FatHobbit;1230010 wrote:I would say in most cases young healthy people don't need to be insured. Some of them will, but a large percentage will never need it. I don't think many of my friends had health insurance when they were in their twenties and I can't remember anyone who needed it. IMHO it should be a choice and individuals need to weigh the risk of not being covered with the cost.

I disagree. Unless a person is independently wealthy, it makes sense to have insurance for catastrophic illnesses that aren't really foreseeable. One of the highest risk groups for testicular cancer is men in their twenties. I can't remember his name but there was a walk-on receiver on the buckeyes who was afflicted with life-threatening testicular cancer. Tom Green from MTV was another one. The point of insurance (or it ought to be) is that it mitigates the risk of things that are not really foreseeable.

That is why insurance markets have problems. A younger man like myself in good shape, were I not provided health insurance as part of my compensation, might make the bet that I'm not going to get testicular cancer and therefore not insure myself against that risk.

I could probably go without seeing a doctor and go to ProLabs to pay cash for a blood test now and then.

Because lots of people don't get health insurance from their work, a lot of people make that choice and then those choices on a massive scale cause the overall breakdown of the insurance markets.

jhay78;1229845 wrote:Following that train of logic to its ultimate conclusion leads to all sorts of absurdities that I'm not sure you want to hitch your horse to. Besides the fact the police and fire are local entities, do you really want to:

1) study hard and earn a scholarship only to have it divided among students who didn't study hard?
2) maintain your home and mow the lawn but pay for the guy who doesn't?

I could go on and on, but where does your social contract end? Or do private property and individual responsibility go out the window whenever you say it should?

according to the Declaration of Indepence, why are governments instituted among men. our social contract begins with the protection of life before even liberty. Police, fire and health care are all basic to protecting life.

FatHobbit;1230017 wrote:I honestly don't know that everyone having insurance is the way to control costs.

Health Insurers knowing that healthy individuals will refuse to buy insurance like you argued they ought to have the freedom to do in turn raise the cost of premiums for those that do insure themselves against health risks because their evidence indicates that these individuals are more likely to file claims because they are less healthy.

BoatShoes;1230028 wrote:That is why insurance markets have problems. A younger man like myself in good shape, were I not provided health insurance as part of my compensation, might make the bet that I'm not going to get testicular cancer and therefore not insure myself against that risk. Because lots of people don't get health insurance from their work, a lot of people make that choice and then those choices on a massive scale cause the overall breakdown of the insurance markets.

What kind of treatment does a person with testicular cancer and no health insurance receive? Is it the same? I know ER's have to treat everyone who walks in their door, but I don't know if that applied to everything.

BoatShoes;1230030 wrote:Health Insurers knowing that healthy individuals will refuse to buy insurance like you argued they ought to have the freedom to do in turn raise the cost of premiums for those that do insure themselves against health risks because their evidence indicates that these individuals are more likely to file claims because they are less healthy.

I agree that would affect the cost of health insurance, but does it affect the cost of the treatment?

I Wear Pants;1230005 wrote:I mean that we have some incredible hospitals, the Cleveland Clinic being one of them. But that I've seen studies or articles (I'll link when I remember where they were from) that explain that we do not have as good of outcomes on average as some other nations when it comes to healthcare procedures. And I also take into account preventative care which we're clearly terrible with. Add to that our infant mortality rate is much higher than a lot of other countries.

In part, I think the preventative issues we have are not solely ... or even necessarily ... a burden for our health care system. I'm willing to bet there are a LOT of people out there who are already insured and who have access to plenty of preventative care that they don't use. Many insurance companies will make preventative care obscenely cheap, because it saves them money in the long run. However, that does no good if the patient isn't responsible enough to use it.

It's the whole "you can lead a horse to water ..." discussion.

I Wear Pants;1230012 wrote:Even if that choice results in higher costs for everyone including those individuals?

This shouldn't be a dichotomy, and it didn't used to be. The fact that we treat it like it's a necessary dichotomy now is part of what is the problem.

O-Trap;1230034 wrote:In part, I think the preventative issues we have are not solely ... or even necessarily ... a burden for our health care system. I'm willing to bet there are a LOT of people out there who are already insured and who have access to plenty of preventative care that they don't use. Many insurance companies will make preventative care obscenely cheap, because it saves them money in the long run. However, that does no good if the patient isn't responsible enough to use it.

It's the whole "you can lead a horse to water ..." discussion.

My insurance has different rates for people who do a certain amount of preventative care and those who don't. It's a bit of a pain in the ass but just expensive enough to make it worth it.

FatHobbit;1230032 wrote:What kind of treatment does a person with testicular cancer and no health insurance receive? Is it the same? I know ER's have to treat everyone who walks in their door, but I don't know if that applied to everything.

Well, by the time you find out you have cancer you'll usually be in deep shit. Cancer isn't considered an "emergency" so you'll probably get passed around for a bit with different providers telling you need to find some way to get on Medicaid or some other type of indignant care. The ER isn't going to just start giving you chemo and radiation and scans on a payment plan. Your best hope is probably to get charitable care from a teaching hospitable. You're in deep shit if you get cancer and don't have health insurance...you're not going to get proper cancer care.

FatHobbit;1230032 wrote:What kind of treatment does a person with testicular cancer and no health insurance receive? Is it the same? I know ER's have to treat everyone who walks in their door, but I don't know if that applied to everything.

If a hospitable treats a broken leg for someone without insurance and they're going to have to eat that cost they end up raising the costs that the charge the insurance companies of individuals who are insured when they are treated for those injuries.

HitsRus;1229923 wrote:You can find good things about the Canadian system....but you are just a few 'clicks' away from finding real problems with it as I posted earlier in this thread. One thing is for sure, and that is that there is no system without problem, and government sponsorship of healthcare is not a panacea.
There are plenty of Canadians unhappy with their system.

How about we stop trying to be like Canada or Europe...and just try being American? We've done pretty good so far.

As for the Canadians being 'worth more per capita'...might be because their real estate bubble hasn't burst yet. Let's compare after it pops.

Gosh a ruddies do American think of our healthcare system
“
Support for change is based largely on unease with the current system's costs. Seventy-eight percent are dissatisfied with the cost of the nation's health care system, including 54 percent "very" dissatisfied. “
And most prefer a government run system..
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html
And in Canada
“
The poll, by Angus Reid Strategies, found that 65 percent of Canadians have a “very positive” or “moderately positive” impression of single-payer health care in their country. A whopping 79 percent of Canadians have a negative opinion of health care in “the States.”
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2009/08/05/cross-border-poll-canadians-higher-on-their-health-care/

BoatShoes;1230046 wrote:If a hospitable treats a broken leg for someone without insurance and they're going to have to eat that cost they end up raising the costs that the charge the insurance companies of individuals who are insured when they are treated for those injuries.

I get that, but I wonder if that is the real reason that medical costs are skyrocketing. Or is it just part of the reason? I honestly don't know.

I work for an insurance company and we have to deal with PPOs and hospitals all the time. We've had bills for the same procedure from different hospitals and one was for $200 and the other was for $5000. We have paid hospitals and when they find out what network the patient was in, they ask for the bill back because they didn't know the network and the price was incorrect. I understand that they have agreements with PPOs to influence how many patients they get but the fact that they can charge one person $200 and another person $5000 seems completely shady.

I will admit that I have a hard time understanding the billing/repricing system from our side of it. I have no idea how the hospitals set their prices or exactly what is controlling the markets. I will never understand how John Q Public grasps the tiniest bit of the any of it.

BoatShoes;1230042 wrote:Well, by the time you find out you have cancer you'll usually be in deep shit. Cancer isn't considered an "emergency" so you'll probably get passed around for a bit with different providers telling you need to find some way to get on Medicaid or some other type of indignant care. The ER isn't going to just start giving you chemo and radiation and scans on a payment plan. Your best hope is probably to get charitable care from a teaching hospitable. You're in deep shit if you get cancer and don't have health insurance...you're not going to get proper cancer care.

There used to be more Catholic-funded hospitals that would handle these kinds of cases. They provided good care, and the amount required to treat those who came in without insurance (and who couldn't afford the bill) was covered by the church. I don't know what has changed to cause this to no longer be an option, but whatever it is, I think it would behoove us to change it back.

FatHobbit;1230053 wrote:I will never understand how John Q Public grasps the tiniest bit of the any of it.

You assume he does?

FatHobbit;1230053 wrote:I get that, but I wonder if that is the real reason that medical costs are skyrocketing. Or is it just part of the reason? I honestly don't know.

I work for an insurance company and we have to deal with PPOs and hospitals all the time. We've had bills for the same procedure from different hospitals and one was for $200 and the other was for $5000. We have paid hospitals and when they find out what network the patient was in, they ask for the bill back because they didn't know the network and the price was incorrect. I understand that they have agreements with PPOs to influence how many patients they get but the fact that they can charge one person $200 and another person $5000 seems completely shady.

I will admit that I have a hard time understanding the billing/repricing system from our side of it. I have no idea how the hospitals set their prices or exactly what is controlling the markets. I will never understand how John Q Public grasps the tiniest bit of the any of it.

Had health problem about 3 months ago. My insurance paid $34,000 and my deductible was a puny $250.00. I called the hospital and asked them what the deal would have been had I been uninsured. She said that they typically "bill" for 45 cents on the dollar for the uninsured. In my case the patient would have been on the hook for about 16K. Then their "determination" department will investigate the assets of the patient, and make a business decision on whether or not to go after them.

The point is...those that pay for health care in our country highly susidize those that don't through premiums or job benneys from our employer. Our employers pay premiums that cover much of the cost of the uninsured. By definition, we have in place socialized medicine, pure and simple. And have had it in place for a long, long time.

BoatShoes;1230046 wrote:If a hospitable treats a broken leg for someone without insurance and they're going to have to eat that cost they end up raising the costs that the charge the insurance companies of individuals who are insured when they are treated for those injuries.

And we have the winner. Step forward and claim your prize. For those that can't follow BS's post, it is called socialized medicine....been going on in America forever.

Footwedge;1230088 wrote:Had health problem about 3 months ago. My insurance paid $34,000 and my deductible was a puny $250.00. I called the hospital and asked them what the deal would have been had I been uninsured. She said that they typically "bill" for 45 cents on the dollar for the uninsured. In my case the patient would have been on the hook for about 16K. Then their "determination" department will investigate the assets of the patient, and make a business decision on whether or not to go after them.

The point is...those that pay for health care in our country highly susidize those that don't through premiums or job benneys from our employer. Our employers pay premiums that cover much of the cost of the uninsured. By definition, we have in place socialized medicine, pure and simple. And have had it in place for a long, long time.

Price gouging is a lot of the problem. If the hospital can provide the service for 16K, that should be the cost. I would rather see laws passed that require our medical facilities to provide itemized costs of everything up-front instead of Obamacare. It is very difficult to comparison shop in the medical world because no one will give a straight answer as far as the cost.

Medical prices didn't become astronomical until most people had insurance. Once most people had insurance, they quit paying attention to the costs because insurance covered it. Now that times have changed and most people have to pay a large portion of their insurance, the costs are coming back to them.

Al Bundy;1230133 wrote:Price gouging is a lot of the problem. If the hospital can provide the service for 16K, that should be the cost. I would rather see laws passed that require our medical facilities to provide itemized costs of everything up-front instead of Obamacare. It is very difficult to comparison shop in the medical world because no one will give a straight answer as far as the cost.

Medical prices didn't become astronomical until most people had insurance. Once most people had insurance, they quit paying attention to the costs because insurance covered it. Now that times have changed and most people have to pay a large portion of their insurance, the costs are coming back to them.

I agree with this. I think there should be a lot more transparency in medical costs.