kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus
dlschier wrote:I do believe forfeiting your credit and being driven into bankruptcy because you have a serious medical issue would affect most.



Of course it would. But a lot of people without insurance have no assets to lose and no/bad credit already. The number of unpaid bills, not partially paid but totally ignored, in hospitals is unbelievable.

My point is that the medical field isn't making it into the black from people without health insurance. They're making up the loss, often times caused by those without health insurance, by billing those of is with insurance. Examples: $45 ace bandages, $900 blood tests (my best friend -- mind-boggling), $400 crutches, etc. We, meaning those of us affluent enough to frequent a website like this one, pay our bills because we have lots to lose, tangible and otherwise. We, as highbrow as it may sound, are subsidizing those who use but don't pay.

I'm not sure what the solution is to this problem, but the uninsured aren't helping anyone at all.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
dlschier wrote:I do believe forfeiting your credit and being driven into bankruptcy because you have a serious medical issue would affect most.



you're under the mistaken assumption that most of the types of people Kyle describes care about A) their credit B) are aware there is even such thing as a credit report C) give a giblet about bankruptcy

And really, medical collections are largely ignored by people granting credit so long as your other bills are paid as agreed. I know we look the other way as long as everything else is fine.

Edit: or you could just read what he wrote...

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:Of course it would. But a lot of people without insurance have no assets to lose and no/bad credit already. The number of unpaid bills, not partially paid but totally ignored, in hospitals is unbelievable.

My point is that the medical field isn't making it into the black from people without health insurance. They're making up the loss, often times caused by those without health insurance, by billing those of is with insurance. Examples: $45 ace bandages, $900 blood tests (my best friend -- mind-boggling), $400 crutches, etc. We, meaning those of us affluent enough to frequent a website like this one, pay our bills because we have lots to lose, tangible and otherwise. We, as highbrow as it may sound, are subsidizing those who use but don't pay.

I'm not sure what the solution is to this problem, but the uninsured aren't helping anyone at all.



Which insurance companies are actually agreeing to pay for a $45 bandage? I suspect not mine, since they seem to be pretty cheap on other things.

dlschier


quality posts: 0 Private Messages dlschier
bhodilee wrote:you're under the mistaken assumption that most of the types of people Kyle describes care about A) their credit B) are aware there is even such thing as a credit report C) give a giblet about bankruptcy

And really, medical collections are largely ignored by people granting credit so long as your other bills are paid as agreed. I know we look the other way as long as everything else is fine.

Edit: or you could just read what he wrote...



Wow, you guys make a lot of assumptions about who the uninsured are and how they behave.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
dlschier wrote:Wow, you guys make a lot of assumptions about who the uninsured are and how they behave.



In my limited experience with uninsured family members, they pay their bills over time as agreed to by the hospital. I'm sure it depends on how much you have to lose and how much the bill is.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
dlschier wrote:Wow, you guys make a lot of assumptions about who the uninsured are and how they behave.



I look at lots, and lots, and lots of credit reports. Now I can't assume that everyone with multiple medical collections is uninsured, but I can look at their job, their income, all their medical collections, the rest of their credit report and come to a pretty safe conclusion that the majority of those I see with medical collections don't care about their credit in general, therefore don't care about not paying that ER bill.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

dlschier


quality posts: 0 Private Messages dlschier
bhodilee wrote:I look at lots, and lots, and lots of credit reports. Now I can't assume that everyone with multiple medical collections is uninsured, but I can look at their job, their income, all their medical collections, the rest of their credit report and come to a pretty safe conclusion that the majority of those I see with medical collections don't care about their credit in general, therefore don't care about not paying that ER bill.



Think you have a chicken and egg thing going on here. Is being uninsured a symptom of being financially irresponsible or has being uninsured led to personal economic disaster for some. Also, being insured is not always a choice.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
dlschier wrote:Think you have a chicken and egg thing going on here. Is being uninsured a symptom of being financially irresponsible or has being uninsured led to personal economic disaster for some. Also, being insured is not always a choice.



Neither chickens or eggs, just what I see, and I see one of two things:

1.) People with medical collections but all other bills are paid as agreed.

2.) People with medical collections where nothing else is paid as agreed either.

I see a lot more of #2 and since I know when accounts are opened and when they're placed for collection I can see if the poor pay history occurs prior to or after the medical collections (hint: it's usually prior). Which brings us back to Kyle's point that a large percentage of the uninsured (whether they're uninsured by choice or not) aren't overly concerned with paying their medical bills because they don't pay bills anyway.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

You're not going to see collections for the uninsured who pay their bills. They still exist.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus

I'm not saying all uninsured people. However, I have taught, and worked with for that matter, people who don't care about credit, bankruptcy, bills, etc. My assumptions are based on first-hand knowledge. Again, these people dont represent every uninsured person, but from my experience, both in the medical field and the people I taught, there are a lot of people who live very different lives than those of us here who have assets and credit and know what bankruptcy means.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

dlschier


quality posts: 0 Private Messages dlschier
bhodilee wrote:Neither chickens or eggs, just what I see, and I see one of two things:



You do have an interesting position from which to observe. It remains an ironic and inequitable system that has one paying $20 for the same blood test that costs another $200.

dlschier


quality posts: 0 Private Messages dlschier
kylemittskus wrote:I'm not saying all uninsured people.



No great surprise that the financially reckless are unlikely to be insured unless it comes along with their employment. It's a real kick in the nads when you can't get insurance and you have to pay 10X the price the more fortunate are charged.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
dlschier wrote:No great surprise that the financially reckless are unlikely to be insured unless it comes along with their employment. It's a real kick in the nads when you can't get insurance and you have to pay 10X the price the more fortunate are charged.



Yeah, but I wonder if they really do charge the uninsured those crazy prices. They probably have a different price for the uninsured. We have docs around here, maybe they would know.

rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin

I have heard, no recent firsthand experience, the it is possible for one lacking insurance to negotiate costs for services well below the normal rate billed to insurance. Any truth for that?
Actually, I did have a discussion recently with my dentist and was told that if I lost my insurance, I could pay directly at rates lower than what I see on statements paid by insurance I get copies of...

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus
chemvictim wrote:Yeah, but I wonder if they really do charge the uninsured those crazy prices. They probably have a different price for the uninsured. We have docs around here, maybe they would know.



I'm not sure the pricing structure is different, but you can certainly set up payment plans and they're willing to work with you.

And we should be really clear -- a lab test doesn't cost me $20. It costs me $20 plus what I pay monthly for my insurance.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

dlschier


quality posts: 0 Private Messages dlschier
kylemittskus wrote:
And we should be really clear -- a lab test doesn't cost me $20. It costs me $20 plus what I pay monthly for my insurance.



The service provider gets $20. I guess you look at insurance like a discount club. Never really thought about it that way.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus
dlschier wrote:The service provider gets $20. I guess you look at insurance like a discount club. Never really thought about it that way.



Oh. I think I'm confused. A lab gets more than $20 for a blood test.

And I don't look at insurance as a discount club. I pay a monthly fee and that covers the majority of my medical bills. I pay up to $X per year out of pocket on top of my monthly insurance payment.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:Oh. I think I'm confused. A lab gets more than $20 for a blood test.

And I don't look at insurance as a discount club. I pay a monthly fee and that covers the majority of my medical bills. I pay up to $X per year out of pocket on top of my monthly insurance payment.



I don't have my bills in front of me, so I'm estimating. Lab handed me the bill for around $200. Insurance actually paid around $20. So lab got 20, unless there's something else going on in the background.

edit: I actually do look at my insurance like a discount club, although it's more than that. Even if I'm paying out of pocket, I'm paying their negotiated rates.

dlschier


quality posts: 0 Private Messages dlschier
kylemittskus wrote:Oh. I think I'm confused. A lab gets more than $20 for a blood test.



Just checked my last blood lab EOB. Lab billed $340, discounted rate for privileged insured (me) $32. If uninsured I would skip that and hope for the best.

dlschier


quality posts: 0 Private Messages dlschier
chemvictim wrote:
edit: I actually do look at my insurance like a discount club, although it's more than that. Even if I'm paying out of pocket, I'm paying their negotiated rates.



Bet you are glad they let you in the club.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus
dlschier wrote:Just checked my last blood lab EOB. Lab billed $340, discounted rate for privileged insured (me) $32. If uninsured I would skip that and hope for the best.



And you didn't pay any of it? I pay a portion of the bill, also, generally.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon

Sorry for the long post, just catching up.

klezman wrote:Shoddily implemented, to be sure. The law, imo, is significantly better than the pre-ACA status quo. But what do I know...I'm just a Canadian who thinks everybody ought to have access to affordable healthcare and that paying for it via emergency room visits isn't the answer.


I Agree and Agree and Agree.

chemvictim wrote: This does not look affordable to me. I went on my state's website … The cheapest plan is $740 per month … I can see how people are less than thrilled with this, really.


mother wrote:WOW you need to move! In CT gold plans are ~$500/mo


It seems like there is still a great deal of discrepancy in pricing as well as a lack of full understanding of what is being purchased. At least with the rules on minimum levels of insurance people cannot get blind sided by plans that say "only pays for emergency room visits in the case of an accident" in which case appendicitis would NOT be included.

rpm wrote:ObamaCare is turning out pretty much the way all of us non-Democrats figured: more expensive (whether as premiums, deductibles, co-pays or co-insurance)


Of course it is more expensive for the majority of people. The program is designed to bring the average cost of getting insurance down, not the median. Unfortunately by bringing the average cost down, it is probably bringing the average paid up because many people who had pre-existing conditions before simply would go without and many others would be underinsured.
I feel that (other than the website debacle) the biggest issue with Obamacare is that it was sold incorrectly as a win-win. Healthy 20 and 30 somethings were NEVER going to win. They are the help. Their money and health make this whole thing work. Unfortunately the expectations were set incorrectly and now people are pissed. Well DUH!

rpm wrote:ObamaCare is the single biggest government policy debacle since Prohibition…
It's also the only great social policy experiment passed on a purely partisan basis.


WAY too early to say. The whole thing hasn’t kicked in yet. Heck, even this part hasn’t kicked in yet. Roll-out Debacle, Absolutely. Long term Policy Debacle, Jury hasn’t even been selected yet.
As to the partisan passing, yes. But then again this is just about as partisan as the pendulum has swung. If things aren’t passed on a partisan basis, they aren’t passing at all. (Which pisses me off to no end)

kylemittskus wrote: F me (and the rest of us) for actually listening to and believing a pretty basic and declarative statement made by the President.


Yep, Horrid Lie of a statement. At least he could have added the proper qualifiers to it to give a warm fuzzy about the fact that ACA set a required minimum level of care. And if your plan was to be canceled it was because it didn’t meet those.

dlschier wrote:Insurance companies have great bargaining power to negotiate low rates. That is what the service provider gets paid. But don't worry, they make up the difference on the people that don't have insurance who have to pay full price.


That’s one of the points of ACA… have nobody BUT those with insurance. If you go to a restaurant, look at the menu, and get sticker shock, you can get up, apologize, and go somewhere else. If you are sick and go see a doctor, or worse, get into an accident and are taken to the ER, you don’t really have the ability to peruse the menu before taking services. This is ideally what the insurance companies are doing. Driving down the menu prices.
Think about it: Insurers are in business too, they attract customers by having: a) lower rates (meaning lower costs) b) a larger network, c) better service. They look at ALL the menus, bargain with some, down-select, and then package those up to sell to us. With the Operating margin capped at 15% (also an ACA provision if I’m quoting it correctly) the only ways they can net more is to attract more customers and to reduce their own managing costs…this would seem to work in the public’s favor. (-Edited to correct wording on operating margin)

To have an issue with ACA as I see it, you must hold at least one of the following opinions:
a) The ACA raises the cost of insurance as a whole (More cost to provide a given service…I don’t see it)
b) The Age/price slope is set wrong (possibly fair argument but purely opinion based)
c) The ACA sets the bar for minimum insurance too high (What would you drop?)
d) People with pre-existing conditions should have to pay more or should not be insured (Really? How is this fair?)
e) People shouldn’t have to have insurance in the first place (is it ok if they then go to the ER and not pay? Why?)
f) 85% of premiums collected must go to pay claims is too much or too little
G). …More to be added as people bring up valid/pseudovalid arguments or I remember more

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:And you didn't pay any of it? I pay a portion of the bill, also, generally.



I have weird insurance. It's a consumer-driven plan, and I have an allowance of sorts to spend without copay or anything. After I use that up, I go out of pocket for a few thousand, and after that I start paying a portion, like 20% or something. I haven't had major issues so I've never gone beyond my allowance. So for now, I don't pay anything.

edit: I mean, for right now I don't pay any copays. I do pay for the insurance, of course.

klezman


quality posts: 123 Private Messages klezman
cmaldoon wrote:To have an issue with ACA as I see it, you must hold at least one of the following opinions:
a) The ACA raises the cost of insurance as a whole (More cost to provide a given service…I don’t see it)
b) The Age/price slope is set wrong (possibly fair argument but purely opinion based)
c) The ACA sets the bar for minimum insurance too high (What would you drop?)
d) People with pre-existing conditions should have to pay more or should not be insured (Really? How is this fair?)
e) People shouldn’t have to have insurance in the first place (is it ok if they then go to the ER and not pay? Why?)
f) …More to be added as people bring up valid/pseudovalid arguments or I remember more



Bravo, good sir!
Other issues that have been brought up include federal overreach and related.

2014: 32 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Jana Cathedral 3 L
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

klezman


quality posts: 123 Private Messages klezman
kylemittskus wrote:We, as highbrow as it may sound, are subsidizing those who use but don't pay.

I'm not sure what the solution is to this problem, but the uninsured aren't helping anyone at all.



Isn't the obvious solution to spread the risk pool as much as possible? That would mean that everybody has insurance, whether provided by the government or private entities...

2014: 32 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Jana Cathedral 3 L
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
cmaldoon wrote:To have an issue with ACA as I see it, you must hold at least one of the following opinions:
a) The ACA raises the cost of insurance as a whole (More cost to provide a given service…I don’t see it)
b) The Age/price slope is set wrong (possibly fair argument but purely opinion based)
c) The ACA sets the bar for minimum insurance too high (What would you drop?)
d) People with pre-existing conditions should have to pay more or should not be insured (Really? How is this fair?)
e) People shouldn’t have to have insurance in the first place (is it ok if they then go to the ER and not pay? Why?)
f) …More to be added as people bring up valid/pseudovalid arguments or I remember more



Oh, I don't know. I'm seeing no changes so far and I doubt I'll see huge changes, so it's easy for me to say how awesome it is that we're spreading the risk pool around. It's a great idea in theory. However, if I'm shopping on the exchange in NV and paying more than $700 per month for the privilege of paying a $10,000 deductible, I might feel differently. I do not agree that it's no big deal that certain people are getting screwed, as long as it benefits us as a whole. Not cool.

What would I do, though? No idea. It's just too expensive. That's all.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus
klezman wrote:Isn't the obvious solution to spread the risk pool as much as possible? That would mean that everybody has insurance, whether provided by the government or private entities...



I totally get that argument. I don't have enough trust in the govt to think they can handle something of this magnitude. And I hate the idea of forcing someone to purchase something. I'm left with the unrealistic belief that those who don't help the baking shouldn't be able to share the pie. I think I just need to come to terms with the unrealistic part.

We'll see how it all goes, though. The law has survived the highest test of constitutionality. There will be more fights, but for now, it's real.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

cmaldoon


quality posts: 62 Private Messages cmaldoon
chemvictim wrote:I do not agree that it's no big deal that certain people are getting screwed, as long as it benefits us as a whole. Not cool.

What would I do, though? No idea. It's just too expensive. That's all.



Before we had a system where the sick and poor were screwed. Now the lower middle class has the largest relative burden. Unlike other states with fully socialized health care, we now have half socialized health care. 3/4 of the beauracracy, 1/4 of the progressiveness (as a philosophy not a judgement), 100% of the b!tching.

2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14

2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.
My Cellar

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
cmaldoon wrote:Before we had a system where the sick and poor were screwed. Now the lower middle class is having the largest burden. Unlike other states with fully socialized health care, we now have half socialized health care. 3/4 of the beauracracy, 1/4 of the progressiveness (as a philosophy not a judgement), 100% of the b!tching.



Are you okay with that? Is our middle class healthy enough to support the poor? I suspect not, but I have no education in economics. If the poors are getting the same plans I looked at, only subsidized, they're still screwed. They still have a massive deductible they have no chance of meeting.

I must admit though, I've had a giblet day at work and I hate everything.

klezman


quality posts: 123 Private Messages klezman
chemvictim wrote:I do not agree that it's no big deal that certain people are getting screwed, as long as it benefits us as a whole. Not cool.



Agreed. But with miniscule risk pools, then by definition there's always somebody getting screwed. What's the right metric...global fairness? Equality? Equitability? What do those even mean in this case? Actuarial fairness (i.e. your premium reflects your risk) vs fully equal premiums no matter who you are or anything else? There are good arguments in both directions, but there's another aspect of genetics and things you can't control. Is it fair to be charged more because your genes predispose you to a particularly expensive form of cancer vs a relatively easy to treat cancer?

2014: 32 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Jana Cathedral 3 L
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

klezman


quality posts: 123 Private Messages klezman
kylemittskus wrote:I'm left with the unrealistic belief that those who don't help the baking shouldn't be able to share the pie.



That's obviously the other logical conclusion. It requires letting people go without treatment because they can't afford to pay.

2014: 32 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Jana Cathedral 3 L
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

klezman


quality posts: 123 Private Messages klezman
cmaldoon wrote:Before we had a system where the sick and poor were screwed. Now the lower middle class has the largest relative burden. Unlike other states with fully socialized health care, we now have half socialized health care. 3/4 of the beauracracy, 1/4 of the progressiveness (as a philosophy not a judgement), 100% of the b!tching.



I'd argue we've got 3/2 the bureaucracy here. Every insurance company uses a significantly larger slice of their cash flow for administration and salaries than state-run systems. Medicare and the VA are the two most efficient delivery vehicles for health care in this country based on percentage of dollars actually going to care. Let alone the added administrative burden in doctors/hospitals/etc having to keep track of each insurance company's different procedures, forms, dates, etc.

2014: 32 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Jana Cathedral 3 L
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
kylemittskus wrote:I totally get that argument. I don't have enough trust in the govt to think they can handle something of this magnitude. And I hate the idea of forcing someone to purchase something. I'm left with the unrealistic belief that those who don't help the baking shouldn't be able to share the pie. I think I just need to come to terms with the unrealistic part.

We'll see how it all goes, though. The law has survived the highest test of constitutionality. There will be more fights, but for now, it's real.



Remember how much you hate being forced to pay for something the next time someone rear ends you and their insurance picks up the tab.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

tytiger58


quality posts: 74 Private Messages tytiger58
bhodilee wrote:Remember how much you hate being forced to pay for something the next time someone rear ends you and their insurance picks up the tab.



Heh I remember they tripled my rates that I will be paying for years. I would have been better off paying for it myself.

What contemptible scoundrel stole the cork from my lunch? ~ W. C. Fields

“Freedom is something that dies unless it's used” Hunter S Thompson




bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
tytiger58 wrote:Heh I remember they tripled my rates that I will be paying for years. I would have been better off paying for it myself.



I got hit once (parking lot, wasn't in the car) and the guy begged me to let him pay for it. I still took his insurance info, but I got the estimate, gave him the contact for the people that would do it and told him, pay immediately or I call your insurance company. He paid that day AND gave me money for a rental.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

dlschier


quality posts: 0 Private Messages dlschier
kylemittskus wrote: I'm left with the unrealistic belief that those who don't help the baking shouldn't be able to share the pie.



We are so accustomed to using free market forces to regulate distribution of resources that that’s where we tend to go with thoughts on healthcare distribution. This model can get quite perverse, eg what is it worth to treat your kid for cancer? Philosophically, I find it more palatable to work towards building a system where care is distributed based on need and we all share the cost/risk hoping that we are never the ones who will need it.

tytiger58


quality posts: 74 Private Messages tytiger58
bhodilee wrote:I got hit once (parking lot, wasn't in the car) and the guy begged me to let him pay for it. I still took his insurance info, but I got the estimate, gave him the contact for the people that would do it and told him, pay immediately or I call your insurance company. He paid that day AND gave me money for a rental.



I am old enough to remember when in any accident you went out and got 3 estimates for repair's and the guilty party would pick the cheapest and pay for it. A lot cheaper that way rather than paying $200 to $800 a month in insurance for the rest of my life. And yes I have to pay around that top number for 4 cars.

What contemptible scoundrel stole the cork from my lunch? ~ W. C. Fields

“Freedom is something that dies unless it's used” Hunter S Thompson




chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
dlschier wrote:We are so accustomed to using free market forces to regulate distribution of resources that that’s where we tend to go with thoughts on healthcare distribution. This model can get quite perverse, eg what is it worth to treat your kid for cancer? Philosophically, I find it more palatable to work towards building a system where care is distributed based on need and we all share the cost/risk hoping that we are never the ones who will need it.



You would pay anything to treat your kid's cancer. You probably would not give up everything you own to treat a stranger's cancer, and nobody could blame you. Can we afford, even as a group, to provide whatever-it-takes care to everyone? Is that what we are attempting to do here?

klezman


quality posts: 123 Private Messages klezman
chemvictim wrote:You would pay anything to treat your kid's cancer. You probably would not give up everything you own to treat a stranger's cancer, and nobody could blame you. Can we afford, even as a group, to provide whatever-it-takes care to everyone? Is that what we are attempting to do here?



Following this logical train you end up with something in between the Canadian and British systems...

2014: 32 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Jana Cathedral 3 L
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 231 Private Messages kylemittskus

Here's my argument: private insurance with a huge out-of-pocket for a family of four should be the cost of the cell phone bill for that family of four plus a bit. I understand it doesn't cost that now, but I think it could. Here's how: we start using insurance for things that you use insurance for normally. You scratch your car. You don't call insurance. You need to see your doctor, you don't call insurance. People are using health insurance like a free service because that's how the system is built right now. Hospitals are insanely crowded with people who have a sore throat or a fever. If my cancer was way worse (I'm so lucky and glad it wasn't, obviously), and I had to pay $10k for the treatment, I'd be perfectly ok with that. I would set up payments and I'd be glad that the best care in the state cost me $10k. Insurance should be for drastic scenarios, not a scratch on your car.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen