Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #459430 > unrolled thread
| Started by | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-08 16:27 -0400 |
| Last post | 2017-05-21 09:56 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 186 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 16:27 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-05-08 14:20 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-08 14:54 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 18:08 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-08 20:01 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-08 20:14 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-08 20:47 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-08 21:08 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-08 21:14 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-05-10 09:33 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com - 2017-05-11 05:29 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> - 2017-05-10 12:40 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-10 21:02 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> - 2017-05-11 16:31 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-11 16:39 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-11 16:44 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-11 20:26 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-05-11 21:11 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 00:41 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-12 19:44 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-05-12 22:10 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 21:26 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-08 21:31 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 21:48 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-05-10 10:24 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 13:35 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-05-10 11:25 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 18:18 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-05-10 18:38 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-10 19:09 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-10 18:49 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-08 21:37 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-08 19:52 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-05-08 22:58 -0500
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-09 01:14 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-05-10 14:19 -0500
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-05-10 18:30 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 21:46 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-05-10 18:53 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-09 09:29 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 12:13 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-05-10 09:38 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 13:25 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-10 13:41 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-05-10 11:44 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 18:40 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-05-10 18:49 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> - 2017-05-10 19:18 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-10 20:12 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-05-11 19:16 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> - 2017-05-11 20:19 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-11 21:43 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-05-12 17:16 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-12 18:52 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-10 19:27 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-08 19:43 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-08 20:30 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-09 08:28 +0100
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-09 01:20 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-09 09:39 +0100
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 12:22 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-09 17:37 +0100
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 12:47 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-05-09 07:58 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-09 06:33 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-09 12:48 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 12:26 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-09 20:08 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-08 15:55 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-08 19:39 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-08 18:34 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-08 20:49 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-08 17:55 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-08 20:10 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-09 08:33 +0100
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-09 00:55 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-09 09:21 +0100
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-09 01:47 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2017-05-09 04:06 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-09 06:00 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2017-05-09 16:30 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 20:08 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-09 20:10 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2017-05-09 19:50 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-10 12:51 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-09 19:30 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-09 20:55 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2017-05-09 21:44 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-09 23:46 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 12:33 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-05-10 10:47 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 18:44 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-10 19:37 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? "billbowden" <bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> - 2017-05-11 20:54 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 00:31 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? "billbowden" <bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> - 2017-05-12 15:19 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-11 22:22 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-05-12 21:33 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-12 22:11 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 02:21 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-05-21 09:47 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? "billbowden" <bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> - 2017-05-22 18:38 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-23 18:38 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 12:31 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-09 17:40 +0100
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Frank Miles <fpm@u.washington.edu> - 2017-05-08 23:39 +0000
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-08 19:34 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-05-08 22:04 -0500
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 18:03 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-08 20:02 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-08 18:41 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2017-05-08 19:04 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-08 22:17 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 22:27 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-08 22:30 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-08 20:30 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-08 19:33 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 22:55 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-08 20:21 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 09:13 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 12:45 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com - 2017-05-10 08:05 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-05-10 19:04 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-10 22:38 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 23:03 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-05-21 09:30 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 01:24 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-05-08 14:22 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-05-08 17:08 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-08 20:20 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-05-08 20:30 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-08 20:42 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-05-12 18:31 -0500
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 19:49 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-12 20:14 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-05-12 19:27 -0500
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-12 17:38 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 21:22 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-05-12 21:43 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-13 11:04 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 09:13 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-05-12 21:45 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-12 22:27 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-13 11:06 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-13 08:40 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2017-05-14 00:01 +0800
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-05-15 09:32 -0500
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 10:45 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-05-15 13:48 -0500
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 01:40 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-15 07:48 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-15 20:30 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-05-28 12:10 +0000
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-13 21:11 +0100
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 13:39 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 16:56 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 14:04 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 17:18 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-13 14:41 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-13 21:17 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-05-15 13:55 -0500
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-05-21 10:27 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-21 21:53 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-13 06:28 +0100
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 02:23 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-13 08:06 +0100
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? jurb6006@gmail.com - 2017-05-12 21:40 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-12 22:13 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-05-13 10:14 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 14:32 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-12 17:33 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-05-12 20:11 -0500
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 21:34 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-05-13 09:19 -0500
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 11:34 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-05-13 10:35 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 14:38 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-05-13 16:25 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-12 22:37 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-12 19:46 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-05-13 09:38 -0500
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 08:05 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-05-13 10:35 -0500
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 12:00 -0400
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-13 09:14 -0700
Re: Why Have Medical Insurance? dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-05-21 09:56 -0700
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| From | amdx <nojunk@knology.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 13:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ofctcs$si7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460124 |
On 5/13/2017 4:18 PM, rickman wrote:
> On 5/13/2017 5:04 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
>> Den lørdag den 13. maj 2017 kl. 22.11.51 UTC+2 skrev Kevin Aylward:
>>> wrote in message
>>> news:f136f520-cae4-40d4-a068-9e96763353b7@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 1:06:12 AM UTC+10, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 May 2017 21:45:12 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> "Of course, that is the very definition of insurance. You pool the
>>>>>> costs
>>>>> of everyone in the group. "
>>>>>
>>>>> Then everyone's premiums should be the same. I don't see that working.
>>>>
>>>>> NO, lefties want premiums to be based on your ability to pay. You
>>>>> know, as Marx taught.
>>>
>>>> "To each according to their needs, from each according to their
>>>> abilities".
>>>
>>>> Most universal health care schemes seem to extract roughly the same
>>>> amount
>>>> of money from everybody who can pay, and use that to cover them and the
>>>> people who can't.
>>>
>>>> It works. The Marxist prescription would work too, but tends to
>>>> upset the
>>>> people with the greater ability to pay. That's how defense gets paid
>>>> for,
>>>> but the people with the greater ability to pay also >feel a greater
>>>> need
>>>> for good defenses, while they think that they are less likely to get
>>>> sick
>>>> than the poor.
>>>
>>> "Free"/state health care for the masses is probably one of the few
>>> issues
>>> that I am in complete agreement with you on Bill.
>>>
>>> Any "rich" country that allows millions of its children , to
>>> effectively, be
>>> devoid of health care, can not be considered "civilised" by any
>>> stretch of
>>> the imagination.
>>>
>>> The children are blameless, and need medical protection. Period.
>>
>> yeh, kids don't choose their parents
>>
>> We have tax paid healthcare here, with the exception of regular
>> dentist work
>> that is only covered until you are 18 and for the most part integrated
>> into
>> the school system
>>
>> healthcare is the second largest post on the government budget at 16%
>> which if I can do math is roughly 4000usd per year per person
>
> I remember a British TV show called Torchwood. One season was about an
> anti-epidemic where no one died, they still got sick, they just never
> died and so would be in perpetual care.
Oh man, that would be a weapon of mass destruction that could collapse a
society in just a few years.
Mikek
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 10:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cd5566b1-a349-4f8d-931b-ad3e46ddcd0d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460118 |
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 4:11:51 PM UTC-4, Kevin Aylward wrote: > wrote in message > news:f136f520-cae4-40d4-a068-9e96763353b7@googlegroups.com... > > On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 1:06:12 AM UTC+10, k...@notreal.com wrote: > > On Fri, 12 May 2017 21:45:12 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote: > > > > >>"Of course, that is the very definition of insurance. You pool the > > >>costs > > >of everyone in the group. " > > > > > >Then everyone's premiums should be the same. I don't see that working. > > > >> NO, lefties want premiums to be based on your ability to pay. You > >> know, as Marx taught. > > >"To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities". > > >Most universal health care schemes seem to extract roughly the same amount > >of money from everybody who can pay, and use that to cover them and the > >people who can't. > > >It works. The Marxist prescription would work too, but tends to upset the > >people with the greater ability to pay. That's how defense gets paid for, > >but the people with the greater ability to pay also >feel a greater need > >for good defenses, while they think that they are less likely to get sick > >than the poor. > > "Free"/state health care for the masses is probably one of the few issues > that I am in complete agreement with you on Bill. > > Any "rich" country that allows millions of its children, to effectively, be > devoid of health care, can not be considered "civilised" by any stretch of > the imagination. It's not the country that "allowed" it. Kids have parents who made them. Parents are expected to provide food, love, and guidance for the children they make. But even so, something like a third of of American kids are on Medicaid. (42%, in "progressive" California.) > The children are blameless, and need medical protection. Period. By which you mean that a man shall be required to support other mens' children, even if it means taking from his own to do it. As a matter of simple statistics, most children are quite healthy and their medical costs minimal. What they need protection from is socialism, a political system that's a far greater threat to their long-term health and welfare. Cheers, James Arthur
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 21:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b0c36673-5891-4950-a407-5c7e74b96bb6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #461145 |
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 3:27:43 AM UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 4:11:51 PM UTC-4, Kevin Aylward wrote: > > wrote in message > > news:f136f520-cae4-40d4-a068-9e96763353b7@googlegroups.com... > > > > On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 1:06:12 AM UTC+10, k...@notreal.com wrote: > > > On Fri, 12 May 2017 21:45:12 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > >>"Of course, that is the very definition of insurance. You pool the > > > >>costs > > > >of everyone in the group. " > > > > > > > >Then everyone's premiums should be the same. I don't see that working. > > > > > >> NO, lefties want premiums to be based on your ability to pay. You > > >> know, as Marx taught. > > > > >"To each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities". > > > > >Most universal health care schemes seem to extract roughly the same amount > > >of money from everybody who can pay, and use that to cover them and the > > >people who can't. > > > > >It works. The Marxist prescription would work too, but tends to upset the > > >people with the greater ability to pay. That's how defense gets paid for, > > >but the people with the greater ability to pay also >feel a greater need > > >for good defenses, while they think that they are less likely to get sick > > >than the poor. > > > > "Free"/state health care for the masses is probably one of the few issues > > that I am in complete agreement with you on Bill. > > > > Any "rich" country that allows millions of its children, to effectively, be > > devoid of health care, can not be considered "civilised" by any stretch of > > the imagination. > > It's not the country that "allowed" it. Kids have parents who made them. > Parents are expected to provide food, love, and guidance for the children > they make. > > But even so, something like a third of of American kids are on Medicaid. > (42%, in "progressive" California.) > > > The children are blameless, and need medical protection. Period. > > By which you mean that a man shall be required to support other mens' > children, even if it means taking from his own to do it. That's how health insurance works. > As a matter of simple statistics, most children are quite healthy and their > medical costs minimal. What they need protection from is socialism, a > political system that's a far greater threat to their long-term health > and welfare. James Arthur types "socialism" and means "communism". When asked to point out how it damages peoples long-term health and welfare, he points of East Germany (which isn't there any more) rather than Scandinavia and Germany, where health and welfare are distinctly better than they are in the USA. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 06:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MPwRA.339$Ky3.57@fx01.am4> |
| In reply to | #460042 |
On 13/05/17 02:22, rickman wrote: > On 5/12/2017 8:38 PM, Don Y wrote: >> My insurance agent said "too many other sick people so the cost >> of insuring the *group* of you has gone up; this is your share >> of that pie..." > > Of course, that is the very definition of insurance. You pool the costs of > everyone in the group. In the past people in this NG have told me that doesn't happen (anymore). It doesn't surprise me that it does happen, and is a real threat to people's health. The only solution is to be insured in as big and heterogeneous group as possible. The entire population of a country is ideal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 02:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <of68jh$hcr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460067 |
On 5/13/2017 1:28 AM, Tom Gardner wrote: > On 13/05/17 02:22, rickman wrote: >> On 5/12/2017 8:38 PM, Don Y wrote: >>> My insurance agent said "too many other sick people so the cost >>> of insuring the *group* of you has gone up; this is your share >>> of that pie..." >> >> Of course, that is the very definition of insurance. You pool the >> costs of >> everyone in the group. > > In the past people in this NG have told me that > doesn't happen (anymore). What doesn't happen anymore? > It doesn't surprise me that it does happen, and > is a real threat to people's health. I'm not sure what you are talking about. > The only solution is to be insured in as big and > heterogeneous group as possible. The entire > population of a country is ideal. I agree. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 08:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <6gyRA.13124$WE3.10914@fx12.am4> |
| In reply to | #460069 |
On 13/05/17 07:23, rickman wrote: > On 5/13/2017 1:28 AM, Tom Gardner wrote: >> On 13/05/17 02:22, rickman wrote: >>> On 5/12/2017 8:38 PM, Don Y wrote: >>>> My insurance agent said "too many other sick people so the cost >>>> of insuring the *group* of you has gone up; this is your share >>>> of that pie..." >>> >>> Of course, that is the very definition of insurance. You pool the >>> costs of >>> everyone in the group. >> >> In the past people in this NG have told me that >> doesn't happen (anymore). > > What doesn't happen anymore? What DonY wrote and I quoted above. >> It doesn't surprise me that it does happen, and >> is a real threat to people's health. > > I'm not sure what you are talking about. > >> The only solution is to be insured in as big and >> heterogeneous group as possible. The entire >> population of a country is ideal. > > I agree. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jurb6006@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-12 21:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6e5e494b-bb49-4dc7-8b9c-04ec1c4f35ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460039 |
>"But, the costs of repairing cars that are in accidents has increased... " Also because a taillight lens which is a piece of plastic that costs $5 to make costs $500. Price gouging, same reason we can't really get to single payer without having the government take over the system. I am dubious about that as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-12 22:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <73ff1e32-32a6-4b2a-acee-1de9aa09c08d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #460057 |
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:40:19 PM UTC+10, jurb...@gmail.com wrote: > >"But, the costs of repairing cars that are in > accidents has increased... " > > Also because a taillight lens which is a piece of plastic that costs $5 to make costs $500. > > Price gouging, same reason we can't really get to single payer without having the government take over the system. I am dubious about that as well. Every other advanced industrial country has worked out more or less how to cope with that - some better than others, and Australia isn't an example to copy. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 10:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <yfadnWYf5_xpo4rEnZ2dnUU7-ImdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #460064 |
On 2017/05/12 10:13 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:40:19 PM UTC+10, jurb...@gmail.com wrote: >>> "But, the costs of repairing cars that are in >> accidents has increased... " >> >> Also because a taillight lens which is a piece of plastic that costs $5 to make costs $500. >> >> Price gouging, same reason we can't really get to single payer without having the government take over the system. I am dubious about that as well. > > Every other advanced industrial country has worked out more or less how to cope with that - some better than others, and Australia isn't an example to copy. > G'day, mate, are you saying the Aussies screwed up? G'wan wit ya! Canada's system isn't perfect either, but we all learn from each other... John ;-#)#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 14:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <of7ja8$o74$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460101 |
On 5/13/2017 1:14 PM, John Robertson wrote: > On 2017/05/12 10:13 PM, bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:40:19 PM UTC+10, jurb...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> "But, the costs of repairing cars that are in >>> accidents has increased... " >>> >>> Also because a taillight lens which is a piece of plastic that costs >>> $5 to make costs $500. >>> >>> Price gouging, same reason we can't really get to single payer >>> without having the government take over the system. I am dubious >>> about that as well. >> >> Every other advanced industrial country has worked out more or less >> how to cope with that - some better than others, and Australia isn't >> an example to copy. >> > > G'day, mate, are you saying the Aussies screwed up? G'wan wit ya! > > Canada's system isn't perfect either, but we all learn from each other... Not here in the US! We seem to prefer to make our own mistakes because we are "special". We have a *lot* of short busses too. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-12 17:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <of5k1j$hef$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460023 |
On 5/12/2017 4:31 PM, amdx wrote:
> I have health insurance for two reasons.
> 1. It protects my life savings from a $300,000 hospital bill.
And how does it "protect" them? Does it change your RISK of getting sick?
Does the mere act of purchasing health insurance make you healthier? Less
LIKELY to need health care?
Or, does it shift your EXPOSURE to that risk -- by offloading it onto
some other payer (i.e., the insurance company)?
Where does the insurance company come up with the money to pay YOUR
$300,000 bill (if you ever incur the need for that sort of care)?
Do they convince the providers to forgive ALL of those fees?
In which case, does the provider just stop paying its employees
for the services they've provided?
There's no free lunch. If you incur $300,000 of care, SOMEONE is paying
that $300,000 -- if YOU aren't (because you "protected yourself")
I.e., someone who *didn't* incur healthcare costs that met or exceeded
what he paid *to* the insurer ("insurance industry") is effectively subsidizing
your care. They are assuming a part of your risk exposure.
Of course, if you are UNLUCKY enough to NOT need that care, then YOU
will subsidize someone else's care!
> 2. The insurance company negotiates the fees charged.
So, if everyone has insurance, then no one gets a "deal".
Or, the folks who *don't* get a deal end up not paying their bills.
Do you think the provider just operates at a loss -- indefinitely?
> I'm already charged more, up from $4,512 in 09 to $11,232 today,
> because I was charged for other people getting sick.
YOU ALWAYS PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE SICK. Regardless of whether
or not they have insurance. I.e., if you want to be extremely selfish
(like ME), you would want everyone to be as healthy as possible.
If the total number of dollars expended on healthcare goes down,
then it only stands to reason that the average money expended per
person also goes down. Regardless of whether they are paying in cash
or via an insurer.
If there are 3 "sickies" in the ER ahead of you (because they are
MUCH sicker than you), aren't you incurring a cost in terms of
inconvenience? Being made to wait while in pain, discomfort or,
potentially, in a life-threatened state? And, all 3 of them may
be indigent -- not paying a dime for their care, directly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | amdx <nojunk@knology.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-12 20:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <of5map$rn8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460038 |
On 5/12/2017 7:33 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 5/12/2017 4:31 PM, amdx wrote:
>> I have health insurance for two reasons.
>> 1. It protects my life savings from a $300,000 hospital bill.
>
> And how does it "protect" them? Does it change your RISK of getting sick?
> Does the mere act of purchasing health insurance make you healthier? Less
> LIKELY to need health care?
>
> Or, does it shift your EXPOSURE to that risk -- by offloading it onto
> some other payer (i.e., the insurance company)?
>
> Where does the insurance company come up with the money to pay YOUR
> $300,000 bill (if you ever incur the need for that sort of care)?
> Do they convince the providers to forgive ALL of those fees?
>
> In which case, does the provider just stop paying its employees
> for the services they've provided?
>
> There's no free lunch. If you incur $300,000 of care, SOMEONE is paying
> that $300,000 -- if YOU aren't (because you "protected yourself")
>
> I.e., someone who *didn't* incur healthcare costs that met or exceeded
> what he paid *to* the insurer ("insurance industry") is effectively
> subsidizing
> your care. They are assuming a part of your risk exposure.
>
> Of course, if you are UNLUCKY enough to NOT need that care, then YOU
> will subsidize someone else's care!
As long as I can remember or since the kids were born 23 years ago,
I don't ever recall hitting my deductible. So the insurance company has
not paid a claim. So I have been subsidizing others care, but that's
what insurance does. I have a $10k deductible and hope I never hit it.
Hit about $4,500 one year when my son had his wisdom teeth pulled.
>
>> 2. The insurance company negotiates the fees charged.
>
> So, if everyone has insurance, then no one gets a "deal".
I don't know, I do think that if no one had insurance healthcare would
be much cheaper, but we would also not have as much high tech equipment
in use.
I'm not sure of your point, I just know that I get a bill and the
insurance company cuts in in half and more, I had a test that was $32
and the insurance company allowed $3.32. I doubt the tester wants to
continue that test.
>
> Or, the folks who *don't* get a deal end up not paying their bills.
> Do you think the provider just operates at a loss -- indefinitely?
>
>> I'm already charged more, up from $4,512 in 09 to $11,232 today,
>> because I was charged for other people getting sick.
>
> YOU ALWAYS PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE SICK. Regardless of whether
> or not they have insurance. I.e., if you want to be extremely selfish
> (like ME), you would want everyone to be as healthy as possible.
> If the total number of dollars expended on healthcare goes down,
> then it only stands to reason that the average money expended per
> person also goes down. Regardless of whether they are paying in cash
> or via an insurer.
>
Golly, a throw away line sure got a lot of heckles up.
> If there are 3 "sickies" in the ER ahead of you (because they are
> MUCH sicker than you), aren't you incurring a cost in terms of
> inconvenience? Being made to wait while in pain, discomfort or,
> potentially, in a life-threatened state? And, all 3 of them may
> be indigent -- not paying a dime for their care, directly.
And they probably haven't showered for days!! Those dirty indigents.
Mikek :-)
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-12 21:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <of5nke$6sg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460041 |
On 5/12/2017 9:11 PM, amdx wrote:
> On 5/12/2017 7:33 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 5/12/2017 4:31 PM, amdx wrote:
>>> I have health insurance for two reasons.
>>> 1. It protects my life savings from a $300,000 hospital bill.
>>
>> And how does it "protect" them? Does it change your RISK of getting
>> sick?
>> Does the mere act of purchasing health insurance make you healthier?
>> Less
>> LIKELY to need health care?
>>
>> Or, does it shift your EXPOSURE to that risk -- by offloading it onto
>> some other payer (i.e., the insurance company)?
>>
>> Where does the insurance company come up with the money to pay YOUR
>> $300,000 bill (if you ever incur the need for that sort of care)?
>> Do they convince the providers to forgive ALL of those fees?
>>
>> In which case, does the provider just stop paying its employees
>> for the services they've provided?
>>
>> There's no free lunch. If you incur $300,000 of care, SOMEONE is paying
>> that $300,000 -- if YOU aren't (because you "protected yourself")
>>
>> I.e., someone who *didn't* incur healthcare costs that met or exceeded
>> what he paid *to* the insurer ("insurance industry") is effectively
>> subsidizing
>> your care. They are assuming a part of your risk exposure.
>>
>> Of course, if you are UNLUCKY enough to NOT need that care, then YOU
>> will subsidize someone else's care!
>
>
> As long as I can remember or since the kids were born 23 years ago,
> I don't ever recall hitting my deductible. So the insurance company has
> not paid a claim. So I have been subsidizing others care, but that's
> what insurance does. I have a $10k deductible and hope I never hit it.
> Hit about $4,500 one year when my son had his wisdom teeth pulled.
You clearly don't understand insurance. *You* are paying to be covered
should you need medical care. You may not have been able to take
advantage of that coverage, but that's a good thing, no? MUCH better
than needing medical care and NOT having insurance.
Also, they get you lower rates than if you paid directly. MUCH LOWER.
A friend bought dental insurance at the suggestion of the dentist's
office. It isn't a lot and doesn't pay for much if anything. But the
dentist charges *much* lower rates, about half.
>>> 2. The insurance company negotiates the fees charged.
>>
>> So, if everyone has insurance, then no one gets a "deal".
>
> I don't know, I do think that if no one had insurance healthcare would
> be much cheaper, but we would also not have as much high tech equipment
> in use.
> I'm not sure of your point, I just know that I get a bill and the
> insurance company cuts in in half and more, I had a test that was $32
> and the insurance company allowed $3.32. I doubt the tester wants to
> continue that test.
You don't know how cheap some tests are. Remember they are done in a
fast paced, laboratory production line. This isn't some guy holding a
test tube over a Bunsen burner. They use fancy equipment because tests
largely become automated and so very inexpensive.
Insurance payments are *negotiated*. If they are too low to pay for the
test, the provider won't work with that insurance company.
--
Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | amdx <nojunk@knology.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 09:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <of74g0$6nh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460043 |
On 5/12/2017 8:34 PM, rickman wrote:
> On 5/12/2017 9:11 PM, amdx wrote:
>> On 5/12/2017 7:33 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2017 4:31 PM, amdx wrote:
>>>> I have health insurance for two reasons.
>>>> 1. It protects my life savings from a $300,000 hospital bill.
>>>
>>> And how does it "protect" them? Does it change your RISK of getting
>>> sick?
>>> Does the mere act of purchasing health insurance make you healthier?
>>> Less
>>> LIKELY to need health care?
>>>
>>> Or, does it shift your EXPOSURE to that risk -- by offloading it onto
>>> some other payer (i.e., the insurance company)?
>>>
>>> Where does the insurance company come up with the money to pay YOUR
>>> $300,000 bill (if you ever incur the need for that sort of care)?
>>> Do they convince the providers to forgive ALL of those fees?
>>>
>>> In which case, does the provider just stop paying its employees
>>> for the services they've provided?
>>>
>>> There's no free lunch. If you incur $300,000 of care, SOMEONE is paying
>>> that $300,000 -- if YOU aren't (because you "protected yourself")
>>>
>>> I.e., someone who *didn't* incur healthcare costs that met or exceeded
>>> what he paid *to* the insurer ("insurance industry") is effectively
>>> subsidizing
>>> your care. They are assuming a part of your risk exposure.
>>>
>>> Of course, if you are UNLUCKY enough to NOT need that care, then YOU
>>> will subsidize someone else's care!
>>
>>
>> As long as I can remember or since the kids were born 23 years ago,
>> I don't ever recall hitting my deductible. So the insurance company has
>> not paid a claim. So I have been subsidizing others care, but that's
>> what insurance does. I have a $10k deductible and hope I never hit it.
>> Hit about $4,500 one year when my son had his wisdom teeth pulled.
>
> You clearly don't understand insurance.
Odd that you would say that especially after I told you why I have
insurance,
*You* are paying to be covered
> should you need medical care.
Duh!
> You may not have been able to take
> advantage of that coverage, but that's a good thing, no? MUCH better
> than needing medical care and NOT having insurance.
>
Duh!
> Also, they get you lower rates than if you paid directly. MUCH LOWER.
>
> A friend bought dental insurance at the suggestion of the dentist's
> office. It isn't a lot and doesn't pay for much if anything. But the
> dentist charges *much* lower rates, about half.
>
Pretty stupid for the dentists office, if he wanted less money for his
work, he could charge less. Probably the front office screwing the boss.
>
>>>> 2. The insurance company negotiates the fees charged.
>>>
>>> So, if everyone has insurance, then no one gets a "deal".
>>
>> I don't know, I do think that if no one had insurance healthcare would
>> be much cheaper, but we would also not have as much high tech equipment
>> in use.
>> I'm not sure of your point, I just know that I get a bill and the
>> insurance company cuts in in half and more, I had a test that was $32
>> and the insurance company allowed $3.32. I doubt the tester wants to
>> continue that test.
>
> You don't know how cheap some tests are.
>Remember they are done in a
> fast paced, laboratory production line.
God you are a genius, please tell us ignorant people all you know.
Clearly you think I'm ignorant, and If I am, there are a whole lot more.
So, just start at the beginning, we are all listening for your wisdom.
>This isn't some guy holding a
> test tube over a Bunsen burner. They use fancy equipment because tests
> largely become automated and so very inexpensive.
>
> Insurance payments are *negotiated*. If they are too low to pay for the
> test, the provider won't work with that insurance company.
>
They can make it up on other tests.
This just happened to be a repeat of one test in the panel.
The paperwork is worth $3.23.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 11:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <of78r2$kd7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460080 |
On 5/13/2017 10:19 AM, amdx wrote:
> On 5/12/2017 8:34 PM, rickman wrote:
>> On 5/12/2017 9:11 PM, amdx wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2017 7:33 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2017 4:31 PM, amdx wrote:
>>>>> I have health insurance for two reasons.
>>>>> 1. It protects my life savings from a $300,000 hospital bill.
>>>>
>>>> And how does it "protect" them? Does it change your RISK of getting
>>>> sick?
>>>> Does the mere act of purchasing health insurance make you healthier?
>>>> Less
>>>> LIKELY to need health care?
>>>>
>>>> Or, does it shift your EXPOSURE to that risk -- by offloading it onto
>>>> some other payer (i.e., the insurance company)?
>>>>
>>>> Where does the insurance company come up with the money to pay YOUR
>>>> $300,000 bill (if you ever incur the need for that sort of care)?
>>>> Do they convince the providers to forgive ALL of those fees?
>>>>
>>>> In which case, does the provider just stop paying its employees
>>>> for the services they've provided?
>>>>
>>>> There's no free lunch. If you incur $300,000 of care, SOMEONE is
>>>> paying
>>>> that $300,000 -- if YOU aren't (because you "protected yourself")
>>>>
>>>> I.e., someone who *didn't* incur healthcare costs that met or exceeded
>>>> what he paid *to* the insurer ("insurance industry") is effectively
>>>> subsidizing
>>>> your care. They are assuming a part of your risk exposure.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, if you are UNLUCKY enough to NOT need that care, then YOU
>>>> will subsidize someone else's care!
>>>
>>>
>>> As long as I can remember or since the kids were born 23 years ago,
>>> I don't ever recall hitting my deductible. So the insurance company has
>>> not paid a claim. So I have been subsidizing others care, but that's
>>> what insurance does. I have a $10k deductible and hope I never hit it.
>>> Hit about $4,500 one year when my son had his wisdom teeth pulled.
>>
>> You clearly don't understand insurance.
>
> Odd that you would say that especially after I told you why I have
> insurance,
>
>
>
> *You* are paying to be covered
>> should you need medical care.
>
> Duh!
>
>
>> You may not have been able to take advantage of that coverage, but
>> that's a good thing, no? MUCH better than needing medical care and
>> NOT having insurance.
>>
>
> Duh!
>
>> Also, they get you lower rates than if you paid directly. MUCH LOWER.
>>
>> A friend bought dental insurance at the suggestion of the dentist's
>> office. It isn't a lot and doesn't pay for much if anything. But the
>> dentist charges *much* lower rates, about half.
>>
>
> Pretty stupid for the dentists office, if he wanted less money for his
> work, he could charge less. Probably the front office screwing the boss.
>
>
>
>>
>>>>> 2. The insurance company negotiates the fees charged.
>>>>
>>>> So, if everyone has insurance, then no one gets a "deal".
>>>
>>> I don't know, I do think that if no one had insurance healthcare would
>>> be much cheaper, but we would also not have as much high tech equipment
>>> in use.
>>> I'm not sure of your point, I just know that I get a bill and the
>>> insurance company cuts in in half and more, I had a test that was $32
>>> and the insurance company allowed $3.32. I doubt the tester wants to
>>> continue that test.
>>
>> You don't know how cheap some tests are.
>> Remember they are done in a fast paced, laboratory production line.
>
>
>
> God you are a genius, please tell us ignorant people all you know.
> Clearly you think I'm ignorant, and If I am, there are a whole lot more.
> So, just start at the beginning, we are all listening for your wisdom.
>
>
>> This isn't some guy holding a test tube over a Bunsen burner. They
>> use fancy equipment because tests largely become automated and so very
>> inexpensive.
>>
>> Insurance payments are *negotiated*. If they are too low to pay for
>> the test, the provider won't work with that insurance company.
>>
> They can make it up on other tests.
> This just happened to be a repeat of one test in the panel.
> The paperwork is worth $3.23.
The lab doesn't do paperwork. It's all automated. See above.
--
Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 10:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mpudnZPQ8edC3orEnZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #460092 |
On 2017/05/13 8:34 AM, rickman wrote:
> On 5/13/2017 10:19 AM, amdx wrote:
>> On 5/12/2017 8:34 PM, rickman wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2017 9:11 PM, amdx wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2017 7:33 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/2017 4:31 PM, amdx wrote:
>>>>>> I have health insurance for two reasons.
>>>>>> 1. It protects my life savings from a $300,000 hospital bill.
>>>>>
>>>>> And how does it "protect" them? Does it change your RISK of getting
>>>>> sick?
>>>>> Does the mere act of purchasing health insurance make you healthier?
>>>>> Less
>>>>> LIKELY to need health care?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or, does it shift your EXPOSURE to that risk -- by offloading it onto
>>>>> some other payer (i.e., the insurance company)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Where does the insurance company come up with the money to pay YOUR
>>>>> $300,000 bill (if you ever incur the need for that sort of care)?
>>>>> Do they convince the providers to forgive ALL of those fees?
>>>>>
>>>>> In which case, does the provider just stop paying its employees
>>>>> for the services they've provided?
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no free lunch. If you incur $300,000 of care, SOMEONE is
>>>>> paying
>>>>> that $300,000 -- if YOU aren't (because you "protected yourself")
>>>>>
>>>>> I.e., someone who *didn't* incur healthcare costs that met or exceeded
>>>>> what he paid *to* the insurer ("insurance industry") is effectively
>>>>> subsidizing
>>>>> your care. They are assuming a part of your risk exposure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, if you are UNLUCKY enough to NOT need that care, then YOU
>>>>> will subsidize someone else's care!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As long as I can remember or since the kids were born 23 years ago,
>>>> I don't ever recall hitting my deductible. So the insurance company has
>>>> not paid a claim. So I have been subsidizing others care, but that's
>>>> what insurance does. I have a $10k deductible and hope I never hit it.
>>>> Hit about $4,500 one year when my son had his wisdom teeth pulled.
>>>
>>> You clearly don't understand insurance.
>>
>> Odd that you would say that especially after I told you why I have
>> insurance,
>>
>>
>>
>> *You* are paying to be covered
>>> should you need medical care.
>>
>> Duh!
>>
>>
>>> You may not have been able to take advantage of that coverage, but
>>> that's a good thing, no? MUCH better than needing medical care and
>>> NOT having insurance.
>>>
>>
>> Duh!
>>
>>> Also, they get you lower rates than if you paid directly. MUCH LOWER.
>>>
>>> A friend bought dental insurance at the suggestion of the dentist's
>>> office. It isn't a lot and doesn't pay for much if anything. But the
>>> dentist charges *much* lower rates, about half.
>>>
>>
>> Pretty stupid for the dentists office, if he wanted less money for his
>> work, he could charge less. Probably the front office screwing the boss.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>> 2. The insurance company negotiates the fees charged.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, if everyone has insurance, then no one gets a "deal".
>>>>
>>>> I don't know, I do think that if no one had insurance healthcare would
>>>> be much cheaper, but we would also not have as much high tech equipment
>>>> in use.
>>>> I'm not sure of your point, I just know that I get a bill and the
>>>> insurance company cuts in in half and more, I had a test that was $32
>>>> and the insurance company allowed $3.32. I doubt the tester wants to
>>>> continue that test.
>>>
>>> You don't know how cheap some tests are.
>>> Remember they are done in a fast paced, laboratory production line.
>>
>>
>>
>> God you are a genius, please tell us ignorant people all you know.
>> Clearly you think I'm ignorant, and If I am, there are a whole lot more.
>> So, just start at the beginning, we are all listening for your wisdom.
>>
>>
>>> This isn't some guy holding a test tube over a Bunsen burner. They
>>> use fancy equipment because tests largely become automated and so very
>>> inexpensive.
>>>
>>> Insurance payments are *negotiated*. If they are too low to pay for
>>> the test, the provider won't work with that insurance company.
>>>
>> They can make it up on other tests.
>> This just happened to be a repeat of one test in the panel.
>> The paperwork is worth $3.23.
>
> The lab doesn't do paperwork. It's all automated. See above.
>
Lab work here in BC is covered under our provincial health plan.
http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/health-drug-coverage/msp/bc-residents/premiums/rates
Under $24,000 annual income - $0
Over $75,000? = $75/month
Between is a sliding scale.
Most provinces in Canada are free (general tax revenue covered), BC and
two others are a holdouts.
John :-#)#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 14:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <of7jkf$p79$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460103 |
On 5/13/2017 1:35 PM, John Robertson wrote:
> On 2017/05/13 8:34 AM, rickman wrote:
>> On 5/13/2017 10:19 AM, amdx wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2017 8:34 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2017 9:11 PM, amdx wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/2017 7:33 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/2017 4:31 PM, amdx wrote:
>>>>>>> I have health insurance for two reasons.
>>>>>>> 1. It protects my life savings from a $300,000 hospital bill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And how does it "protect" them? Does it change your RISK of getting
>>>>>> sick?
>>>>>> Does the mere act of purchasing health insurance make you healthier?
>>>>>> Less
>>>>>> LIKELY to need health care?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or, does it shift your EXPOSURE to that risk -- by offloading it onto
>>>>>> some other payer (i.e., the insurance company)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where does the insurance company come up with the money to pay YOUR
>>>>>> $300,000 bill (if you ever incur the need for that sort of care)?
>>>>>> Do they convince the providers to forgive ALL of those fees?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In which case, does the provider just stop paying its employees
>>>>>> for the services they've provided?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's no free lunch. If you incur $300,000 of care, SOMEONE is
>>>>>> paying
>>>>>> that $300,000 -- if YOU aren't (because you "protected yourself")
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I.e., someone who *didn't* incur healthcare costs that met or
>>>>>> exceeded
>>>>>> what he paid *to* the insurer ("insurance industry") is effectively
>>>>>> subsidizing
>>>>>> your care. They are assuming a part of your risk exposure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, if you are UNLUCKY enough to NOT need that care, then YOU
>>>>>> will subsidize someone else's care!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as I can remember or since the kids were born 23 years ago,
>>>>> I don't ever recall hitting my deductible. So the insurance company
>>>>> has
>>>>> not paid a claim. So I have been subsidizing others care, but that's
>>>>> what insurance does. I have a $10k deductible and hope I never hit it.
>>>>> Hit about $4,500 one year when my son had his wisdom teeth pulled.
>>>>
>>>> You clearly don't understand insurance.
>>>
>>> Odd that you would say that especially after I told you why I have
>>> insurance,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *You* are paying to be covered
>>>> should you need medical care.
>>>
>>> Duh!
>>>
>>>
>>>> You may not have been able to take advantage of that coverage, but
>>>> that's a good thing, no? MUCH better than needing medical care and
>>>> NOT having insurance.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Duh!
>>>
>>>> Also, they get you lower rates than if you paid directly. MUCH LOWER.
>>>>
>>>> A friend bought dental insurance at the suggestion of the dentist's
>>>> office. It isn't a lot and doesn't pay for much if anything. But the
>>>> dentist charges *much* lower rates, about half.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Pretty stupid for the dentists office, if he wanted less money for his
>>> work, he could charge less. Probably the front office screwing the boss.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. The insurance company negotiates the fees charged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, if everyone has insurance, then no one gets a "deal".
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know, I do think that if no one had insurance healthcare would
>>>>> be much cheaper, but we would also not have as much high tech
>>>>> equipment
>>>>> in use.
>>>>> I'm not sure of your point, I just know that I get a bill and the
>>>>> insurance company cuts in in half and more, I had a test that was $32
>>>>> and the insurance company allowed $3.32. I doubt the tester wants to
>>>>> continue that test.
>>>>
>>>> You don't know how cheap some tests are.
>>>> Remember they are done in a fast paced, laboratory production line.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> God you are a genius, please tell us ignorant people all you know.
>>> Clearly you think I'm ignorant, and If I am, there are a whole lot more.
>>> So, just start at the beginning, we are all listening for your wisdom.
>>>
>>>
>>>> This isn't some guy holding a test tube over a Bunsen burner. They
>>>> use fancy equipment because tests largely become automated and so very
>>>> inexpensive.
>>>>
>>>> Insurance payments are *negotiated*. If they are too low to pay for
>>>> the test, the provider won't work with that insurance company.
>>>>
>>> They can make it up on other tests.
>>> This just happened to be a repeat of one test in the panel.
>>> The paperwork is worth $3.23.
>>
>> The lab doesn't do paperwork. It's all automated. See above.
>>
>
> Lab work here in BC is covered under our provincial health plan.
>
> http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/health-drug-coverage/msp/bc-residents/premiums/rates
>
>
> Under $24,000 annual income - $0
> Over $75,000? = $75/month
> Between is a sliding scale.
>
> Most provinces in Canada are free (general tax revenue covered), BC and
> two others are a holdouts.
I recall a gent with a company who was confronted with the idea of
giving everyone a wage they would be 100% happy with. Seems there has
been some research and that wage is $70,000 a year (not sure if that is
before or after tax). Once salary is increased beyond that it does not
appreciably add to contentment. So he gave everyone raises to $70,000.
The only ones not happy with that were those making just $70,000 before.
Is the $75,000 cap on the sliding scale coincidence? I think not!
Canada is just trying to get everyone to the perfect happiness point. :)
But clearly Canada's health system is being subsidized from the general
fund.
--
Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 16:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <qY2dncB8v6lSCIrEnZ2dnUU7-KnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #460107 |
On 2017/05/13 11:38 AM, rickman wrote:
> On 5/13/2017 1:35 PM, John Robertson wrote:
>> On 2017/05/13 8:34 AM, rickman wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2017 10:19 AM, amdx wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2017 8:34 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/2017 9:11 PM, amdx wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/2017 7:33 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/12/2017 4:31 PM, amdx wrote:
>>>>>>>> I have health insurance for two reasons.
>>>>>>>> 1. It protects my life savings from a $300,000 hospital bill.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And how does it "protect" them? Does it change your RISK of getting
>>>>>>> sick?
>>>>>>> Does the mere act of purchasing health insurance make you healthier?
>>>>>>> Less
>>>>>>> LIKELY to need health care?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or, does it shift your EXPOSURE to that risk -- by offloading it
>>>>>>> onto
>>>>>>> some other payer (i.e., the insurance company)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where does the insurance company come up with the money to pay YOUR
>>>>>>> $300,000 bill (if you ever incur the need for that sort of care)?
>>>>>>> Do they convince the providers to forgive ALL of those fees?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In which case, does the provider just stop paying its employees
>>>>>>> for the services they've provided?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's no free lunch. If you incur $300,000 of care, SOMEONE is
>>>>>>> paying
>>>>>>> that $300,000 -- if YOU aren't (because you "protected yourself")
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I.e., someone who *didn't* incur healthcare costs that met or
>>>>>>> exceeded
>>>>>>> what he paid *to* the insurer ("insurance industry") is effectively
>>>>>>> subsidizing
>>>>>>> your care. They are assuming a part of your risk exposure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, if you are UNLUCKY enough to NOT need that care, then YOU
>>>>>>> will subsidize someone else's care!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As long as I can remember or since the kids were born 23 years ago,
>>>>>> I don't ever recall hitting my deductible. So the insurance company
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> not paid a claim. So I have been subsidizing others care, but that's
>>>>>> what insurance does. I have a $10k deductible and hope I never hit
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>> Hit about $4,500 one year when my son had his wisdom teeth pulled.
>>>>>
>>>>> You clearly don't understand insurance.
>>>>
>>>> Odd that you would say that especially after I told you why I have
>>>> insurance,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *You* are paying to be covered
>>>>> should you need medical care.
>>>>
>>>> Duh!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You may not have been able to take advantage of that coverage, but
>>>>> that's a good thing, no? MUCH better than needing medical care and
>>>>> NOT having insurance.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Duh!
>>>>
>>>>> Also, they get you lower rates than if you paid directly. MUCH LOWER.
>>>>>
>>>>> A friend bought dental insurance at the suggestion of the dentist's
>>>>> office. It isn't a lot and doesn't pay for much if anything. But the
>>>>> dentist charges *much* lower rates, about half.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pretty stupid for the dentists office, if he wanted less money for his
>>>> work, he could charge less. Probably the front office screwing the
>>>> boss.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. The insurance company negotiates the fees charged.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, if everyone has insurance, then no one gets a "deal".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know, I do think that if no one had insurance healthcare
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> be much cheaper, but we would also not have as much high tech
>>>>>> equipment
>>>>>> in use.
>>>>>> I'm not sure of your point, I just know that I get a bill and the
>>>>>> insurance company cuts in in half and more, I had a test that was $32
>>>>>> and the insurance company allowed $3.32. I doubt the tester wants to
>>>>>> continue that test.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't know how cheap some tests are.
>>>>> Remember they are done in a fast paced, laboratory production line.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> God you are a genius, please tell us ignorant people all you know.
>>>> Clearly you think I'm ignorant, and If I am, there are a whole lot
>>>> more.
>>>> So, just start at the beginning, we are all listening for your wisdom.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> This isn't some guy holding a test tube over a Bunsen burner. They
>>>>> use fancy equipment because tests largely become automated and so very
>>>>> inexpensive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Insurance payments are *negotiated*. If they are too low to pay for
>>>>> the test, the provider won't work with that insurance company.
>>>>>
>>>> They can make it up on other tests.
>>>> This just happened to be a repeat of one test in the panel.
>>>> The paperwork is worth $3.23.
>>>
>>> The lab doesn't do paperwork. It's all automated. See above.
>>>
>>
>> Lab work here in BC is covered under our provincial health plan.
>>
>> http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/health-drug-coverage/msp/bc-residents/premiums/rates
>>
>>
>>
>> Under $24,000 annual income - $0
>> Over $75,000? = $75/month
>> Between is a sliding scale.
>>
>> Most provinces in Canada are free (general tax revenue covered), BC and
>> two others are a holdouts.
>
> I recall a gent with a company who was confronted with the idea of
> giving everyone a wage they would be 100% happy with. Seems there has
> been some research and that wage is $70,000 a year (not sure if that is
> before or after tax). Once salary is increased beyond that it does not
> appreciably add to contentment. So he gave everyone raises to $70,000.
> The only ones not happy with that were those making just $70,000 before.
>
> Is the $75,000 cap on the sliding scale coincidence? I think not!
> Canada is just trying to get everyone to the perfect happiness point. :)
>
> But clearly Canada's health system is being subsidized from the general
> fund.
>
In Canada health care is subsidized.
Just like everywhere else - roads, education, farmers, parks, military,
police, firefighters... we all pay taxes so we have a good support
system for ourselves, our families, and the rest of the people in our
respective countries. Some countries do it better than others.
It's all part of being human. We care for each other.
John
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-12 22:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <csrchclbjedbqaf7kajtar6q5pdftua3v1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #460041 |
On Fri, 12 May 2017 20:11:56 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:
>On 5/12/2017 7:33 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 5/12/2017 4:31 PM, amdx wrote:
>>> I have health insurance for two reasons.
>>> 1. It protects my life savings from a $300,000 hospital bill.
>>
>> And how does it "protect" them? Does it change your RISK of getting sick?
>> Does the mere act of purchasing health insurance make you healthier? Less
>> LIKELY to need health care?
>>
>> Or, does it shift your EXPOSURE to that risk -- by offloading it onto
>> some other payer (i.e., the insurance company)?
>>
>> Where does the insurance company come up with the money to pay YOUR
>> $300,000 bill (if you ever incur the need for that sort of care)?
>> Do they convince the providers to forgive ALL of those fees?
>>
>> In which case, does the provider just stop paying its employees
>> for the services they've provided?
>>
>> There's no free lunch. If you incur $300,000 of care, SOMEONE is paying
>> that $300,000 -- if YOU aren't (because you "protected yourself")
>>
>> I.e., someone who *didn't* incur healthcare costs that met or exceeded
>> what he paid *to* the insurer ("insurance industry") is effectively
>> subsidizing
>> your care. They are assuming a part of your risk exposure.
>>
>> Of course, if you are UNLUCKY enough to NOT need that care, then YOU
>> will subsidize someone else's care!
>
>
> As long as I can remember or since the kids were born 23 years ago,
>I don't ever recall hitting my deductible. So the insurance company has
>not paid a claim. So I have been subsidizing others care, but that's
>what insurance does. I have a $10k deductible and hope I never hit it.
> Hit about $4,500 one year when my son had his wisdom teeth pulled.
You're lucky. I've been blowing away my deductible for several years
now. Been blowing away the maximum, too, but my maximum is an order
of magnitude less than your deductible. Our "deductible" isn't much
of a deductible, either, because I only pay the co-pay even before
I've met the deductible. Like I said, it doesn't matter much because
I'll be paying the max again this year.
>>
>>> 2. The insurance company negotiates the fees charged.
>>
>> So, if everyone has insurance, then no one gets a "deal".
>
>I don't know, I do think that if no one had insurance healthcare would
>be much cheaper, but we would also not have as much high tech equipment
>in use.
> I'm not sure of your point, I just know that I get a bill and the
>insurance company cuts in in half and more, I had a test that was $32
>and the insurance company allowed $3.32. I doubt the tester wants to
>continue that test.
It's a couple of minutes in a machine. They probably do a few
thousand an hour.
>
>>
>> Or, the folks who *don't* get a deal end up not paying their bills.
>> Do you think the provider just operates at a loss -- indefinitely?
>>
>>> I'm already charged more, up from $4,512 in 09 to $11,232 today,
>>> because I was charged for other people getting sick.
>>
>> YOU ALWAYS PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE SICK. Regardless of whether
>> or not they have insurance. I.e., if you want to be extremely selfish
>> (like ME), you would want everyone to be as healthy as possible.
>> If the total number of dollars expended on healthcare goes down,
>> then it only stands to reason that the average money expended per
>> person also goes down. Regardless of whether they are paying in cash
>> or via an insurer.
>>
> Golly, a throw away line sure got a lot of heckles up.
>
>
>> If there are 3 "sickies" in the ER ahead of you (because they are
>> MUCH sicker than you), aren't you incurring a cost in terms of
>> inconvenience? Being made to wait while in pain, discomfort or,
>> potentially, in a life-threatened state? And, all 3 of them may
>> be indigent -- not paying a dime for their care, directly.
>
> And they probably haven't showered for days!! Those dirty indigents.
>
> Mikek :-)
>
>
>---
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-12 19:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <of5rrn$3o1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #460041 |
On 5/12/2017 6:11 PM, amdx wrote:
>> Of course, if you are UNLUCKY enough to NOT need that care, then YOU
>> will subsidize someone else's care!
>
> As long as I can remember or since the kids were born 23 years ago,
> I don't ever recall hitting my deductible. So the insurance company has not
> paid a claim. So I have been subsidizing others care, but that's what insurance
> does. I have a $10k deductible and hope I never hit it.
> Hit about $4,500 one year when my son had his wisdom teeth pulled.
But, you don't honestly think they put that money in a special account:
"To be used for Mike's *future* claims", do you? Instead, it went to pay
for someone else's claims -- because they "only" paid $11K that year and
needed $150K of care!
As I said elsewhere, I'd gladly keep paying "high rates" *if* it acted
to protect me from NEEDING care (sadly, it can't). So, the only control
I have over what gets paid out is by adjusting my lifestyle to avoid
things that could lead to expensive care (avoid smoking, control weight,
exercise, etc.), encourage others to do likewise (to reduce the amount
that I -- and everyone else lumped in the same group with me -- get
charged to cover THEIR care) and *hope* for the best.
I see what toll (financial, psychological, emotional) health issues have
taken on friends and colleagues -- often consequential to their personal
choices but also often "bad luck"/genes. I'd much prefer to stay as
healthy as I *can* -- and wonder why others don't think likewise (but,
hey, its their choice; I'd rather pay my "share" of their healthcare than
live with their debilitating conditions, etc.)
>>> 2. The insurance company negotiates the fees charged.
>>
>> So, if everyone has insurance, then no one gets a "deal".
>
> I don't know, I do think that if no one had insurance healthcare would be much
> cheaper, but we would also not have as much high tech equipment
> in use.
Exactly. I designed a product 30+ years ago that cost $300 (DM+DL). It
was *priced* at $6,000 (!). And, every one was GIVEN AWAY (think: toilet
paper dispenser... want to encourage folks to think they are getting a
real BARGAIN when you offer them a $6,000 piece of kit FOR FREE! :> )
> I'm not sure of your point, I just know that I get a bill and the insurance
> company cuts in in half and more, I had a test that was $32 and the insurance
> company allowed $3.32. I doubt the tester wants to continue that test.
No, tests cost *nothing* to perform. E.g., virtually all of the "cost" of a
CBC is in the labor to collect the blood sample. The actual test is completely
automated. If the MD had wanted *just* a platelet count, he'd still order
the CBC and disregard the other numbers (of course, he wouldn't IGNORE them
but he'd never consider ordering JUST a "platelet count")
[One of the functions the insurance company provides is knowing HOW
these services are actually performed/delivered. E.g., if a provider/lab
tried to bill for:
- white blood cell count
- red blood cell count
- hematocrit
- platelet count
as four separate line items, an "expert" at the insurer would know that
this would really be implemented as a CBC and disallow any of the
charges above and beyond what.
Likewise, if a new technology became available to further reduce the cost
(or combine tests), they would pressure providers to implement that
technology and pass the savings along (to the insurance company).]
The interesting thing would be to see how the $32 is addressed for
those folks without insurance.
- some number will simply not pay; this means a collection agency;
fees for their efforts and STILL some risk that the $32 gets "eaten"
- some number will struggle to pay -- until they get into a situation
where they simply can't (see above)
- some number will negotiate lower fees and/or pay over time; this
means the provider "carries" the cost of the "loan"
Of course, I'm sure there is also some creative accounting involved.
E.g., eventually some portion of this "loss" is written off. And,
the provider *claims* $32 of loss -- for a test that is worth $3!
I.e., it would be possible to never show a profit, on paper, and
still be operating with a comfortable margin!
>> Or, the folks who *don't* get a deal end up not paying their bills.
>> Do you think the provider just operates at a loss -- indefinitely?
>>
>>> I'm already charged more, up from $4,512 in 09 to $11,232 today,
>>> because I was charged for other people getting sick.
>>
>> YOU ALWAYS PAY FOR OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE SICK. Regardless of whether
>> or not they have insurance. I.e., if you want to be extremely selfish
>> (like ME), you would want everyone to be as healthy as possible.
>> If the total number of dollars expended on healthcare goes down,
>> then it only stands to reason that the average money expended per
>> person also goes down. Regardless of whether they are paying in cash
>> or via an insurer.
>
> Golly, a throw away line sure got a lot of heckles up.
But it is the core of the problem! It doesn't matter how you juggle the
incentives, subsidies, deductions, etc. Until you address the HEALTH
of the population, the *population* will pay for the cost of its care.
Even if you allow providers to refuse care to folks who can't demonstrate
the ability to pay (i.e., present a charge card at time of admission)
AND post armed guards at the doors to enforce this policy, you still
have those "sickies" circulating in the population. *Probably*
providing services to you on a daily basis -- and putting you at risk
due to their "compromised health".
When I was 10, I didn't mind being sick. Gave me an excuse to stay out of
school for a week (or so). And, got me special treatment at home. The
discomfort eventually passes -- and I've got ~70 years to experience
what life has to offer.
When you're *70*, that week can be far more valuable -- esp if you see it
in the context of just ~10 more years of experiences ahead! Some sickie
coughing nearby, or on my plate as he prepares it in the kitchen, or
not feeling "100%" as he replaces the front pads on my car, etc. pushes
some cost onto me that I'd prefer not to incur. Do I lock myself in the
house to avoid contact with these people? How do I know that the canned
foods I purchased weren't similarly "compromised" by a sickie who wasn't
feeling up to par, that day?
I.e., regardless of how you structure the payment system, providers, etc.
you *still* end up paying for the sick people.
>> If there are 3 "sickies" in the ER ahead of you (because they are
>> MUCH sicker than you), aren't you incurring a cost in terms of
>> inconvenience? Being made to wait while in pain, discomfort or,
>> potentially, in a life-threatened state? And, all 3 of them may
>> be indigent -- not paying a dime for their care, directly.
>
> And they probably haven't showered for days!! Those dirty indigents.
<grin> I've little first-hand experience with the ER (despite SWMBO working
at a local hospital for ~20+ years and many friends who are doctors, nurses,
etc.). I'm sure the ER staff are used to folks coming in "not smelling
their best" ("Are you wearing clean underwear? What if you had to go to the
hospital, today??")
I figure it takes a special kind of person who wants to deal with "humans"
in their less than optimal state! :>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web