Going without health insurance

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: greenjp
Originally Posted By: kb01
That's exactly why our current rates are so bad. We're a small business (~12 people in our office). Those under the ge of 30 have dumped their policies due to rising premiums, leaving the rest of us to subsidize the two very unhealthy people on our plan (cancer survivors)...

Sorta gets to the heart of the absurdity of having health insurance linked to employment. It's a historical accident (unintended consequence of gov't intrusion) that's screwing things up to this day. How silly would it be for us to expect car insurance from our employers?

jeff


Though you only hint at it, Pensions and "Hospitilization Insurance" as it was first called were in response to gov't wage/price controls as a loophole to better compensate valued employees without paying them more money.

Now of course you can't "market shop" job A against job B as you have to weigh money vs insurance value. Lots of folks doing an inefficient job at something they hate just for the bennies, not my idea of a Capitalist ideal.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
The bottom line becomes the driving force, seen it in VA when the legislature sold out to Blue Cross years ago and let them go for profit.


That is third party (government) payer.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: eljefino

Though you only hint at it, Pensions and "Hospitilization Insurance" as it was first called were in response to gov't wage/price controls as a loophole to better compensate valued employees without paying them more money.

Now of course you can't "market shop" job A against job B as you have to weigh money vs insurance value. Lots of folks doing an inefficient job at something they hate just for the bennies, not my idea of a Capitalist ideal.


Wages / price controls and the tax code are not part of a "capitalist ideal." You clearly state that government policy is the cause of our current mess.

 

[CivicFan]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: greenjp
Originally Posted By: kb01
That's exactly why our current rates are so bad. We're a small business (~12 people in our office). Those under the ge of 30 have dumped their policies due to rising premiums, leaving the rest of us to subsidize the two very unhealthy people on our plan (cancer survivors)...

Sorta gets to the heart of the absurdity of having health insurance linked to employment. It's a historical accident (unintended consequence of gov't intrusion) that's screwing things up to this day. How silly would it be for us to expect car insurance from our employers?

jeff


Though you only hint at it, Pensions and "Hospitilization Insurance" as it was first called were in response to gov't wage/price controls as a loophole to better compensate valued employees without paying them more money.

Now of course you can't "market shop" job A against job B as you have to weigh money vs insurance value. Lots of folks doing an inefficient job at something they hate just for the bennies, not my idea of a Capitalist ideal.


Yep, employer bought health care is an unintended consequence of wage control during the WW2.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
That is third party (government) payer.


In this case, can you name one country that is not 3rd party payer that has medical service that most of its citizen can afford?

I heard Shaman in the Amazon jungle are quite affordable and it is not 3rd party payer.

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
It's part of my job compensation, so darn right I'm paying for it.

You did not pay for it as it didn't come out of your wallet and you didn't sign the contract. What you have is a third party payer.


He picked the job at least partly because it has insurance, and part of the premium is deducted from his paycheck every pay period, and he is offered a selection of plan he can join or waive medical coverage and get additional compensation (common practice if you can get cheaper insurance from spouse, etc), and he likely has the option to choose a high deductible low(er) premium plan.

How is he not paying for it and how is it not capitalism?

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
It's part of my job compensation, so darn right I'm paying for it.

You did not pay for it as it didn't come out of your wallet and you didn't sign the contract. What you have is a third party payer.


He picked the job at least partly because it has insurance, and part of the premium is deducted from his paycheck every pay period, and he is offered a selection of plan he can join or waive medical coverage and get additional compensation (common practice if you can get cheaper insurance from spouse, etc), and he likely has the option to choose a high deductible low(er) premium plan.

How is he not paying for it and how is it not capitalism?


That's kind of the mentality of some. That your benefits compensation that you earned by contributing to the company's operations and subsequent income, is not really earned. And neither should your contribution to the company's income that pays taxes be considered. This is also the same reasoning the tax-cuts-for-wealthy crowd use to also claim that they are paying the taxes and the working class aren't. What difference would it really make if your employer paid your benefits in cash and you had to turn around and buy health insurance with it? You'd still be paying the same arm and a leg costs.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
That your benefits compensation that you earned by contributing to the company's operations and subsequent income, is not really earned.

This is very simple. If the money did not come out his pocket, and he didn't sign a contract, he isn't paying for it.

The company he works for is and considers the money they pay for benefits part of his compensation for working there. The company is actually doing him a favor (under current tax law) because the company can pay for the insurance with pre-tax dollars. Not an option if he pays it himself.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: eljefino

Though you only hint at it, Pensions and "Hospitilization Insurance" as it was first called were in response to gov't wage/price controls as a loophole to better compensate valued employees without paying them more money.

Now of course you can't "market shop" job A against job B as you have to weigh money vs insurance value. Lots of folks doing an inefficient job at something they hate just for the bennies, not my idea of a Capitalist ideal.


Wages / price controls and the tax code are not part of a "capitalist ideal." You clearly state that government policy is the cause of our current mess.


Inaction is not a policy, so I'm not as clear as you claim I am. O-care is a shell of what it needs to be to be effective at anything.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
This is very simple. If the money did not come out his pocket, and he didn't sign a contract, he isn't paying for it.

The company he works for is and considers the money they pay for benefits part of his compensation for working there. The company is actually doing him a favor (under current tax law) because the company can pay for the insurance with pre-tax dollars. Not an option if he pays it himself.


Assuming that you have not been living under a rock for the last 5 years, and are employed, and have health insurance from your work place.

Most likely you have to deduct a portion of your paycheck per pay period in addition to your employer's contribution for the health insurance you are enrolling in. The only time I've seen any health insurance that is completely employer paid and nothing out of employee's pre tax pay is about 8 years ago, and at that time I was 24, so assuming that you are older than 24 and actually get insurance from work, you are partially paying out of your own pocket (although pre tax).

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Tempest

Wages / price controls and the tax code are not part of a "capitalist ideal."


The "capitalist ideal" form of health care is to put those who cannot afford health care aside and let the nature take care of them. That's how the most capitalist, survival of the fittest, market of mother nature deal with the weak. Either produce a lot of off spring and a small percentage of them will grow into healthy adult, or produce a couple every year but keep your lifespan short so the fittest, youngest would consume the resource and produce better off spring.

Oh, one benefit on top of that is there will not be $700k operations because no one could afford it, and the care provider would either have to market it to the rare elite, or only provide half the care for $350k, or provide a care that's 50% fatality rate for $350k, etc. You get the idea.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Your right to start treatment within 18 weeks from referral includes treatments where a consultant retains overall clinical responsibility for the service or team, or for your treatment. This means the consultant will not necessarily be present for each appointment, but will take overall responsibility for your care. The setting of your consultant-led treatment, for example whether hospital-based or in a community-based clinic, will not affect your right to treatment within 18 weeks.

http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Rightsa...ng%20times.aspx
So I guess as long as you don't need care within an 18 week period, you are good.

Or not:
Quote:
Patients are suffering and some have died as a result of rationing in the NHS, doctors have claimed.

A survey of almost 3,000 doctors by Doctor and Hospital Doctor newspapers found that one in five doctors know patients who have suffered harm as a result of rationing.

More than 5% of GPs surveyed also said they knew of patients who had died as a result of being denied treatment on the NHS.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/249938.stm

Wait times up:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/articl...-cuts-bite.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/...re-2265782.html

Those are the realities of nationalized health care.

 

[expat]

In the U.K. you also have the option of going Private.

Quote:
Patients are suffering and some have died as a result of rationing in the NHS, doctors have claimed.

A survey of almost 3,000 doctors by Doctor and Hospital Doctor newspapers found that one in five doctors know patients who have suffered harm as a result of rationing.

More than 5% of GPs surveyed also said they knew of patients who had died as a result of being denied treatment on the NHS.


I'm sure if you were to survey Doctors anywhere, you would get a similar response. Doctors will ALWAYS say "We need more Doctors"

Or, turn the last statement around:
95% of Doctors NEVER knew of ANYONE that may have died due to not receiving treatment.
Sounds pretty good that way!

Bottom line is- No matter what fate hands you, Treatment IS available. And you don't have to go bankrupt!

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
And you don't have to go bankrupt!

Just your country.

 

[expat]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
And you don't have to go bankrupt!

Just your country.


Well, neither system seems sustainable, at the current level.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
And you don't have to go bankrupt!

Just your country.

Well, I think the current stats are that we spend less than half per capita for our system of healthcare, than is spent in the US healthcare system.
I won't say ours is better than your system is for your wealthy folks, but I think for the average person, ours is pretty good and it costs far less. It is a competitive business advantage for Canada IMO.

 

[CivicFan]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Your right to start treatment within 18 weeks from referral includes treatments where a consultant retains overall clinical responsibility for the service or team, or for your treatment. This means the consultant will not necessarily be present for each appointment, but will take overall responsibility for your care. The setting of your consultant-led treatment, for example whether hospital-based or in a community-based clinic, will not affect your right to treatment within 18 weeks.

http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Rightsa...ng%20times.aspx
So I guess as long as you don't need care within an 18 week period, you are good.

Or not:
Quote:
Patients are suffering and some have died as a result of rationing in the NHS, doctors have claimed.

A survey of almost 3,000 doctors by Doctor and Hospital Doctor newspapers found that one in five doctors know patients who have suffered harm as a result of rationing.

More than 5% of GPs surveyed also said they knew of patients who had died as a result of being denied treatment on the NHS.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/249938.stm

Wait times up:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/articl...-cuts-bite.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/...re-2265782.html

Those are the realities of nationalized health care.


I have a feeling that you have not read what KB01 has written. If you have, I find it hard to believe that you are still singing about the glorious healthcare system in the country.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Well, neither system seems sustainable, at the current level.

No doubt about that.

Quote:
Well, neither system seems sustainable, at the current level.

Assuming all of the stats are apples to apples and that the level of care is the same. Our private companies actually have to pay for their bureaucracy where as the cost of your CRA (and other agencies) is not included in those figures.

And what is the "proper" level of spending on health care? If people want to spend more on health care in a given country that should be their business. I could care less about the global average as the US is not an average country.

Quote:
It is a competitive business advantage for Canada IMO.

Check Canadian productivity.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
I find it hard to believe that you are still singing about the glorious healthcare system in the country.

I never said it was "glorious". In fact, I have stated many of the major flaws of it.

But the fact is that the US spends FAR more on medical research than many other wealth nations combined. Check the research spending in Canada or the UK. It's trifle, which is to be expected because new medical procedures are expensive and that costs government.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Anyone with any sense knows that the government is the worst choice to 'run' anything! Time and time again ours has failed to protect the very citizens who pay for it.

Simple repeal of the insurance regs that prevent companies from selling into certain states would help HUGELY in the US. Those regs were installed by special interest lobbyists working with our corrupt Congress.

The US is the best in the world at trauma care, Europe is better at treating chronic conditions.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: Tempest

Quote:
It is a competitive business advantage for Canada IMO.

Check Canadian productivity.

Check out what our dollar is at, and our debt rating. Right now the market says we are doing something right.
Also isn't 18% of US GDP from the medical/insurance system, which seems to be inefficient for the cost of the services provided? Lots of $100+/hour employees boosts productivity right?