| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a situation that that is quite blatantly ludicrous, and it's beyond me why anyone - left or right - puts up with it.
Money my dear boy. Its simply cheaper to hire lawyers than to pay out the claims, especially when most people that need the big money now are about to die.
Insurance companies charge you a rate based on the market value of healthcare and the actuarial value of your healthcare, i.e. a risk premium. When you pay your premium, the money doesn't go into a sequestered account to be used only for your healthcare, it goes into a giant pile (into which healthcare CEOs do swan dives) which gets doled out when claims are made.
It's just moving money around. The insurance company doesn't care if your risk is ovarian cancer or lung cancer if the risk has the same value. People who are a low risk will ALWAYS pay more than the actuarial value of their insurance, and people who are a high risk (or have a pre-existing condition) will ALWAYS pay less than the actuarial value of their insurance. If you are healthy and have insurance, you are de facto, subsidizing someone's healthcare who is unhealthy. Usually the elderly, who account for the vast majority of medical spending in the US.
Similarly, if you pay for car insurance and never get in an accident even once, you're being fleeced, and if you have a policy for one month and get in a head-on collision, you're getting a steal.
@Dougs Workshop- please explain where this explanation of insurance I gave up thread disagrees with you.
If you won't learn to read, you should tone down your vitriol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Luckily, we're still compassionate enough as a nation not to let it get that bad. Just not enough to take a better approach.
Thank goodness it's so easy to be compassionate with other people's money, eh?
Can you imagine the financial and moral devastation that would occur if we had to do this stuff ourselves? Luckily we can count on our government to do the dirty work of 'enforced compassion' on our behalf.
From the individual customer's perspective, you're right. You're buying insurance so the insurance company will assume that risk, but the only reason they can do so is because lots of people are paying them premiums and they know statistically they won't have to pay them all out.
No, the only reason they do it so efficiently is that there are lots of people paying them.
Otherwise, the cost of the statistician, computer software, marketing, and office fees would price insurance much higher. But there would still be a market, because someone with a large bank account could assume the risk. The risk would be higher, so the premium would be higher.
Premiums can be held low because there are lots of people buying the policies (in the case of group policies). Individual policies still exist, and if you've been following the news, you know they aren't cheap. Mandating extra coverage that is unneeded and not wanted doesn't help lower the price.
@Dougs Workshop- please explain where this explanation of insurance I gave up thread disagrees with you.If you won't learn to read, you should tone down your vitriol.
My premium doesn't help you pay your premium. You're not in my group plan, so our risk isn't pooled. Individual polices are based on the individual (hence the name).
Your characterization of "insurance" is therefore wrong.
Again, you really need to understand what insurance is, and from there you will learn what it isn't. Once you've reached that understanding, you can begin seek out the solutions.
But the money IS pooled. It's all coming from the same pile.
Stop being a dick.
]Yeah. I can.
Crippled children. People dying on the streets for lack of care that could easily be provided. Cans in diners collecting dimes to pay for some local kids chemotherapy (Oh wait, I have seen that.) Old people again dying of easily, but expsively, treatable conditions.
The most up to date advanced treatment for the wealthy (and their pets). Third world conditions for the poor.What are people who can't cover tens of thousands of dollars worth of medical costs up front supposed to do? They don't all have rich friends or family. Are they just supposed to die? And not in a hospital, or even hospice care, since that's expensive.
Luckily we pool our resources and alleviate some of that. Not as much as we could. Not as much as many other countries do. But we take the edge off the worst of it.
Every single state has coverage available for the poor. No one has died in the streets for lack of care. Not one case. There are no third world medical conditions for the poor in this country, unless you refuse to use the options available.
It's almost as if you're using government to assume your responsibility for providing for the poor. Almost like an insurance policy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Semantics: They're not just for avoiding losing the argument any more. :P
Meatrace, your characterization of insurance sidesteps an important aspect. "We" do not contribute to a giagantic pool of money, to be used as needed for care. "I" purchase a policy (individual or group) that carries with it a risk profile.
If "we" pool our money, then it becomes something common, communal. And thus, "we" get to decide what happens with that money. Since the premiums get paid to an external entity, those funds are for the external entity to use as it sees fit, including living up to the commitments made by policy-holders.
It's a subtle but important distinction. Naturally, I expect many here will ignore it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are no third world medical conditions for the poor in this country, unless you refuse to use the options available.
Semantics: They're not just for avoiding losing the argument any more. :P
Words mean things.
Semantics: They're not just for avoiding losing the argument any more. :PWords mean things.
Yes, that is true.
Oh no?
No.
Satirical pseudo-news videos . . . not quite the last refuge for losing arugments.
Still reeling from a civil war? Seriously?
Last I checked, the third world had an ebola outbreak.
Yes, helicopters need to be used. Do you have any idea how tough it can be to get to some remote communities in the mountains? Yes, helicopters get used.
Helicopters get used in major metropolitan areas too, because that can be the most efficient way to get care (especially in emergency situations).
Please try again.
Please try again.
Please watch the video. An organization desired to deliver healthcare to third-world countries now flies ninety percent of it's missions here in the U.S. Why do that if there isn't need? Political theater? That's just paranoid.
Yeah, that coverage the state's make available to the poor, that's the "government to do the dirty work of 'enforced compassion' on our behalf."
I was imagining what would happen if we had to do this stuff ourselves.
I accept my responsibilty to provide for the poor. I do it through the government since that's far more effective and efficient than passing the hat to pay for someone's chemotherapy. I think we, through the government, need to take on more of that responsibility. Obamacare is but a small step in that direction.
And bugleyman speaks to the "not one case" part. I'm just saying it would be vastly worse without the government doing what it is.
I'm glad you can buy induglences to alleviate your guilt about not helping the poor more. Plus, you get the added benefit of watching the government punish those who don't believe the way you do. That's almost like a win-win situation, right? Win for you, win for power-brokers in government. Lose for other people, but as long as they're not poor, too bad for them, eh?
We're #1 in spending per capita, but 37th in outcome.
It wasn't always a radical notion that society collects taxes and provides services that the private sector doesn't have the capacity/incentive to provide efficiently. In the case of healthcare, which is an almost totally inelastic good, the free market isn't very good at doing the job. That's just basic economics, not left-wing fringe crazy-talk.
I'm glad you can buy induglences to alleviate your guilt about not helping the poor more. Plus, you get the added benefit of watching the government punish those who don't believe the way you do. That's almost like a win-win situation, right? Win for you, win for power-brokers in government. Lose for other people, but as long as they're not poor, too bad for them, eh?
WTF?
Listen to yourself, man.
Please try again.Please watch the video. An organization desired to deliver healthcare to third-world countries now flies ninety percent of it's missions here in the U.S. Why do that if there isn't need? Political theater? That's just paranoid.
Have you been to Appalacia?
Besides, The Daily Show isn't exactly the best news source. But if people are dying in the streets, surely there's pictures somewhere, right? I saw people standing, not dying. Maybe you have a better ability to infer the health of someone by the way they hold themselves than I do.
But if people are dying in the streets, surely there's pictures somewhere, right? I saw people standing, not dying. Maybe you have a better ability to infer the health of someone by the way they hold themselves than I do.
But since hyperbole is fair game in this thread, I guess they don't matter as long as someone cleans up the bodies...
We're #1 in spending per capita, but 37th in outcome.
It wasn't always a radical notion that society collects taxes and provides services that the private sector doesn't have the capacity/incentive to provide efficiently. In the case of healthcare, which is an almost totally inelastic good, the free market isn't very good at doing the job. That's just basic economics, not left-wing fringe crazy-talk.
The private sector does have the ability and incentive to provide health insurance efficiently. You just don't like the fact that it provides it in a way you think is "wrong." That's not a problem with the system, that's a problem with your expectations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't even tell how you're trying to insult me here.
I can. He's accusing you of shedding crocodile tears while secretly profiting off the suffering of others.
Apparently you're an insurance industry executive. :)
The private sector does have the ability and incentive to provide health insurance efficiently. You just don't like the fact that it provides it in a way you think is "wrong." That's not a problem with the system, that's a problem with your expectations.
When demand is almost entirely inelastic, the market is terrible at setting prices. That's why things like price-gouging in the wake of disasters are illegal.
]
But since hyperbole is fair game in this thread, I guess they don't matter as long as someone cleans up the bodies...
Dying prematurely is a far cry from "dying in the streets."
When demand is almost entirely inelastic, the market is terrible at setting prices. That's why things like price-gouging in the wake of disasters are illegal.
Um, that's why there are shortages of needed supplies in the aftermath of disasters.
Um, that's why there are shortages of needed supplies in the aftermath of disasters.
Which has f~*+all to do with my point.
But Ok, Doug. You win. That's what you want to hear, isn't it? I have better things to do than trying to summarize two years of college economics for you.
I sincerely hope that you never have to find out the hard way just how wrong you are...but if you do, don't worry: We'll still have your back.
In fairness, they're generally not dying in the streets, unless it's accidental or otherwise quick or homeless people freezing to death or something.
They're getting chronic conditions or not being able to get treatment until it's critical and then dying in the hospital since they can't actually be turned away from the emergency room.
Which doesn't mean they'll be cured, just stabilized and kicked out again, likely to relapse.
But yes, the dying generally occurs in the hospital. At least officially. Since you're not legally dead until the doctor says so.
And once again, there are programs available in every single state for the poor to take advantage of. Every single state.
|
When demand is almost entirely inelastic, the market is terrible at setting prices. That's why things like price-gouging in the wake of disasters are illegal.Um, that's why there are shortages of needed supplies in the aftermath of disasters.
Did you just suggest that allowing companies to raise prices on needed supplies would result in no shortages?
Did you just suggest that allowing companies to raise prices on needed supplies would result in no shortages?
I believe so.
And in fairness, raising prices to the equilibrium would, by definition, eliminate shortages. The free market wins again! :P
Meatrace, your characterization of insurance sidesteps an important aspect. "We" do not contribute to a giagantic pool of money, to be used as needed for care. "I" purchase a policy (individual or group) that carries with it a risk profile.
If "we" pool our money, then it becomes something common, communal. And thus, "we" get to decide what happens with that money. Since the premiums get paid to an external entity, those funds are for the external entity to use as it sees fit, including living up to the commitments made by policy-holders.
It's a subtle but important distinction. Naturally, I expect many here will ignore it.
It's purely a semantic distinction that you use to make yourself feel righteous about denying dying people urgently needed medical care. You're a monster.
Let's imagine, for the sake of simplicity, that there are only 1000 people in the world, one potential injury, and one insurer. Each person has (on average) a 1/1000 chance of being injured each period (month) and the total cost to fix the injury is $10,000. The actuarial value of insurance would be the chance of injury per period (1/1000) times the cost of the remedy ($10,000) or $10. Because the insurance company needs to make a profit in order to provide this service (and because the consumers are risk-averse), they charge $12/month.
In month 1, everyone pays their premiums, and the insurer has a pile of money, $12,000 to be exact. But wait! Citizen #998 gets injured, and the insurance company is contractually obligated to pay out $12,000 to see his injury remedied. It's almost as if, if it weren't for the premiums of all the citizens who weren't injured, the insurer couldn't pay for the one that was!
But Citizen #999 is Doug's Workshop, and he says "Hey now, don't be using MY money to pay for #998's medical care. That's socialism!"
Do you really doubt the fungibility of money?
Dying prematurely is a far cry from "dying in the streets."
Remember I brought up "Dying in the streets" as what would happen if we got government out of the healthcare system. It's not usually that bad now, because of the government.
And you're really going to dismiss the premature deaths just because they're not in the streets?
The authors noted the status of a group of people in 1993. Then, followed up in 2001. People who were uninsured in 1993 were more likely to have died by 2001. Then, the authors applied this to the population as a whole, and calcualted the 45000 number.
That means the study is full of holes. Maybe the uninsured had other aspects that led to their deaths, like, say, smoking. Or there were an inordinate amount of drug-users. "Not reliable" doesn't begin to describe the study.
Remember I brought up "Dying in the streets" as what would happen if we got government out of the healthcare system. It's not usually that bad now, because of the government.
And you're really going to dismiss the premature deaths just because they're not in the streets?
The authors noted the status of a group of people in 1993. Then, followed up in 2001. People who were uninsured in 1993 were more likely to have died by 2001. Then, the authors applied this to the population as a whole, and calcualted the 45000 number.
That means the study is full of holes. Maybe the uninsured had other aspects that led to their deaths, like, say, smoking. Or there were an inordinate amount of drug-users. "Not reliable" doesn't begin to describe the study.
And in fairness, raising prices to the equilibrium would, by definition, eliminate shortages. The free market wins again! :PI would prefer that the shortage be due to the entire stock being purchased rather than due to inability to purchase the entire stock.
Oh, the entire stock still gets purchased...just by those who can afford to pay. Those who can't afford the $500 bandages or $1,000 antiseptic literally die in the streets. But everything gets used. In that sense, the free market works just fine.
Did you just suggest that allowing companies to raise prices on needed supplies would result in no shortages?
Maybe you can ask Bugley for a quick lesson in supply and demand, since he's got "two years of college economics" under his belt.
And once again, there are programs available in every single state for the poor to take advantage of. Every single state.
Yes, programs that are funded by tax dollars and administered by the state, like medicare and, in Wisconsin, BadgerCare. Before you say "charities", actual voluntary charities only make up about 17% of medical care given to those in dire need, and since nonprofits don't pay tax, and donations to them are tax-deductable you are de-facto subsidizing them with taxes as well. Not to mention that, compared to single-payer, economies of scale are so poor as to make them inefficient. Heck, health insurance companies found that out decades ago, it's why we have HMOs.
So my question to you is, why are you using tax-based healthcare systems as supporting evidence as to why we don't need tax-based healthcare?
Do you really doubt the fungibility of money?
What happens if I have $12000 in the bank, and can thus afford the consequences of not contributing?
Maybe I have a different policy with citizen # 560, who is offering a deductible of $13000 for $5/month, and doesn't cover pregnancy, hair loss treatments, or embedded object extraction.
So my question to you is, why are you using tax-based healthcare systems as supporting evidence as to why we don't need tax-based healthcare?
Not giving someone money is the same as giving someone money?
Maybe you can ask Bugley for a quick lesson in supply and demand, since he's got "two years of college economics" under his belt.
Did you just suggest that allowing companies to raise prices on needed supplies would result in no shortages?
You're the one that apparently needs a lesson, Doug, so here it is:
The more inelastic the demand, the less the quantity demanded decreases when price increases. If you get to an elasticity of zero, then the equilibrium price is essentially infinite. Think about it...how much would you pay for a life-saving treatment? The answer is usually "just about anything." Which is why allowing the market to determine the price of such goods results in bad outcomes. "Bad" in this case being rich people getting treatment, and everyone else going without.
There is a relatively simple way to assign a number to an item's price elasticity, but I don't remember it. In my defense, I did graduate almost twenty years ago. :)
He just did, and I like it no better. Do you disagree that it would result in only those who can pay getting treatment?
I think you missed the bit where those who can pay don't give a damn about anyone else, who quite obviously deserved to die if they weren't able to afford treatment, not to mention that society is likely better off as a whole without the burden of the sick, the poor, and worst of all the combination of the two. It's almost got a purity to it, cleansing the human race of the undesirables until only those that have proven themselves fit to survive remain.
Oh, the entire stock still gets purchased...just by those who can afford to pay. Those who can't afford the $500 bandages or $1,000 antiseptic literally die in the streets. But everything gets used. In that sense, the free market works just fine.And in fairness, raising prices to the equilibrium would, by definition, eliminate shortages. The free market wins again! :PI would prefer that the shortage be due to the entire stock being purchased rather than due to inability to purchase the entire stock.
Just like when there isn't a high demand, prices are set so that the entire stock gets purchased, right?
Think about it...how much would you pay for a life-saving treatment? The answer is usually "just about anything." Which is why allowing the market to determine the price of such goods results in bad outcomes. "Bad" in this case being rich people getting treatment, and everyone else going without.
No. I would pay what I can afford. If I can use other people's money, sure, I'll use it. Because as long as I get mine, too bad for everyone else, right?