Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Corwin on August 28, 2003, 08:50:34 AM
-
I work for a fairly large publicly traded company. Not that this is any big deal but when it comes to negotiating deals with insurance providers they should be able to have some clout. Anyway, I just received word that the amount the company contributes to my pension every year was being cut by 1% (of my salary) in order to keep my health insurance out-of-pocket increase to 10% for next year as opposed to 18%. I realize that this is a strategy that also benefits the company in that they are minimizing their expense increase as a result.
What pains me is that I don't see any of our elected officials doing boo about rising healthcare costs. What I do see them doing is sticking their heads in the sand as more and more boomers line up to receive Medicare from an already bankrupt system. We won't talk about the vote gathering folly of adding a Rx drug benefit.
All this to say that I'm afraid this is a harbinger of really bad poop on the horizon and I think we're all going to feel it.:(
-
recieved a bill from the hospital yesterday for my kidney stone visit to the ER. seems there was some sort of mess up with the insurance co and the hospital wanted more than my $50 deductible.
so how much do you think a 7 hour visit to er would cost? Granted they did an x-ray, ultrasound and a mri - i guess they had to or they just wanted to pork the bill..
grand total was over $8200
they did throw in a free case of thrombophlebitis - think that occured when nurse helga ran over my iv with the wheelchair yanking it outa my arm on our way to x-rays...
-
What pains me is that I don't see any of our elected officials doing boo about rising healthcare costs.
If you were an elected offial what would you do to prevent healthcare costs from rising?
-
Personally, I don't mind paying alittle more knowing that R&D costs are extremely high in this country, at the benefit of having tackled some of the worse types of bugs out there in the last 100 years and having the worlds best doctors and surgeons. Small price to pay if you ask me.
-
Originally posted by ra
If you were an elected offial what would you do to prevent healthcare costs from rising?
IMHO the current scheme is not sustainable. I'd damn sure not add a drug benefit on top of a system that is already under funded and faces budget busting deficits in the relatively near term. The feds are the largest single payer in healthcare today. If you don't think they are ratcheting down every year on re-imbursements to doctors and hospitals you are dreaming. They know the system is busted but no one has the courage to say it. Meanwhile the feds keep squeezing the providers where they can to keep from having to raise taxes or cut benefits - both of which are political suicide. Where do you think the industry goes to meet their increased costs and decreasing payments? How about the private sector (i.e. you)?
The fact is that the population curve will make more people eligible for benefits than wage earners paying in to the system. How many folks out there are planning on having to fund their own healthcare costs in retirement? I'd bet damn few.
I believe the feds have a role to play in providing for the sick and aged who might otherwise be uncared for. I hope the hard, cold reality is not a nationalized system.
What would you do?
-
What would you do?
IMHO health insurance should cover catastrophic events only, say anything above 10% of the insured's annual income. We could then pay much lower premiums, and still be protected from bankruptcy in the case of serious illness or injury. It would also bring market forces into play, as people would shop around for cheaper healthcare rather than just whipping out their insurance card every time they sprain an ankle or get poison ivy.
But there isn't much elected officials can do to make this happen. Their role is to spew hot air about how they will create a bureaucracy to eliminate all our healthcare problems if we just vote for them.
Maybe you could ask your HR rep if you can opt for a much higher deductible in exchange for a lower premium.
ra
-
If you did that RA then folks would not seek preventative screenings that alleviate those big ticket events.
-
rabbidrabbit: If you did that RA then folks would not seek preventative screenings that alleviate those big ticket events.
Not true. You probably change oil in your car on a regular basis and pay for it out of your own pocket.
If someone really chose to save a few bucks on his preventative screenings, why would anyone care? His big ticket event would be covered by his insurance.
I am sure that insurance would offer reduced premiums to people who signed an obligation to regularly undergo preventative screenings. That's just good business.
If average healthcare expence is $5,000 per person per year, it does not make sence to pass that money through the insurance. It would be much more effectively spent if one paid the doctors directly.
As ra said, insurance is coverage against a catastrophic expence.
Of course one can say that some people would not be able to afford $5,000 per year and need to be subcidised by others. That is a valid claim but it has nothing to do with insurance but rather than with redistribution/welfare.
Insurance is when people voluntarily pool the risks with a company taking a cut for organising the whole affair.
Welfare is when people are coerced by the state to part with their property under threat of violence.
And of course there is charity...
miko
-
Originally posted by Eagler
recieved a bill from the hospital yesterday for my kidney stone visit to the ER. seems there was some sort of mess up with the insurance co and the hospital wanted more than my $50 deductible.
so how much do you think a 7 hour visit to er would cost? Granted they did an x-ray, ultrasound and a mri - i guess they had to or they just wanted to pork the bill..
grand total was over $8200
they did throw in a free case of thrombophlebitis - think that occured when nurse helga ran over my iv with the wheelchair yanking it outa my arm on our way to x-rays...
Dude I feel for ya .
I went to the ER with A huge stone stuck up there where the eurethra comes out of the kidney.
Got a CT scan and lots of good drugs.
And twoo days later passed the Buick I mean stone:)
-
Miko, there is a difference between your opinion, my opinion and whats true or not. Many studies have shown that making preventive care available has dramatically cut medical expenses since most times the expensive events where either preventable or could have been mitigated if caught earlier. Yes I change my oil properly but thats does not mean others do and when they have Diabetes or other disease that could have been prevented by a proper diet we all get to pay. Not to mention people are far more likely to pay 15 bucks for an oil change then see their doctor once a year as well as get the proper scans.
-
Next time you're at your doctor's office, ask them what they think of their malpractice/liability insurance policies. I can't even imagine what the costs are at a hospital.
It's the lawyers' fault.
Someone asked what the legislature can do... tort reform. Unfortunately, it probably won't ever happen, since the legislators and their aides and everyone else under the sun is a lawyer with $$$ in their eyes.
Lawyers are a self-perpetuating virus. You need lawyers to defend yourself from the lawyers. And then someone else needs a lawyer to defend themselves from your lawyer. And the lawyers are making the rules of the game, so of course they'll never be kicked out of it.
-
Tarmac I am afraid you are right as rain my friend.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Next time you're at your doctor's office, ask them what they think of their malpractice/liability insurance policies. I can't even imagine what the costs are at a hospital.
It's the lawyers' fault.
Someone asked what the legislature can do... tort reform. Unfortunately, it probably won't ever happen, since the legislators and their aides and everyone else under the sun is a lawyer with $$$ in their eyes.
Lawyers are a self-perpetuating virus. You need lawyers to defend yourself from the lawyers. And then someone else needs a lawyer to defend themselves from your lawyer. And the lawyers are making the rules of the game, so of course they'll never be kicked out of it.
One thing to keep on the radar screen when it comes to ANY type of insurance premiums is that most of the insurers have seen their investment portfolios go to hell. Without decent returns on their cash reserves (the cash they accumulate through premium collection) their tolerance for risk must be much lower. Thus premiums rise, coverages are limited and deductibles go up too. I've never seen any credible analysis that looks at this aspect of the industry and compares it to the losses that result from malpratice litigation.
-
Premiums? Deductibles?
Fully Covered Services:
All Medically Necessary Services provided by Physicians
Physiotherapy or Occupational Therapy
Screening Mammography for Women Aged 50 to 69
Immunization Services
Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) Treatment
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Testing
Optometric Services
Services for Treating Alcohol and Drug Abuse Problems
Mental Health Services
Problem Gambling Services
Supplementary Health Program
Family Health Benefits
Partially Covered Services:
Air Ambulance Service
Senior Citizen's Ambulance Assistance Program
Home Care
Long-Term Care
Chiropractic Services
Podiatry (Chiropody) Program
Hearing Health Services
Dental Services
Prescription Drug Services
Saskatchewan Aids to Independent Living (SAIL) Program
Toss subsidized daycare and preschool, free primary and secondary school in there too.
The "premium?" 6 percent on everything I buy except food. I'm happy with that.
-
rabbidrabbit: Miko, there is a difference between your opinion, my opinion and whats true or not. Many studies have shown that making preventive care available has dramatically cut medical expenses since most times the expensive events where either preventable or could have been mitigated if caught earlier.
You are right, but only because your position is based on lot of assumptions like this:
we all get to pay.
Why should we have to pay for a person who chose to neglect his health? Especially since we have no autority over his behavior and lifestyle? Talk about "taxation without representation".
A private company in a free market might set conditions on providing insurance but a taxpayer or a client of regulated insurance cannot tell a pregnant mother to stop smoking, even though he will have to pay for her kid's diabetes - through taxes or inflated premiums out of proportion to his risks.
So we would try to bribe her with even more money in order to save some money in the future. What happened to "millions on defence, not a penny for ransom".
And could it be that he was neglecting his health exactly because the society guaranteed the healthcare for him and removed necessity to think for himself? It's called the "moral hazard".
Sure, once you've turned people intro mindless idiots by paternalistic policies, you could argue that they would temporarily suffer more once those policies were removed.
miko
-
Originally posted by rc51
Tarmac I am afraid you are right as rain my friend.
Yup, he nailed it
I venture forth a bit more...
When I look at my paycheck...I just sigh when i see all the money I give to a program I can't qualify to use. I certainly hope the folks appreciate the fine health care they are receiving that we're all paying premiums for.
-
Loser, noted your addy. When did Canada socialize healthcare? Were they fee for service before they switched?
Do you find the ability to obtain care acceptable in terms of time?
Thanks for any response. I frankly wonder if we won't be embracing a similar system when we decide to get real about where we are headed...
-
Originally posted by Corwin
Loser, noted your addy. When did Canada socialize healthcare? Were they fee for service before they switched?
Do you find the ability to obtain care acceptable in terms of time?
Thanks for any response. I frankly wonder if we won't be embracing a similar system when we decide to get real about where we are headed...
No Problem Corwin.
Canada officially passed the "Canada Health Act" in 1984. But the "free" health care system had existed in practise long before the official act was passed. All provinces and territories had some form of universal health care by 1972.
The province I live in, Saskatchewan, has had full public health insurance since 1947. Saskatchewan was the first province to have universal health care coverage most likely due to the fact that we have always had a Socialist Provincial government.
That is why i don't get all this apprehension towards Socialist governments (and in most cases the word socialism itself.")
After the war, the government passed the VLA (veteran's land act. [1952]) which gave land and money for development to any veteran whether they saw combat or served overseas or not. Health Care was established in addition to the Canadian Wheat Board.
To finance the cost of universal health care, provinces were required (in theory) to pay for their citizens by imposing taxes. To my knowledge, only Alberta, the province directly to the west of the one I live in did not levy a provincial sales tax on consumer goods to defer the costs of free health care.
Saskatchewan levied a 9 percent sales tax called the E&H (education and health tax.) This was later lowered to 6 percent and was less directly involved in the funding of universal health care.
The tax usually only applied to consumer goods and was not charged on basic food items. Meals that were ready to eat sometimes were/are now taxed.
Example: If i go buy a bag of chips or a Mcdeath meal, it is taxed. If I buy a litre of milk or a bag of potatos I am not taxed. Basically the premise being that basic sustinance food items should not be taxed because they are "necessary" whereas fast food or ready to eat commercial food items are a "luxury." In short, a person shouldnt be taxed for eating basic food items that are need to survive.
As to your question of if Health Care was not free at one point? I honestly dont know. I imagine at one point LONG before my time some meagre fee was required to get medical treatment. From the stories I have heard though, the costs were not required before treatment and the balance could be paid out in different forms.
For example if a farmer broke his leg and required medical treatment, a portion of his harvest could be later given to a physician to pay for the doctor's services. In fact, many times a rural doctor would be paid almost entirely through the support of the community by providing the doctor with what he or she needed for his or her family needed to get by. Extremely socialistic, but delightfully simplistic and sensible.
As to your last question. Where I live emergency room waits times can get up there. But the sick or injured are treated on a "as needed" basis, not by who has the best health coverage. However, as im sure you know, most injuries or ailments dont require a hospital.
Instead of centralized hospitals, we have many (and I mean MANY) local walk in clinics. A place where 6 or so doctors treat more minor (and much more common) injuries and illnesses on the same "as needed" basis. I have never waited more than 20 minutes for a throat infection or other non-serious illness and when i have been really hurt, I see a doctor within 5 minutes.
My only personal experience with a hospital emergency room was a few months ago when i had a severe allergic reaction. After arriving at the hospital, I was instantly on a gurney and was administerd anti-allergin shots within 1 minute.
While I was in the hosptial (about 14 hours) I had two male nurses attending to me and a doctor around at all times.
They fed and took care of of my Mom and Girlfriend who were there while i had to stay as well.
The best part, total cost: $0.
Free and universal health care is not without its faults, but as i said before, I'm happy with what I have.
Canada Health Act and History. (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/medicare/home.htm)
-
Wow loser. Thanks very much for spending the time to educate me. I'll take a look at the link at home.
My wife works for as a financial director a publicly traded hospital corp. I also have several friends who are physicians. The end result is I end up knowing way too much about what's going on in the industry. It can to rest in my lap with the issue I described in the 1st post. Many of the docs I know believe socialized medicine will be the eventual solution in the US. You are right that "socialized" is a loaded term. It's good to hear how well it can work.
-
Just re-read your original post Corwin. My Dad works for SGI (Saskatchewan Government Insurance.) It is the segment of the government that provides all auto insurance and some home insurance. The auto part is not a choice. You drive a car in my Province, you insure with SGI.
And we have the lowest rates for auto insurance in the whole country.
There is no age biase for insurance rates, and you only get charged more if you have an accident that you are at fault for or get a whole bunch of tickets. (more than 3 in one year.)
Best thing is, being a son of a government employee. You get free prescription medicine, and free out of country protection for any medical needs. This applies to wives, children, and common law spouses.
They will even airlift you home so you can recieve the best medical treatment.... from anywhere in the world.
:D