A Good Example of Why NOT To Go to Universal Healthcare

[mesue]

Personal attack aside. If you had the numbers in front of you that showed how hard it is for profit companies to get in the black, even with ways to manage claims paid out (which Universal Care would not outside of raising taxes based on need, BTW, the top 10% would not be enough to carry the burden) what do you honestly think would happen to a system that has to pay out not only high health costs, but would add demand to an already strained system?

Which is why you ask the agent the appropriate questions. With Universal care you would still have a fine print issue considering it would be a bigger bueracracy than private health coverage, without the benefit of someone like an agent who is compelled to help you cause of comissions, rather than a government employee who gets paid whether you understand your coverage or not.

I understand what you said, you stated that companies change conditions on a dime, which doesn't happen. Needs changes are a fact of life, that is why clients should find products with fewer exclusions, but most of the common problems are more than covered by just about any health insurer.

That sounds more like COBRA coverage than private health STM. COBRA is meant to cover you until you get into another group insurance association, it is a government plan. I have rates as low as 80$ a month for most people in decent health, heck, I might have even better than that, I haven't sold an STM in awhile.

That wouldn't be Universal health Care then, it would be an extension of Medicaid, which is not exactly great coverage. Universal would be available to everyone, and most people would not pay for better coverage simply for the fact that they wouldn't have to. The point is that a Universal system would be a dismal failure on it's own end, but it would also cause an economic backlash on the provider and insurer ends, it is an unsustainable idea.

No I did not say insurance companies change conditions on a dime, what I did say is ones health can change in an instant and the health care coverage one took out six months before might not now meet ones health care needs later. Also there have been cases of where the coverage is questionable and and I do recall cases where several HMO workers came forward and said they had made decisions that cost people their lives to save money, and they admitted the decisions could have went the other way but it was written up in a way that allowed them to make the decision of whether or not something was covered.

Ok you got great plans, scenario, I'm out of work, no prospects, economy in my area is really slow, drawing unemployment, got a wife with a bad back, my own health is iffy I'm a diabetic with high blood pressure, and three high school age kids all in good health. What can you offer that I can afford? Lets see I get 320.00/week from unemployment. Mortgage is 489.00/ month, utilities average out 200.00/ month, computer 15.00 need it for job searching and coupon search to aid in survival, car payment 320.00, car insurance is 45.00 a month, that leaves me with 220.00 to pay for food and gas and whatever else, oops forgot to add in the wifes medication costing 65.00/ month, she skips a dose every now and then to make them go further, now I have 155.00 to buy food and gas. Since I make 320.00 a week we do not qualify for any help of any kind. Two of my kids have part time jobs and they buy all their school stuff and their little sister's school stuff and drive their granddad's car, he pays the insurance and maintains the upkeep, in return they take him wherever he needs to go, (he lost his license due to eyesight), including drs appointments, sometimes they miss school for a few hours but this way they have a car to go back and forth to work and he gets to see the dr when he needs to, it works out for him and the kids. The kids buy all their clothes and pay for all the extra stuff the school keeps saying they need. so at this point in time I have a grand total of 155.00 to pay toward food, gas and insurance. we eat a lot of ramen noodles and pinto beans, eggs, we already buy milk and meat only a few times a month, its a luxury item. So what kind of health insurance do you have my family can afford?

 

[LaMidRighter]

No I did not say insurance companies change conditions on a dime, what I did say is ones health can change in an instant and the health care coverage one took out six months before might not now meet ones health care needs later.

I read back and may have misunderstood what you said, it looked like you were saying the coverage will change. However the fact is that if someone's health changes that drastically there should have been planning for that, besides, rapid changes are a rare occurance, which is why they are usually in exclusions lists, if you are succeptible and know that, it is your responsibility to look for appropriate coverage, family history is a good guage as to what you need.

Also there have been cases of where the coverage is questionable and and I do recall cases where several HMO workers came forward and said they had made decisions that cost people their lives to save money, and they admitted the decisions could have went the other way but it was written up in a way that allowed them to make the decision of whether or not something was covered.

First of all, HMOs are a different kind of insurance altogether, it isn't an individual policy as much as a risk grouping, the reasons that mistakes happen is because the HMO network is smaller and tries to save money on care, I don't sell HMOs and don't recommend someone buying into one until they do some consumer studies on one.

Ok you got great plans, scenario, I'm out of work, no prospects, economy in my area is really slow, drawing unemployment, got a wife with a bad back, my own health is iffy I'm a diabetic with high blood pressure, and three high school age kids all in good health. What can you offer that I can afford? Lets see I get 320.00/week from unemployment. Mortgage is 489.00/ month, utilities average out 200.00/ month, computer 15.00 need it for job searching and coupon search to aid in survival, car payment 320.00, car insurance is 45.00 a month, that leaves me with 220.00 to pay for food and gas and whatever else, oops forgot to add in the wifes medication costing 65.00/ month, she skips a dose every now and then to make them go further, now I have 155.00 to buy food and gas. Since I make 320.00 a week we do not qualify for any help of any kind. Two of my kids have part time jobs and they buy all their school stuff and their little sister's school stuff and drive their granddad's car, he pays the insurance and maintains the upkeep, in return they take him wherever he needs to go, (he lost his license due to eyesight), including drs appointments, sometimes they miss school for a few hours but this way they have a car to go back and forth to work and he gets to see the dr when he needs to, it works out for him and the kids. The kids buy all their clothes and pay for all the extra stuff the school keeps saying they need. so at this point in time I have a grand total of 155.00 to pay toward food, gas and insurance. we eat a lot of ramen noodles and pinto beans, eggs, we already buy milk and meat only a few times a month, its a luxury item. So what kind of health insurance do you have my family can afford?

Well, number one, I am only licensed to sell in my state, but I couldn't quote you becuase I don't have a history, Honestly I don't know, it all depends on your area, age, health history, etc. Some policies count all dependents under a certain age as a single unit and have a low price to add them, some are more expensive, it all just depends.

 

[Cremaster77]

Let me put it this way, for approx. 7% of the population, your side of the argument wants healthcare to be government sponsored, meaning about 75-99% of Americans will choose to opt in. It would not take long for this system to go into the red because of the increased demand, with only government revenues to pay for them, the system would have to go bankrupt.

This is an inaccurate assumption. There are a number of government sponsored healthcare systems that are not bankrupt. Your blanket statment that this would be the case is blatantly false. A single payer system actually results in decreased healthcare costs (per individual) as has been seen in Europe where most countries have government sponsored healthcare. The overall cost is higher since everyone is covered, but the per capita cost is lower.

Actually, the argument I heard for UHC added the number of underinsured and it didn't move me. If a client is underinsured they didn't ask enough questions, or got a bad agent, meaning if the agent sold an inadequate contract, the client didn't ask the right questions(yes, I was intentionally redundant to demonstrate a point.)

I'm not sure how you sell your insurance, but most individuals don't have a choice when it comes to their healthcare. They only have option of what their employer provides. Or even worse, they are self-employed and forced to pay the entire premium out-of-pocket. The underinsured are often the working poor or self-employed who cannot afford to pay the higher premium that comes with more extensive coverage, or do not even have the option to opt in for more coverage through their employer. This will only get worse as insurance premiums continue to rise and less patients are able to afford the premius of more extensive coverage. Your portrayal of this simply being a matter of asking the right questions is completely false. It's primarily a matteer of cost.

The facts don't contradict or substantiate my belief, the facts are not necessarily correct, they were more than likely distorted, however, even if they are 100% accurate they still don't warrant adding YET ANOTHER giveaway program to the list of utter government social program failures. You're right, some of them are stupid too. Actually, no, the number has no choice but to level off because of demand. That's actually not true, in fact you can't attribute life expectancy and infant mortality solely to health coverage, as well, you admitted that only about 7-15% in this country do not have "proper" health care for whatever reason(if you believe the census figures) which would mean that the numbers would adjust for that, however, you have to look at the quality of medicine here, socialized countries do not have the best care, meaning that the availability is not a factor. No, those are how they are viewed by the free healthcare side. Fact without perspective is opinion.

Only by adding the perspective of someone who works for the insurance industry are the numbers fact rather than opinion? The argument has always been that quality of care goes down if the health care is covered by the government. The fact that many countries with socialized medince have higher health indices than the US shows that position is completely wrong. If quality of healthcare was worse, and by your own admission, up to 99% of individuals would opt into that system, then health indices would have to go down, since everyone was being treated with inferior care. That is simply not the case as I have previously stated and provided evidence for. Opinion is perspective without fact. I've provided plenty of facts. Where are yours?

 

[LaMidRighter]

This is an inaccurate assumption. There are a number of government sponsored healthcare systems that are not bankrupt. Your blanket statment that this would be the case is blatantly false. A single payer system actually results in decreased healthcare costs (per individual) as has been seen in Europe where most countries have government sponsored healthcare. The overall cost is higher since everyone is covered, but the per capita cost is lower.

Cute. But wrong. Social healthcare costs are not lower under a Universal healthcare system, they are just hidden within the buearacracy, under a social system you will pay greater taxes, but get "free" medical treatment that is not on par with private systems, if you got your tax dollars from that back then you could get better coverage out of your own pocket. If, for instance the Canadian medical system is as good as they say it is, why do so many Canadians pay for American medical care. As far as social medicine going bankrupt, maybe some systems haven't, they would probably be in smaller nations as has been suggested, or the way we do it, a very limited market for the programs, such as low income.

I'm not sure how you sell your insurance, but most individuals don't have a choice when it comes to their healthcare. They only have option of what their employer provides. Or even worse, they are self-employed and forced to pay the entire premium out-of-pocket. The underinsured are often the working poor or self-employed who cannot afford to pay the higher premium that comes with more extensive coverage, or do not even have the option to opt in for more coverage through their employer. This will only get worse as insurance premiums continue to rise and less patients are able to afford the premius of more extensive coverage. Your portrayal of this simply being a matter of asking the right questions is completely false. It's primarily a matteer of cost.

This sounds like a victim statement. You always have a choice when you are working, there are different prices in the individual market and you get a single rating based on your own health. In a group market you get what the group needs, and what they qualify for, in other words, the only way to get ahead in a group is to be among the unhealthiest members of it, you will then save on your insurance, even though the group will pay more.

Only by adding the perspective of someone who works for the insurance industry are the numbers fact rather than opinion? The argument has always been that quality of care goes down if the health care is covered by the government. The fact that many countries with socialized medince have higher health indices than the US shows that position is completely wrong.

Name one social medicine country that has better healthcare based on quality alone. By that I mean, advancements, keeping equipment current, safety, etc.

If quality of healthcare was worse, and by your own admission, up to 99% of individuals would opt into that system, then health indices would have to go down, since everyone was being treated with inferior care.

First of all, most Americans would opt for the social program since they would be paying taxes for it anyway, that is why it would go up, so, more people in a system would cost more money, usage would go up, it happens every time people don't have to pay per usage, which would increase demand and cost on the system, whether it would be good care or not.

That is simply not the case as I have previously stated and provided evidence for. Opinion is perspective without fact. I've provided plenty of facts. Where are yours?

You have provided numbers not related to the economic factors that I have mentioned, now, because you want this, tell me how you think it can work.

 

[mesue]

Well, number one, I am only licensed to sell in my state, but I couldn't quote you becuase I don't have a history, Honestly I don't know, it all depends on your area, age, health history, etc. Some policies count all dependents under a certain age as a single unit and have a low price to add them, some are more expensive, it all just depends.

No seriously you are going to tell me that if you had all those facts about me and my family and I lived in your state you could provide my family with a reasonable health care program that cost less than 155.00 and that out of that 155.00 I would still have enough to buy groceries and gas, get real. The scenario I posted was from several years back and we went without any kind of insurance for 10 months, it took 7 months for hubby to find a job and 3 months for our insurance to take effect. One month of that was without any income.
The truth is many people no matter what kind of picture you want to paint is without access to health care due to financial situations beyond their control. And of those 40 some million some will die due to not having access to medical care and you really seem at a loss to understand this or to understand that something needs to be done about it. People are dying and your suggestions or arguments just don't change anything, as a matter of fact that is your whole argument, leave things as they are.

 

[LaMidRighter]

No seriously you are going to tell me that if you had all those facts about me and my family and I lived in your state you could provide my family with a reasonable health care program that cost less than 155.00 and that out of that 155.00 I would still have enough to buy groceries and gas, get real. The scenario I posted was from several years back and we went without any kind of insurance for 10 months, it took 7 months for hubby to find a job and 3 months for our insurance to take effect. One month of that was without any income.
The truth is many people no matter what kind of picture you want to paint is without access to health care due to financial situations beyond their control. And of those 40 some million some will die due to not having access to medical care and you really seem at a loss to understand this or to understand that something needs to be done about it. People are dying and your suggestions or arguments just don't change anything, as a matter of fact that is your whole argument, leave things as they are.

Realistically, if this system bankrupts, the same people who don't have healthcare now won't anyway, to add to this, if health insurance companies fold, then those currently covered will not have insurance either, and everyone will have paid more taxes for literally nothing.