RANT about politicians and lobbiests

fast_eddie_72 wrote: ...One of the reasons for having health insurance is so you don't go bankrupt in the eventuality that you are hit with an unusually expensive medical need for yourself *or your kids who are also insured*. It's implicit in the coverage. They are covered to protect *me*, not *them*...

Yes, I do understand that, but it does assume constant coverage. What I was alluding to was if you had a lapse in coverage or seeking coverage (should have stated that). In that case, there really is nothing to insure and no reason why an insurance company would.

Flight Service does make an interesting point about potential future costs without treatment. Still not something an insurance company would have any reason to take on (unless you are already covered) but certainly reason for the government to care.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

z31maniac wrote: Are all of you guys complaining about the lack of coverage for outlying, expensive issues, willing to pay the dramatically increased prices to do so? That's the crux of the argument. Are you all ready to start paying $9/gal to do so? (I'm not arguing either way, just saying, it has to get paid for)

I'll try to say this without any inflammatory rhetoric. I believe you're making a leap in logic. First you characterize this as an outlier. Okay, let's go with that. It's a rare condition. A very small percentage of the population has to deal with it. But then you go on to use an analogy of $9 a gallon gas, more than twice the current price. The point is - it's rare. So how do you come up with the idea that the price for everyone would more than double if it were covered? I don't have numbers (and I suspect you don't either) but I bet it would be a fractional increase. Your math is a lot like the tip thread. Somehow, some kind of coverage for a very small number of people is going to triple my health coverage cost.

I was being a bit dramatic with the price, I"m not sure of the exact price of gas in the UK, but you are ignoring my main point.

Is everyone willing to pay a much higher price for insurance so everything can be covered? That's really the point. It's not just this case, because there are plenty of other people that have poor coverage for other events/diseases, etc.

I'm not arguing for or against, I'm merely asking if that is something that everyone is willing to do?

And as far as the tip thread, I'll point out, again, NOT MY MATH!!! Just relaying what I was told by someone who is in the biz. Could he have made a mistake in his calculations, etc? Sure. But I'd tend to believe him over someone not in the business.

This is a tough question. I wonder how long before fetuses are checked before birth to ensure viability?

aircooled wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: ...One of the reasons for having health insurance is so you don't go bankrupt in the eventuality that you are hit with an unusually expensive medical need for yourself *or your kids who are also insured*. It's implicit in the coverage. They are covered to protect *me*, not *them*...

Yes, I do understand that, but it does assume constant coverage. What I was alluding to was if you had a lapse in coverage or seeking coverage (should have stated that). In that case, there really is nothing to insure and no reason why an insurance company would.

Well, I responded to what you actually said, however, what you out line here is one of the primary issues that was addressed by health care reform. The issue of "pre-esixting conditions". This was one of the issues "everyone agreed on", if you believe the Republicans in Congress. I think it has been described well enough that I don't need to go into detail here. If you're not familiar with the debate, google should uncover all the info.

From 25 years in insurance and healthcare, nearly all of the hospital CEOs I've met are in favor of a single payer system. Nearly all the insurance CEOs I've met want the status quo or would support eliminating the employer tax credit for insurance premiums. The current system has obscene amounts of waste built in and as mguar noticed - no incentive to improve it other than when CMS occasionally cracks down on certain issues - then insurance companies tend to follow suit for a while.

On the political side of the equation, all I will add is that the law of unintended consequences has very sharp teeth - liberal or conservative - be careful what you wish for.

z31maniac wrote: I was being a bit dramatic with the price, I"m not sure of the exact price of gas in the UK, but you are ignoring my main point. Is everyone willing to pay a much higher price for insurance so everything can be covered? That's really the point. It's not just this case, because there are plenty of other people that have poor coverage for other events/diseases, etc. I'm not arguing for or against, I'm merely asking if that is something that everyone is willing to do?

You were being a lot dramatic and using fear of some overbearing burden to argue against something that you have no information about. Would it cost more? Sure. I didn't not ignore your point- I addressed it and pointed out that you were using made up numbers that almost certainly created a misleading picture. You're also ignoring the fact that health care reform plans to address the issue by getting everyone to pay a little. That's the whole "government forcing you to buy insurance" (it's not) everyone is talking about. You're also ignoring the fact that we are paying more and not getting any more coverage, and it's going up at an alarming rate. I don't think health care reform, in the short run, will lower costs, but I think it has a good chance of slowing down the astronomical rate of increase we've been seeing.

I'll point out that you're using the same, alarmist tactic again. No one said anything about "everything can be covered" except you. In fact, Sarah Palin rather famously opposed health care reform because she preferred the "death panels" to be run by for profit companies to bolster a bottom line than a government agency charged with determining what is fair and attainable. In actual practice, countries that have universal health care aren't going bankrupt because of it. And no one thinks it's free. Everyone realizes we have to pay for coverage.

I think this thread makes the point well. Some people pay for coverage and get coverage for exactly this issue. Others pay for coverages and do not. The line is an arbitrary whim on a table determined by an accountant who is charged with determining max profit in the short run. Even the accountant, if charged with determining the greater gain for society would have a different answer, and one that is more humane.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: No one is asking for "free" anything. But it would be nice if people who were paying for insurance were getting coverage.

My point is made.

I would bet my next 3 paychecks the insurance companies can't come up with more accurate numbers than I can by just reading my statements.

They want more profit's plain and simple. I just want the coverage they promised.

BTW, I looked at my original documents and Autism (1% of our population) was never listed as an excluded condition.

If I was on welfare this wouldn't be an issue. Those people get the coverage I am asking for.

mguar wrote: As a government cost item there are plenty of watchdog groups who will point out potential savings..

And clearly when observing the national debt, and decades of deficits, precious few to trust to even try to do anything about it.

mguar wrote: It doesn't matter what the math is.. private, for profit insurance companies don't want costs lowered.. They want more and more so their profit increases. . As long as they take a percentage of profit from costs they will always allow costs to rise. (as would any good businessman)

That is a dramatically oversimplified and incomplete observation of business at work here.

Equally true and no less important is that: as long as volume contributes to profit, they will partake in efforts of any and all kind to increase volume. (as would any good businessman)

This is irrespective of cost considerations, but lets float the example of a compulsory product you must buy or be in violation of a law. Thats a great and effective way to increase the volume to the absolute maximum theoretical of a market.

The rule would then follow that cost will increase to the point where compliance with the law and the cost of the product are nearly identical. Any effort to restrict the cost artificially by the government will diminish the number of businesses participating. If the operating cost to mitigate the risk increases beyond the point where compliance can stay below legal penatly, then people will just break the law.

madmallard wrote: This is irrespective of cost considerations, but lets float the example of a compulsory product you must buy or be in violation of a law. Thats a great and effective way to increase the volume to the absolute maximum theoretical of a market.

I assume this is a hypothetical example. We have no such system here in the U.S.

FlightService wrote: <If I was on welfare this wouldn't be an issue. Those people get the coverage I am asking for.

This is a huge point for me. My heart goes out to the poor who are trying, but don't you think some people are like, "why would I want to work hard for when I could just collect the benefits". I'm also a strong supporter of hard work if your able. It seems like the middle class, hard working, U.S. citizens keeps getting the wrong end of the deal. What's new I guess. I'm no expert of health insurance. I wish you well and hope everything works out.

in reply tofast_eddie_72:

The closest current example is Liability Collision insurance, now enforced in 50 states. but you don't have to own a car and drive.

The -incoming- example will be PPACA represented by the mandates it contains.

madmallard wrote: The -incoming- example will be PPACA represented by the mandates it contains.

That's simply not so. There is no compulsory product you must by or be in violation of the law. It just isn't in there. You chose to either buy coverage or pay a fee. Either way, yes, everyone will contribute to affordable health care coverage, but no one is compelled to take part.

I'll make it easier for you since you deflected off into talking about inflation which is largely immaterial to what was being talked about then, which is cost.

When you invoke the idea that a watchdog group is at all an effective unit in controlling cost, I have to point out that a watchdog group has no compulsion of the force of state. They are not legislators, they are not lawmakers.

Private industry has no incentive to lower costs.. They all take a percentage of what healthcare costs as their profit.. Regardless of what that is they are better off with more than with less.. If healthcare costs go up 10% their profit goes up 10% As a government cost item there are plenty of watchdog groups who will point out potential savings..

A watchdog group with no force of law is monitoring a government expenditure of a recently enacted program. Their job of course is to make known and raise awareness of what is basically deemed as an anomaly of increased costs. How do we even know what is anomalous? Well, we compare the cost of what the government is doing to other sources to establish a pattern. What other sources? Well, private industry that does something comparable.

So by your example; the private industry you assert costs more to do the same thing if the government ran it shouldn't be trusted to run something because they run up costs... so when the government runs it instead, the -only- check against it running up costs is a private watchdog firm with no authority compares what the government does against a private industry?

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

madmallard wrote: The -incoming- example will be PPACA represented by the mandates it contains.

That's simply not so. There is no compulsory product you must by or be in violation of the law. It just isn't in there. You chose to either buy coverage or pay a fee. Either way, yes, everyone will contribute to affordable health care coverage, but no one is compelled to take part.

We've gone over this before Ed, and I'm not expecting to convince you of course, but not everyone views the idea that the government penalises you by taxing, which is enforced by police powers, for not buying a private party product can be seen as something other than compulsory mandate with force of law.