Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-18-2018 4:55 AM
267 online now:
Paboss, PaulK, Son Goku (3 members, 264 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,392 Year: 15,215/29,783 Month: 1,159/1,502 Week: 157/492 Day: 0/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
Author Topic:   WHY MANDATES ARE MANDATORY
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 496
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1 of 58 (825411)
12-14-2017 5:49 PM


WHY MANDATES ARE MANDATORY

I pay $500 a year for fire insurance for my home. Letís say I have a house fire, a kitchen grease fire, or electrical fire or whatever. I call the fire department and they chop through walls and hose down the fire. I then call my insurance agent and they determine there is $50,000 in damage, which they cover. How can they pay $50,000 to repair the damage when I pay only $500 a year? They can do so because there are 100 other home owners (actually many more than 100) who also pay $500 a year but donít have fires.

Letís say that fire insurance doesnít work this way, that people only buy that insurance when they have a fire. I now have a fire that results in $50,000 in damage. I then go to the phone book to get the number of an insurance company, call them and tell them I want $50,000 worth of insurance. The insurance agent says ďno problemĒ and signs me up for the insurance and tells me they will pay for the damage as soon as Iíve paid my first years premium of $60,000. Obviously, ďprior condition onlyĒ insurance is not very effective. In fact, itís not insurance at all!

Over 70% of the 80 million homeowners in the US have mortgages on their homes. All these mortgages MANDATE that he homeowners carry adequate house insurance. This mandate is not to protect the bank owners and executives: it is to protect the bankís depositors who put up the money for the mortgages. And this mandate doesnít just apply to home loans. 107 million Americans have auto loans on their vehicles. These loans also MANDATE that the owners carry full car insurance on those vehicles. Insurance only works when there is a broad base of insured paying affordable amounts each year to cover what could be devastating expenses to the few who incur losses. 49 of the 50 states MANDATE that automobile owners carry full liability insurance on their cars. Why is there no drive to repeal those mandates?

I wonder how many of the super wealthy Republican donors who are pushing for the new tax bill (which includes a repeal of the insurance mandate) and are also senior officers of their companies, are MANDATED to carry life and/or disability insurance to indemnify their companies it they canít perform their jobs. It would be interesting if each senator and congress person who votes for this tax bill were required to state how many loans they and their family members have that MANDATE insurance coverage for the basis of those loans.

If the tax bill passes as it now stands it will repeal the insurance mandate, which will obliterate the ACA (Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare). Whatever tax savings this provides for the first few years will be overwhelmed by increases in health insurance and healthcare costs - except for the very wealthy, of course.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by dwise1, posted 12-15-2017 1:24 AM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2017 11:03 AM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12559
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 2 of 58 (825413)
12-14-2017 6:17 PM


Thread Moved from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3176
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 3 of 58 (825453)
12-15-2017 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by AnswersInGenitals
12-14-2017 5:49 PM


I really wish that there were a legislative rule that required a legislature to learn something about what they are about to write laws about.

The Republican side of Congress is abysmally ignorant of the very basics of how insurance works, but then so is the White House.

Yes! For insurance to work you need a large enough group of insured to spread out the costs. To add to your explanation of the need for sheer numbers, we also have that insurance premiums are also based on other factors, namely teh risk that each insured party presents. As the press pointed out back when [voice=Lewis Black]Trump was playing his sadistic games and trying to mind-fuck us all[/voice] by hinting back and forth about funding or not funding the subsidies to the insurance companies for low-income people, insurance companies are really great at dealing with risk because that is their stock-in-trade (ie, that is what keeps their little actuarial hearts beating and happy), they cannot deal with uncertainty such as what Trump was torturing them and the entire country with.

In order to cover and pay for those who need medical treatment, insurance companies need as broad a base of insured people as possible. As you rightly point out, every other form of insurance does that. In California, if a traffic cop pulls you over, you also need to show him proof of car insurance.

But now to a pet peeve of mine, a health insurance nightmare I very nearly had to live. In their infinite ignorance, Trump and other Repugnicans keep offering this idea of letting you buy health insurance from another state where it's cheaper. Of course there's the trivial matter that their premiums are based on local state law and local actuarial tables, both of which would have to be massively recalibrated to account for people from anywhere in the country, the end-result of which would most likely be that their previous cost advantage would evaporate.

But the real problem with that should be apparent to anybody with any kind of medical insurance who has ever bothered to actually read their doctor's bill. I've almost always been in a PPO plan. My network doctor lists all the procedures (ICD-9 codes -- I once worked on a database project for medical therapists of all kinds, where I learned about the ICD-9 codes for everything and anything a doctor will treat or do) and the cost of each procedure. Then there's the amount that the insurance paid for that procedure, followed by a "PPO Write-off" of the remaining amount, excluding a percentage of the original cost that your doctor can still charge you for. So (pulling these numbers out of my rectum, though they are representative) you have a $400 procedure for which the insurance only pays $115, leaving $285 out of which you are charged $12 and your doctor posts a "PPO Write-off" of $273 -- I assume that they can use that as a business loss or the like, so they're doing alright. As long as you only deal with a network provider, all you would be on the hook for would be $12. But if you go out-of-network, to my knowledge your insurance will still only pay $115 and leave you on the hook for the remaining $285.

Now for the fun part. Those local state insurance plans make use of those provider networks. The insurance plan adds a provider (eg, a doctor) to their network which throws business their way. In return, the provider accepts their greatly reduced payments, tax write-offs, etc. The keyword there is local.

This is my real-life true story. Our company used to be a division of a larger company, but then we were spun off and sold to another company. That other company welcomed us, all very nice and proper, part of which included that we employees were all covered under their medical insurance plan. Wonderful, wonderful, thank you, thank you, but ... wait ... what? We are in Southern California and our parent company is on Long Island. The whole thing actually got to the point where every single employee in SoCal received the booklets of the medical plan and all the providers in the plan. Every single provider who was in the plan's network was in or within n miles of New York City. About 3000 miles away from Southern California. So then, to stay in-network, you would need to commute all the way across the country for each and every medical appointment. The alternative was to always go out-of-network in which case you were on the hook for whatever the insurance did not pay for, which would not be insignificant. The moment we became aware of the problem, we notified our local management and they immediately acted to resolve the problem, such that our corporate owners allowed us to negotiate locally for our medical benefits.

The point of all this is that Republican alternatives are unworkable bullshit. To add insult to injury, now they are coming up with smaller negotiating associations (somebody who knows more, please add to the discussion here) against whom there are many lawsuits because they are basically scams who do not pay for forthcoming benefits.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 12-14-2017 5:49 PM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17739
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 4 of 58 (825476)
12-15-2017 9:52 AM


A Story for the Season
This isn't a story about insurance mandates but about love and commitment, with the importance of insurance the centerpiece. Read it. You won't regret it, especially at this most joyous time of year.

Getting Married Is Better Than Dying, Right?

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by dwise1, posted 12-16-2017 3:37 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 58 (825492)
12-15-2017 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by AnswersInGenitals
12-14-2017 5:49 PM


Over 70% of the 80 million homeowners in the US have mortgages on their homes. All these mortgages MANDATE that he homeowners carry adequate house insurance. This mandate is not to protect the bank owners and executives: it is to protect the bankís depositors who put up the money for the mortgages. And this mandate doesnít just apply to home loans. 107 million Americans have auto loans on their vehicles. These loans also MANDATE that the owners carry full car insurance on those vehicles. Insurance only works when there is a broad base of insured paying affordable amounts each year to cover what could be devastating expenses to the few who incur losses. 49 of the 50 states MANDATE that automobile owners carry full liability insurance on their cars. Why is there no drive to repeal those mandates?

One major difference is that I can choose to not own a home or car and avoid buying the insurance.

To avoid the health insurance mandate I would have to choose to not be alive.

Also, the mandate as it was originally proposed was unconstitutional. The had to spin it from a fine to a tax for it to be allowable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 12-14-2017 5:49 PM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 12-15-2017 1:41 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17739
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 6 of 58 (825513)
12-15-2017 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by New Cat's Eye
12-15-2017 11:03 AM


I, too, think the mandate wrong, as it preys upon the poorest segments of society, but I also hold access to affordable healthcare (bounded by the expanse of the national economy) an unalienable right that is the responsibility of governmental agency.

The required "how" and "fairness" is a mass of detail, but the principles of our Declaration of Independence of equality and an unalienable right to life demands affordable healthcare for all.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2017 11:03 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2017 2:59 PM Percy has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 58 (825518)
12-15-2017 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Percy
12-15-2017 1:41 PM


I also hold access to affordable healthcare (bounded by the expanse of the national economy) an unalienable right that is the responsibility of governmental agency.

I don't.

Healthcare requires another person's labor and you don't have a right to force people to work for you.

I also don't want the federal government involved in my healthcare. Take the DMV, Postal Service, and VAs as examples of how well they run things.

The required "how" and "fairness" is a mass of detail, but the principles of our Declaration of Independence of equality and an unalienable right to life demands affordable healthcare for all.

I agree that everyone ought to have access to healthcare, but we already have that because hospitals don't turn people away. It's just not affordable. I think that's a systemic problem and not something that needs a federal government solution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 12-15-2017 1:41 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 12-15-2017 3:50 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 10 by Rrhain, posted 12-15-2017 8:06 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply
 Message 11 by Rrhain, posted 12-15-2017 8:25 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply
 Message 16 by dwise1, posted 12-16-2017 4:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17739
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 8 of 58 (825524)
12-15-2017 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by New Cat's Eye
12-15-2017 2:59 PM


New Cat's Eye writes:

Healthcare requires another person's labor and you don't have a right to force people to work for you.

"Force people to work for you?" Passion and accuracy needn't be adversaries.

Our economy already has numerous examples of taxes used to provide services. The most obvious example in this context is Medicare, which taxes the country as a whole to pay for healthcare for the elderly.

I also don't want the federal government involved in my healthcare. Take the DMV, Postal Service, and VAs as examples of how well they run things.

That's why the Affordable Care act relies upon insurance companies. The government's involvement is limited to setting up the legal structure, a necessary prerequisite.

I agree that everyone ought to have access to healthcare, but we already have that because hospitals don't turn people away.

That's only in an emergency that they can't turn people away. If you have a disease or illness you can't afford to treat (read Getting Married Is Better Than Dying, Right? that I posted a link to upthread), you're dead.

It's just not affordable.

People can run through their life savings treating a serious disease, then they die. Read Need an Organ? It Helps to Be Rich.

I think that's a systemic problem and not something that needs a federal government solution.

But it *does* need a solution. If not the federal government, who?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2017 2:59 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2017 4:49 PM Percy has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 58 (825532)
12-15-2017 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Percy
12-15-2017 3:50 PM


"Force people to work for you?" Passion and accuracy needn't be adversaries.

I misread - you said access to healthcare not healthcare itself.

If you have a disease or illness you can't afford to treat (read Getting Married Is Better Than Dying, Right? that I posted a link to upthread), you're dead.

I didn't get that from the article... I also don't believe it as a general statement, but I'm sure it happens.

People can run through their life savings treating a serious disease, then they die. Read Need an Organ? It Helps to Be Rich.

Sure, and people also spend a lot of money on newborns with congenital heart defects so they can suffer for a few months before they die.

But it *does* need a solution. If not the federal government, who?

The entities that make up the system.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Percy, posted 12-15-2017 3:50 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Rrhain, posted 12-15-2017 8:32 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 12-16-2017 10:07 AM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 14 by dwise1, posted 12-16-2017 3:30 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 10 of 58 (825548)
12-15-2017 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by New Cat's Eye
12-15-2017 2:59 PM


New Cat's Eye writes:

quote:
Healthcare requires another person's labor and you don't have a right to force people to work for you.

Libertarian claptrap alert!

Unless you are suggesting that a person's "right" to healthcare is some magic ability to point at some random yahoo and say, "You! Take out my appendix!" and expect them to scrub up, then your claim that healthcare "requires another person's labor" is nothing but a libertarian fantasy that has no basis in reality.

There are doctors. Their job is to provide healthcare. They voluntarily chose to engage in that profession. Nobody forced them. It's quite telling that you seem to think a customer asking a service provider to actually provide the service they are declaring to provide is somehow "forcing" anybody to do anything. Thus, libertarian claptrap.

No, the real question is, will you be able to avail yourself of healthcare when you need it?

Under our current system, no. You won't. We have tried to come up with a system that might allow for all people to have healthcare, but we do not have universal coverage in this country.

quote:
I agree that everyone ought to have access to healthcare, but we already have that because hospitals don't turn people away.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

How precious! I bet you truly believe that, don't you? Wait...let me guess: "You can always go to the ER," right? "They can't turn you away," right?

Oh, sweetie, honey, baby, pussycat, they don't treat cancer in the ER. They don't treat HIV in the ER. They don't manage your MS or asthma or autism or depression or any other long-term, chronic condition. You can't get your colonoscopy or mammogram to determine if you have cancer in the ER.

Those things require a different kind of doctor and those doctors turn people away all the time. If you can't pay, they don't have to see you.

And even when you can be seen in the ER, you're still on the hook for paying for it. If there is any amount of money that can be wrung out of you, you will be on the hook for it, even if it throws you into poverty. That's why half of all personal bankruptcies in the US were for medical expenses (until that pesky ACA came along).

And the majority of them were for people who had insurance.

quote:
I think that's a systemic problem and not something that needs a federal government solution.

You realize that the second half of that statement is trivially refuted by the first half, yes? Systemic problems are why we have government: They cannot be solved without regulation and oversight. Government is the only thing that can do this.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2017 2:59 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(3)
Message 11 of 58 (825550)
12-15-2017 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by New Cat's Eye
12-15-2017 2:59 PM


New Cat's Eye:

quote:
I also don't want the federal government involved in my healthcare. Take the DMV, Postal Service, and VAs as examples of how well they run things.

You realize that the examples you gave destroy your objection, yes?

The DMV does an amazing job. If you don't like the lines, perhaps you might consider a budget increase. Oh, wait...the Republicans just slashed those budgets in order to close the DMVs where Democrats live so that they won't be able to get their IDs and vote. That literally just happened in Alabama. The only place to get your voter ID was at specific DMVs...which were "closed due to budget cuts"...suspiciously only in neighborhoods where the population was primarily non-white and primarily Democratic.

So it would seem that you have given an example of what happens when government isn't sufficiently supported.

The Postal Service? It's amazing! The cheapest, most effective way of sending mail from one place to another. For less than a dollar, you can send a letter from anywhere in the country to anywhere else and it'll get there in a couple days. It's why even services like UPS and FedEx use the Post Office for their last-mile deliveries. Why? Because the Post Office has a mandate to service *everybody* and for-profit companies like UPS and FedEx don't want to have pay somebody to drive out to remote areas.

"But, they're going broke!" I hear you cry. Well, talk to the Republicans about that, too. They mandated that the Postal Service fund their pension for 75 years into the future...a requirement that no other company or government service is required to do. If you take away that single requirement, the Postal Service is doing quite well.

And the VA is another example of wonderful service that is being hamstrung by conservative/libertarians doing everything they can to stop it. Yes, it's a nightmare trying to get registered in the VA and into the system to start receiving healthcare...but once you do, that coverage is wonderful. The healthcare provided by the VA is tremendous. But the problems of getting into the system could be alleviated if they were funded properly...which tends to happen under liberals and gets slashed under conservatives. So much for actually caring about the military.

So all of your examples are shining examples of how government actually does things right, less expensively, more efficiently, and more effectively than the private market...if only conservatives and libertarians would get out of the way and let them do it.

But...but...TAXES!

Yes. You have to pay for it. But I'd rather pay 50 cents for a letter than 5 dollars. I'd rather pay less in "taxes" for better service than more in "premiums" or "fees" for worse.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2017 2:59 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 12 of 58 (825551)
12-15-2017 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
12-15-2017 4:49 PM


New Cat's Eye responds to Percy:

quote:
quote:
But it *does* need a solution. If not the federal government, who?

The entities that make up the system.

But they had the chance to do so for the past 70 years. They didn't come up with a solution then. What makes you think they'd do so now? What possible incentive do they have to change their business practice to treat more people for less money?

Remember, the ACA is not a governmental "solution." It simply allows people to buy into the current system either with their own money or with subsidies provided by the government. The only thing it "forces" on the insurance providers is to actually spend that premium money on healthcare rather than dividends to investors. It's why Medicare has an overhead rate of 2% compared to 25-30% for the average insurance company before the ACA.

So why are the insurance companies hesitating? If the problem can be solved by "the entities that make up the system," why have they been unable to do so? They've had literally decades to do so.

Why is it the poverty rate among the elderly was over 90% before Medicare and was cut in half right after? If "the entities that make up the system" could have solved it, why didn't they?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2017 4:49 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17739
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 13 of 58 (825586)
12-16-2017 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
12-15-2017 4:49 PM


New Cat's Eye writes:

If you have a disease or illness you can't afford to treat (read Getting Married Is Better Than Dying, Right? that I posted a link to upthread), you're dead.

I didn't get that from the article... I also don't believe it as a general statement, but I'm sure it happens.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant potentially lethal diseases, like lupus, the disease mentioned in the article.

About where you said that you didn't get from the article that death could have happened, recall that the writer only obtained healthcare by getting married. They got married, rushed to the hospital, and within a few days discovered:

quote:
I had been on the verge of kidney failure and could have died.

The average life expectancy for untreated lupus is less than five years. Lupus is just one of many dangerous diseases that strike both the insured and the uninsured.

People can run through their life savings treating a serious disease, then they die. Read Need an Organ? It Helps to Be Rich.

Sure, and people also spend a lot of money on newborns with congenital heart defects so they can suffer for a few months before they die.

Your point isn't apparent to me, but I just looked up newborn CHD. Congenital heart defects in newborns can range from mild to severe. The most important factor is early treatment and appropriate medical attention, and the prognosis is often very good, so I don't know why you said, "they can suffer for a few months before they die." That's one of the possibilities, but an increasingly rare one.

But proper treatment is dependent upon insurance. You have probably heard of Jimmy Kimmel's story of his newborn's CHD, and this brought increased attention to the importance of affordable insurance. Give Jimmy Kimmel Sheds Light on Health Coverage for Infants With Birth Defects a read. It describes how much worse things might have become for newborn CHD had any of the Republican versions of healthcare made it through Congress this past summer.

Medicaid is the insurer of last resort for newborn CHD. Depending on the specific CHD type, multiple operations over a period of years may be necessary, and many insurance policies carry lifetime limits, and Republican versions of the healthcare bill included Medicaid limits. But a families qualifications for Medicaid will vary over time with income, and when they make enough to be pushed off Medicaid and into the insurance market it is important that the "preexisting condition" restrictions not be in place. But the "preexisting condition" clause of the ACA was the primary factor driving mandates, which we both think are bad. What to do? I don't know.

But getting back to my original point, people with serious diseases but without insurance will live only as long as their money holds out. I shouldn't have said "then they'll die." That is a definite possibility, as was the case with the writer who married to obtain health insurance, but Medicaid is also available to the destitute. But don't we want a country where everyone has the best chance of being healthy and productive, rather than one where we perpetuate a subclass in sickly poverty that exists only because they can't afford healthcare?

The entities that make up the system.

By "entities" you mean doctor's offices, hospitals and insurance companies? Given the size of the country and the number of states with different laws, they still need a federal legal framework.

Here's an example of the problem with letting things work themselves out. When I retired I was eligible for COBRA, which means I could stay under my employer's health care plan for 18 months as long as I paid the premiums myself. But there are numerous COBRA exceptions, and I fell under one of them. If you live in or move to a state where the insurance provider does not do business, you get no COBRA benefits. Since I worked in Massachusetts (where the insurance company does do business) but lived in New Hampshire (where the insurance company does not do business), I was out of luck.

It is situations like this (and there are scores of different kinds of situations that can leave people without health insurance) that require a federal legal framework.

__Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2017 4:49 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2017 10:16 AM Percy has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3176
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 14 of 58 (825632)
12-16-2017 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
12-15-2017 4:49 PM


Percy writes:

But it *does* need a solution. If not the federal government, who?

The entities that make up the system.

Yes, the health insurance companies. The very ones who created the problems. And whom the ACA had to bring on board, resulting in many unpleasant surprises.

Obviously, that does not work. We need a solution to this problem. Suggestions, please? Workable suggestions!

Percy writes:

People can run through their life savings treating a serious disease, then they die. Read Need an Organ? It Helps to Be Rich.

Sure, and people also spend a lot of money on newborns with congenital heart defects so they can suffer for a few months before they die.

Consider a personal history. When you retire, the last thing you want to still have are mortgage payments (though rent is now just as expensive). I am just now retiring and my condo is paid off. But that could have not happened.

8 years ago I needed emergency abdominal surgery. The total bill from the hospital was something like $65,000. Then three years later I needed angioplasty which cost about $81,000. Fortunately, we caught that condition before an actual heart attack, so that I ducked all the additional cost that would have created, not to mention all the follow-up treatment for months or years to follow.

So within the span of three years I racked up $146,000 in medical costs and had gotten off cheap. That's just $50,000 less than my mortgage was, so effectively that would have been a second mortgage I would have had to pay off. Except I had medical insurance, so my out-of-pocket expenses were less than $500. But if I hadn't had medical insurance, then I would be very deeply in financial hurt right now.

That's the reality being faced by millions of Americans who do not have medical insurance. Financial ruin or just die. Though just dying is a problem, because that takes a lot of time during which you are unable to work, so your family still suffers financial ruin.

Oh, sure, emergency rooms cannot turn you away, but that's no solution but rather contributes to the problems. Many poor are left having to use the ER for all their medical care, which not only overcrowds the ERs, but also causes the hospitals incur extra costs which they cannot collect from those patients. So they have to pass those costs onto the paying patients, which causes medical costs to go up. Also, they don't and can't provide the preventative treatment that people need to keep small problems from become major ones, so those poor people go in already in bad shape. And after saving that person's life at great expense to the hospital and to society, that patient cannot receive the follow-up treatment he needs and so he ends up in the ER again and again, all while he cannot provide for his family.

The drain on society alone is inconscionable. And it is at the root of the entire problem. The economics of healthcare in the US is insane.

Sure, and people also spend a lot of money on newborns with congenital heart defects so they can suffer for a few months before they die.

Oh, sorry, I didn't recognize you. You're on one of the GOP's death panels deciding who will live and who will die. Must be really easy work, since the decision is always for them to die.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-15-2017 4:49 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3176
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 15 of 58 (825634)
12-16-2017 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
12-15-2017 9:52 AM


Re: A Story for the Season
This isn't a story about insurance mandates but about love and commitment, with the importance of insurance the centerpiece. Read it. You won't regret it, especially at this most joyous time of year.
Getting Married Is Better Than Dying, Right?

A fellow chief had a similar story. He was separated from his wife and had been for about 20 years (my memory of the exact number is hazy, but it had been a very long time). It was a fairly bitter separation and yet he refused to divorce her. The reason was that she had a serious chronic condition that if left untreated would kill her. If he were to divorce her, then she would have lost medical coverage under his insurance at work, so by not divorcing her he was keeping her covered. He didn't care one bit about her personally, but he didn't want his son to think that he had killed his son's mother.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 12-15-2017 9:52 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018