insurance - uhhh.. stuff.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
I actually have fairly far-right (non-racist) stances on most things, but healthcare is one of the few things that cannot function as an open market in most cases. No one is going to shop around for prices when they have a heart attack or are in a car accident.
Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you think the free market had anything to do with healthcare in the US?
-
@travisdh1 said:
@tonyshowoff said:
I actually have fairly far-right (non-racist) stances on most things, but healthcare is one of the few things that cannot function as an open market in most cases. No one is going to shop around for prices when they have a heart attack or are in a car accident.
Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you think the free market had anything to do with healthcare in the US?
Well it certainly does for many cosmetic surgeries and the like, which is how people can use price shopping for botox treatments that you can price shop for your arm to be reattached.
-
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@tonyshowoff said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@tonyshowoff said:
Why do Americans think this complex crap nobody understands is superior to ... basically anything else? Oh that's right, it's communism, the dreaded force of Satan hiding under every college dorm bed and mixed in the paint in every art school. So they say anyway, better to pay 10,000 times more and get 100 times less, than be under Stalin's boot I guess.
Did I miss the part around here where anyone was defending this shit?
I mean... most people who don't know better defend it... that being most Americans.
You actually hear people defending it? I work in a medical office and I never hear people defending it - just being pissed that it's so expensive.
All the time. From factory workers who are getting screwed to doctors and business owners... who are also getting screwed. They complain it is expensive but when you present them with a different option they start going off on RWNJ talking points and "red scare"-esque paranoia.
The craziest thing is that most of the people complaining the most need universal healthcare the most instead. Not only that, it's strange to me businesses would ever be against universal healthcare, the raise in taxes is going to be far less than all you throw out to insurance companies, not only that you get unions off your back in that regard.
I've been told by a few business owners that healthcare was an incentive similar to time off or salary. If we went to Universal Healthcare they wouldn't be able to hire people anymore. When I suggested offering more money and more time off they balked saying those aren't the same.
Healthcare still IS an incentive to employees. Still not required by law unless your company is of a certain size or larger. Heck, in my healthcare office, we have what I consider awesome coverage with an nearly unbelievable low high deductible - $2000 single, $4000 family. The monthly employee contributions are very reasonable too (reasonable in comparison to others in the US, not the world) $60/month single.
Yes... unfortunately it is still considered an incentive. My argument is that it shouldn't be. It would be better for you to have healthy workers then to hire people who are stuck their because they fear not having insurance in a major catastrophe.
But getting back to Coliver's comments - I'm not sure how he wouldn't be able to hire people anymore? You mean you wouldn't have an insurance bill, and that would somehow mean you couldn't hire people? why? You mean you employees would now be paying 10% more in taxes than they do today? So you'd have to pay them at least 10% more than you do today? So your medical insurance is less than 10% more than you pay employees today? seems unlikely.
My assumption was that they wouldn't be able to hire people at the same quality for the same rate/salary they do now. They assumed that healthcare should be kept behind a pay wall to force people to work for them.
10% is on the high end from everything I've read. In reality it is more likely to save the majority of people money in taxes vs what they pay for insurance out-of-pocket and in premiums today.
When I suggested offering more money and more time off they balked saying those aren't the same.
I'm not sure what you mean here?
I wish I knew what they meant as well...
-
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
While I agree that compared to the experiences that Scott mentions that he has with healthcare in other countries the normal boring medical stuff - many other countries seem to be handling it possibly better. But what we don't know is they they handle the rough stuff - cancer, brain tumors, major organ transplants, etc.
What do you mean how they handle it? There is a reason people go to Spain, Germany, Mexico, and Japan to get major surgeries and cancer treatments. It costs less even out of pocket and generally, from the research I've done, the quality of care is much better.
Does it really cost less to an American who has insurance in the US? In @Minion-Queen non insurance having case, sure I can see the potential for cost savings.
But here's a question - what about followup care? Is she going to fly to EU every 3-6 months for cancer followup and yearly there after, etc? Again, in a completely non insured situation, that might be financially better - assuming you can afford the startup costs of that, and the flights going forward.
But most Americans can't afford to do that. Take 1-3 months off work, flights at nearly $2000 a person from the US to almost anywhere in Europe (not counting rare deals - though I suppose if you're trying to do this on the cheap, you'll go when you can get the cheapest airfare, not when you want to go), then the living space rental, and finally the surgery.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
@travisdh1 said:
@tonyshowoff said:
I actually have fairly far-right (non-racist) stances on most things, but healthcare is one of the few things that cannot function as an open market in most cases. No one is going to shop around for prices when they have a heart attack or are in a car accident.
Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you think the free market had anything to do with healthcare in the US?
Well it certainly does for many cosmetic surgeries and the like, which is how people can use price shopping for botox treatments that you can price shop for your arm to be reattached.
Ah yes, all the things not normally covered. I was able to get cataract surgery with the fancy lenses that correct astigmatism for $4000. If I would have went to a hospital and the traditional route for the insured it would've been $8k+. Without the fancy lenses I think it would have been $1500. So yeah, getting out of a hospital and actually negotiating can make a huge difference.
-
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
While I agree that compared to the experiences that Scott mentions that he has with healthcare in other countries the normal boring medical stuff - many other countries seem to be handling it possibly better. But what we don't know is they they handle the rough stuff - cancer, brain tumors, major organ transplants, etc.
What do you mean how they handle it? There is a reason people go to Spain, Germany, Mexico, and Japan to get major surgeries and cancer treatments. It costs less even out of pocket and generally, from the research I've done, the quality of care is much better.
Does it really cost less to an American who has insurance in the US? In @Minion-Queen non insurance having case, sure I can see the potential for cost savings.
But here's a question - what about followup care? Is she going to fly to EU every 3-6 months for cancer followup and yearly there after, etc? Again, in a completely non insured situation, that might be financially better - assuming you can afford the startup costs of that, and the flights going forward.
But most Americans can't afford to do that. Take 1-3 months off work, flights at nearly $2000 a person from the US to almost anywhere in Europe (not counting rare deals - though I suppose if you're trying to do this on the cheap, you'll go when you can get the cheapest airfare, not when you want to go), then the living space rental, and finally the surgery.
Agreed, it probably isn't cheaper for everyone. We do however have evidence that it does happen. You were wondering more about how they handle the big stuff. It seems like they handle it as effectively or better then we do here.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
@travisdh1 said:
@tonyshowoff said:
I actually have fairly far-right (non-racist) stances on most things, but healthcare is one of the few things that cannot function as an open market in most cases. No one is going to shop around for prices when they have a heart attack or are in a car accident.
Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you think the free market had anything to do with healthcare in the US?
Well it certainly does for many cosmetic surgeries and the like, which is how people can use price shopping for botox treatments that you can price shop for your arm to be reattached.
Seriously? Where do you live that you hear these kinds of comparisons? Beverly Hills?, the 80th floor of Trump Tower? Jebus - that's a ridiculous comparison. And besides, unless you have a cadalac plan, it wouldn't cover cosmetic surgery anyway.
-
@travisdh1 said:
@tonyshowoff said:
@travisdh1 said:
@tonyshowoff said:
I actually have fairly far-right (non-racist) stances on most things, but healthcare is one of the few things that cannot function as an open market in most cases. No one is going to shop around for prices when they have a heart attack or are in a car accident.
Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you think the free market had anything to do with healthcare in the US?
Well it certainly does for many cosmetic surgeries and the like, which is how people can use price shopping for botox treatments that you can price shop for your arm to be reattached.
Ah yes, all the things not normally covered. I was able to get cataract surgery with the fancy lenses that correct astigmatism for $4000. If I would have went to a hospital and the traditional route for the insured it would've been $8k+. Without the fancy lenses I think it would have been $1500. So yeah, getting out of a hospital and actually negotiating can make a huge difference.
That's funny, my aunt had a similar surgery in Sarajevo about a month or two ago, it cost around $600 USD, and that's in the private system since the public one has been underfunded since the war... as with everything else. Shopping around is nice, but not when they're all insanely high prices.
What gets me is that even the generic for Provigil (Modafinil) is about $45 per pill in the US, outside of the US it's usually < $2 per pill, and there are many others. Americans overpay for everything. What I've said before is that Americans should be upset because either they're being scammed or they're subsidising the rest of the world.
-
@Dashrender The Amish population around here goes to Mexico all the time for getting the major health care things taken care of. Cancer has been a major one lately. The government attempted to kidnap a teenager, and put the pastor in jail for helping the family get out of the country. All because the teen and parents involved refused chemo and radiation treatment. Never mind that the rest of the world is getting better results with other types of treatment, it's child abuse to not give them chemo and radiation treatment for cancer according to someone in government.
The families last name is Miller, so I'm sure they're related. I just haven't played the "Mennonite Game" to figure out how yet. (Yes, Mennonites make a game out of figuring out how everyone is inner-related.)
-
@coliver said:
because they fear not having insurance in a major catastrophe.
Does anyone know the cost of catastrophic medical insurance? I'm betting it's like car insurance - it's probably pretty reasonable since the actual likeliness of using it is low. Cover things like car accidents, dismemberments, etc. Though I would consider cancer coverage it's own thing. My office offers cancer insurance for something like $30/month (this is additional coverage over what my BCBS provides - which is pretty damned good - ask me how I know).
10% is on the high end from everything I've read. In reality it is more likely to save the majority of people money in taxes vs what they pay for insurance out-of-pocket and in premiums today.
I figure 10% is a good number - and the saving was exactly my point. The business is probably paying a lot more than 10% of the salary of that employee for that employee's insurance. I think my office pays somewhere around $3500/yr (perhaps a lot more) per person. Considering the mean salary is somewhere around $25K, that's at least 14% of their salary. Giving the employees a 10% raise would actually save the company 4% with single payer.
-
@tonyshowoff said:
subsidizing the rest of the world.
One of my friends was wondering exactly that - is the US subsidizing the rest of the work in terms of medical drug research?
-
@travisdh1 said:
@Dashrender The Amish population around here goes to Mexico all the time for getting the major health care things taken care of. Cancer has been a major one lately. The government attempted to kidnap a teenager, and put the pastor in jail for helping the family get out of the country. All because the teen and parents involved refused chemo and radiation treatment. Never mind that the rest of the world is getting better results with other types of treatment, it's child abuse to not give them chemo and radiation treatment for cancer according to someone in government.
Yeah I've heard crazy stories like this before - one more example of just how corrupt the system is.
-
So how do your rates compare?
Here is what we are paying monthly. the left column is for PPO plan, and the right is High Deductible plan.
The left side of each area is the total cost monthly, and the right is the employee portion.
-
@Dashrender said:
@tonyshowoff said:
subsidizing the rest of the world.
One of my friends was wondering exactly that - is the US subsidizing the rest of the work in terms of medical drug research?
Yup and we appreciate it. We buy all your drugs cheaper than you do
-
@tonyshowoff said:
@travisdh1 said:
@tonyshowoff said:
@travisdh1 said:
@tonyshowoff said:
I actually have fairly far-right (non-racist) stances on most things, but healthcare is one of the few things that cannot function as an open market in most cases. No one is going to shop around for prices when they have a heart attack or are in a car accident.
Just out of curiosity, when was the last time you think the free market had anything to do with healthcare in the US?
Well it certainly does for many cosmetic surgeries and the like, which is how people can use price shopping for botox treatments that you can price shop for your arm to be reattached.
Ah yes, all the things not normally covered. I was able to get cataract surgery with the fancy lenses that correct astigmatism for $4000. If I would have went to a hospital and the traditional route for the insured it would've been $8k+. Without the fancy lenses I think it would have been $1500. So yeah, getting out of a hospital and actually negotiating can make a huge difference.
That's funny, my aunt had a similar surgery in Sarajevo about a month or two ago, it cost around $600 USD, and that's in the private system since the public one has been underfunded since the war... as with everything else. Shopping around is nice, but not when they're all insanely high prices.
What gets me is that even the generic for Provigil (Modafinil) is about $45 per pill in the US, outside of the US it's usually < $2 per pill, and there are many others. Americans overpay for everything. What I've said before is that Americans should be upset because either they're being scammed or they're subsidising the rest of the world.
Priced out on my plan it's about $1.50CDN/pill (before reimbursement)
-
The discount is for "cash in hand." So I see nothing unethical unless you submit a reimbursement to the insurance company for $253 but only paid $200.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
The discount is for "cash in hand." So I see nothing unethical unless you submit a reimbursement to the insurance company for $253 but only paid $200.
Of course i wouldn't do that.
-
I didn't think that you would. I see nothing wrong with using cash and then reimbursement. I'm not sure that I see the value to you, but that's a different issue. If it is better for you somehow, great.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I didn't think that you would. I see nothing wrong with using cash and then reimbursement. I'm not sure that I see the value to you, but that's a different issue. If it is better for you somehow, great.
It's better at a minimum, it's just that much longer ($53 worth) before I meet my deductible, and at best, it's $53 I saved myself assuming I never reach my deductible.
Also by doing this, If I meet my deductible, my insurance company saved $53. If, when possible, everyone worked to have the system cost less by spending less, how can't things become cheaper. Of course this is one of those - can one person really make a difference things.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
I didn't think that you would. I see nothing wrong with using cash and then reimbursement. I'm not sure that I see the value to you, but that's a different issue. If it is better for you somehow, great.
It's better at a minimum, it's just that much longer ($53 worth) before I meet my deductible, and at best, it's $53 I saved myself assuming I never reach my deductible.
Also by doing this, If I meet my deductible, my insurance company saved $53. If, when possible, everyone worked to have the system cost less by spending less, how can't things become cheaper. Of course this is one of those - can one person really make a difference things.
Ah, so even better. It REALLY is you paying it yourself.
