Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Berolzheimer]

Skullsessions wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 05:05

It sounds to me like we still need campaign finance reform.  I'd love to see them give the money back....and they should.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Skullsessions wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 05:05

But them giving back the money won't change their stance on this issue, will it?

As Barry said, I think it's really a way of calling them out & pointing out to the public what's really going on here.

Skullsessions wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 05:05

Just out of curiosity, why do you suppose the government would mandate an employer purchase health insurance for an employee?

I don't think they should.  I think they would because the insurance companies have lobbied them to, for obvious reasons.  I personally think we need to just shut down the for profit healthcare sector altogether, it keeps incentives completely at odds to what's good for the public at large.  This is not a new position for me, It's what I've been advocating for over 30 years, as I became vegetarian, largely disengaged myself from allopathic medicine & began to seriously look after my own health.

A public option is a step in the right direction but keeping in place an employer-based, corporate insurance system will keep in place the extremely convoluted & costly payment system and all the extra administrative costs that go with it.  Only single payer will obviate that & get rid of all that waste.

[Berolzheimer]

Skullsessions wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 11:12

It's finite.  The money and benefits only go so far.

Right.  And currently the insurance companies are taking 30% of the top.  So by switching to single payer we'd instantly have 30% more resources available to pay for actual care, or get the same care we're now getting for 30% less money.

Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 11:33

he situation is analogous to the truism "we'll never get a better prison system until we get a better grade of prisoner." Perhaps this discussion should be aimed more at the people who create their own health problems and then expect some else to fix them up. Excellent point. I wish this were being discussed more.

I agree that folks should take more responsibility for their own well being, and learning about what's good for them & what isn't.
But the so called "conservatives"  love to frame these arguments in terms of responsibility, that people somehow always get what they deserve or have earned.  But that's BS.   Things happen to people that are not their fault.  My wife & I have both led very healthy lifestyles for most of our lives- & yet one of our kids was born with a chromosomal defect & will ned full time care for his entire life.  People have accidents, cars crash, earthquakes happen,  in order to have a civil & healthy & productive society we need to be taking care of everyone on some basic equal level without judgement.  And yes, along with that goes education on being healthy, eating well, etc.

[JDNelson]

It's all Nixon's fault.

jk

If you want to reduce the cost for health insurance, you've got to look at all the mandated items that insurers are forced to include.  A stripped down policy that only covers major catastrophic illnesses or accidents, or even coverage over a certain threshold, would be more cost effective for 90% of folks. E.g., a visit to my dentist for a cleaning is $120 which I can afford with or without insurance.

Using the auto insurance analogy... we don't have insurance to pay for our tune ups, oil changes, and basically periodic expected maintenance.  That's paid out of pocket.  The insurance is only supposed to cover accidental liabilities that would otherwise wipe us out financially.

The debate will inevitably flounder on the point of whether or not one chooses to believe that the government is capable of doing a better job of something than private enterprise.  Most folks' minds are set one way or the other, and not likely to change from debate.

[Berolzheimer]

JDNelson wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 12:26

It's all Nixon's fault. jk If you want to reduce the cost for health insurance, you've got to look at all the mandated items that insurers are forced to include.  A stripped down policy that only covers major catastrophic illnesses or accidents, or even coverage over a certain threshold, would be more cost effective for 90% of folks. E.g., a visit to my dentist for a cleaning is $120 which I can afford with or without insurance. Using the auto insurance analogy... we don't have insurance to pay for our tune ups, oil changes, and basically periodic expected maintenance.  That's paid out of pocket.  The insurance is only supposed to cover accidental liabilities that would otherwise wipe us out financially. The debate will inevitably flounder on the point of whether or not one chooses to believe that the government is capable of doing a better job of something than private enterprise.  Most folks' minds are set one way or the other, and not likely to change from debate.

Our bodies (and minds) aren't cars.  When maintenance - basic healthcare- isn't covered,  people who are stretched financially forgo it- and then it turns into expensive catastrophic illness.  A child's simple ear infection, left untreated, if the child happens to have a weakened or stressed immune system, can turn into meningitis which can cripple that child for life.  That's MUCH more expensive in so many ways.

The whole argument about whether the gov't can or can't do things better is BS.  It's just Reagan's propaganda meme's having worked their way into the discussion.  The government is us.  Insurance companies have as their prime directive making, and saving, as much money as possible.  A government agency has as it's prime directive whatever it's created for, in this case it would be providing healthcare.
The post office, Medicare,  the VA up until Bush gutted it, all work or worked extremely well & efficiently.  There's no CEO's getting paid 30 million dollars, no shareholders that want to see their dividends, so they can just do whet they're there to do.

[el duderino]

Kris wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 12:14

el duderino wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 10:56an affordable public option would be great and would help me. I know plenty of people who's employer does not offer health insurance and they have the same problem i do. Paying nearly $5k a year and rarely using it (thankfully) is ridiculous. whats more ridiculous is that if i needed a major operation it would NOT be covered. no one here is looking for something for nothing, other than the insurance companies. i mean how is paying 5k a year, not using insurance, and getting nothing back fair? how can it be a law that all motor vehicles musty have insurance but not humans? It's the people that pay into insurance and don't use it that make it somewhat available/affordable for the people that get out of it much more than they pay into it.  That's the trick... Have you ever been in a hospital overnight and seen the bill?!?!?!?  Someone's paying for it...

actually i have, and yes someone paid for it. that person is me. i rarely ever used my insurance, but i paid into it tons. when i needed it that whopping cost was more than covered by the enormous amounts of money ive paid them over the years.

Kris wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 12:14

That's where the costs need to come down IMO...  Fix the problem at the source... don't just shuffle the money around!  There's GOT to be a better way to fix this problem than gov't run health insurance.

as mentioned malpractice insurance is a big one. i've heard doctors talk about all sorts of reasons for high fees....the price electricity went up, some machine they use had to be replaced and cost a million dollars, etc.

The bottom line is that many doctors will gladly see you without insurance (not hospitals usually) and it would be a small amount more than most co-pays. that is all because of the bueracracy in getting paid by the health insurance companies.

Kris wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 12:14

One thing a gov't run health insurance plan will do is bring up costs for everyone else (taxpayers) to subsidize the losses... Exactly what a private health insurance company does, but on a much grander scale...

only if set up to do so, and it doesn't have to be. If those who want it fund it, it is in no way different from private insurance (aside from tax breaks). the customers pay for it. if the gov't can charge less they should. its no different than if a new health insurer sprung up with much better rates and included coverage.

but really, if the health insurance industry went non profit it would then level the field in all likelyhood. however, i think gov't healthcare has more of a chance than blue cross and the like going non-profit.

.......

Kris wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 12:14

People are required to have car insurance to because of the possiblity of damage and injuries inflicted upon OTHERS...  I'm pretty sure the gov't doesn't give a crap if you destroy your own car.

right, if someone hits my car their insurance covers it. but if someone hits me and breaks my nose i get the bill and the only way they pay for it is through court assuming that its possible and I'd win.

hey its cool man, we disagree a bit. but it seems you and everyone here knows the healthcare situation in this country is pretty fucked up and THAT is what its important.

anyone who can lower rates so everyone is covered, stop people from getting dropped or denied coverage, and maintain a quality level of healthcare will be a hero for it.

[Berolzheimer]

Here's something else that we 're not hearing much about:

Folks are worried about paying more taxes for a public insurance system, but that ignores that most of us are already paying what amounts to a levy for insurance-  if you're employer id buying you insurance, that's money they're not paying you in your salary.  If we had a single payer nationalized system companies would save a huge amount of money, at least some of which would go to higher salaries for their employees.

[PookyNMR]

Health care in the USA costs 2.5 times more per capita than any other industrialized nation.

You may pay a bit more in tax, but you'll pay over all less.

[compasspnt]

Alexis de Tocqueville warned of this.

The future is elsewhere.

[JDNelson]

compasspnt wrote on Fri, 31 July 2009 07:04

Alexis de Tocqueville warned of this. The future is elsewhere.

Alexis and his contemporaries didn't have health insurance.  How -did- they survive?

[the greek]

Berolzheimer wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 23:52

Here's something else that we 're not hearing much about: Folks are worried about paying more taxes for a public insurance system, but that ignores that most of us are already paying what amounts to a levy for insurance-  if you're employer id buying you insurance, that's money they're not paying you in your salary.  If we had a single payer nationalized system companies would save a huge amount of money, at least some of which would go to higher salaries for their employees.

I'd say the chances of the employer returning those 'savings' onto the consumer or even the employee is not a logical argument. It costs something like $2 to make a pair of $150 sneakers these days. Do the people in China or the consumer get a break from it? Hell no.

[seriousfun]

Skullsessions wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 05:05

... why do you suppose the government would mandate an employer purchase health insurance for an employee?

Every kind of insurance works in a simple fashion: the majority who don't get anything back pay for those that do. We seem to be forgetting this.

In today's system, employers are culturally expected to provide coverage for employees. This stems from WWII and the post-war period, when providing sickness insurance was actually cheaper to the employer than actual monetary compensation. Now, it's more expensive than money - things change, deal with it - but we're stuck with a system where employers provide group coverage, get a tax deduction for this, the coverage doesn't stay with the employee if he or she leaves, the coverage gets expensive for all if one employee gets sick, people die when insurance company bureucrats deny coverage or cancel policies, insurance companies exist to enrich their C-Level execs, board members, institutional investors, etc. leaving nothing for the sick who need the coverage, etc., etc., etc.

I agree, employers shouldn't bear the burdon. The majority of us are employed by small employers, and healthcare costs are rising astronomically. The insurance companies provide no added value to the employer or the insured, they just add to the cost. Employers these days are having to choose between keeping the doors open, keeping people employed, or keeping employees insured.

And, no, malpractice insurance does not significantly raise costs - this is simply hysteria, do your own research.

But, an insurance plan can only work if the maximum number of peopole are covered. There is a linear relationship - as more people pay in, care and better care can be given to all. The car insurance mandates are actually a good example - auto insurance rates are down, across the board more than 40% since the introduction in the '50s of mandatory auto insurance (and yes, most of us pay for a few knucklheads and uninsured there). If employers are mandated to provide coverage, more people means lower rates.

The only plan that can really work to lower rates and improve service is single payer. Since that doesn't appear to be on the horizon, and the market isn't going to make this happen, the public opetion with strict regulation, portability, no-cut clauses, high public participation, etc. might work.

Doing nothing doesn't, and can't, work.

[JDNelson]

Terry, can you maybe elaborate on Toqueville's warning as my knowledge of his observations is ambiguous on what you might be referring to?

[JDNelson]

Berolzheimer wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 11:27

Right.  And currently the insurance companies are taking 30% of the top.  So by switching to single payer we'd instantly have 30% more resources available to pay for actual care, or get the same care we're now getting for 30% less money.

Unless I'm missing something, it looks like profits as % of revenues are nowhere near that high:
 http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2007/indus tries/Health_Care_Insurance_Managed_Care/2.html

[Skullsessions]

el duderino wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 09:56

I recently left my job that had healthcare benefits and my option to continue them under cobra would have cost me $1800 a month. thats nearly what my mortgage is. completely impossible for me. I'm getting a different plan for $400 a month that covers basics, but god forbid something really bad happens because only up to $2500 per year is covered at a hospital.

I'm curious.  What was it costing you personally - per month - to have this healthcare insurance when you were employed?

Your COBRA payment should have been equal to the same premium payment made while you were employed.  Say you were paying $800 a month, and your employer was paying $1,000 a month.  Your COBRA would have been $1800 a month.  That's an awfully expensive premium.

Your employer is allowed to charge a maximum of 2% on top of that as an admin fee, since they deal with all the paperwork and are responsible for keeping you in the plan and turning in your COBRA payment for you.

One other thing you should have been told....if your employment was terminated in 2009, as a part of the economic recovery act the fed govt will pay 75% of your COBRA for you.  So, you could have kept your plan for $450 a month.

[el duderino]

Skullsessions wrote on Fri, 31 July 2009 18:55

el duderino wrote on Thu, 30 July 2009 09:56 I recently left my job that had healthcare benefits and my option to continue them under cobra would have cost me $1800 a month. thats nearly what my mortgage is. completely impossible for me. I'm getting a different plan for $400 a month that covers basics, but god forbid something really bad happens because only up to $2500 per year is covered at a hospital. I'm curious.  What was it costing you personally - per month - to have this healthcare insurance when you were employed? Your COBRA payment should have been equal to the same premium payment made while you were employed.  Say you were paying $800 a month, and your employer was paying $1,000 a month.  Your COBRA would have been $1800 a month.  That's an awfully expensive premium. Your employer is allowed to charge a maximum of 2% on top of that as an admin fee, since they deal with all the paperwork and are responsible for keeping you in the plan and turning in your COBRA payment for you. One other thing you should have been told....if your employment was terminated in 2009, as a part of the economic recovery act the fed govt will pay 75% of your COBRA for you.  So, you could have kept your plan for $450 a month.

My employment wasn't terminated, I left on my own, and am glad i did, don't get me wrong, but i had no idea insurance was that much at the time as they don't tell you how much the employer puts in for it.

I paid about $500 for me and my wife, the company paid about $1300. It was a very good plan, well for $500 a month it was anyway! now, not so much. im paying less now, but i have nowhere near the coverage i used to. plus that $500 included dental. I currently do not have dental.