Does the existence of insurance make healthcare as a whole more expensive?
I think it might. If you have less dollars chasing the services does price come down?
In which case the answer to above is yes there should be no insurance. People pay for what they need but people can only afford what they can afford.
With 8% profit and 15% labour at least 8% more expensive. And you likely could simplify billing and collections if everything was direct payment.
The problem is even a normal child birth in Canada is somewhere in the 10-20k range so some sort of insurance product is required to spread out these costs over time.
I’d be interested in seeing what overhead costs look like the the countries with mixed public/pricate systems as that is how you’d evaluate if insurance is costing money.
Kids getting killed doesn't change anything. This guy getting killed had an insurance company instantly reverse their policy on limiting anesthesia, which would have resulted in an "acceptable level of death and suffering" in a time where they are already going through so much. So at least some good came out of this, and there is now direct evidence for success.
Could we have more good come out of it if more of them end up dead? Probably. Is this the way to achieve it? No, of course not. But there don't seem to be many alternatives, and if the fear of death is the only thing keeping them acting somewhat less immorally, well...maybe this system is better for the peasants? Like, they don't give one flying #### about the suffering and deaths of others, so why should I care about them? Sorry you got shot for being an unmitigated ####### profiting off the vulnerable? If it was Martin Shkreli who got shot, would anyone care?
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Kids getting shot at school = no reaction
A CEO getting shot = OMG YOU GUYS
Ah, the classic American conundrum: John and Jane Yankee loathe the elite class, cheer their demise, and lament their lack of sympathy for the problems of the common man, but can't stop giving them profile-boosting media clicks, using their platforms to opinionate, and hand them the reigns of governmental power to wield at their will.
Kids getting killed doesn't change anything. This guy getting killed had an insurance company instantly reverse their policy on limiting anesthesia, which would have resulted in an "acceptable level of death and suffering" in a time where they are already going through so much. So at least some good came out of this, and there is now direct evidence for success.
Could we have more good come out of it if more of them end up dead? Probably. Is this the way to achieve it? No, of course not. But there don't seem to be many alternatives, and if the fear of death is the only thing keeping them acting somewhat less immorally, well...maybe this system is better for the peasants? Like, they don't give one flying #### about the suffering and deaths of others, so why should I care about them? Sorry you got shot for being an unmitigated ####### profiting off the vulnerable? If it was Martin Shkreli who got shot, would anyone care?
The change didn’t happen as a result of the shooting. The companies didn’t reverse policy because they are afraid of executives getting shot.
The conpany change policy because a ceo getting shot led to more people caring about how insurance companies act which led to public backlash. Maybe that’s an insignificant difference but I think it changes how you would frame the problem.
So the problem needing solving is how to get the public and media to care more about the minutiae of insurance policy.
This band are such fortune tellers, but so obscure at the same time. In the 80's and 90's there was definite tension. Now the charicature of uncle jim is live and well. Pretty terrifying
The change didn’t happen as a result of the shooting. The companies didn’t reverse policy because they are afraid of executives getting shot.
The conpany change policy because a ceo getting shot led to more people caring about how insurance companies act which led to public backlash. Maybe that’s an insignificant difference but I think it changes how you would frame the problem.
So the problem needing solving is how to get the public and media to care more about the minutiae of insurance policy.
How do we know that? How do you know there wasn't a conversation in the boardroom that went "well I don't want to get shot over this anesthesia plan, so lets just put it on the back burner for now"?
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
How do we know that? How do you know there wasn't a conversation in the boardroom that went "well I don't want to get shot over this anesthesia plan, so lets just put it on the back burner for now"?
Speculation based on the timeline. Essentially politicians started calling for it to be reversed and was making headlines so I would speculate that fear of the public backlash growing and regulator intervention drove this.
They are still an evil ceo of an insurance company. Changing how they cover anaesthesia isn’t moving the needle in their level of evil. There’s no material improvement that would reduce risk of murder. These guys are actuary’s.
Speculation based on the timeline. Essentially politicians started calling for it to be reversed and was making headlines so I would speculate that fear of the public backlash growing and regulator intervention drove this.
They are still an evil ceo of an insurance company. Changing how they cover anaesthesia isn’t moving the needle in their level of evil. There’s no material improvement that would reduce risk of murder. These guys are actuary’s.
Well they've got a new risk a category to add to their calculations then.
But this claim denial doesn’t really increase profit on its own, the savings appear to be passed to the customers. it lowers premiums to attract customers to increase revenue to increase profit.
The price sensitive consumer and there being little apparent difference at the time of purchase incentivizes a low premium low service model.
So they do follow the needs of their customer, the lowest possible premium at time of purchase.
No, the needs of the customer are to be able to pay for health care when it is required, regardless of whether or not you have all the money in your bank account at that time. The model of insurance is about banking money away for future use, but guaranteeing you can pay for care in the event you haven't banked every dollar for that health care service. If you can't use the money you bank away, what service is being provided other than just taking your money?
To paraphrase Chris Rock: "I give a company some money in case #### happens. Now if #### don't happen, shouldn't I get my money back?"
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
No, the needs of the customer are to be able to pay for health care when it is required, regardless of whether or not you have all the money in your bank account at that time. The model of insurance is about banking money away for future use. If you can't use the money you bank away, what service is being provided other than just taking your money?
To paraphrase Chris Rock: "I give a company some money in case #### happens. Now if #### don't happen, shouldn't I get my money back?"
Is Private Health Care a requirement in the states?
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Is Private Health Care a requirement in the states?
Yes, pretty much. It's mandatory to have some kind of health coverage if you're employed. It was essentially mandated that anyone above 18 have some health care coverage or they would have to pay a federal tax fine, but that fine had major exemptions added in 2018 that made it virtually impossible to enforce. State by state it is different and is mandated to have a health plan if you're above 18 in some states.
That's what Obamacare was all about, along with being able to shop for a low cost option in order to fulfill the requirement.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
It is interesting how merely modifying the way people are killed makes their comeuppance more palatable to some than others. Invade a country with gun and tanks? "Kill em all and let god sort them out! The only good Russian is a dead Russian!" Kill thousands with the stroke of a pen from behind a desk? "Oh why can't we be civil about our business leaders? We need to respect societal norms "
The banality of evil indeed.
I'm starting to feel like Undercoverbrother works in insurance.
Yes, pretty much. It's mandatory to have some kind of health coverage if you're employed. It was essentially mandated that anyone above 18 have some health care coverage or they would have to pay a federal tax fine, but that fine had major exemptions added in 2018 that made it virtually impossible to enforce. State by state it is different and is mandated to have a health plan if you're above 18 in some states.
That's what Obamacare was all about, along with being able to shop for a low cost option in order to fulfill the requirement.
Thank you
America is a mess
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
What bothers me is the justification of the killing because of the industry and potential business practices of this fella.
I don’t think he should have been gunned down on the street, regardless of his work.
Pretty simple
Do you think that fact that so many people are kinda OK with this might be an indication that the business practices led by this guy are so evil that people who are normally against the killing of innocent people decide that they react to the killing of this guy the same way they react to the killing of Gaddafi?
I know you are not OK with the justifications, but it doesn't change the reality that so many people are fine with it. And if people are fine with it, it's because something is deeply deeply wrong. And the part that is deeply wrong isn't that people are OK with this guy being shot. Dig deeper.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
The liberal backlash to the shooting is easily explained by the fact that for most centrist/decorum types, maintenance of the status quo will always be more important than justice.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
"
