago
    68 Saint Lucia
    69 Belize
    70 Turkey
    71 Nicaragua
    72 Belarus
    73 Lithuania
    74 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
    75 Argentina
    76 Sri Lanka
    77 Estonia
    78 Guatemala
    79 Ukraine
    80 Solomon Islands
    81 Algeria
    82 Palau
    83 Jordan
    84 Mauritius
    85 Grenada
    86 Antigua and Barbuda
    87 Libya
    88 Bangladesh
    89 Macedonia
    90 Bosnia-Herzegovina
    91 Lebanon
    92 Indonesia
    93 Iran
    94 Bahamas
    95 Panama
    96 Fiji
    97 Benin
    98 Nauru
    99 Romania
    100 Saint Kitts and Nevis
    101 Moldova
    102 Bulgaria
    103 Iraq
    104 Armenia
    105 Latvia
    106 Yugoslavia
    107 Cook Islands
    108 Syria
    109 Azerbaijan
    110 Suriname
    111 Ecuador
    112 India
    113 Cape Verde
    114 Georgia
    115 El Salvador
    116 Tonga
    117 Uzbekistan
    118 Comoros
    119 Samoa
    120 Yemen
    121 Niue
    122 Pakistan
    123 Micronesia
    124 Bhutan
    125 Brazil
    126 Bolivia
    127 Vanuatu
    128 Guyana
    129 Peru
    130 Russia
    131 Honduras
    132 Burkina Faso
    133 Sao Tome and Principe
    134 Sudan
    135 Ghana
    136 Tuvalu
    137 Ivory Coast
    138 Haiti
    139 Gabon
    140 Kenya
    141 Marshall Islands
    142 Kiribati
    143 Burundi
    144 China
    145 Mongolia
    146 Gambia
    147 Maldives
    148 Papua New Guinea
    149 Uganda
    150 Nepal
    151 Kyrgystan
    152 Togo
    153 Turkmenistan
    154 Tajikistan
    155 Zimbabwe
    156 Tanzania
    157 Djibouti
    158 Eritrea
    159 Madagascar
    160 Vietnam
    161 Guinea
    162 Mauritania
    163 Mali
    164 Cameroon
    165 Laos
    166 Congo
    167 North Korea
    168 Namibia
    169 Botswana
    170 Niger
    171 Equatorial Guinea
    172 Rwanda
    173 Afghanistan
    174 Cambodia
    175 South Africa
    176 Guinea-Bissau
    177 Swaziland
    178 Chad
    179 Somalia
    180 Ethiopia
    181 Angola
    182 Zambia
    183 Lesotho
    184 Mozambique
    185 Malawi
    186 Liberia
    187 Nigeria
    188 Democratic Republic of the Congo
    189 Central African Republic
    190 Myanmar

    excon
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #117

    Jul 29, 2009, 09:11 AM
    As I said, excon, they are basing that fact on life expectancies. But as I also pointed out, life expentancies are not simply a function of health care. They are a function of lifestyle, genetics, accident rates, homocide rates, suicide rates, etc. in other words, life expectancy is not a good measure of the effectiveness of health care.

    The proper measure of health care effectiveness is the outcomes of patients. And we BY FAR have the best medical outcomes of any country in the world in all areas.

    Furthermore, as I mentioned, after adjusting for homocide rates, we rank highest in the world for life expectancy as well.

    Here's an article that discusses this topic, among others:

    American Thinker: The Cost of Free Government Health Care

    Elliot
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #118

    Jul 29, 2009, 09:13 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    dunno who this World Health Organization is, but THEY don't think we have the best.. In fact, they rank us two levels ahead of Cuba. That's good, ain't it? We beat Cuba.
    And what were the criteria?
    N0help4u's Avatar
    N0help4u Posts: 19,823, Reputation: 2035
    Uber Member
     
    #119

    Jul 29, 2009, 09:14 AM

    Really good article ET
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #120

    Jul 29, 2009, 09:18 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    As I said, excon, they are basing that fact on life expectancies.
    Hello again, El:

    Nope. Wrong again. Doesn't it get tiresome?

    ---------------

    WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS

    The World Health Organization has carried out the first ever analysis of the world’s health systems. Using five performance indicators to measure health systems in 191 member states, it finds that France provides the best overall health care followed among major countries by Italy, Spain, Oman, Austria and Japan.

    The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on health services, ranks 18th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.

    excon

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Socalized Medicine or the Liberal Health Plan [ 351 Answers ]

Was listening to the news this morning and one story was about the death of the actress, Mz Richardson a couple weeks ago. Turns out that if she had been given a simple test she would likely still be alive. But that this test was not authorized under the Canadian health system because of cost. ...

Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan [ 35 Answers ]

This is one way to force socialized medicine on us, hide it in the "stimulus" package. As I noted before when tom touched on this, a lot of Americans (myself included) complain of insurance companies determining what treatments they’ll pay for. How do YOU feel about the feds making those...

McCain Health Plan [ 2 Answers ]

I know this topic is not as exciting as what is going on the Democratic side, but what do you think? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/politics/01mccain.html?ref=health I find it amazing that the NYT would have the misleading "higher tax" in their headline, when the article actually...

Loose the gut. Health plan needed. [ 2 Answers ]

Does anybody know how you could loose your gut? And get pecs and abs? Like a health plan. How many calories a day you should have. Work out plan. If you could provide that information that would be great!

Senior health plan [ 3 Answers ]

I am a senior. My wife is 60. I have a 16 yr old daughter living at home.Don't have a health plan. Is there help financially for me for health care


View more questions Search