Turn in your neighbor, be a good citizen

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3110007
Yeah but what company wouldn't drop their insurance coverage in favor of the "affordable alternative"? The workers won't have a choice. Once their company does away with their insurance they are stuck either joining the government program or getting a much more expensive individual policy.
I don't disagree - Walmart (among others) already does that.
The government absolutely forces insurance companies to cover certain procedure now. Maybe all thats needed to solve this issue is to tweak the regulations about the circumstances which an insurance company can deny coverage. I mean most of my medical stuff right now is covered under a workmans comp claim which is state ran. You wouldn't believe the crap I have had to go through over the last 9 years. Seriously I should write a book%% Where do I go to fight the sate of Montana?
You're preaching to the choir. I'm no longer insurable because I lost my job, and couldn't afford both rent and Cobra.
Once I get another job, I can get insurance - maybe. At this point, CA employers are running 120 day (up from 90) probation periods and insurance co-pays for a single person have, on average, quintupled in the last 12 months, while my job description's pay scale has dropped 50%. In the meantime, I have a time sensitive condition which I can't afford to cover...
The current system is broken for both of us.
I'm open to suggestions.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3110011
I don't disagree - Walmart (among others) already does that.
You're preaching to the choir. I'm no longer insurable because I lost my job, and couldn't afford both rent and Cobra.
Once I get another job, I can get insurance - maybe. At this point, CA employers are running 120 day (up from 90) probation periods and insurance co-pays for a single person have, on average, quintupled in the last 12 months. In the meantime, I have a time sensitive condition which I can't afford to cover...
The current system is broken for both of us.
I'm open to suggestions.
Walmart offers even their part time employees insurance.
Cobra is great if you have a good savings account. It's better than nothing but not for folk with no savings.
But it all goes back to the same starting point. You have to make the cost of health care more affordable to make it affordable. Transferring the costs to someone else isn't going to solve the problem.
 

zman1

Active Member
I am starting to make the private sector's savings connection -- not ( A conservative nanny state)
We project that 2009 MA payments will be 114 percent of FFS spending. That means that in
2009 the Medicare program is paying about $12 billion more for the 23 percent of beneficiaries
enrolled in MA plans than if they remained in FFS Medicare.
http://www.medpac.gov/documents/Jun0...tireReport.pdf
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) -- Health insurer Humana Inc. said Monday its second-quarter profit rose 34 percent on the strength its robust government business, led by Medicare Advantage
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...ns-Humana.html
Better yet Aetna is weaker
a 21 percent decrease from the prior-year quarter
http://www.aetna.com/news/newsReleas..._earnings.html
 

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3110015
But it all goes back to the same starting point. You have to make the cost of health care more affordable to make it affordable. Transferring the costs to someone else isn't going to solve the problem.
Exactly. Insurance, private or public is BS.
It's no different than mandatory vehicle insurance: I paid 1200 per year (~10x the going rate in WI at the time) for the entire decade of the 80's because I was classified as a "high risk" driver. Not because I'd gotten in any accidents, but because I had a couple speeding tickets.
The day after my truck got stolen (by a co-worker) I was dropped. The truck was worth 1500. Were it not a mandatory insurance state, I'dve had 20+k in the bank to buy another one. But I'm sort of a law abiding citizen, so I got screwed.
Health insurance, as it stands, is no different.
It's funny to me that we have drug and alcohol laws that are designed to maximize individual productivity, yet we, for all practical purposes, exempt corporations from dumping carcinogens into the environment, while simultaneously denying their victims humanitarian aid.
Talk about Fascism.
Meantime, I don't believe that a viable system can't be worked out. The BS, i.e this kinda crap http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc...ettles_it.php/ has to be swept out of the way first, however.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Oh yeah, insurance of any kind is a racket but what are you going to do. If you look at cosmetic surgery which is almost never covered by insurance the prices haven't gone up anything like stuff that is covered by insurance. Problem is how do you stuff the genie back into the bottle?
 

uneverno

Active Member
Indeed.
I do find it hilarious though, that in the late 70's early 80's(ish) Insurance Companies were the biggest lobbyists for mandatory insurance, but now that they're getting called on their little racket, they're its biggest antagonists.
Consider this: Could it be that their actuarians have determined that insuring an ageing population is not a good business model?
Free market, my a**.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3110766
Indeed.
I do find it hilarious though, that in the late 70's early 80's(ish) Insurance Companies were the biggest lobbyists for mandatory insurance, but now that they're getting called on their little racket, they're its biggest antagonists.
Consider this: Could it be that their actuarians have determined that insuring an ageing population is not a good business model?
Free market, my a**.
The thing that bugs me is insurance by definition is purchasing an indemnity against an unforeseen event. Health INSURANCE really should only cover accidents or disease if you think about it. Car insurance doesn't include tire replacement or tune ups. Homeowners doesn't pay to paint or replace the carpet when it's worn out. Why should we expect health insurance to cover regular check ups? No good way to solve the problem quickly.
 

zman1

Active Member

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3110777
The thing that bugs me is insurance by definition is purchasing an indemnity against an unforeseen event. Health INSURANCE really should only cover accidents or disease
if you think about it. Car insurance doesn't include tire replacement or tune ups.
Homeowners doesn't pay to paint or replace the carpet when it's worn out.
Why should we expect health insurance to cover regular check ups? No good way to solve the problem quickly.
I see what you are saying, but health care doesn't cover haircuts, fingernail trimming, new shoes, new pants or shirt either (FCS). These are maintenance or consumable items like tires and worn carpet, etc.. It's (ensure)insurance that you will receive health care so long as the procedure is covered in the policy.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3110843
I see what you are saying, but health care doesn't cover haircuts, fingernail trimming, new shoes, new pants or shirt either (FCS). These are maintenance or consumable items like tires and worn carpet, etc.. It's (ensure)insurance that you will receive health care so long as the procedure is covered in the policy.

Say your engine blows, the alternator or water pump goes out. These can be attributed to organs in the human body. Does car insurance cover their replacement or even a portion of the cost as health insurance does?
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3110843
I see what you are saying, but health care doesn't cover haircuts, fingernail trimming, new shoes, new pants or shirt either (FCS). These are maintenance or consumable items like tires and worn carpet, etc.. It's (ensure)insurance that you will receive health care so long as the procedure is covered in the policy.
Yes but routine office visits and screening would be in the same category as haircuts and clothing. Insurance wont put upgraded rims or wax your car.
I mentioned in a thread somewhere about the doc that was selling medical subscriptions that covered office visits and and treatments for a monthly fee. That to me is an interesting concept. If you had a insurance policy that would cover things like heart attacks, cancer accidents etc. and then let you deal directly with the doctors for routine things that are handled with office visits the "subscription" might make sense.
 

uneverno

Active Member
That makes total sense to me.
I can see my GP for $60.00 cash (less than the average tune up.)
Meantime, w/ insurance, while my co-pay is only between $10-25 that same visit is is billed at $120.00 to the insurance company.
 

zman1

Active Member

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3110902
Say your engine blows, the alternator or water pump goes out.
These can be attributed to organs in the human body. Does car insurance cover their replacement or even a portion of the cost as health insurance does?
Warranty or Extended Warranty --
 

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3110971
Yes but routine office visits and screening would be in the same category as haircuts and clothing. Insurance wont put upgraded rims or wax your car..
NOT- It is Preventive Maintenance on the revenue stream...
analogies aren't working... By these comparisons, Black Mold, and Terminate damage should be covered under Homeowners - a disease. Neither are....
 

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3110971
I mentioned in a thread somewhere about the doc that was selling medical subscriptions that covered office visits and and treatments for a monthly fee. That to me is an interesting concept. If you had a insurance policy that would cover things like heart attacks, cancer accidents etc. and then let you deal directly with the doctors for routine things that are handled with office visits the "subscription" might make sense.
This would be nice, but how would all the referrals kickbacks going to work with a major medical issue. what if that specialist for in-network coverage is not the one your are referred too....
You can't just walk into a specialist's office without a referral.
Side note:Dental is a 100 times worse than this.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3111153
This would be nice, but how would all the referrals kickbacks going to work with a major medical issue. what if that specialist for in-network coverage it's not the one your are referred too....
You can't just walk into a specialist's office without a referral.
Side note:Dental is a 100 times worse than this.
Actually you can walk into a specialists office without a referral, for a price. Couple years back, I was having chest pains, hard time breathing, etc., and I just had a checkup with my GP who told me I was fine. I didn't like his answer, so I made an appointment with the cardioligist who was literally across the hall from his office. I told him what my symptoms were, and that I wanted to have an extensive Stress Test (they take about 15 pictures of your heart, inject a dye into you, stick you on a treadmill for 6 minutes, then take the same 15 pictures). The first question he asked was, "What's the name of your GP that referred you?" I told him who my GP was, but that he didn't refer me. I said I wanted to make sure that my 'plumbing' is OK for my own peace of mind. He said, "OK by me." $1,500 later, I found out I was fine....
 

zman1

Active Member

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3111172
Actually you can walk into a specialists office without a referral, for a price
.....
Sorry, I forgot - Money talks, BS walks. That is part of the problem, big money makes the rules.
 
Top