If you think about the concept of health insurance:
We - people who need healthcare
are paying for someone else - the health insurance company
to pay someone else - our health care provider
for our health care.
So why do we need to pay someone else to pay for something for us? It makes no sense.
Plus the insurance company is making a profit so we're probably overall paying them MORE than we would if we would just pay for it ourselves.
absolute agreement.
thus why the system of health insurance, that leads to our healthcare....needs to disappear.....
Right, but I view the government taking over the role of the insurance provider to be more of the same...or even worse of the same.
Now we would be paying someone else - the government through taxes - to pay someone else for our healthcare. AND...we'd have to abide by the government's rules.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
If you think about the concept of health insurance:
We - people who need healthcare
are paying for someone else - the health insurance company
to pay someone else - our health care provider
for our health care.
So why do we need to pay someone else to pay for something for us? It makes no sense.
Plus the insurance company is making a profit so we're probably overall paying them MORE than we would if we would just pay for it ourselves.
absolute agreement.
thus why the system of health insurance, that leads to our healthcare....needs to disappear.....
Right, but I view the government taking over the role of the insurance provider to be more of the same...or even worse of the same.
Now we would be paying someone else - the government through taxes - to pay someone else for our healthcare. AND...we'd have to abide by the government's rules.
so basically you just want everyone to pay all their meidcal expenses out of pocket, period? i just want to be sure i am understanding you correctly.
i did already know that while we agree on many points, that you most definitely are not a supporter of any UHC plan. however, it is not one and the same to what we have now. firstly, and quite importantly, the for profit portion of our current system....gone. also, while the government would pay for our care through our taxes.....we still are left with much choice in who and where we go for care. absolutely, we would have to abide by their rules, usually the case. hey, if you think you can afford say cancer treatments all on your own, more power to ya! hell, even simply routine care, quite pricey! while it was totally covered by my insurance, my most current, preventative care, was over 2k. and sure, i pay that and more in yearly premiums....but add some prescriptions, or long-term care needs, an accident, an ER visit....and it quickly escalates beyond the reach of most people. so yes, i am all for what will get the most healthcare to all people, for life. there are always concessions/compromises to made. i accept that.
(with the possible exception of some form of catastrophic insurance which covers major illnesses, surgeries, accidents, etc. You know.....like car insurance does. Imagine what car insurance would cost if it paid for gas and wiper fluid)
There are more reasons for this than just financial. Like I said, it brings it back to the patient being the true client for the doctor and it offers a lot more freedom for all of us over our medical options.
well ok, I see where you're going. but even small procedures can run into the thousands.
just wanted to point out that is not true...you can get health care if you pay for it...and most doctors give a discount (anywhere from 5 to 20%) off the cost they would charge to the insurance cos
but i agree with all you said though
I just want to point out that self-pay patients still end up paying more for the same services than insurance companies do. That doesn't seem fair to me.
i didn't say it was fair and fully aware of what i have to pay
I just want to point out that self-pay patients still end up paying more for the same services than insurance companies do. That doesn't seem fair to me.
i didn't say it was fair and fully aware of what i have to pay
If you think about the concept of health insurance:
We - people who need healthcare
are paying for someone else - the health insurance company
to pay someone else - our health care provider
for our health care.
So why do we need to pay someone else to pay for something for us? It makes no sense.
Plus the insurance company is making a profit so we're probably overall paying them MORE than we would if we would just pay for it ourselves.
I'm not saying you aren't making logical points but what are you suggesting? eliminate the insurance company and just pay the doctors/hospitals directly?
Yes
(with the possible exception of some form of catastrophic insurance which covers major illnesses, surgeries, accidents, etc. You know.....like car insurance does. Imagine what car insurance would cost if it paid for gas and wiper fluid)
There are more reasons for this than just financial. Like I said, it brings it back to the patient being the true client for the doctor and it offers a lot more freedom for all of us over our medical options.
how so?
we still would have insurance for accidents, major illnesses/treatments, etc....so still would be dictating what would be covered and so on. you want to treat every citizen's healthcare like that of a car? while i 'get' the analogy, even basic preventative care....can cost thousands. so you still would leave many, many people with tough choices. well-baby check-ups, or pay the gas bill, buy groceries, get a mammogram annually....or maybe skip a year b/c $$$ is a little tighter or whatever, etc.
preventative care is the best way, the most cost-effective way, of preventing/treating illness. sadly, many people can't afford that basic care now, or perhaps would not get ALL the basic care they really should, due to cost.
(with the possible exception of some form of catastrophic insurance which covers major illnesses, surgeries, accidents, etc. You know.....like car insurance does. Imagine what car insurance would cost if it paid for gas and wiper fluid)
There are more reasons for this than just financial. Like I said, it brings it back to the patient being the true client for the doctor and it offers a lot more freedom for all of us over our medical options.
well ok, I see where you're going. but even small procedures can run into the thousands.
They run into the thousands now BECAUSE of health insurance and the fact that it inflates health care costs in it's own interest of self-preservation and to make health insurance seem like a necessity.
Again, we are all already paying for every penny of our own health care PLUS the profits and operating costs of the health insurance industry. It just doesn't seem like it because our employers are paying for our insurance. But where does that money come from and if they didn't have to pay insurance how much lower would the cost of the goods they sell and how much more could they afford to pay us in salaries? Don't they just raise their prices and not give us as big of raises to offset the money they have to pay for health insurance?
It just shocks me sometimes that people can be so naive to think that everyone of us is NOT already paying for every bit of our own health care plus supporting the health insurance industry which skims off their take and then just pays our bills for us.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
how so?
we still would have insurance for accidents, major illnesses/treatments, etc....so still would be dictating what would be covered and so on. you want to treat every citizen's healthcare like that of a car? while i 'get' the analogy, even basic preventative care....can cost thousands. so you still would leave many, many people with tough choices. well-baby check-ups, or pay the gas bill, buy groceries, get a mammogram annually....or maybe skip a year b/c $$$ is a little tighter or whatever, etc.
preventative care is the best way, the most cost-effective way, of preventing/treating illness. sadly, many people can't afford that basic care now, or perhaps would not get ALL the basic care they really should, due to cost.
The costs are all artificially high right now because of health insurance.
Furthermore, we'd all have a lot more money available if we didn't have to pay someone else to pay for our care.
Do you go to the grocery store yourself, or do you hire someone to go do it for you? Which makes more sense?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
(with the possible exception of some form of catastrophic insurance which covers major illnesses, surgeries, accidents, etc. You know.....like car insurance does. Imagine what car insurance would cost if it paid for gas and wiper fluid)
There are more reasons for this than just financial. Like I said, it brings it back to the patient being the true client for the doctor and it offers a lot more freedom for all of us over our medical options.
well ok, I see where you're going. but even small procedures can run into the thousands.
They run into the thousands now BECAUSE of health insurance and the fact that it inflates health care costs in it's own interest of self-preservation and to make health insurance seem like a necessity.
Again, we are all already paying for every penny of our own health care PLUS the profits and operating costs of the health insurance industry. It just doesn't seem like it because our employers are paying for our insurance. But where does that money come from and if they didn't have to pay insurance how much lower would the cost of the goods they sell and how much more could they afford to pay us in salaries? Don't they just raise their prices and not give us as big of raises to offset the money they have to pay for health insurance?
It just shocks me sometimes that people can be so naive to think that everyone of us is NOT already paying for every bit of our own health care plus supporting the health insurance industry which skims off their take and then just pays our bills for us.
the cost of high quality care is still expensive with or without the insurance industry. where do you draw the line between catastrophic event or "small check up"? you also mentioned the insurance industry is necessary to cover these catastrophic events....are they allowed to be profitable? if not, what is the point of them being in business.
lets try this without the name calling. I realize i'm just some idiot naive guy. I'm here to learn
The cost is high because the insurance industry sets it high.
the insurance industry doesn't set the price of healthcare, they set the price of premiums. without insurance, doctors will still charge for their services and the cost is still going to be high.
The cost is high because the insurance industry sets it high.
the insurance industry doesn't set the price of healthcare, they set the price of premiums. without insurance, doctors will still charge for their services and the cost is still going to be high.
I'm not an expert, but I think the insurance industry does indeed tell the health care providers what they will pay for procedures.
Furthermore, how do health care providers determine what they will charge? Usually that's determined by what their customers are willing to pay. Who are the customers of the doctors? The answer to that is the insurance providers.
Do you think doctors would sit around and not have any business if nobody was willing to pay their prices?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
how so?
we still would have insurance for accidents, major illnesses/treatments, etc....so still would be dictating what would be covered and so on. you want to treat every citizen's healthcare like that of a car? while i 'get' the analogy, even basic preventative care....can cost thousands. so you still would leave many, many people with tough choices. well-baby check-ups, or pay the gas bill, buy groceries, get a mammogram annually....or maybe skip a year b/c $$$ is a little tighter or whatever, etc.
preventative care is the best way, the most cost-effective way, of preventing/treating illness. sadly, many people can't afford that basic care now, or perhaps would not get ALL the basic care they really should, due to cost.
The costs are all artificially high right now because of health insurance.
Furthermore, we'd all have a lot more money available if we didn't have to pay someone else to pay for our care.
Do you go to the grocery store yourself, or do you hire someone to go do it for you? Which makes more sense?
first your saying the insurance industry dictates what they will pay....now you are saying the prices are artifically high....so which is it? i do believe you are correct, insurance companies dictate what they will pay, and it;s usually reduced fee, to the clinics/doctors.
we would have a lot more money if no one PROFITTED from our healthcare, there's the area i see for a lot of cost savings.
and actually, bad analogy, b/c grocery shopping and delivery is on the rise....amyn people do it, for the convenience, because they can't do it themselves, etc. what makes more sense...is whatever works best for you. in the healthcare scenario, i think looking at the big picture...it's considering what works best for ALL....and that all have equal access to utilize.
preventative care is the most cost effective means of healthcare.....so it makes a lot of sense to fund it.
In Indianapolis (and I'm sure lots of other places) it drives me crazy to see TV commercials and billboards advertising hospitals....I mean come on...If I get hit by a truck I want to go to the nearest hospital...I'm not going to demand to be taken 20 miles away because of a nice ad on TV
Sooooo much money being wasted....and the hospitals here compete to see who can build the biggest and most beautiful hospitals...they look like Taj Mahal's
Imagine the cost difference of putting up a simple brick building versus the glass and iron monstrocities they put up everywhere....it's sad
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
how so?
we still would have insurance for accidents, major illnesses/treatments, etc....so still would be dictating what would be covered and so on. you want to treat every citizen's healthcare like that of a car? while i 'get' the analogy, even basic preventative care....can cost thousands. so you still would leave many, many people with tough choices. well-baby check-ups, or pay the gas bill, buy groceries, get a mammogram annually....or maybe skip a year b/c $$$ is a little tighter or whatever, etc.
preventative care is the best way, the most cost-effective way, of preventing/treating illness. sadly, many people can't afford that basic care now, or perhaps would not get ALL the basic care they really should, due to cost.
The costs are all artificially high right now because of health insurance.
Furthermore, we'd all have a lot more money available if we didn't have to pay someone else to pay for our care.
Do you go to the grocery store yourself, or do you hire someone to go do it for you? Which makes more sense?
first your saying the insurance industry dictates what they will pay....now you are saying the prices are artifically high....so which is it?
It doesn't have to be one or the other. He's right, it's both. Costs are artificially high because that is what the health insurance companies say they must be, in order to protect profits.
Furthermore, we'd all have a lot more money available if we didn't have to pay someone else to pay for our care.
While I totally agree with this statement and with the idea that we should do away with the health insurance industry, I still think single-payer is the way to go. While we would still have to pay some overhead, the overhead would be about 1/10th of what it is for private insurance. And, more importantly, the government is not a for-profit industry.
It just shocks me sometimes that people can be so naive to think that everyone of us is NOT already paying for every bit of our own health care plus supporting the health insurance industry which skims off their take and then just pays our bills for us.
A lot of times, they're not even doing that. Between high co-pays and maximum benefit caps, you're basically paying 3-4 times... once on your employer's payroll tax which cuts into your income, again on your premiums, again on your co-pay, and possibly again if you exceed your limit because you get really sick. And that's assuming you are lucky enough to get a disease they will cover you for, in which case you can end up paying for the tax and the premium and get absolutely NO coverage from them and still end up paying your bills entirely on your own.
Again, it begs the question... does ANY other business in the world operate like this?
The costs are all artificially high right now because of health insurance.
Furthermore, we'd all have a lot more money available if we didn't have to pay someone else to pay for our care.
Do you go to the grocery store yourself, or do you hire someone to go do it for you? Which makes more sense?
first your saying the insurance industry dictates what they will pay....now you are saying the prices are artifically high....so which is it?
It doesn't have to be one or the other. He's right, it's both. Costs are artificially high because that is what the health insurance companies say they must be, in order to protect profits.
aha....yes, know1 is right....forgot about that. even tho they dictate to the doctors what they will pay, the prices can still be inflated to cover that, thus making them even higher.
either way though, we'd still save MORE money be reducing the aritifically inflated costs AND doing away with profit entirely. obviously, sticking with his car insurance comparison....even car insurance carriers build in profit as well, b/c otherwise...how would they stay in business? so it still makes sense imo to do away with insurance as our only means of care, whether catastrophic care only, or our current system.
i don't think it was this thread, but one of the other many healthcare threads...that i personally think scb spelled out quite well while the while car insurance idea really isn't a good one.
Furthermore, we'd all have a lot more money available if we didn't have to pay someone else to pay for our care.
While I totally agree with this statement and with the idea that we should do away with the health insurance industry, I still think single-payer is the way to go. While we would still have to pay some overhead, the overhead would be about 1/10th of what it is for private insurance. And, more importantly, the government is not a for-profit industry.
Perhaps, but if a lot of people are unwilling to even discuss a totally free government plan, there might be something to this idea. You could have a government plan with a graduated co-pay system that's kind of an inverse of the income tax perhaps. It removes incentives for government involvement in pricing, encourages competitive services and cost reduction among doctors and hospitals, ensures that everyone is covered, and everyone is going to save money via lower costs, less paperwork, guaranteed full coverage without benefit caps, and complete control over their choice of doctors and services.
Everyone is covered, the poor don't go without, but those that can afford direct care do make payment to ease the burden on the government, albeit at lower costs and with the guarantee that if something catastrophic happens they will not have their entire life wiped out by it.
the cost of high quality care is still expensive with or without the insurance industry.
As much as 30% of the money we pay to private insurance is spent on overhead rather than direct care. For Medicare, that cost is 2-3%.
indeed.
and isn't it better to have that 2-3%, so that we can encourage people to not just have 'insurance' for catastrophic healthcare....but ALSO to maintain their health through regular, preventative measures and check-ups? between cutting overhead, cutting out profit AND adding more preventatvie care....ALL these factors would greatly reduce our long-term healthcare costs, overall....financially and life longevity.
the insurance industry doesn't set the price of healthcare, they set the price of premiums.
Here's an analogy: It's like the doctors are Pearl Jam and the insurance companies are Ticketmaster or, better yet, ticket scalpers. Sure, the band says how much they want to be paid for their services. But ultimately the customer must pay whatever cost Ticketmaster or the scalpers want to charge. If you sell your ticket for face value - the money you paid for it - you'll say the price was whatever Ticketmaster or the scalpers charged you, not the price originally set by Pearl Jam.
the insurance industry doesn't set the price of healthcare, they set the price of premiums.
Here's an analogy: It's like the doctors are Pearl Jam and the insurance companies are Ticketmaster or, better yet, ticket scalpers. Sure, the band says how much they want to be paid for their services. But ultimately the customer must pay whatever cost Ticketmaster or the scalpers want to charge. If you sell your ticket for face value - the money you paid for it - you'll say the price was whatever Ticketmaster or the scalpers charged you, not the price originally set by Pearl Jam.
That's a clever analogy, but it's even way more than that.
The forgotten part of this is that for many people their employers are paying a large portion of their insurance premiums. That's money that the employer could be paying them.
This makes it more clear. What if we changed the system so that the employer actually gave you the money they spend on your insurance to you as salary and then you paid the insurance premium out of your pocket? It's exactly what's happening now it's just the employer is taking it out of your pay (or what they would be willing to pay you) prior to you getting it.
That's why I keep saying that we're all paying for it now.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
the insurance industry doesn't set the price of healthcare, they set the price of premiums.
Here's an analogy: It's like the doctors are Pearl Jam and the insurance companies are Ticketmaster or, better yet, ticket scalpers. Sure, the band says how much they want to be paid for their services. But ultimately the customer must pay whatever cost Ticketmaster or the scalpers want to charge. If you sell your ticket for face value - the money you paid for it - you'll say the price was whatever Ticketmaster or the scalpers charged you, not the price originally set by Pearl Jam.
That's a clever analogy, but it's even way more than that.
The forgotten part of this is that for many people their employers are paying a large portion of their insurance premiums. That's money that the employer could be paying them.
This makes it more clear. What if we changed the system so that the employer actually gave you the money they spend on your insurance to you as salary and then you paid the insurance premium out of your pocket? It's exactly what's happening now it's just the employer is taking it out of your pay (or what they would be willing to pay you) prior to you getting it.
That's why I keep saying that we're all paying for it now.
That's where lobbying and special interests come into play. They know if people aren't essentially forced into a plan, they won't buy one because their costs are utterly absurd. So they get legislation passed to make it easier for them to hook people... a direct cash infusion right from the employer that deprives most consumers of any really meaningful choice of insurance or doctors. They offer themselves as a security to doctors to ensure they get paid, then dictate prices to them. And then they turn around and get legislation passed that allows them to take their premiums right from your check to ensure that they get paid regardless of whether or not they're doing a good job or providing you the services they say they will. Does anyone know of an industry that is allowed to garnish wages that's not government owned? I think there's one student loan company that can do this, but that's to recover on debts, not simply take their costs direct from your check before even the government gets it.
the insurance industry doesn't set the price of healthcare, they set the price of premiums.
Here's an analogy: It's like the doctors are Pearl Jam and the insurance companies are Ticketmaster or, better yet, ticket scalpers. Sure, the band says how much they want to be paid for their services. But ultimately the customer must pay whatever cost Ticketmaster or the scalpers want to charge. If you sell your ticket for face value - the money you paid for it - you'll say the price was whatever Ticketmaster or the scalpers charged you, not the price originally set by Pearl Jam.
That's a clever analogy, but it's even way more than that.
The forgotten part of this is that for many people their employers are paying a large portion of their insurance premiums. That's money that the employer could be paying them.
This makes it more clear. What if we changed the system so that the employer actually gave you the money they spend on your insurance to you as salary and then you paid the insurance premium out of your pocket? It's exactly what's happening now it's just the employer is taking it out of your pay (or what they would be willing to pay you) prior to you getting it.
That's why I keep saying that we're all paying for it now.
Another part left out of my analogy is the part where, if it were 100% analogous, Ticketmaster would dictate to Pearl Jam that they won't pay the the band the full price they're charging for the tickets.
The part that confuses me about your plan (probably 'cuz I'm not fully awake yet) is that you're talking about still paying insurance premiums but you want to do away with the insurance companies. Really, you still want to keep them around for major event, I think you said, right? So how would we reap all the benefits of doing away with insurance companies if we don't really do away with them? Sorry, my brain's not on straight right now.
Also, although I see your point about employers paying premium money to employees who then pay it to insurance companies, the problems I see with that plan are:
1. The money would be taxed when it comes in your paycheck, whereas I don't believe it's taxed now, correct?
2. The employers might not really give you the money they would otherwise have spent on your health insurance.
3. The people might use the money for other things instead of for buying insurance.
the insurance industry doesn't set the price of healthcare, they set the price of premiums.
Here's an analogy: It's like the doctors are Pearl Jam and the insurance companies are Ticketmaster or, better yet, ticket scalpers. Sure, the band says how much they want to be paid for their services. But ultimately the customer must pay whatever cost Ticketmaster or the scalpers want to charge. If you sell your ticket for face value - the money you paid for it - you'll say the price was whatever Ticketmaster or the scalpers charged you, not the price originally set by Pearl Jam.
That's a clever analogy, but it's even way more than that.
The forgotten part of this is that for many people their employers are paying a large portion of their insurance premiums. That's money that the employer could be paying them.
This makes it more clear. What if we changed the system so that the employer actually gave you the money they spend on your insurance to you as salary and then you paid the insurance premium out of your pocket? It's exactly what's happening now it's just the employer is taking it out of your pay (or what they would be willing to pay you) prior to you getting it.
That's why I keep saying that we're all paying for it now.
of course we pay for it all now, i don't think anyone disputes that.
i also know you are a believer in taking charge of your own life and saving, and being smart, etc. i do agree...no question...but the thing of it is....what about those who currently have no insurance? where's the extra $$$ in their paycheck to put towards their healthcare? or yea...what about the guy who chooses to spend that extra $$$ on OTHER things, not on their own medical care...and then down the road becomes ill and becomes a burden on the system? or do we now adopt a SOL idea that it's your own fault and you can just be sick? again, all of this is the reason i think it's wise to take it directly from your income/paycheck and why it is also wise to fund preventative care. i still don't honestly know why you are against funding this since it is the best way of keeping costs lower, overall. preventative care costs a heckuva LOT less than say cancer treatments, surgery, etc. preventative care actually helps to....prevent....disease. and/or at least, catch it early, more options...for the life, and for cost-effectiveness. it truly just makes financial sense to have good incentives in place to encourage all to utlize preventative annual care.
Another part left out of my analogy is the part where, if it were 100% analogous, Ticketmaster would dictate to Pearl Jam that they won't pay the the band the full price they're charging for the tickets.
The part that confuses me about your plan (probably 'cuz I'm not fully awake yet) is that you're talking about still paying insurance premiums but you want to do away with the insurance companies. Really, you still want to keep them around for major event, I think you said, right? So how would we reap all the benefits of doing away with insurance companies if we don't really do away with them? Sorry, my brain's not on straight right now.
Also, although I see your point about employers paying premium money to employees who then pay it to insurance companies, the problems I see with that plan are:
1. The money would be taxed when it comes in your paycheck, whereas I don't believe it's taxed now, correct?
2. The employers might not really give you the money they would otherwise have spent on your health insurance.
3. The people might use the money for other things instead of for buying insurance.
You know, I'm not sure about even having the insurance companies for the catastrophic either, but I do recognize that something would need to be in place. Maybe low interest unsecured loans?
My example about employers giving the money to employees was not something I'm advocating as a solution. I was trying to open people's eyes to the fact that they are already paying for their own health insurance.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
And, more importantly, the government is not a for-profit industry.
That's debatable...they're only "non-profit" because they spend everything they take. Not to mention the campaign donations people get for makng things happen. I don't think you could say they are non-profit with a straight face.
of course we pay for it all now, i don't think anyone disputes that.
i also know you are a believer in taking charge of your own life and saving, and being smart, etc. i do agree...no question...but the thing of it is....what about those who currently have no insurance? where's the extra $$$ in their paycheck to put towards their healthcare? or yea...what about the guy who chooses to spend that extra $$$ on OTHER things, not on their own medical care...and then down the road becomes ill and becomes a burden on the system? or do we now adopt a SOL idea that it's your own fault and you can just be sick? again, all of this is the reason i think it's wise to take it directly from your income/paycheck and why it is also wise to fund preventative care. i still don't honestly know why you are against funding this since it is the best way of keeping costs lower, overall. preventative care costs a heckuva LOT less than say cancer treatments, surgery, etc. preventative care actually helps to....prevent....disease. and/or at least, catch it early, more options...for the life, and for cost-effectiveness. it truly just makes financial sense to have good incentives in place to encourage all to utlize preventative annual care.
Not the total answer to your questions, but in THEORY, everyone should have more money available to them through lower costs of goods and services and higher wages if the employers weren't burdened with paying for health insurance. That money just doesn't come from thin air. If the employers are paying it, they are making it up with lower salaries and higher prices so in the end we're all paying for it anyway.
I also truly believe that the cost of health care will go lower if we introduce the concept of the patient as customer and the ability to find their doctor of choice on the basis of service, expertise AND PRICE.
I don't have an answer to how we force people to be responsible enough to take care of their own medical situations and, NO, I do not believe we should deny them care if they "can't" pay.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Comments
Right, but I view the government taking over the role of the insurance provider to be more of the same...or even worse of the same.
Now we would be paying someone else - the government through taxes - to pay someone else for our healthcare. AND...we'd have to abide by the government's rules.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
so basically you just want everyone to pay all their meidcal expenses out of pocket, period? i just want to be sure i am understanding you correctly.
i did already know that while we agree on many points, that you most definitely are not a supporter of any UHC plan. however, it is not one and the same to what we have now. firstly, and quite importantly, the for profit portion of our current system....gone. also, while the government would pay for our care through our taxes.....we still are left with much choice in who and where we go for care. absolutely, we would have to abide by their rules, usually the case. hey, if you think you can afford say cancer treatments all on your own, more power to ya! hell, even simply routine care, quite pricey! while it was totally covered by my insurance, my most current, preventative care, was over 2k. and sure, i pay that and more in yearly premiums....but add some prescriptions, or long-term care needs, an accident, an ER visit....and it quickly escalates beyond the reach of most people. so yes, i am all for what will get the most healthcare to all people, for life. there are always concessions/compromises to made. i accept that.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
well ok, I see where you're going. but even small procedures can run into the thousands.
I didn't say you said it was fair.
how so?
we still would have insurance for accidents, major illnesses/treatments, etc....so still would be dictating what would be covered and so on. you want to treat every citizen's healthcare like that of a car? while i 'get' the analogy, even basic preventative care....can cost thousands. so you still would leave many, many people with tough choices. well-baby check-ups, or pay the gas bill, buy groceries, get a mammogram annually....or maybe skip a year b/c $$$ is a little tighter or whatever, etc.
preventative care is the best way, the most cost-effective way, of preventing/treating illness. sadly, many people can't afford that basic care now, or perhaps would not get ALL the basic care they really should, due to cost.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
They run into the thousands now BECAUSE of health insurance and the fact that it inflates health care costs in it's own interest of self-preservation and to make health insurance seem like a necessity.
Again, we are all already paying for every penny of our own health care PLUS the profits and operating costs of the health insurance industry. It just doesn't seem like it because our employers are paying for our insurance. But where does that money come from and if they didn't have to pay insurance how much lower would the cost of the goods they sell and how much more could they afford to pay us in salaries? Don't they just raise their prices and not give us as big of raises to offset the money they have to pay for health insurance?
It just shocks me sometimes that people can be so naive to think that everyone of us is NOT already paying for every bit of our own health care plus supporting the health insurance industry which skims off their take and then just pays our bills for us.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
The costs are all artificially high right now because of health insurance.
Furthermore, we'd all have a lot more money available if we didn't have to pay someone else to pay for our care.
Do you go to the grocery store yourself, or do you hire someone to go do it for you? Which makes more sense?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
the cost of high quality care is still expensive with or without the insurance industry. where do you draw the line between catastrophic event or "small check up"? you also mentioned the insurance industry is necessary to cover these catastrophic events....are they allowed to be profitable? if not, what is the point of them being in business.
lets try this without the name calling. I realize i'm just some idiot naive guy. I'm here to learn
The cost is high because the insurance industry sets it high.
I didn't call you any names. If I called you a name I would have said "jlew is naive". Don't have such thin skin or be so ready to be offended.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
the insurance industry doesn't set the price of healthcare, they set the price of premiums. without insurance, doctors will still charge for their services and the cost is still going to be high.
I'm fine thanks, but I'm getting a little tired of all the fucking experts around here. and anyone who doesnt agree is just naive or stupid.
I'm not an expert, but I think the insurance industry does indeed tell the health care providers what they will pay for procedures.
Furthermore, how do health care providers determine what they will charge? Usually that's determined by what their customers are willing to pay. Who are the customers of the doctors? The answer to that is the insurance providers.
Do you think doctors would sit around and not have any business if nobody was willing to pay their prices?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
first your saying the insurance industry dictates what they will pay....now you are saying the prices are artifically high....so which is it? i do believe you are correct, insurance companies dictate what they will pay, and it;s usually reduced fee, to the clinics/doctors.
we would have a lot more money if no one PROFITTED from our healthcare, there's the area i see for a lot of cost savings.
and actually, bad analogy, b/c grocery shopping and delivery is on the rise....amyn people do it, for the convenience, because they can't do it themselves, etc. what makes more sense...is whatever works best for you. in the healthcare scenario, i think looking at the big picture...it's considering what works best for ALL....and that all have equal access to utilize.
preventative care is the most cost effective means of healthcare.....so it makes a lot of sense to fund it.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
In Indianapolis (and I'm sure lots of other places) it drives me crazy to see TV commercials and billboards advertising hospitals....I mean come on...If I get hit by a truck I want to go to the nearest hospital...I'm not going to demand to be taken 20 miles away because of a nice ad on TV
Sooooo much money being wasted....and the hospitals here compete to see who can build the biggest and most beautiful hospitals...they look like Taj Mahal's
Imagine the cost difference of putting up a simple brick building versus the glass and iron monstrocities they put up everywhere....it's sad
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
It doesn't have to be one or the other. He's right, it's both. Costs are artificially high because that is what the health insurance companies say they must be, in order to protect profits.
While I totally agree with this statement and with the idea that we should do away with the health insurance industry, I still think single-payer is the way to go. While we would still have to pay some overhead, the overhead would be about 1/10th of what it is for private insurance. And, more importantly, the government is not a for-profit industry.
A lot of times, they're not even doing that. Between high co-pays and maximum benefit caps, you're basically paying 3-4 times... once on your employer's payroll tax which cuts into your income, again on your premiums, again on your co-pay, and possibly again if you exceed your limit because you get really sick. And that's assuming you are lucky enough to get a disease they will cover you for, in which case you can end up paying for the tax and the premium and get absolutely NO coverage from them and still end up paying your bills entirely on your own.
Again, it begs the question... does ANY other business in the world operate like this?
aha....yes, know1 is right....forgot about that. even tho they dictate to the doctors what they will pay, the prices can still be inflated to cover that, thus making them even higher.
either way though, we'd still save MORE money be reducing the aritifically inflated costs AND doing away with profit entirely. obviously, sticking with his car insurance comparison....even car insurance carriers build in profit as well, b/c otherwise...how would they stay in business? so it still makes sense imo to do away with insurance as our only means of care, whether catastrophic care only, or our current system.
i don't think it was this thread, but one of the other many healthcare threads...that i personally think scb spelled out quite well while the while car insurance idea really isn't a good one.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
As much as 30% of the money we pay to private insurance is spent on overhead rather than direct care. For Medicare, that cost is 2-3%.
Perhaps, but if a lot of people are unwilling to even discuss a totally free government plan, there might be something to this idea. You could have a government plan with a graduated co-pay system that's kind of an inverse of the income tax perhaps. It removes incentives for government involvement in pricing, encourages competitive services and cost reduction among doctors and hospitals, ensures that everyone is covered, and everyone is going to save money via lower costs, less paperwork, guaranteed full coverage without benefit caps, and complete control over their choice of doctors and services.
Everyone is covered, the poor don't go without, but those that can afford direct care do make payment to ease the burden on the government, albeit at lower costs and with the guarantee that if something catastrophic happens they will not have their entire life wiped out by it.
indeed.
and isn't it better to have that 2-3%, so that we can encourage people to not just have 'insurance' for catastrophic healthcare....but ALSO to maintain their health through regular, preventative measures and check-ups? between cutting overhead, cutting out profit AND adding more preventatvie care....ALL these factors would greatly reduce our long-term healthcare costs, overall....financially and life longevity.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Here's an analogy: It's like the doctors are Pearl Jam and the insurance companies are Ticketmaster or, better yet, ticket scalpers. Sure, the band says how much they want to be paid for their services. But ultimately the customer must pay whatever cost Ticketmaster or the scalpers want to charge. If you sell your ticket for face value - the money you paid for it - you'll say the price was whatever Ticketmaster or the scalpers charged you, not the price originally set by Pearl Jam.
That's a clever analogy, but it's even way more than that.
The forgotten part of this is that for many people their employers are paying a large portion of their insurance premiums. That's money that the employer could be paying them.
This makes it more clear. What if we changed the system so that the employer actually gave you the money they spend on your insurance to you as salary and then you paid the insurance premium out of your pocket? It's exactly what's happening now it's just the employer is taking it out of your pay (or what they would be willing to pay you) prior to you getting it.
That's why I keep saying that we're all paying for it now.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
That's where lobbying and special interests come into play. They know if people aren't essentially forced into a plan, they won't buy one because their costs are utterly absurd. So they get legislation passed to make it easier for them to hook people... a direct cash infusion right from the employer that deprives most consumers of any really meaningful choice of insurance or doctors. They offer themselves as a security to doctors to ensure they get paid, then dictate prices to them. And then they turn around and get legislation passed that allows them to take their premiums right from your check to ensure that they get paid regardless of whether or not they're doing a good job or providing you the services they say they will. Does anyone know of an industry that is allowed to garnish wages that's not government owned? I think there's one student loan company that can do this, but that's to recover on debts, not simply take their costs direct from your check before even the government gets it.
Another part left out of my analogy is the part where, if it were 100% analogous, Ticketmaster would dictate to Pearl Jam that they won't pay the the band the full price they're charging for the tickets.
The part that confuses me about your plan (probably 'cuz I'm not fully awake yet) is that you're talking about still paying insurance premiums but you want to do away with the insurance companies. Really, you still want to keep them around for major event, I think you said, right? So how would we reap all the benefits of doing away with insurance companies if we don't really do away with them? Sorry, my brain's not on straight right now.
Also, although I see your point about employers paying premium money to employees who then pay it to insurance companies, the problems I see with that plan are:
1. The money would be taxed when it comes in your paycheck, whereas I don't believe it's taxed now, correct?
2. The employers might not really give you the money they would otherwise have spent on your health insurance.
3. The people might use the money for other things instead of for buying insurance.
of course we pay for it all now, i don't think anyone disputes that.
i also know you are a believer in taking charge of your own life and saving, and being smart, etc. i do agree...no question...but the thing of it is....what about those who currently have no insurance? where's the extra $$$ in their paycheck to put towards their healthcare? or yea...what about the guy who chooses to spend that extra $$$ on OTHER things, not on their own medical care...and then down the road becomes ill and becomes a burden on the system? or do we now adopt a SOL idea that it's your own fault and you can just be sick? again, all of this is the reason i think it's wise to take it directly from your income/paycheck and why it is also wise to fund preventative care. i still don't honestly know why you are against funding this since it is the best way of keeping costs lower, overall. preventative care costs a heckuva LOT less than say cancer treatments, surgery, etc. preventative care actually helps to....prevent....disease. and/or at least, catch it early, more options...for the life, and for cost-effectiveness. it truly just makes financial sense to have good incentives in place to encourage all to utlize preventative annual care.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
You know, I'm not sure about even having the insurance companies for the catastrophic either, but I do recognize that something would need to be in place. Maybe low interest unsecured loans?
My example about employers giving the money to employees was not something I'm advocating as a solution. I was trying to open people's eyes to the fact that they are already paying for their own health insurance.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
That's debatable...they're only "non-profit" because they spend everything they take. Not to mention the campaign donations people get for makng things happen. I don't think you could say they are non-profit with a straight face.
Not the total answer to your questions, but in THEORY, everyone should have more money available to them through lower costs of goods and services and higher wages if the employers weren't burdened with paying for health insurance. That money just doesn't come from thin air. If the employers are paying it, they are making it up with lower salaries and higher prices so in the end we're all paying for it anyway.
I also truly believe that the cost of health care will go lower if we introduce the concept of the patient as customer and the ability to find their doctor of choice on the basis of service, expertise AND PRICE.
I don't have an answer to how we force people to be responsible enough to take care of their own medical situations and, NO, I do not believe we should deny them care if they "can't" pay.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.