IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

How many Germans take the time to select from these 40 companies? Since there will not be a public option in the US, who has the time or inclination to study all the private plans to select from?

When you start to compare buying a car with health insurance, most people usually have a good idea which car maker or model they will look at based on their knowledge about cars; looking at 40 different insurance companies is a whole different issue.

I suppose that's only because you're not used to compare.

In the private sector, only about 9 milion Germans are insured (some of those may be in the mandatory, but bought additionally supplemental private insurances, e.g. for better hospital rooms, full costs of glasses, everything paid at the dentist's ...).
Well, I suppose, every single one compares the offers - if not directly (what most will do) than via test magazine reports.

It seems that you Americans have a totally different understanding about (health) insurances than we have here.

3 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Thanks for the update slkshock7.

The other problem that I see with the 'competition' in the health care industry is that many employees are only allowed to change their plan 1 time per year.

I should mention that this is a government rule affecting the various cafeteria plans, including the sec 125 Premium Only Plans. Entry is after some stated length of service, and at an open enrollment once a year. You do continue with your options either for one year, or untill the next open enrollment period. Also, no current year benefits can be carried forward to a following year.

For those getting tax advantaged cafeteria plans, this does solve the problem of people enrolling when they see surgery or something coming up, and unenrolling when they feel the need is past. For what it is worth, all the Medicare plans and parts follow the same rule; in for a year or not in at all.

I have to agree with you on public options. If health insurance is to be mandated, there needs to be a public option. If it is not mandated, we are back where we were a year ago.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

It seems that you Americans have a totally different understanding about (health) insurances than we have here.

I am quite sure you are right. Also, the procedures used by employers must be completely different. Under our systems, a company with less than 100 employees would go bankrupt on payroll and accounting costs alone if they had to service employees using 5, 10, or 40 different insurance companies. I have no reason to suspect our congress people of having examined any other system before trying to put together its own. It is called Reinventing the Wheel.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

That's quite obvious from our different perspectives on health insurance. Since Germany has had health insurance for about 100-years, it's been established with all the necessary information becoming common. In the US, this will be the first time Americans will be choosing health plans from a number of different choices from which they are unfamiliar. On the other hand, many people understand the auto market, and many have experience with cars; but not with health insurance.

That's the difference.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter wrote:

In the private sector, only about 9 milion Germans are insured...

I must be missing something here...isn't the population of Germany something like 82M? And only 9M are insured?

3 Replies

@slkshock7,

Insured by the private sector. The rest are insured on by the public system.

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

"IN the private sector" does not include those insured at work, their dependents, and possibly other programs that are not strictly "private". Anyway, I'm sure that is the explanation.

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

I must be missing something here...isn't the population of Germany something like 82M? And only 9M are insured?

Well, we've got - as mentioned a couple of times above - a mandatory health insurance system, with 200 insurance companies ("statutory health insurance funds") in it.

9 million are insured outside of those companies, privately, in more than 40 companies. (Private health insurance is available to persons earning above the threshold set each year or who are not eligible for the Government scheme.)

As an aside: my SIL's husband is CEO/CIO in an insurance holding which owns more than 30 health insurance worldwide (among them Europe's/Germany's largest and five more ranked in the top 20 in Europe and Asia). He (and thus his family) are members of a company within the mandatory system ...

0 Replies

So there's this number being thrown about that 45,000 people every year die because they don't have healthcare.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/18/deaths.health.insurance/index.html

I heard it again this morning on the radio and it was in the context of "this is the biggest problem facing America right now, all these people are dying."

So, I did a quick google search this morning and found out that over 2,500,000 people die every year in America.

Assuming a 300,000,000 US population, of which 30,000,000 do not have insurance.

45,000 is 1.8% of the total deaths in the US.
The odds of someone dying (given a 300 million US population) is 0.8%

I may be cold-hearted, but it doesn't seem like such a problem to me.

3 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

I may be cold-hearted, but it doesn't seem like such a problem to me.

Cold hearted?
Bad with math problems is more likely.

Everyone over the age of 65 in the US has insurance. It's called medicare. Your math has to take into account the deaths under that age otherwise you are just lying with statistics to ease your mind.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

The 45,000 is much more than simple math. The Harvard study found that you have a 40% better chance of dying should you have no health insurance.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/

0 Replies

@maporsche,

You seem to love statistics; what you don't provide is the death rates from not having health insurance from all the countries that do have universal health insurance.

Your "cold" statistics show you are not only cold, but leave much to be desired in the information area.

Many that die are children without health insurance. You need to rethink your aggressive ideas against universal health care for Americans; the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are worst ways to spend taxpayer money.

1 Reply

@parados,

Not exactly true that 'everyone' over 65 in the US has insurance. There are current exemptions based on conscientious objections due to religious convictions, for instance. Many Amish don't receive SS or Medicare benefits for that reason.

This exemption is also in the current house bill (which I read over the Christmas break...LOL...call me a glutton for punishment)!

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Well screw you too CI.

I was asking a question. In light of 2.5 million people dying/yr; I don't think 45,000 extra is all that much (if the statistic is even accurate). Hell, that's less than people who die in auto-mobile accidents and no one seems to care too much about those; at least not enough to stop driving.

There are plenty of good reason for HC reform. This particular bill in congress is pretty shitty, but I would support a single payer option for example; so don't sit there and berate me for questioning a statistic that people throw around out of context.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

So you came to the conclusion that there are worse ways to die? That was never in the mix on this topic.

When we compare a country like ours without universal health care with countries that provides universal health care, we must look at both the pros and cons. All countries that have universal health care have longer longivities and better health.

They don't worry about other causes of death. If you want to look at death from auto accidents, you must also look at the population, density of cars, cost of owning a car, and which age groups are responsible for most of the accidents that causes death.

I also agree with you that the current legislation now being worked through in congress is not a good plan for our country.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Cicerone, have you read the bill also? If so, I would be curious if you found any of the provisions to be surprising. You don't have to elaborate on them, though.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

They're still trying to work out how they're going to pay for it. It seems it's a tossup between taxing high income folks to taxing cadillac plans (which the unions are fighting tooth and nail).

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

They're still trying to work out how they're going to pay for it. It seems it's a tossup between taxing high income folks to taxing cadillac plans (which the unions are fighting tooth and nail).

As well they should, b/c it's a stupid idea.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

AP sources: Employer health mandate may be dropped (AP)

AP - House and Senate negotiators working on President Barack Obama's health overhaul bill appear likely to drop a proposed income tax increase on high-wage earners and possibly jettison a requirement for large businesses to offer coverage to their employees, Democratic officials said Tuesday.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

So much for the promised transparent and open debate. This thing has been the exclusive product of the Democrat establishment from the start and most of the key choices and deals have been made outside public view.

All we know for sure is (1) We will pay more in taxes (no AMT limitation this year so lots of folks will be unhappily surprised with their tax returns); and (2) Government interference in our lives will increase.

1 Reply

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know