Universal health insurance

[pathia]

I don’t think a shortage of doctors is the problem, as much as what they are teaching in med school. I have a good friend who is now a doctor, and I remember her telling me that a lot of her studies revolved around reactive measures to symptoms, and not proactive measures to teaching people how to GET HEALTHY AND MAINTAIN THEIR HEALTH. I think that we see more shows now on tv, talking about the need to exercise, eat heart healthy foods, eat more fiber, etc…but not until I went to my recent ob/gyn, did I experience a dr who actually was proactive in my health, as opposed to reactive. There’s big money in this country, in not helping people to take care of themselves, and become enslaved to their doctors for script after script. There’s no money in people staying well. Sad,but true.

I take care of myself just fine though, I just have many congenital defects that cause all sorts of issues. I jog a mile a day (When I am healthy enough to do so). My HDL/LDL ratio is superb, all of my measurements are perfectly fine, sugar/cholesterol etc.

Yet still I have about 75,000-125,000 a year in medical bills. Most of which is uncovered. Literally I get sick from the stress of dealing with all of my medical problems!

I’m sure keeping healthy would help a large majority, but some of us are just SICK. There are reasons why I’ve been told I would have died in childhood only about 50years ago, and my life expectancy is 35-40 at MOST. I plan to beat that no matter what it takes, but it’s not conducive to ever having low medical bills.

 

[onetimeposter]

I think that your rudeness is uncalled for. I was not rude in my post to Pathia, and Pathia responded to my question respectfully and charitably. I got the impression that Pathia understood that I was asking specifically about the geographical concerns.

I have read Pathia’s posts. My question had to do with the availability of specialists in Pathia’s area, and I was asking for clarification on Pathia’s understanding of the relationship of waiting times to UHC versus the status quo.

Cry me a river.

 

[whatevergirl]

If they did not lobby Congress to pass specific legislation to favor them or limit their risk while making the individual risk it I would dagree. If Congress was not talking about mandating each person pay a insurance company a premium regadless of interest or need I would agree. It is already mandatory in many places to have auto insurance and home insurance. Failure to do so can result in fines and denial of a loan and that is not the business of the federal government to make the rules and then be judge and jury. It is a stacked deck against the individual.

As a private business insurance companies should operate like the grocery stores and that is at risk like everyone else.

Well, we really are set apart from being a commodity like food, but it is interesting to get people’s perspectives on insurance companies. I know that insurance companies are not people’s favorite business. Thing is, insurance companies are everyone’s best friend, when large claims are paid out. I see it from all angles. I am in it, but I also step away, and view it as though I wasn’t in it.

 

[pathia]

I don’t work in claims, but I will say that I know there needs to be reform. I marvel that they denied your claim, how would they know what your lifestyle is about? I’m sorry you went through this.

I am intersexed (The word used to be hermaphrodite). The smallest and most cursory examination of my treatment history, or questioning any doctor I’ve visited will red flag me in their records. Doctors won’t lie why I’m seeing them, so the insurance company instantly knows what I am and start denying claims left and right.

 

[pathia]

I have read Pathia’s posts. My question had to do with the availability of specialists in Pathia’s area, and I was asking for clarification on Pathia’s understanding of the relationship of waiting times to UHC versus the status quo.

I searched out of my area. Notice that I drove 4hours to see the specialist in the first place. It wasn’t just ‘my area’ it was the entire east coast. I was of course limited to the doctors that accepted my plan as well, which cut out some who would have seen me faster, but they didn’t take my insurance so I had to skip by them. I searched as far as 10hours away from my home.

It didn’t matter in the end though seeing as BCBS denied the claim anyway though.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I searched out of my area. Notice that I drove 4hours to see the specialist in the first place. It wasn’t just ‘my area’ it was the entire east coast. I was of course limited to the doctors that accepted my plan as well, which cut out some who would have seen me faster, but they didn’t take my insurance so I had to skip by them. I searched as far as 10hours away from my home.

It didn’t matter in the end though seeing as BCBS denied the claim anyway though.

And this is where MSAs help. In your case, the cap would be high, and the premiums as well. But that would be balanced against your income, and you would receive reasonable assistance in paying premiums and out-of-account expenses.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Well, we really are set apart from being a commodity like food, but it is interesting to get people’s perspectives on insurance companies.

Why is it different then than say a lawn service company? If I pay some guy to add weed-n-feed to my lawn with his company gurantee to replace my lawn or trees should they die for whatever reason if the the policy I signed said he would: why should I or he expect someone to subsidise his risk and not mine?

I know that insurance companies are not people’s favorite business. Thing is, insurance companies are everyone’s best friend, when large claims are paid out. I see it from all angles. I am in it, but I also step away, and view it as though I wasn’t in it.

Insurance is little different than Vegas. The house usually wins. There are private companies that ensure the games are legitimate in Vegas/AC as it is self regulating on the behalf of the gamblers and ‘good’ of the industry. Why should insurance companies be any different and require/demand federal law to limit their risk when? It is unfair on it’s face: the government sets the rules in favor of the company and when the individual is stonewalled and denied they claim the government mandated the rules. When/if yo umake it to a court of law you receive no help from the government as they have already sided with the insurance companies.

 

[Verisimilitude]

And this is where MSAs help. In your case, the cap would be high, and the premiums as well. But that would be balanced against your income, …

Gross or net? After pathia pays for FICA, SSA, Medicare, Medicade, state, local and city taxes, but before food, shelter and clothing is aquired; is that when an MSA can be funded? Is the government mandated vehicle and home insurance accounted for in your computations of fairness?

 

[rtconstant]

I don’t know how any system can deal with a shortage of doctors without:

1. Paying them more, or
2. Drafting people and forcing them to go to medical school.

Or to put it another way, Universal Health Insurance, by creating a monopsony can under pay doctors and drive them out, but cannot create additional doctors.

UHC nations seem to do fine in getting docs but yeah I don’t think that having a non-UHC system is what’s keeping our docs away. One thing that we have here that UHC docs don’t have to worry about are sue-happy patients. Docs spend a lot on malpractice insurance. But this problem is more complicated than just UHC verse non-UHC.

Most people are healthy – and most people spend about half their lifetime total medical payout in the last six months of their lives.

One feature of this system is it allows people to save while young and healthy, so as to have plenty put aside when they are older.

No argument here. MSA’s would certainly benefit the healthy.

And yes, I have annual checkups. But that’s because I choose to. Other people may choose not do – and that’s their right.

The thing is though that when people are worried about their finances in regard to health care they may decide not to go when they normally would. You’re right that would be their choice but it seems like MSA’s would have a tendancy to encourage that behavior. Especially for those with low incomes.

They take out MSAs, too.

So tough luck for them? I realize that isn’t what you’re trying to say, but that would seem to be the natural result. An MSA for the unhealthy would raise their costs.

I think this really gets to crux of the matter. Some approachs to medical coverage come from a standpoint of what is most fair to the healthy and well off; some come from a standpoint of what’s necessary for those who need it most.

Not nearly the impact that Universal Health Insurance would have!!

Heh, well fair enough neither system would help tax revenue.

 

[pathia]

And this is where MSAs help. In your case, the cap would be high, and the premiums as well. But that would be balanced against your income, and you would receive reasonable assistance in paying premiums and out-of-account expenses.

The thread kind of exploded. Did you see where currently that non-covered medical expenses do not count towards my cap?

I’ve never reached my cap anytime, despite having huge expenses, because they deny covering those, thus they don’t count to my cap.

 

[Oscarthecat]

The thread kind of exploded.

You said a mouthful.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Gross or net? After pathia pays for FICA, SSA, Medicare, Medicade, state, local and city taxes, but before food, shelter and clothing is aquired; is that when an MSA can be funded? Is the government mandated vehicle and home insurance accounted for in your computations of fairness?

Net, of course.

Both her situation and her income would be taken into account.

 

[vern_humphrey]

UHC nations seem to do fine in getting docs but yeah I don’t think that having a non-UHC system is what’s keeping our docs away. One thing that we have here that UHC docs don’t have to worry about are sue-happy patients. Docs spend a lot on malpractice insurance. But this problem is more complicated than just UHC verse non-UHC.

I would be all agog to see a plan that would limit lawsuits – without impacting on those who are truly hurt by malpractice.

The thing is though that when people are worried about their finances in regard to health care they may decide not to go when they normally would. You’re right that would be their choice but it seems like MSA’s would have a tendancy to encourage that behavior. Especially for those with low incomes.

How would MSAs be any worse than what we have now in that respect?

So tough luck for them? I realize that isn’t what you’re trying to say, but that would seem to be the natural result. An MSA for the unhealthy would raise their costs.

No, not tough luck for them.

People with existing health problems would still be eligible for MSAs – and the amount of help they would get from the rest of us would depend on their own medical and financial situations.

A person who couldn’t work at all would get full coverage at our expense. A multi-millionaire with a large income from his investment portfolio might get no help at all.

I think this really gets to crux of the matter. Some approachs to medical coverage come from a standpoint of what is most fair to the healthy and well off; some come from a standpoint of what’s necessary for those who need it most.e

MSAs allow you to tailor your medical coverage to what’s best for you.

Heh, well fair enough neither system would help tax revenue.

I have often said, we cannot intelligently discuss taxation until we discuss spending. When the government squanders the peoples’ money, no system of taxation is fair.

Health coverage will do nothing to rein in government spending, but a single-payer system will definitely expand spending.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Net, of course.

Both her situation and her income would be taken into account.

Don’t you think her personal needs with her personal income should take precident over funding the IRS and the things funded by FICA?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Don’t you think her personal needs with her personal income should take precident over funding the IRS and the things funded by FICA?

If her medical expenses are as high as they appear to be (over 10% of her net income), they are tax-deductable.

I think everyone should get to keep and invest their FICA. People who worked steadily at minimum wage all their lives would retire as millionaires.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

If her medical expenses are as high as they appear to be (over 10% of her net income), they are tax-deductable.

I think everyone should get to keep and invest their FICA. People who worked steadily at minimum wage all their lives would retire as millionaires.

And with actual inflation (taking into account what real people actually buy, like food and fuel) spiraling out of control, will a million dollars be worth much in 30 or 40 years?

 

[pathia]

If her medical expenses are as high as they appear to be (over 10% of her net income), they are tax-deductable.

I think everyone should get to keep and invest their FICA. People who worked steadily at minimum wage all their lives would retire as millionaires.

I get the maximum deduction per year due to my medical expenses, yup. They’re technically about 150% of my income actually. However, they don’t ever really remain 150%, it’s really complicated laugh It just takes a year or three so for things to clean out bill wise. My taxes are a mess, I’m surprised I’ve only been audited once.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And with actual inflation (taking into account what real people actually buy, like food and fuel) spiraling out of control, will a million dollars be worth much in 30 or 40 years?

I’m always amazed at how few people understand the time value of money.

I remember about 40 years ago discussing investments with someone who told me, “Yeah, you’ll be a millionaire when you retire – but by that time a million dollars will buy a candy bar. What will you do then?”

I said “I’ll eat my candy bar while you watch.”

I wonder where that guy is today.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I get the maximum deduction per year due to my medical expenses, yup. They’re technically about 150% of my income actually. However, they don’t ever really remain 150%, it’s really complicated laugh It just takes a year or three so for things to clean out bill wise. My taxes are a mess, I’m surprised I’ve only been audited once.

I would think they would be scared to audit you. From what you say, they’d probably find some unclaimed expenses and have to give you a refund.

 

[whatevergirl]

I haven’t read through this entire thread, so maybe someone addressed this already. But, there is big money in the U.S., in keeping people sick. Just treating symptoms, etc. That’s pretty much the extent of modern medicine. Sure, there are those doctors we see on tv, or possibly you know a few that are into really helping their patients to take control of their health, and are more proactive. As a nation, we are terribly unhealthy, and quite a few of the diseases are because we don’t take care of ourselves. Not all, but many diseases can be attributed from the lifestyle we Americans lead. Look at our Japanese counterparts, in particular Okinawa, where the cancer rate is near zilch, and other parts of the world, where they just aren’t as sick as we are.

Our healthcare system needs reform, but we also have to do a better job in turning out doctors who aren’t just treating symptoms with the latest and greatest wonder pill on the market, but actually help people to get healthy, in natural ways.

But, there’s no money when people are well, in the healthcare world. So, lawyers, insurance companies, etc can be blamed…but I see the biggest culprit in being the pharmaceutical companies. Viagra is often covered, and some of the most basic procedures I’m reading from some of the posters here are not? Wow…that’s insanity if I have ever seen it. So, not steal a Clinton line…but it does take a village to make things better. We also have to start taking better care of ourselves as a society and not rely on ‘modern’ medicine so much. I think it can be done!