IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

Quote:

What part of my opinion do you specifically disagree with, ci? I'm arguing against individual mandates to purchase private health insurance, not universal health care (which I'm on record in this thread as supporting).

Without some form of mandate for individual purchase of private health insurance, how does the plan provide choice for the consumer? From my viewpoint, any universal health plan must have a private and public option, and I believe the plan now being developed in congress provides this choice.

It's possible that I'm misreading what you're saying.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

CI, I prefer it to be like public school (cut the guffaws, I know what you're thinking) -- everybody is covered by single payer, but if they want to pay for something better they can. I favor expanding any of our already public plans we have to allow everyone to join. Are there not seniors now who have both Medicare and private insurance?

2 Replies

@FreeDuck,

What you seem to be saying is that you agree that the consumers should have a choice between private or public schools. I agree with that notion that people who can "afford" to send their children to private schools be allowed to make that choice.

Yes, many Medicare beneficiaries are allowed to choose whether they want a private insurance plan or an HMO. My wife and I are both happy with Kaiser - where she used to work, and now volunteers once-a-week. They completed a new campus that's located only one block from where we live. I "love" my doctor, who's been my health care provider for a couple of decades now. She's from India, and trained at Stanford.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Yes, but I should elaborate. Consumers don't now have a choice between public or private schools unless they have the money to pay for private. But paying for private doesn't absolve them of paying the public school "premiums" and it doesn't mean that they can't at any time enroll their child in public school. I think choice of a health plan is overrated. Most Americans don't have real choice in the matter now. We accept what our employers offer. Sometimes the employers offer us a choice between two very similar plans which amount to not much more than a difference in copays and covered illnesses. Most Americans don't spend time dreaming up their perfect health plan, and if we pay attention at all to what's covered it's only in an effort to prevent ourselves from getting screwed by insurance companies should we ever actually need the insurance we're paying for. We exercise our choices by choosing our doctors and preferred hospitals. So, not to sound callous, but I'm really not sure what role choice should play in this debate.

3 Replies

@FreeDuck,

Yes... like C.I. and probably most others who aren’t down on their luck. Your plan makes the most sense, but there are no campaign donations in it so it will be demonized by both sides.

I wonder how many people would like to pay an education insurance company to act as a middleman between parents and schools for a profit. The idiocy involved with "insuring" everyone should be self evident. Why not just provide the healthcare?

How much dough is wasted paying morons to decide who qualifies for assistance now? How much dough is wasted paying people to process mountains of paperwork in general? How much dough is wasted because poor people don't get routine checkups and preventative medicine? Add all the parasitic waste together alone, and it probably exceeds the excess cost of universal healthcare by large margin... if not for the moronic idea of fattening private insurance companies along the way.

Even if it doesn't, who are we as a people, the richest country the planet has ever known, to stand by and watch some sorry sonofabitch suffer because he/she made stupid choices in the past?

I am as "rationally self interested" as any member here, and while I fully believe a well designed single payer system would cost me no more than the private-parasite-system does now; even if it did, I would consider it money well spent, as it could only have the effect of making me feel better about me.

Aside from the inordinately wealthy, and people who seek to get that way through medicine, virtually every American would benefit from a single payer system with private options and it is mostly willful ignorance that prevents them from recognizing it.

Death panels? That's the big fear? Are you shitting me? Wake up and smell the rotting corpses piling up from the Death Panels that are private insurance. If you really think about it; there has to be a limit to what any collective can be asked to provide to any one person. Does anyone really believe that having that decision made by profit motivated policy makers is really in their best interest? Shocked

If my neighbor’s house gets broken into; I’d like the cops to come.
If it starts on fire; I’d like the fire department to come.
If he can’t afford private school for his kids; I’d like them to go to a public school.
If he can’t afford to get his fingers sewn back on in a private hospital; I’d like for there to be a public one available, who won’t ask him to choose between his fingers and the roof over his children’s head.

2 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

Yes, but I should elaborate. Consumers don't now have a choice between public or private schools unless they have the money to pay for private. But paying for private doesn't absolve them of paying the public school "premiums" and it doesn't mean that they can't at any time enroll their child in public school.

Are you suggesting we could select a private plan, pay for it ourselves, and continue to also pay for a public plan from which we receive no benefit? This seems to follow from the public/private school analogy. The Medicare Parts A & B are somewhat different. It's as though you send your kids to public school, but privately engage tutors to make up for any perceived failures of the public school system. Of course, each Tutoring Plan (A through G) needs to be approved by Educare (or something like that).

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

I'm very much in agreement, Bill.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I wonder how many people would like to pay an education insurance company to act as a middleman between parents and schools for a profit. The idiocy involved with "insuring" everyone should be self evident. Why not just provide the healthcare?

Exactly. Collect the tax and provide the service. We seem to want to make this as complicated and expensive as possible. I think this obscene public-private merging will only give us the worst of both worlds.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

Well, the school thing is a poor analogy. Insurance is for the unexpected. If you insure for expenses that are fully known, it is obvious that the cost of insurance must equal known expenses, plus insurance administration, plus profit, minus government subsidy. That assumes a government subsidy, of course.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Yes, but I should elaborate. Consumers don't now have a choice between public or private schools unless they have the money to pay for private. But paying for private doesn't absolve them of paying the public school "premiums" and it doesn't mean that they can't at any time enroll their child in public school.

Are you suggesting we could select a private plan, pay for it ourselves, and continue to also pay for a public plan from which we receive no benefit? This seems to follow from the public/private school analogy. The Medicare Parts A & B are somewhat different. It's as though you send your kids to public school, but privately engage tutors to make up for any perceived failures of the public school system. Of course, each Tutoring Plan (A through G) needs to be approved by Educare (or something like that).

From the analogy -- I meant in the sense of the taxes that support it. We all right now pay Medicare tax even if we aren't old enough to receive it. Likewise, everyone who owns property pays school taxes regardless of whether they use them. The analogy doesn't quite match up with respect to premiums though, and I realize that. We don't pay school premiums when we enroll our kids but we do pay Medicare premiums. I prefer to allow private insurance to compete in the "over and above" space after a basic minimal level of care is provided, which, if I read you right, is how Medicare works today? I may not have made that clear as I know ci was meaning more direct competition.

2 Replies

@FreeDuck,

But that's the same with any insurance we buy; the more you pay, the better coverage one gets. It's a very competitive market place where several big insurance companies compete to offer their insurance plan at differing premiums and coverage. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this competitive marketplace where we can buy insurance at different benefits and rates.

Our auto insurance is very good! We get multiple car discounts, good driver discounts, and discounts for getting our other insurance products from the same company. We were able to increase our uninsured coverage from the discount our insurance gave us on our auto insurance with no additional cost.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

Well, the school thing is a poor analogy. Insurance is for the unexpected. If you insure for expenses that are fully known, it is obvious that the cost of insurance must equal known expenses, plus insurance administration, plus profit, minus government subsidy. That assumes a government subsidy, of course.

Not sure exactly what you mean here.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck, During our working years, we pay social security and Medicare taxes, but I can assure you that the benefit far exceeds what we pay into it with some exceptions. Those exceptions include, but not limited to, dying early before retirement, or one's health is so good he/she never needs health care intervention. However, I would say that the majority of us need social security and health care in our old age. I've kept track of how much my wife and I paid into social security and Medicare from the year of our marriage, and our benefits now far exceeds what we paid into them. I'm sure this is true for most Americans who have worked and paid into social security and Medicare, because the average lifespan for Americans is 77 years.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Our auto insurance is very good! We get multiple car discounts, good driver discounts, and discounts for getting our other insurance products from the same company. We were able to increase our uninsured coverage from the discount our insurance gave us on our auto insurance with no additional cost.

Ours is also very good. We got to choose it ourselves instead of having our employer choose it. You know why? Because car insurance pools based on zip code, not whether or not you are employed and how many people are in your company. You know what else, car insurance costs less than our mortgages. If I get in an accident, my car insurance pays for the repairs and doesn't decide that since my left blinker didn't work before the accident they're not going pay to replace the smashed headlamp, or that, since my car was not close to death, I should not have had it towed and they won't pay for that either.

Your car insurance and homeowners insurance and others are true insurance. They don't pay for tune ups and lawn maintenance. Health insurance is not really insurance at all -- it is the private sector's answer to a government reluctant to provide a universal public service.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

But health insurance is "insurance." How can it not be insurance, when premiums paid allows one to get medical care? Ever try to get medical care without health insurance? Most hospitals won't even look at you without health insurance, except in emergency rooms.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

I prefer to allow private insurance to compete in the "over and above" space after a basic minimal level of care is provided, which, if I read you right, is how Medicare works today? I may not have made that clear as I know ci was meaning more direct competition.

Yes, sort of.

If you live in a city with one or more HMOs to choose from, you can assign your Medicare benefits to an HMO, and pay an additional premium. The HMO gets some level of subsidy from Medicare. This is called Medicare Part C, and may or may not include a prescription drug plan.

Original Medicare (also called Medicare Part A), by the way, has no monthly premium, and provides for hospitalization with a $1,06x deductable. Now, there is private insurance with additional features, and many options to choose from. Plan A pays the deductible, and has a few other minor features. But, wait! Most of the Plans A have a starting premium of $85.00/month. Multiply that by 12 months and compare the product to the $1,06x deductable. Does it still look like a good idea?

Medicare Part B is intended to cover Doctor and other service as outpatient. For most people, there is a monthly premium of ninety something dollars per month. An office visit to the doctor's office is covered at 80% of what Medicare has decided the doctor should charge. For general guidance, my doctor charges $137.00. Medicare compensation is 80% of $88.00, which the think is the proper charge. That is, that's what Medicare pays after I meet the annual deductable of $137.00. Now, a doctor practicing in Paris, Texas just might welcome the Medicare patient with open arms. The same might not be true in Manhatten, NY, or Farmington, New Mexico.

There are a number of other "Medigap" plans available. In addition to Medicare coverage, including these various lettered plans, you can also be covered by Veteran's Administration. Once on Medicare, I do not believe you can be covered by any other plan than those within the Medicare system.

I don't offer this to support or refute anything. Just presenting my best understanding of the general Medicare system. I am aware I've drifted off topic, but Medicare does seem to pop up in discussions of public health care plans.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger, Good show! Most people, especially those under 65 years old, still do not understand how the Medicare program works. Those Medicare premiums are deducted from our social security benefit, so most people do not pay "out of pocket" for their primary Medicare coverage, and are not aware of what the true cost of the benefit is.

Most of us only look at how much it's costing us when we see our doctor or health care provider, and how much we pay for all the meds we take. If my guesstimates are good/accurate, my out of pocket every year runs less than $1,000. I find that to be a very good bargain knowing that people with private insurance can be paying over $500/month.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

roger wrote:

Well, the school thing is a poor analogy. Insurance is for the unexpected. If you insure for expenses that are fully known, it is obvious that the cost of insurance must equal known expenses, plus insurance administration, plus profit, minus government subsidy. That assumes a government subsidy, of course.

Not sure exactly what you mean here.

Oh, boy. I just hate quoting exactly what people have said, but I don't see any way out of it.

Okay, lets say that public education has a cost of $10,000 per pupil, per year. Given the cost, how much is the education insurance you use for analogy going to cost. I'm suggesting it would have to cost $10,000, plus a bit to cover administrative costs and profit. That is because you are insuring against known expense. Compare to auto insurance. For less than $500 per year, I am insuring a potential liability of up to $50,000. The insurance makes such a relatively good deal because they are not insuring for a known cost. The probability of that big a payout is known only to them.

To me, it is clear that you cannot compare insurance of a known cost to an unknown series of events.

I agree. My original post is confusing, and I'm not sure I'm helping now.

2 Replies

@roger,

Nothing to do with health insurance, but are this real figures?

roger wrote:

For less than $500 per year, I am insuring a potential liability of up to $50,000.

I pay $ 430 per year, for potential liabilities up to $ 155,000,000 (persons only up $12,000,000 each), including an accident and breakdown cover as well as damages on my car ($ 200 own contribution).

Just wondering.

1 Reply

@roger,

Ok, that clarifies things. To be clear, the analogy I used was to demonstrate why insurance does not make sense in either case.

I'm on the train so I can't respond the way I would like, but thanks for both of those posts --especially the one on Medicare.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Yes.

1 Reply

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know