Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Brave talk......until you or someone in your family comes down with an expensive medical issue like cancer or you have a child born with an expensive birth defect.
So, I will ask again, what is your plan when you are priced out of insurance or run out of money?
Go bankrupt and apply for Medicaid? Go online and beg for money? Let nature take its course and allow the afflicted to suffer and die? Plant a money tree in your backyard?
What's interesting here is that under Obamacare I would have to go on Medicaid, pay a fine, or be caged (as always...depending on level of peaceful resistance by the victim, me, in the scenario).
You act as if millions don't suffer and die under this paradigm already as well as all the other government schemes that result in the suffering and death of innocents.
I have no choice but to die I suppose. And you would have (like you do everyday to others) killed me.
Your child gets leukemia, you can't afford the insurance premiums, you can't pay for treatment yourself, what do you do?
You have a child born with a severe health problem you can't pay for, what do you do?
Remember, with no government intervention insurance companies are free to charge you whatever they please....but, no worries.......you can negotiate a good deal all by yourself, right?
Armed robbery, slavery, and murder are not the answer to natural scarcity. Adults understand personal responsibility.
Interestingly enough, with no government protection, you'd have to man up and do those things on your own unlike now where you just have your goons do it for you.
Since you're a coward, I'll rest easy, if we ever find ourselves free.
I have shown you actual court documents were hospitals charge $82,000 for a medical procedure that really only costs $5,000-$7,000.
That's why you pay through the nose for health insurance.
Court documents show that same hospital then "settled" with the insurance company for $13,000 --- for a medical procedure that only costs $5,000 - $7,000.
Hospitals -- even when they're non-profit -- have no choice but earn a profit. That profit is necessary for the hospital for things like refurbishment, remodeling, expansion, purchasing new medical technology and such.
I get that, but hospitals -- because they are monopolies and monopolistic cartels -- dictate the profit margin instead of letting the Free Market dictate the profit margin.
Did your Democrats address that? No, because Democrats are part of the problem.
Health insurance is not the problem. The problem is the cost of medical care.
Learn and understand the difference.
Your health insurance reflects the cost of medical care.
If you want cheaper medical insurance, then you must reduce the cost of medical care.
Making hospital monopolies and monopolistic cartels illegal -- which is what Euro-States have done --- will reduce your medical costs 30%-60% overnight, causing the cost of your health insurance to drop 30%-60% overnight.
If you adopted the European healthcare delivery system, then you'd save another 10%-30% in medical care costs which will reduce your health insurance another 10%-30%.
I am not sure why you are scolding me. (At least that is what I think you are doing as you quoted my post.) I do understand that medical costs are the problem, but health insurance is to pay for medical costs. If medical costs go up, then health insurance does, too. What is it that I don't get?
And they are not "my" Democrats.
P.S. And it wasn't me that you "showed". And I wasn't and am not arguing with you.
The question was what kind of medical insurance I would like to see, not what kind of medical insurance I think properly addresses how those without insurance can access health care services.
WHAT I WANT is exactly as I described.
Government totally removed from the equation.
My insurer and I working out a policy that is mutually beneficial, free from coercion or duress, according to voluntary association.
Government totally removed from the equation.
Government totally removed from the equation.
Government totally removed from the equation.
Government totally removed from the equation.
That's WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, which is the direct answer t the direct question of "what kind of medical insurance plan(s) would YOU LIKE TO SEE?"
Protecting all of us is not my freaking concern when I purchase any product. I don't GAFF what your plan is, how easily you can access health care, what your freaking health status is, none of it. It is not my concern in any way whatsoever. On that same token, I don't expect you to care even one iota about any of the above for me. Not your concern, never going to be.
So what I would like to see is individual plans being truly individual, same as every other good/service under the Sun. Purchase it if you like, do not purchase if you don't. Weigh the cost and benefits, caveat emptor, blah blah.
Except that if something acute happens to you or your family members, you will demand and expect instant treatment regardless of ability to pay. Also, the costs of such acute service will always be far more than you can afford, which is why you need a group of policy holders to diffuse the costs in the first place (so you do care about them and their plans a lot more than you might care to admit). Which all pretty much skewers your entire libertarian healthcare approach.
I have shown you actual court documents were hospitals charge $82,000 for a medical procedure that really only costs $5,000-$7,000.
That's why you pay through the nose for health insurance.
Court documents show that same hospital then "settled" with the insurance company for $13,000 --- for a medical procedure that only costs $5,000 - $7,000.
Hospitals -- even when they're non-profit -- have no choice but earn a profit. That profit is necessary for the hospital for things like refurbishment, remodeling, expansion, purchasing new medical technology and such.
I get that, but hospitals -- because they are monopolies and monopolistic cartels -- dictate the profit margin instead of letting the Free Market dictate the profit margin.
Did your Democrats address that? No, because Democrats are part of the problem.
Health insurance is not the problem. The problem is the cost of medical care.
Learn and understand the difference.
Your health insurance reflects the cost of medical care.
If you want cheaper medical insurance, then you must reduce the cost of medical care.
Making hospital monopolies and monopolistic cartels illegal -- which is what Euro-States have done --- will reduce your medical costs 30%-60% overnight, causing the cost of your health insurance to drop 30%-60% overnight.
If you adopted the European healthcare delivery system, then you'd save another 10%-30% in medical care costs which will reduce your health insurance another 10%-30%.
Think a lot more goes into cost...
Hospital's have to raise salaries to be competitive with other area hospital's
Raise salaries to compensate worker's for certifications and degrees
Other employee benefits to fund
Then other cost:
Litigation
Use of equipment (Monopoly with medical supplies)
Pharmaceuticals used (Again monopolies with medical supplies)
Outside services used for the hospital
Then other factors was the procedure routine. Was there outside services used. Was the service in network.
If the Government can get public higher education cost reduced and offer more aid outside of loans to cover for education that will play a role in reducing cost.
Doing away with patents on pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, and supplies will reduce cost. Also more transparency of cost of these products to again make the market competitive lower cost.
If the State buys generic pharmaceuticals sells it to area hospital's again will lower cost there.
Federal reimbursement of any State taxes healthcare facilities paid would lower cost.
Improving and reforming the health insurance market would lower cost.
Encouraging facilities to make up payment plans and have interest free medical loans to cover care would reduce cost.
Making transparent the salaries and cost of routine services at health care facilities annually.
Reforming or doing away with Medicaid and Medicare (see prior post).
i tend toward separating government from regulating insurance... in most parts I agree. but i want a law that prevents insurance companies from negotiating with drs.
I think it's more buyer's choice. You can choose Government health insurance or pay for private.
Then if you choose Government health insurance say you rack up $30K for a hospital stay. You have a HSA if $6K you pay no out of pocket expense.
Except that if something acute happens to you or your family members, you will demand and expect instant treatment regardless of ability to pay.
No, I won't. I have a medical insurance plan and rather large chunk of money in my HSA account, plus my savings account, and enough liquidity to be able to deal with virtually any medical cost I incur.
What I would like is a competitive market for insurance, free from government meddling, where I could still enjoy my level of risk mitigation for an even lower cost. I would like a medical industry free from government meddling, that fostered competition instead of protecting monopolies, that would further lower my costs. In the meantime, I will play the game by the rules that have been established, and I play them to the max extent I can because I am a decently risk averse person by nature.
Why is it assumed that because I'd like the costs to be lower and to have government meddling removed to thus destroy protected monopolies and the barriers to competition, that I don't have insurance or I expect anyone else to cover my costs in the present reality? My employer plan is decent enough, and I take full advantage of the HSA rules and regs, plus I am both thrifty with money and properly health conscious.
Were is this hypothetical "you will demand and expect instant treatment regardless of ability to pay" nonsense coming from? Where in any of my posts...ever...have I ever even hinted that I would involuntarily obligate my fellow individual for my costs relevant to any activity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
Also, the costs of such acute service will always be far more than you can afford, which is why you need a group of policy holders to diffuse the costs in the first place (so you do care about them and their plans a lot more than you might care to admit). Which all pretty much skewers your entire libertarian healthcare approach.
I understand how the game works, as I said above. And I have the HSA group policy my employer offers, and I max my contribution to that account every year and have for many years. That doesn't mean I cannot desire a more individual insurance world free from government meddling, or a medical industry free from government meddling, or a freaking world free from government meddling.
What I don't advocate, which flummoxes all you statists, is a world where guns are put to people's heads to satisfy my desires and to allay my fears. I play your quasi slavery game as it stands, but I can wish for something different. I can wish to be free, for markets to be free, for private enterprise to create competition that drives progress, etc. Until then, I'll play the silly games within the rules as they exist, and can do so without lectures from statist busybodies.
You can have insurance, pay into it as a good little responsible trooper and insurance can deny certain treatments, non coverage. You can have insurance, I know of 2 cases where neither can get medications they need. One has to pay 3 K/year for injections (deductible is around that) and the other only covers generic meds. Her med is not available generic. So, you go without necessary medications, treatment is withheld essentially. This is with insurance.
You can have insurance, pay into it as a good little responsible trooper and insurance can deny certain treatments, non coverage. You can have insurance, I know of 2 cases where neither can get medications they need. One has to pay 3 K/year for injections (deductible is around that) and the other only covers generic meds. Her med is not available generic. So, you go without necessary medications, treatment is withheld essentially. This is with insurance.
Well, with stories like those and many others that are similar, it is no wonder so many people have the opinion that paying for insurance is foolish and just throwing money away!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
