Simple question to spark a debate...

This debate is all fine and well and most know my thoughts on it.
But if we want meaningful reform lets discuss if health "insurance" is even a valid business practice.

I'll give you a brief anecdote. I have a good friend I grew up with since kindergarten, he was a trailer park baby who is now an MD. Dr. Brown worked his ass off from the time he was in grade school, he didnt party, he went to a special governors school, got dual undergrads from a highly respected private school (which gave him a full academic scholarship) in 4 years and finished at the very top of his med school. He is now married to a doc who comes from a family of docs. His father in law is the focus of this little anecdote.

After a successful and lucrative career he semi-retired to rural ass Wyoming and opened a local general practitioners office tending to the local ranchers and farmers who otherwise were traveling 4 plus hours to see a doctor. He had his own ranch and built his DR office there on the ranch and had office hours 2 days a week where he solely saw 5 patients an hour for up to 10 hours a day. He charged a flat fee of $50/ visit and then billed any materials at cost to his patients. He wasn't trying to get rich, merely give back and the $5,000 per week allowed him to pay his 2 nurses and his scheduling girl.

Fast forward to 3 years ago and a large corporate farm bought one of the local ranches and what used to be done by a family of 6 working long hard days, now employs 45 employees who all visit the wanna be retired part time doc. These new "employees" demand he accept insurance, to date it had never been an issue. He refused initially but after he was brought before the state attorney general he eventually conceded.

Now the insurance company pays him in 90-120 days, but he has to "front" the money to his employees every week. If the paperwork isn't perfect they reject the claim, and sometimes even if it is they reject it just to buy time...time is money after all. The rural country doc now employs 2 full time insurance filing clerks. These cost him even more money. But all is not lost, when he bills the insurance company they see it as acceptable for a $125-$150 office visit and material mark up of 220% is legal according to WY insurance law. So the average person who walks in and pays cash in his unique little office, comes in for some stitches (in an example he recently shared with us) and he charges them $50 for the visit and roughly $150 for the material between antiseptic, bandages, needles, thread, and a sucker for the rancher to lick on his way back to work. Same patient comes in and that bill to {insert insurance company X here} is over $1,000...or 5 times the amount he could have otherwise charged.

So it is clear that insurance customers are subsidizing a higher cost, then add on the necessary PROFIT the insurance company has to make...and it all adds up to lots of folks getting rich that otherwise have no tie to the patient/provider service.

I think a catastrophe plan makes way too much sense. Why should I pay $400 a month when no one gets more than the flu twice a year...I'll save that money and pay for my actual costs like a good responsible adult. I will willingly pay an annual premium for the horrific chance I or one of my family are diagnosed with cancer and need $400k chemo courses. I suspect even as prevalent as cancer is a plan could be designed to make this work for everyone.
 
Ron, same story, but my neighbor was a physical therapist specializing in pediatric cases. She figured she'd go out on her own, do some medicaid work for disabled children. Ended up having to hire someone full time who specialized in medicaid paperwork. She threw in the towel after a couple of years. It just wasn't worth the effort or expense. She's now fully retired and collecting SS.
 
I think a catastrophe plan makes way too much sense. Why should I pay $400 a month when no one gets more than the flu twice a year...I'll save that money and pay for my actual costs like a good responsible adult. I will willingly pay an annual premium for the horrific chance I or one of my family are diagnosed with cancer and need $400k chemo courses. I suspect even as prevalent as cancer is a plan could be designed to make this work for everyone.

Most of my life growing up in my family, all my dad carried was major medical on our family (his employees actually had better/more coverage than he/we did). It works great if you use insurance the way it should be used...the 'just in case scenarios'. But if you're one of those folks that get the sniffles or have a tummy ache and you think that necessitates a visit to the doctor...well you're screwed...and my personal feeling, chlorine should be dumped in your gene pool to eradicate your hereditary weakness.
 
tapatalk_1382045057427.jpeg
 
I dont understand why health "insurance" is soooooo much different than auto insurance. My auto insurance dosent pay for oil changes, tire rotations, water pumps, etc. It is just in case I get in a wreck. Health insurance should be the same way. Just like a few of yall have said above.
 
I think a catastrophe plan makes way too much sense. Why should I pay $400 a month when no one gets more than the flu twice a year...I'll save that money and pay for my actual costs like a good responsible adult. I will willingly pay an annual premium for the horrific chance I or one of my family are diagnosed with cancer and need $400k chemo courses. I suspect even as prevalent as cancer is a plan could be designed to make this work for everyone.

I completely agree with this.
But the thing I wonder about is - do the high-deductable/catastrophic plans actually pay for themselves, even w/ older/sick folks? E.g. if thats all the country had, would the finances pan out? It's hard to believe so, but I don't really have that kind of insight ointo medical insurance actuarial tables.
 
That's it in a nut shell. The people who will never and have never contributed, will get their shit for free.

Yep, and everyone else who does things like they're supposed to will pay for them.

You know how politicians like to either "tax the rich"? That's true, since the top 25% pay 87% of the taxes. (and top 25 doesn't make you "rich", not if you're closer to 25)

Well, the healthy are now the new rich. So expect your premiums to go up. Whether you actually are charged for it or your company absorbs the cost....your premiums ARE going up. Because what a business spends on your insurance and other benefits is coming out of YOUR pocket. It's still income, whether you actually write the check or not.

The whole problem I have with this program is costs....nobody tried to address the ridiculously high cost of medical coverage first. The cost of medical care in the US is just ridiculously higher than most any other first world nation for the same care. There are many, many things that could be done or undone to get costs down, and it pisses me off that the gov't didn't try and address these things first, rather than just coming up with a bill that nobody fully understood, then "passing it to see what was in it".

Reason why is this: Obama has stated before that he ultimately wants us to have a single-payer health system. (that means gov't run, socialized healthcare) This bill is a step towards that, and he knows it. It is done, IMO, purposely to edge us towards gov't run care.

I personally don't want the government running anything else....they do absolutely NOTHING efficiently. Nothing. Not one single thing they do can't be done better in the private sector. Everything they do is grossly overfunded, overspends, and horribly inefficient, and that includes the military. Our military is second-to-none at kicking ass, but the cost to do it is outrageous, (just look at what they pay for stuff) just like the cost to build highways, run the IRS, run Medicare, and everything else the government does.
 
I personally don't want the government running anything else....they do absolutely NOTHING efficiently. Nothing. Not one single thing they do can't be done better in the private sector. Everything they do is grossly overfunded, overspends, and horribly inefficient, and that includes the military. Our military is second-to-none at kicking ass, but the cost to do it is outrageous, (just look at what they pay for stuff) just like the cost to build highways, run the IRS, run Medicare, and everything else the government does.


Let me illustrate this for you.
The SC DMV employs something like 1,300 people in its licensing, titling and registration arm and costs the state $7.2MM per year...NET LOSS after revenue collected.

This is not the highway maintenance dept, just the guys who issue DL, tags and titles.

Recently they took bids to privatize this service in an attempt to lower gov't costs. The bids were sealed and not for public release as it was not a guarantee issuance bid.

However I happen to know one of the bidders. His proposal guaranteed that he would reduce the wait time from a state wide average of 24 minutes (seems low to me) to a guarantee of no more than 5 minutes. He would be open 7 days a week instead of 5 with extended hours. He would employ a staff of <500 for the sum of $4.3MM/annually AND THE STATE WOULD KEEP ALL REVENUE (currently in excess of $10MM/annually)...he told us he would personaly pocket $500k a year net net net profit at this value. The state rejected his proposal because "it would cost the state too many jobs"...
 
I've priced Full insurance and and Major Medical (catastrophic) The rates were about $30/month difference.

Personally, I've been paying cash for Dr. Visits for my family. Luckily, knock on wood, I have a healthy family. It costs me a couple hundred every few months to take my kids for shots, check ups, visits, Dentist, etc. It has benefited me financially... so far. But I know I'm playing Russian roulette with any major issues. But for Dr. visits and small things, they love us paying cash and more often than not, give us discounts just so that they don't have to deal with all the paper work and BS of insurance claims. not to mention they get their money NOW! not in 90-120 days.

I've said for years the Insurance is just legalized gambling. but unfortunately with Insurance stepping in and causing a major increase in costs, just like Ron's story, it's become an almost necessity to have it. In conjunction with Malpractice and other things medical care has skyrocketed, and this ACA isn't going to help anything either.
 
I am from Canada. Many moons ago but we had the same stuff that is up there now. Most of us up there did not like it. My old man has moved down here to the states to have better health care but I see him going back north sooner than later. We both served our country so we both have Tricare which is great. But it is government run already. He came down here to get a knee operation 6 years ago as he was told he was too old for it up there. He is still going strong and still working
. I do not like where this country is going for health care. It is not going to be good for older people. And everyone gets old unless you croak before that.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
 
The state rejected his proposal because "it would cost the state too many jobs"...


Those aren't fawking jobs -- they're makework.
 
I personally don't want the government running anything else....they do absolutely NOTHING efficiently. Nothing. Not one single thing they do can't be done better in the private sector.

(I know this is taking the thread sideways... but...)
I generally agree with you; trust me I see it every day.
However one thing that can ONLY be effectively done by the government, and not privatized, is funding and in certain cases carrying out of basic, fundamental research programs. There is just no way that will work in the long run solely from private sources.
One problem of course is it's very difficult, if not impossible, to measure the "efficiency" of investments that take 10-20 years to pan out, and then pop up in 20 different kinds of applications...
 
I've priced Full insurance and and Major Medical (catastrophic) The rates were about $30/month .

Ok something is broke here. I pay about $450 month for family coverage and that doensts include the portion my employer pays.
When inlast priced catastrophic ( with a 10k deductible) it was significant,y less than half. Like sub 150/ month.
 
Ok something is broke here. I pay about $450 month for family coverage and that doensts include the portion my employer pays.
When inlast priced catastrophic ( with a 10k deductible) it was significant,y less than half. Like sub 150/ month.


That's because you, like most of the rest of us, are not truly buying "insurance", but pre-paid health care.

Insurance, as defined, is coverage against something. Car insurance covers against accidents, or damage or theft. So does home insurance. They don't pay for you to get oil changes, transmission flushes, and a new roof when it's time.

That's what health coverage today is being used for. What should be addressed is health care costs. Then, people can pay for their own trips to the doctor for bronchitis, stitches, etc, and antibiotics, and just buy insurance coverage for what it was originally intended....and not use it as a maintenance warranty policy.

I bet a health insurance policy that covers only accidental or major stuff like broken limbs, major diseases, etc., and doesn't bother with drugs, checkups, eyeglasses, etc.....would be much more affordable, especially if the gov't actually tried to do something to reduce costs rather than simply issuing a fatwa that says "everyone is covered, or else".

For the state of NC: Let someone besides Blue Cross in here, get some competition. Reduce some of the ridiculous regulation on the industry. There are just dozens of things the gov't can do without taking over healthcare and making a mess of it.
 
(I know this is taking the thread sideways... but...)
I generally agree with you; trust me I see it every day.
However one thing that can ONLY be effectively done by the government, and not privatized, is funding and in certain cases carrying out of basic, fundamental research programs. There is just no way that will work in the long run solely from private sources.
One problem of course is it's very difficult, if not impossible, to measure the "efficiency" of investments that take 10-20 years to pan out, and then pop up in 20 different kinds of applications...


I agree with that for the most part, but the gov't funding universities to do research is a far cry from actually taking over the research and doing it themselves. Government isn't totally useless, just mostly. ;)
 
I agree with that for the most part, but the gov't funding universities to do research is a far cry from actually taking over the research and doing it themselves. Government isn't totally useless, just mostly. ;)

um I hate to tell ya, but (1) "the government", AKA Federal agencies, actually executes a shitpile of the basic research in this country, and (2) the gov't agencies that "fund" universities... and business too... have a whole lot to do with how that $$ gets spent. It's not like they just give the $$ away. Go take a look at the NIH R01 process, or talk to a DARPA PM about the SSEB review procedure or just how many "gov't scientists" there are behind the $$ they dole out - you'd might be pretty surprised.

Let me clarify the issue.
Private ventures need to see a return on investment. That immediately impacts the scope and range of what can be done and puts a substantial implicit bias in place, and a limit to what they will do and where they'll go in any endeavor. Even Universities, while theoretically independent of this, still have bills to pay and professors have to publish papers to be promoted and keep their jobs... which means they have to do research that is relatively safe and has a reasonable chance of success.
You have to have a faction of science that is somewhat uninhibited, high-risk high-potential... people that are relatively free to do crazy stuff, on the 1 in 100 or is 1000 chance their idea works out and you get something that really pushes the world forward. This has to be people that aren't so worried about their jobs depending on a success rate or "efficiency". And, frankly, public-funded agencies are really the only large-scale opportunity to do that.
 
Ok something is broke here. I pay about $450 month for family coverage and that doensts include the portion my employer pays.
When inlast priced catastrophic ( with a 10k deductible) it was significant,y less than half. Like sub 150/ month.
I've got the quote somewhere still. I'll post it if I can find it.
 
That's because you, like most of the rest of us, are not truly buying "insurance", but pre-paid health care.

Insurance, as defined, is coverage against something. Car insurance covers against accidents, or damage or theft. So does home insurance. They don't pay for you to get oil changes, transmission flushes, and a new roof when it's time.

That's what health coverage today is being used for. What should be addressed is health care costs. Then, people can pay for their own trips to the doctor for bronchitis, stitches, etc, and antibiotics, and just buy insurance coverage for what it was originally intended....and not use it as a maintenance warranty policy.

I bet a health insurance policy that covers only accidental or major stuff like broken limbs, major diseases, etc., and doesn't bother with drugs, checkups, eyeglasses, etc.....would be much more affordable, especially if the gov't actually tried to do something to reduce costs rather than simply issuing a fatwa that says "everyone is covered, or else".

For the state of NC: Let someone besides Blue Cross in here, get some competition. Reduce some of the ridiculous regulation on the industry. There are just dozens of things the gov't can do without taking over healthcare and making a mess of it.


I think you're arguing the same point.

But there are several health insurance companies in NC... I know I've had coverage from at least three different ones.
 
I just went through the Healthcare.gov marketplace and got my new quote. I was overreacting. My insurance isn't going to double to $600 a month. It's only going to be $580 a month...:sarcasm:
 
Back
Top