Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

Everything in your world is there because someone could make a profit making or providing it.
Even the examples of socialized services have the profit motive making them work.

Selfish people simply cannot see the motive behind something which profits everybody.

user wrote:

resedit wrote:

user wrote:

Hell, I don't mind the docs making money.

What I mind are the gatekeepers taking our money, making a big profit from it and then throwing us off the bridge because we answered "blue".

Then don't buy insurance.
Pay the doctor directly.

What, you don't want the risk involved in that?
Neither do most. That's why they pay someone else to take that risk for them.

Any insurance company will drop customers or severely increase cost when they lose.
Burn your house down and then try to buy fire insurance.
Drive your car into the local food court dining area and then try to buy auto insurance.

Should people who have issues that prevent them from being covered receive charity?
Yes, I believe so. That charity though is not the job of private for profit companies to provide.

I've stated many times before that insurance is simply the wrong business model for paying for health care because bad health is not a rare occurrence, like, say, your house burning down.

I understand why insurance companies behave the way that they do. Insurance companies should not be in the business of providing basic health care payments, they should be limited to the unlikely occurrences. That way they don't end up taking their profits by denying coverage to their clients.

Basic care should be considered a right and healthy citizens a bonus for the country.

The model works pretty good if you pay into your insurance from your 20s onward. Its more like social security than property / casualty insurance. Its still insurance though.

sturner wrote:

The bad press behind dropping people for not reporting hangnails (an exaggeration of course) is what infuriates people. And that they tend to do that as soon as you start making claims for a major medical expense.

The same happens in almost any insurance policy though.
When my water heater went out just after buying my house, I had a choice:

1) File a claim with home owners insurance, which covered existing water heater / furnace / swamp cooler for 3 years.
They would have replaced it with probably a same capacity model. And my rate would have likely gone up.

2) Buy a new water heater of my choice of brand and capacity, and not file a claim.

I chose number 2 specifically because I didn't want my rates to go up, and because I wanted the biggest capacity that would fit in the existing closet and still pass code.

Go to the doctor a lot and have your insurance pay, you can expect rates to go up.
Otherwise they lose money on you.

However, it saves them money for you to go periodically for routine check-ups because they catch stuff early when it is cheaper.

Unfortunately, part of what makes insurance so expensive now is the pill popping nature of this country and all the advertisements on TV about how your life will be better if you "talk to your doctor" about prescribing you this new fancy pill.

btw - a lot of those types of commercials are illegal in countries with universal health care.
They can not be made illegal here because of the first amendment.

Last edited by resedit (2009-09-07 11:52 pm)

Ah, but they normally don't drop your insurance in mid installation, do they? That's what my post was alluding to. People have been dropped from their medical insurance when they filed a major claim, and that claim was then denied. Admittedly, it doesn't happen to everyone, though the practice is common enough to say that it isn't at all rare.

Farmerkev wrote:

Metacell wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Everything in your world is there because someone could make a profit making or providing it.
Even the examples of socialized services have the profit motive making them work.

Selfish people simply cannot see the motive behind something which profits everybody.

The day employees demand wages of room and board only you'll have a point, until then Star Trek is science fiction, not fact.

The point is over there dude. >---->

Seriously:
    The Meat Inspection Act
    The Pure Food and Drug Act

There have been a number of historic examples of universal profitability working out in the long run.

Last edited by ScifiterX (2009-09-08 6:56 am)

Both those were examples of laws where some greedy individuals lost some short term profitability while the consumer benefited, in those cases by getting food and drugs which were less likely to kill them or make them sick.

PERIOD!!!

ScifiterX wrote:

Both those were examples of laws where some greedy individuals lost some short term profitability while the consumer benefited, in those cases by getting food and drugs which were less likely to kill them or make them sick.

PERIOD!!!

The processors profit was given to another individual who profits himself as he performs the inspections.
Nobody is doing it for free.
You can't take profit out of the system, it is what makes everything in your world exist.
This is just as true in health care as it is in any other single thing you can name.

ScifiterX wrote:

I never said you can take it out not did I say one should. Profit is a great motivator. However it bears repeating, greed is a piss poor self regulator. Profit systems are often better and more sustainable when they are more intelligently distributed.

And you think our health care costs are double other countries because of insurance company profits which should be intelligently redistributed?

Chickenhawk wrote:

The model works pretty good if you pay into your insurance from your 20s onward. Its more like social security than property / casualty insurance. Its still insurance though.

Possibly if they had it accumulate value. Or actually paid out when you needed it.

I want us to re-think our whole idea on what health care is. Other countries did it and so can we.

Last edited by user (2009-09-08 8:38 am)

I currently pay about 1100/month for myself and my significant other. ( wife would have the same cost )
for a 50/month savings, i can choose the package that sends me where they want me to go when i need healthcare. it also has a higher deductible and copay with that "cheaper" route.
that 50/month extra allows me to go to i want to when i want to for less copay and for the first 250/month scripts, no cost should i need medications.

the Co i am with currently employs about 45 people so it's not like a volume discount.

I would just like small companies to be able to co-op for a better price.

the co. i was with before has about 50K employees.
much much better benefits and my cost ~1.5years ago was 180/month.


am i getting "ripped off" at the 900/mo. loss?  hell yes, i don't get sick.
but should i need, it's better than the hospital costs cause that is more than likely the services i would be needing.

allowing an insurance co to hike costs based on the  size of the company is what needs a grip on.
while I don't have numbers and too lazy to look em up, the number of people working for small companies is prolly a pretty good percentage of the workforce.
I understand that they look at "costs when you use it" and counting it as "that company only money", but in reality, it's the same percentages as a larger company... there is just more "buffer" (profit) with a large company.

sturner wrote:

Ah, but they normally don't drop your insurance in mid installation, do they? That's what my post was alluding to. People have been dropped from their medical insurance when they filed a major claim, and that claim was then denied. Admittedly, it doesn't happen to everyone, though the practice is common enough to say that it isn't at all rare.

Almost every state if not every state has an insurance commissioner you can take such cases to.

Another thing that would solve it is true competition.
Like that business woman pointed out to her congresswoman - thousands of insurance companies exist but there are only six she is allowed to choose. That's not competition.