[quote author=mrmagee link=topic=31395.msg133679#msg133679 date=1420055202]
I said I was in favor of mandated universal coverage. There is nothing in there that requires a turnover of 1/6 of the economy to the federal government, unless you assume that the only way to do that is for us to implement the Canadian or British systems.
[/quote]
What does "mandated" mean if not government enforced?
What single payer system do you know that doesn't involve government control?
Where"s the "straw man" argument in noting over 40,000 Canadiens annually cross the border as medical tourist to use our medical facilities?
Obama care, sticking it to the insured!
-
mrmagee
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:41 pm
Re: Obama care, sticking it to the insured!
[quote author=RNaka link=topic=31395.msg133689#msg133689 date=1420062088]
What does "mandated" mean if not government enforced?
[/quote]
Government "enforced" is not the same thing as government "provided".
[quote]
What single payer system do you know that doesn't involve government control?
[/quote]
Who here ever advocated for a single payer system?
[quote]
Where"s the "straw man" argument in noting over 40,000 Canadiens annually cross the border as medical tourist to use our medical facilities?
[/quote]
It's a straw man argument because Canada's system has nothing to do with America's system. We're discussing America's system. If I had come out and said, "hey, we should just do what the Canadians do", then your argument would have some basis in the conversation. Since I didn't actually do that, you're not addressing any substantive points. It's simply a rhetorical straw man to knock down while failing to have a substantive conversation on what actually is a problem in America right now.
What does "mandated" mean if not government enforced?
[/quote]
Government "enforced" is not the same thing as government "provided".
[quote]
What single payer system do you know that doesn't involve government control?
[/quote]
Who here ever advocated for a single payer system?
[quote]
Where"s the "straw man" argument in noting over 40,000 Canadiens annually cross the border as medical tourist to use our medical facilities?
[/quote]
It's a straw man argument because Canada's system has nothing to do with America's system. We're discussing America's system. If I had come out and said, "hey, we should just do what the Canadians do", then your argument would have some basis in the conversation. Since I didn't actually do that, you're not addressing any substantive points. It's simply a rhetorical straw man to knock down while failing to have a substantive conversation on what actually is a problem in America right now.
-
RNaka
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:50 pm
Re: Obama care, sticking it to the insured!
[quote author=mrmagee link=topic=31395.msg133690#msg133690 date=1420062432]
Government "enforced" is not the same thing as government "provided".
Who here ever advocated for a single payer system?
It's a straw man argument because Canada's system has nothing to do with America's system. We're discussing America's system. If I had come out and said, "hey, we should just do what the Canadians do", then your argument would have some basis in the conversation. Since I didn't actually do that, you're not addressing any substantive points. It's simply a rhetorical straw man to knock down while failing to have a substantive conversation on what actually is a problem in America right now.
[/quote]
Great theory. Still waiting for examples
Edit: Sorry, that was a bit flippant.
I guess I don't know what you mean by "universal" health care.
I don't know how in a market driven economy it would work.
Enlighten me
Government "enforced" is not the same thing as government "provided".
Who here ever advocated for a single payer system?
It's a straw man argument because Canada's system has nothing to do with America's system. We're discussing America's system. If I had come out and said, "hey, we should just do what the Canadians do", then your argument would have some basis in the conversation. Since I didn't actually do that, you're not addressing any substantive points. It's simply a rhetorical straw man to knock down while failing to have a substantive conversation on what actually is a problem in America right now.
[/quote]
Great theory. Still waiting for examples
Edit: Sorry, that was a bit flippant.
I guess I don't know what you mean by "universal" health care.
I don't know how in a market driven economy it would work.
Enlighten me
-
mrmagee
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:41 pm
Re: Obama care, sticking it to the insured!
[quote author=RNaka link=topic=31395.msg133691#msg133691 date=1420062694]
Great theory. Still waiting for examples
Edit: Sorry, that was a bit flippant.
I guess I don't know what you mean by "universal" health care.
I don't know how in a market driven economy it would work.
Enlighten me
[/quote]
The swiss system is a good example of a system that utilizes private insurers while still achieving universal coverage through mandates. Here's a general overview of the way it works:
1. The government mandates that their citizens maintain a specific low level of health insurance -- it covers basic wellness, pregnancy, and has an annual deductible, then charges a certain percentage to the insured if they go over a specific amount of coverage (I think like 10% -- so it functions similar to coinsurance over a specific coverage limit).
2. Their insurance companies are mandated to offer this package. They can set their own cost for this package, however, the package must be offered to all of their subscribers at the same cost. These are private insurance companies, and there is competition between them.
3. The people are responsible for the cost of the package up to approximately 8% of their income -- if the package costs more, they get tax credits/subsidies for the cost.
4. They are then free to supplement the compulsory insurance with other insurance packages, which may cover more services or have increased levels of care, such as private hotel rooms, etc. There are no restrictions on these plans, insurance companies are welcome to do whatever they would like with these packages.
The U.S. healthcare system is already far more socialized than the Swiss system, and the Swiss system achieves better results, at a lower percentage of GDP, and universal coverage.
Great theory. Still waiting for examples
Edit: Sorry, that was a bit flippant.
I guess I don't know what you mean by "universal" health care.
I don't know how in a market driven economy it would work.
Enlighten me
[/quote]
The swiss system is a good example of a system that utilizes private insurers while still achieving universal coverage through mandates. Here's a general overview of the way it works:
1. The government mandates that their citizens maintain a specific low level of health insurance -- it covers basic wellness, pregnancy, and has an annual deductible, then charges a certain percentage to the insured if they go over a specific amount of coverage (I think like 10% -- so it functions similar to coinsurance over a specific coverage limit).
2. Their insurance companies are mandated to offer this package. They can set their own cost for this package, however, the package must be offered to all of their subscribers at the same cost. These are private insurance companies, and there is competition between them.
3. The people are responsible for the cost of the package up to approximately 8% of their income -- if the package costs more, they get tax credits/subsidies for the cost.
4. They are then free to supplement the compulsory insurance with other insurance packages, which may cover more services or have increased levels of care, such as private hotel rooms, etc. There are no restrictions on these plans, insurance companies are welcome to do whatever they would like with these packages.
The U.S. healthcare system is already far more socialized than the Swiss system, and the Swiss system achieves better results, at a lower percentage of GDP, and universal coverage.
-
Myfirstandlastname
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 4:20 am
Re: Obama care, sticking it to the insured!
[quote author=mrmagee link=topic=31395.msg133692#msg133692 date=1420064732]
The swiss system is a good example of a system that utilizes private insurers while still achieving universal coverage through mandates. Here's a general overview of the way it works:
1. The government mandates that their citizens maintain a specific low level of health insurance -- it covers basic wellness, pregnancy, and has an annual deductible, then charges a certain percentage to the insured if they go over a specific amount of coverage (I think like 10% -- so it functions similar to coinsurance over a specific coverage limit).
2. Their insurance companies are mandated to offer this package. They can set their own cost for this package, however, the package must be offered to all of their subscribers at the same cost. These are private insurance companies, and there is competition between them.
3. The people are responsible for the cost of the package up to approximately 8% of their income -- if the package costs more, they get tax credits/subsidies for the cost.
4. They are then free to supplement the compulsory insurance with other insurance packages, which may cover more services or have increased levels of care, such as private hotel rooms, etc. There are no restrictions on these plans, insurance companies are welcome to do whatever they would like with these packages.
The U.S. healthcare system is already far more socialized than the Swiss system, and the Swiss system achieves better results, at a lower percentage of GDP, and universal coverage.
[/quote]
I've never been more proud of my Swiss heritage. We are such a wise and reasoned people :)
The swiss system is a good example of a system that utilizes private insurers while still achieving universal coverage through mandates. Here's a general overview of the way it works:
1. The government mandates that their citizens maintain a specific low level of health insurance -- it covers basic wellness, pregnancy, and has an annual deductible, then charges a certain percentage to the insured if they go over a specific amount of coverage (I think like 10% -- so it functions similar to coinsurance over a specific coverage limit).
2. Their insurance companies are mandated to offer this package. They can set their own cost for this package, however, the package must be offered to all of their subscribers at the same cost. These are private insurance companies, and there is competition between them.
3. The people are responsible for the cost of the package up to approximately 8% of their income -- if the package costs more, they get tax credits/subsidies for the cost.
4. They are then free to supplement the compulsory insurance with other insurance packages, which may cover more services or have increased levels of care, such as private hotel rooms, etc. There are no restrictions on these plans, insurance companies are welcome to do whatever they would like with these packages.
The U.S. healthcare system is already far more socialized than the Swiss system, and the Swiss system achieves better results, at a lower percentage of GDP, and universal coverage.
[/quote]
I've never been more proud of my Swiss heritage. We are such a wise and reasoned people :)
-
coronacigar
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2013 3:31 am
Re: Obama care, sticking it to the insured!
[quote author=Treinenwj link=topic=31395.msg133683#msg133683 date=1420056726]
I've long felt the same way. Doctors/ hospitals aren't caught by surprise when insurance companies only pay a portion of the bill. They know how much they'll get paid, and charge accordingly.
The common line is "we have to charge so much to make up the loss for people who can't/ won't pay." But really, they're charging so much in order to make the REAL amount from insurance companies.
Let's say you run a business providing a unique service valued @$1000. The cost to you is $500. If you know one out of every 10 customers won't pay, you'll raise your rates to $1050 to cover that $500 loss. But, if everyone is compelled to pay, but ONLY 20%, then you would raise your rates to $5000 to compensate. Maybe if you're lucky, you can get the occasional uninsured customer to pay the entire $5000, for the $1000 service.
That is why medical bills are so high. Requiring everybody to carry insurance doesn't help. What would help is requiring insurance companies to pay a fair rate to the providers, and requiring the providers to adjust rates accordingly.
[/quote]
BINGO ---- !!! :clap:
I've long felt the same way. Doctors/ hospitals aren't caught by surprise when insurance companies only pay a portion of the bill. They know how much they'll get paid, and charge accordingly.
The common line is "we have to charge so much to make up the loss for people who can't/ won't pay." But really, they're charging so much in order to make the REAL amount from insurance companies.
Let's say you run a business providing a unique service valued @$1000. The cost to you is $500. If you know one out of every 10 customers won't pay, you'll raise your rates to $1050 to cover that $500 loss. But, if everyone is compelled to pay, but ONLY 20%, then you would raise your rates to $5000 to compensate. Maybe if you're lucky, you can get the occasional uninsured customer to pay the entire $5000, for the $1000 service.
That is why medical bills are so high. Requiring everybody to carry insurance doesn't help. What would help is requiring insurance companies to pay a fair rate to the providers, and requiring the providers to adjust rates accordingly.
[/quote]
BINGO ---- !!! :clap:
-
RNaka
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:50 pm
Re: Obama care, sticking it to the insured!
[quote author=mrmagee link=topic=31395.msg133692#msg133692 date=1420064732]
The swiss system is a good example of a system that utilizes private insurers while still achieving universal coverage through mandates. Here's a general overview of the way it works:
1. The government mandates that their citizens maintain a specific low level of health insurance -- it covers basic wellness, pregnancy, and has an annual deductible, then charges a certain percentage to the insured if they go over a specific amount of coverage (I think like 10% -- so it functions similar to coinsurance over a specific coverage limit).
2. Their insurance companies are mandated to offer this package. They can set their own cost for this package, however, the package must be offered to all of their subscribers at the same cost. These are private insurance companies, and there is competition between them.
3. The people are responsible for the cost of the package up to approximately 8% of their income -- if the package costs more, they get tax credits/subsidies for the cost.
4. They are then free to supplement the compulsory insurance with other insurance packages, which may cover more services or have increased levels of care, such as private hotel rooms, etc. There are no restrictions on these plans, insurance companies are welcome to do whatever they would like with these packages.
The U.S. healthcare system is already far more socialized than the Swiss system, and the Swiss system achieves better results, at a lower percentage of GDP, and universal coverage.
[/quote]
Thank you. I'll check it out
Cheers
The swiss system is a good example of a system that utilizes private insurers while still achieving universal coverage through mandates. Here's a general overview of the way it works:
1. The government mandates that their citizens maintain a specific low level of health insurance -- it covers basic wellness, pregnancy, and has an annual deductible, then charges a certain percentage to the insured if they go over a specific amount of coverage (I think like 10% -- so it functions similar to coinsurance over a specific coverage limit).
2. Their insurance companies are mandated to offer this package. They can set their own cost for this package, however, the package must be offered to all of their subscribers at the same cost. These are private insurance companies, and there is competition between them.
3. The people are responsible for the cost of the package up to approximately 8% of their income -- if the package costs more, they get tax credits/subsidies for the cost.
4. They are then free to supplement the compulsory insurance with other insurance packages, which may cover more services or have increased levels of care, such as private hotel rooms, etc. There are no restrictions on these plans, insurance companies are welcome to do whatever they would like with these packages.
The U.S. healthcare system is already far more socialized than the Swiss system, and the Swiss system achieves better results, at a lower percentage of GDP, and universal coverage.
[/quote]
Thank you. I'll check it out
Cheers
-
mrmagee
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:41 pm
Re: Obama care, sticking it to the insured!
[quote author=RNaka link=topic=31395.msg133695#msg133695 date=1420068072]
Thank you. I'll check it out
Cheers
[/quote]
No prob man. Happy New Year's.
Thank you. I'll check it out
Cheers
[/quote]
No prob man. Happy New Year's.
-
Cohim
- Posts: 827
- Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 3:04 pm
Re: Obama care, sticking it to the insured!
Happy New Years RNaka!
I come from the land of "Show your tit's, and that ain't no lie!!!
-
Treinenwj
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 12:07 am
Re: Obama care, sticking it to the insured!
[quote author=mrmagee link=topic=31395.msg133686#msg133686 date=1420060307]
It's one of the reasons, for sure (and I agree with the rest of your post).
However, another reason the prices are high is that hospitals (or, perhaps, Doctors - who are bound by ethical obligations) are required to provide emergency treatment to people without first being able to assure themselves that they can pay for the treatment.
If a person without insurance is in a car accident, and they require a $30,000 surgery (real cost) to save their life, and they can't pay -- that cost gets pushed into the costs of everyone else who either has insurance or can pay that cost out of pocket. The hospital, however, will do the surgery when the patient is brought in on a stretcher.
The only way to avoid this is to allow the hospital to either refuse treatment to people who cannot pay -- or to require everyone to carry some minimum level of catastrophic coverage.
It's just like owning a house -- the mortgage company requires you to have insurance if your LTV is over a certain amount. Only in this case, the LTV is almost always over that amount, and the mortgage company (in this case, the hospital) cannot refuse to do business with you if you don't meet their terms.
As far as systems go, it's pretty broken, intrinsically, and has been for a very long time.
[/quote]
I get what you're saying. But what I'm saying is that $30,000 surgery is more likely a $6000 surgery, like you said in your earlier post. A small surcharge can be attributed to non-paying patients, but the costs we are seeing in the US are due largely to under-paying insurance companies.
It's one of the reasons, for sure (and I agree with the rest of your post).
However, another reason the prices are high is that hospitals (or, perhaps, Doctors - who are bound by ethical obligations) are required to provide emergency treatment to people without first being able to assure themselves that they can pay for the treatment.
If a person without insurance is in a car accident, and they require a $30,000 surgery (real cost) to save their life, and they can't pay -- that cost gets pushed into the costs of everyone else who either has insurance or can pay that cost out of pocket. The hospital, however, will do the surgery when the patient is brought in on a stretcher.
The only way to avoid this is to allow the hospital to either refuse treatment to people who cannot pay -- or to require everyone to carry some minimum level of catastrophic coverage.
It's just like owning a house -- the mortgage company requires you to have insurance if your LTV is over a certain amount. Only in this case, the LTV is almost always over that amount, and the mortgage company (in this case, the hospital) cannot refuse to do business with you if you don't meet their terms.
As far as systems go, it's pretty broken, intrinsically, and has been for a very long time.
[/quote]
I get what you're saying. But what I'm saying is that $30,000 surgery is more likely a $6000 surgery, like you said in your earlier post. A small surcharge can be attributed to non-paying patients, but the costs we are seeing in the US are due largely to under-paying insurance companies.