Members lug Posted July 3, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 What a great plan.If you're in the health insurance business, that is. Yep. We saw the exact same thing happen back when the made auto liability insurance mandatory here. The theory was that everyone's cost would drop since everyone was now covered. The reality was that everyone's costs went up and no one could legally avoid it unless you had an account with $40,000 in it to back you. The State had it's own liability plan for those that the insurance company wouldn't cover but it was astonomically high compared to private due to the large number of bad drivers on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachoff Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 Yep. We saw the exact same thing happen back when the made auto liability insurance mandatory here. The theory was that everyone's cost would drop since everyone was now covered. The reality was that everyone's costs went up and no one could legally avoid it unless you had an account with $40,000 in it to back you. Auto insurance is a racket for sure. Hell, insurance in general is a racket, but if you don't participate you run the risk of being royally hosed. Sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 According to the article, this bill isn't creating the single payer gov't program, but it is forcing insurance companies to take on clients that they would have previously rejected while providing subsidies to those who cannot afford it. Insurance companies will have no choice but to jack up prices. When that happens Congress will likely act to cap insurance premiums which will bankrupt the insurance industry. After that, we get healthcare provided by the same people who are in charge of the VA, Social Security and countless other failing programs. You {censored}ing asked for it, brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 3, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 Auto insurance is a racket for sure. Hell, insurance in general is a racket, but if you don't participate you run the risk of being royally hosed. Sucks.Think about it. Insurance companies don't run at a loss, so they naturally take more money out of the system just to survive. That means overall average costs have to go up. It's not like they can just sock it to the rich to cover things like the government can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members s4001 Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 My health insurance bill is $400/ month.My car insurance bill is $150/ month. My homeowners policy is $50 month and covers more than both of those combined. Hmmm..... Racket? I think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 3, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 My health insurance bill is $400/ month. My car insurance bill is $150/ month. My homeowners policy is $50 month and covers more than both of those combined. Hmmm..... Racket? I think so. $50 a month? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 My health insurance bill is $400/ month.My car insurance bill is $150/ month.My homeowners policy is $50 month and covers more than both of those combined.Hmmm..... Racket? I think so. If you drove your house around or owned a home susceptible to heart disease or cancer, your home owner's policy would likely cost more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 3, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 According to the article, this bill isn't creating the single payer gov't program, but it is forcing insurance companies to take on clients that they would have previously rejected while providing subsidies to those who cannot afford it. Insurance companies will have no choice but to jack up prices. When that happens Congress will likely act to cap insurance premiums which will bankrupt the insurance industry. After that, we get healthcare provided by the same people who are in charge of the VA, Social Security and countless other failing programs. You {censored}ing asked for it, brother. I'm hoping that just doesn't happen because that would change a lot of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 I'm hoping that just doesn't happen because that would change a lot of things. Wait, that wasn't the change I was hoping for. I thought it would be all rainbows and lollipops bought and paid for by the evil rich. This isn't fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 3, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 If you drove your house around or owned a home susceptible to heart disease or cancer, your home owner's policy would likely cost more.But he lives in Kalifornia! His house could fall into the sea and get burned up in a wildfire simultainously! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members P1gg1e Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 According to the article, this bill isn't creating the single payer gov't program, but it is forcing insurance companies to take on clients that they would have previously rejected while providing subsidies to those who cannot afford it.Insurance companies will have no choice but to jack up prices. When that happens Congress will likely act to cap insurance premiums which will bankrupt the insurance industry. After that, we get healthcare provided by the same people who are in charge of the VA, Social Security and countless other failing programs.You {censored}ing asked for it, brother. Maybe more then a system those who are rejected should be protected under a consumer protection act. So instead of punishing those who choose not to go within the system but want to buy their own health care are able to do so with lesser risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members s4001 Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 $50 a month? No hurricanes, floods or tornadoes. Last earthquake of any consequence here was almost 100 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 3, 2009 Author Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 No hurricanes, floods or tornadoes. Last earthquake of any consequence here was almost 100 years ago. Actually, we have 3 different insurances on the coast here. We have separate wind coverage and flood coverage that is not part of the regular insurance. My regular insurance that doesn't cover flood and wind is still almost 4X what you pay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 Maybe more then a system those who are rejected should be protected under a consumer protection act. So instead of punishing those who choose not to go within the system but want to buy their own health care are able to do so with lesser risk. Part of the problem is that people don't get health insurance until they need it, by then it is too late and it's a losing proposition for the insurance company. Despite millions in advertising, insurance companies are in business to make money, not because they care about people. That's the cold and ugly truth of the matter. Unfortunately, that makes many people uncomfortable and they look to the gov't to make it better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members knuckle_head Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 Last earthquake of any consequence.... Excellent qualifier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members s4001 Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 Earthquake coverage here is separate and quite expensive. Most don't have it, myself included. I'm okay with that because for some reason Long Beach is incredibly geologically quiet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members s4001 Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 Excellent qualifier. I learned from the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ender_rpm Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 It comes down to a simple question: Is public health truly a common good? Or is healthcare just a commodity. If it is a common good, like roads, police, and national defense, then it cannot be well run as a for profit system. If it is a commodity, then those who can afford it will, and those who cannot will die. Trying to walk the line between them is what gets us in trouble. FWIW, I grew up on welfare, was uninsured in my 20s (never needed health care. Ok, maybe needed it, but never went ) joined the Army and experienced single payer healthcare, and now have a fairly lavish benefits plan through my employer. I was fine under all of those systems. My health plan went up $2K this year (essentially. Have a $2K deductible instead of no deductible last year), which basically ate my raise in real terms. If i knew I could see similar benefits under a single payer system, but the amount my employer and I pay for healthcare for my wife and I would remain the same (ie, it's part of my taxes) id' likely be ok with it. IF we could get the same services. Since we used IVF heavily this year, it's questionable, but they they were fully covered by my employers health plan, and under my Army medical. So who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members georgestrings Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 To be fair, my reason for voting for Obama was out of fear of the social right (though Obama's still pretty socially right in my book). As I said, I am for some sort of basic government sponsored healthcare but I don't want it to be "illegal" if people don't have it. That weak. Super weak. No, to be REALLY fair, I'll point out that this scenario was talked about during the election - and you STILL voted for Obama... So, people like you are getting exactly what you voted for - nothing more or less... People like me pointed out what a socialist Obama was, and what would happen if he were elected - but, we were called "paranoid", "alarmist", etc... - remember??? If you combine this with other things that have already happened - and realize that it's only a short time into the Obama Presidency, it does hint to the future... - georgestrings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 I'm confident that McCain would have done the same damned thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members georgestrings Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 I'm confident that McCain would have done the same damned thing. While that's certainly possible, Obama pretty much outlined it - so, I don't understand the people that voted for him being surprised about it happening now... - georgestrings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members s4001 Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 Actually, we don't have health insurance - we have a sick payer middleman system. To use the home as an analogy, we pay homeowners insurance and it's protection from catastrophe. If I have a leaky faucet or broken tiles, I pay for that out of pocket. Same for health insurance. It should be catastrophic insurance. Costs go up dramatically, because ultimately we are paying for the massive insurance overhead. Paying for the DR visits 45-90 day repayment time, the paperwork they have to fill out dealing with insurance co's, etc. If we paid out of pocket for the routine medical visits and tests, I'd hazard a guess the overall costs would drop dramatically and - shocker - family doctors may actually make more money. As for the 'health' aspect, how many of you who want to be healthy go to a doctor? Do you rather go to the gym, a personal trainer, a dojo, or yoga and get books on diet? How many pamphlets on health, diet and yoga and stress reduction do you see at your DR's office as opposed to pamphlets for pills? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bassthumpintwin Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 I believe insurance as an industry has made near-everything far more expensive than is called for - health care, automotive repair, home ownership, blah blah blah.....+1.Take for example, why wife, who went to the ER because of a minor insulin pump malfunction. She couldn't get her sugar to go down, so we took precautions and took a trip.Long story short, we were there for 2 hours, MAYBE, during which time, we spent less than 20 minutes (total) interacting with anybody. This consisted of a nurses aid giving my wife a glass of water and checking her sugar 3 or 4 times, and a doctor talking to her for 5 minutes or so, MAX.The total bill came out to over 1000 dollars. For sitting in a room and drinking a cup of water for 2 hours.After insurance we only paid a couple hundred bucks out of pocket, but what in the world are they trying to pay for with that high of a bill? A paper cup and couple of testing strips?It's not like they were pumping her full of meds and expending all kinds of man hours for her. It seems like it's one of those things where "If we can charge this much to the insurance company, we will." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevilRaysFan Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the results. Insurance agencies will jack prices once it's mandatory, more people forced onto government rolls (medicare/maedicaid clone), due to the extremely low payout from these, docs will turn down these patients (this already happens in great numbers across the medical community). Gov will then make it mandatory for docs to see them and regulate how and what they test. This equals nationalised health care but just with a different name. So simple, everyone but a politician can see it. Bingo - especially the part I put in bold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Super Bass Posted July 3, 2009 Members Share Posted July 3, 2009 +1. Take for example, why wife, who went to the ER because of a minor insulin pump malfunction. She couldn't get her sugar to go down, so we took precautions and took a trip. Long story short, we were there for 2 hours, MAYBE, during which time, we spent less than 20 minutes (total) interacting with anybody. This consisted of a nurses aid giving my wife a glass of water and checking her sugar 3 or 4 times, and a doctor talking to her for 5 minutes or so, MAX. The total bill came out to over 1000 dollars. For sitting in a room and drinking a cup of water for 2 hours. After insurance we only paid a couple hundred bucks out of pocket, but what in the world are they trying to pay for with that high of a bill? A paper cup and couple of testing strips? It's not like they were pumping her full of meds and expending all kinds of man hours for her. It seems like it's one of those things where "If we can charge this much to the insurance company, we will." $1000 for pretty much nothing! Jeez... that makes me feel bad now. I had to go to a private hospital here last year for a heart scan and it cost me about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.