Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Auto Insurance Vs Health Insurance  
User currently offlineJetsgo From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3086 posts, RR: 5
Posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3796 times:

In the US, we are free to pick and choose which auto insurance company insures our vehicles. We are also free to choose coverage limits, deductibles, and other optional coverages resulting in a very personalized policy. When we have an accident, we are free to choose the body shop. When we have an accident, we pay our deductible after which the insurance company pays up to the limit.

Why is it that our health insurance options are generally restricted to what our employers offer? Why must we select from a group of cookie cutter policies which can't be customized to our liking? Why do health insurance companies dictate where we can and can't be seen? Why do we have to pay a deductible and coinsurance?

Maybe this is an overly simplistic view of the world from my 25 year old eyes? However, as I get ready to bring a new one into the world and I view over my employers health insurance options, I simply get frustrated. The policies available to me are rather decent, but why can't I just sign up for whoever has the best rates/coverages for me? Yes, I know I can go the private route but that generally isn't cost effective...why?


Marine Corps Aviation, The Last To Let You Down!
53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4062 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3782 times:

Quoting Jetsgo (Thread starter):
Why is it that our health insurance options are generally restricted to what our employers offer?

They are not. You can choose to buy individual insurance.

Quoting Jetsgo (Thread starter):
Why must we select from a group of cookie cutter policies which can't be customized to our liking?

Obamacare.

Quoting Jetsgo (Thread starter):
Why do we have to pay a deductible and coinsurance?

Because your auto insurance doesn't cover your oil change and your tires.

That was easy. Next!



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3779 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 1):
Quoting Jetsgo (Thread starter):
Why must we select from a group of cookie cutter policies which can't be customized to our liking?

Obamacare.

That was true before Obamacare ever came around.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4062 posts, RR: 30
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3770 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 2):
That was true before Obamacare ever came around.

It depended on your employer - I have the choice between several different carriers, and within each carrier I have several different options I can mix and match. Never felt I was lacking in choice. Of course, if I didn't like it, I could, as mentioned, buy health insurance myself (I know the IRS discriminates against individual health insurance - a big mistake that was not corrected with Obamacare).

Now with Obamacare I really won't be able to customize. If I want a policy with high deductible, I won't be able to buy it. If I want a policy that doesn't cover protection for recreational activities (contraception), tough luck.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineRabenschlag From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 1021 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3737 times:

I guess your employer has a say because she/he co-pays the insuranc fees so employers have b2b contracts wiith some insurers. If you pay all your insurance out of your pocket, I cannot see why you shoould not be able to choose whatever insurer you want. At least that is the way it works in Germany.

Keep in mind though that, depending on your medical precondition, insurers will not be willing to insure you at rates that you can afford. Free market health insurance is not for the poor and ill.

R.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3719 times:

The entire healthcare system in the US is severely in need of improvement, just on the cost basis alone - I've not looked at "Obamacare" in any depth to see what it offers, but the situation as of 2010 is just abysmal.

In 2010 (year picked because figures are unlikely to be revised), the UK spent £118.2Billion on the NHS, for a population of about 63Million persons.

Thats a per population head equivalent of £1906 or $2954.

In that same year, the US spent about $381Billion on Medicaid and about $509Billion on Medicare - both of which highly intersect with what the NHS provides, for a population of about 311.5Million persons.

Thats a per population head equivalent of $2858.

Except the US Medicare and Medicaid programmes don't cover 311.5Million persons - Medicaid covers roughly 50Million persons, and Medicare covers roughly the same number - theres about a 6Million person intersection between the two (persons that are enrolled in both), so, again roughly, the total number of beneficiaries for these federal and state programmes is around 94Million.

That makes it a per eligible head equivilent of $9469.

And you know which system I would rather have? The one I currently use - the NHS at $2954.

The US system is just very very badly run.

Sources:

http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/risks/insurance/medicaid_program.php
http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/agency/hhs/reforming-medicare-payments.php
http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-05.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)
https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=US+population&meta=


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8477 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3638 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 3):
Now with Obamacare I really won't be able to customize. If I want a policy with high deductible, I won't be able to buy it. If I want a policy that doesn't cover protection for recreational activities (contraception), tough luck.

That depends on if your state establishes insurance markets that are called for in "ObamaCare" or if they simply wait until Obama is out of office - in 2013 or 2017.

The really queer part is that these insurance markets called for at a state level is focused on private insurance companies, not a public (government run) option. It would seem that the conservatives who are so supportive of private enterprise would be strongly supporting these state markets.

Quoting moo (Reply 5):
the US spent about $381Billion on Medicaid and about $509Billion on Medicare - both of which highly intersect with what the NHS provides, for a population of about 311.5Million persons

If you look at the Medicare spending it is important to recognize that those on Medicare make monthly premium payments and many of us also have a gap policy. That brings up a need to look not only the total payouts, but also the revenues received from FICA taxes ANY the various premiums paid for by those covered.

Medicaid is a totally different animal and it seems to me that the right wing states are failing to care for their citizens at a responsible level. Look at Texas and Oklahoma where right wing Governors look like they are rejecting federal funds to bring in more uninsured people into the program.

Reality is that the uninsured are a significant reason why our costs are so rapidly increasing. If you want to slow the growth then you need a Medicare for all, with private insurance then available at a fraction of the cots. THe Aussies can show how it is done.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 3):
It depended on your employer - I have the choice between several different carriers, and within each carrier I have several different options I can mix and match.

As long as costs continue to grow at the levels we have seen in this century your employer provided health care is at risk. It is already sufficiently hight to impact the number of US employees a company will have, and the wage/salary levels that employers will pay. Shifting those costs to a tax based system is far more effective in growing companies than most tax breaks I can think of.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 3):
Now with Obamacare I really won't be able to customize.

Of course you ail and you will have better selections and pricing if the states work hard to build their state markets.

Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 4):
Keep in mind though that, depending on your medical precondition, insurers will not be willing to insure you at rates that you can afford. Free market health insurance is not for the poor and ill.

We are rapidly moving to a point where insurance companies can take a blood sample and other generic materials to look for applicants who are at future risk for various health care costs. That should concern employees who believe they are "safe" from health insurance costs.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5785 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3617 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 3):
Now with Obamacare I really won't be able to customize. If I want a policy with high deductible, I won't be able to buy it. If I want a policy that doesn't cover protection for recreational activities (contraception), tough luck.

Then the Republican's should have fully participated in the discussions that went on for healthcare but unfortunately they were blocked from doing so by there own party stupidity/politics and various talking heads and blowhards that attacked anyone who even breathed that they may participate. Instead they were stuck with trying to press some lame "take or leave it" plan that was dead on arrival as they couldn't go anywhere meaningful from there. It was a truly sad situation and a missed opportunity.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8976 posts, RR: 39
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3600 times:

The simple, non detailed answer is because there is a massive amount of regulations int he health insurance market compared to the auto insurance market.

And it's not just Obamacare or even the Federal government - the states are every bit as much to blame as well.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5655 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3584 times:

Quoting Jetsgo (Thread starter):
We are also free to choose coverage limits, deductibles, and other optional coverages resulting in a very personalized policy.


All states have a minimum level of automobile insurance required.

Quoting Jetsgo (Thread starter):
Why is it that our health insurance options are generally restricted to what our employers offer?


They are not. You are free to forgo your employer's insurance plan and buy one on your own.

Quoting Jetsgo (Thread starter):
Why must we select from a group of cookie cutter policies which can't be customized to our liking?


Because it is much easier and cheaper for your employer to provide you with set policies and coverages.

Quoting Jetsgo (Thread starter):
Why do health insurance companies dictate where we can and can't be seen?


Because that's the way the policy your employer bought is written. My policy (through my employer) is not written that way.

Quoting Jetsgo (Thread starter):
Why do we have to pay a deductible and coinsurance?


Because people go to the doctor for stupid, minor things. If you could claim all the routine and non-routine maintenance you do on your car to your auto insurance, you would also be paying deductibles/co-pays/co-insurance.

One of the main problems with our health care insurance issue is that we, as insured consumers are removed from the market. We generally do not care how much a procedure costs. Co-pays and deductibles help with that issue, but clearly, not enough.

I have a high deductible health insurance plan with a health savings plan. Trust me...I pay very close attention to my doctors' bills and am very selective as to when we go to the doctor.

Another fine thing would be to allow us to buy insurance across state lines. If I want a BC/BS policy offered in Texas, why shouldn't I be able to buy that insurance policy?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4062 posts, RR: 30
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3401 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 5):

I hope you enjoy the free medical research paid for by U.S. consumers. You are welcome.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 6):
It is already sufficiently hight to impact the number of US employees a company will have

It is not the cost that is high, it is the arbitrary government regulations telling companies after how many employees they need to offer health insurance.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 6):
We are rapidly moving to a point where insurance companies can take a blood sample and other generic materials to look for applicants who are at future risk for various health care costs.

Except they are expressly forbidden by law from doing that. There goes your canard.

Quoting tugger (Reply 7):
Instead they were stuck with trying to press some lame "take or leave it" plan that was dead on arrival as they couldn't go anywhere meaningful from there.

As opposed to a law that had to be passed before we could see what was on it?

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 8):

The simple, non detailed answer is because there is a massive amount of regulations int he health insurance market compared to the auto insurance market.

And the sad thing is the auto insurance market is already over-regulated as is...

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
Another fine thing would be to allow us to buy insurance across state lines.

That would have been the single most effective way to bring down healthcare costs in the U.S. but somehow in 2,000 pages of Obamacare they couldn't find enough space for a single line of text allowing just that.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5785 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3399 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 8):
The simple, non detailed answer is because there is a massive amount of regulations int he health insurance market compared to the auto insurance market.

And it's not just Obamacare or even the Federal government - the states are every bit as much to blame as well.

  

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
Another fine thing would be to allow us to buy insurance across state lines. If I want a BC/BS policy offered in Texas, why shouldn't I be able to buy that insurance policy?

As long as it would meet the mins of your state I think it would be fine. However I don't think it would affect cost that much as PPVRA notes above, it is the state specific requirements that create a lot of the costs. It's not per se a bad thing, states should be allowed to set requirements as they and their citizens desire.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 10):
As opposed to a law that had to be passed before we could see what was on it?

Absolutely! Yes.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineaa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3350 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3398 times:

Quoting Jetsgo (Thread starter):
Why do health insurance companies dictate where we can and can't be seen?

In managed care, the insurance company forces providers to accept a certain payment amount. It's up to the provider to decide if they want to accept the reimbursement rate.

Quoting Jetsgo (Thread starter):
Why do we have to pay a deductible and coinsurance?

As said before, to discourage frivolous medical care. It has actually been proven effective at reducing the number of silly ER visits.

Quoting moo (Reply 5):

In 2010 (year picked because figures are unlikely to be revised), the UK spent £118.2Billion on the NHS, for a population of about 63Million persons.

Thats a per population head equivalent of £1906 or $2954.

In that same year, the US spent about $381Billion on Medicaid and about $509Billion on Medicare - both of which highly intersect with what the NHS provides, for a population of about 311.5Million persons.

Thats a per population head equivalent of $2858.

This is an awful comparison. The NHS covers all Briton. Medicare covers only old people, while Medicaid covers only poor people. Old and poor people are more likely to require expensive medical care. The U.S. system is expensive, but this is not an apples to apples comparison.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3392 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
Another fine thing would be to allow us to buy insurance across state lines. If I want a BC/BS policy offered in Texas, why shouldn't I be able to buy that insurance policy?

It wouldn't exist for you to buy. The healthcare companies would all run for whatever state bent over to let them rewrite the rules on what's required to be covered and what isn't. That state, in all probability, would not be Texas. Thus, no Texas-based policies would remain.

It's the same reason you can't get a credit card based in Texas - you're probably going to have to settle for South Dakota or Delaware.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3389 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 10):
I hope you enjoy the free medical research paid for by U.S. consumers. You are welcome.

Excuse me? What does that have to do with my cost comparison at all? Medicare and Medicaid costs are costs for patient care and support, they have nothing to do with medical research at all.

In 2010 the UK government spent £3.8Billion of public money on medical research.

And even so, the UK government doesn't just take drugs and pay nothing for them - we don't have a patent nullification program, so we pay the going market rate for treatments. The fact that a prescription here in the UK costs a person just $13 to fill per item is not the end cost, the NHS pays whatever the drug company invoices them.

So its hardly free.

Quoting aa757first (Reply 12):
This is an awful comparison. The NHS covers all Briton. Medicare covers only old people, while Medicaid covers only poor people. Old and poor people are more likely to require expensive medical care. The U.S. system is expensive, but this is not an apples to apples comparison.

Actually, that is what makes it an excellent comparison, because the NHS covers the poor and elderly as well as everyone else, and the NHS do it for basically the same money as it costs you to cover just the poor and elderly.

The point was that you are already paying either the equivalent per head of population (so all 311Million US citizens) or more (just the 94Million eligible for those services) as we do in the UK, and yet we in the UK have a fairly decent universal healthcare system while you do not.

By spending the equivalent amount of money, you should have an equivalent healthcare system - but yours only covers at best 1/3rd of your population, while the other 2/3rds are paying even more into the system themselves (or via their employers).

So why aren't you Americans baying for blood over your expensive, incomplete solution?

[Edited 2012-07-26 23:14:35]

User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5655 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3344 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 13):
It wouldn't exist for you to buy. The healthcare companies would all run for whatever state bent over to let them rewrite the rules on what's required to be covered and what isn't. That state, in all probability, would not be Texas. Thus, no Texas-based policies would remain.


See Tugger's post about the policy being offered across state lines meeting the minimum requirements of the state the policy is being offered in.

For the record, I am opposed to minimum mandates. If I want a policy that covers certain things and excludes others, I would like the option to buy that policy. Put it this way: at this point in my life, I will not be having any more kids...why is my wife's 'potential' pregnancy covered (and being paid for)?

To carry the auto-insurance analogy a step...I can pay for 'full coverage', i.e. fire, theft, comprehensive, liability, etc. or I can pay for the minimum coverage (liability) or I can buy something in between. I don't appear to have that option because of state mandates. And, that pressures the price of the premium.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3341 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 10):
I hope you enjoy the free medical research paid for by U.S. consumers. You are welcome.

I hope you enjoy the free medical research paid for by U.S.UK consumers taxpayers. You are welcome.

Fred


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4062 posts, RR: 30
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3333 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 14):
Excuse me? What does that have to do with my cost comparison at all? Medicare and Medicaid costs are costs for patient care and support, they have nothing to do with medical research at all.

Healthcare costs in the U.K. (or many other countries) tend to be lower because there is a monopsony by the State - since there is a single buyer for healthcare products, that buyer has a lot of market power to drive prices down. Drug companies, medical device companies, etc. know this and basically sell only to cover their marginal costs in countries like the U.K., Canada, etc. and make all their money in the only place they can sell their products at a market rate, the U.S. So when deciding to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in developing a new drug or medical device, the thought process is basically "how much money will I be able to make selling this in the U.S.?".

So yes, you are basically benefiting from free research paid for by U.S. consumers.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3330 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 15):
See Tugger's post about the policy being offered across state lines meeting the minimum requirements of the state the policy is being offered in.

Would it, though? Or would the policies, as has been done with credit card rules, be regulated only by the state in which the company is based?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4089 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3325 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 17):
Healthcare costs in the U.K. (or many other countries) tend to be lower because there is a monopsony by the State - since there is a single buyer for healthcare products, that buyer has a lot of market power to drive prices down. Drug companies, medical device companies, etc. know this and basically sell only to cover their marginal costs in countries like the U.K., Canada, etc. and make all their money in the only place they can sell their products at a market rate, the U.S. So when deciding to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in developing a new drug or medical device, the thought process is basically "how much money will I be able to make selling this in the U.S.?".

Except none of that bas any basis in reality. The NHS buys drugs and equipment on the open market at market rates.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 17):
So yes, you are basically benefiting from free research paid for by U.S. consumers.

Only in fantasy land. Your fantasy land.

The US system is broken - there should be a single buyer for healthcare services, because having many different buyers is just idiocy and leads to the exact situation we have here where the US spends more and gets less.


User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2402 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3315 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 14):
So why aren't you Americans baying for blood over your expensive, incomplete solution?

Some of us are...



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8976 posts, RR: 39
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3304 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 19):
The US system is broken - there should be a single buyer for healthcare services, because having many different buyers is just idiocy and leads to the exact situation we have here where the US spends more and gets less.

Funny thing about that is, Europeans pay more out of pocket than Americans. . .

Excessive reliance on third party payers, whether the govenrment or an insurer, is at the core of the problem. It's why auto insurance is cheap, and health is not.

[Edited 2012-07-27 07:18:10]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineaa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3350 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3244 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 14):
Actually, that is what makes it an excellent comparison, because the NHS covers the poor and elderly as well as everyone else, and the NHS do it for basically the same money as it costs you to cover just the poor and elderly.

No, it isn't. If you accept the premise that most people are fairly healthy, and given that the NHS covers everyone, most NHS members are healthy. Medicare only covers people over the age of 65 and old people tend to be much less healthy than young people. Medicaid covers only those who are poor and poor people tend to be less healthy than those who aren't poor. So the comparison isn't valid at all -- you're comparing the least healthy Americans to the average Briton.

It's true that the NHS is a more cost effective system than the US system as a whole, but this isn't proven by your unfair comparison.


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4062 posts, RR: 30
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3226 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 19):
Except none of that bas any basis in reality.

Go try buy some prescription drug in Detroit. Now cross the border and go buy that exact same drug in Windsor, Ontario. Now tell me who is paying for the medical research.

Quoting moo (Reply 19):
The US system is broken - there should be a single buyer for healthcare services, because having many different buyers is just idiocy and leads to the exact situation we have here where the US spends more and gets less.

Look, if you believe that people's life expectancy has peaked and that it doesn't make any sense to invest more money in medical research, so we might as well just make healthcare as affordable and accessible as possible, go right ahead, just say it. But at least have the intellectual honesty to admit the implications of what you are saying, and don't act all surprised every time "unintended consequences" (or as am extremely left wing professor of mine would say, reactions you were not smart enough to predict) happen.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8477 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3215 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 8):

The simple, non detailed answer is because there is a massive amount of regulations int he health insurance market compared to the auto insurance market.

Just as well. The auto insurance companies can very easily write your car off if they want. Of course, health insurance companies can "decline to approve" tests or treatments. Basically treating you as an old car too expensive to treat.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
All states have a minimum level of automobile insurance required.

A core level of health care for everyone can be like that. Need a surgeon, you get who is available (maybe a resident) without a real choice of selection. You can also end up in an 8 - 12 bed ward instead of a private room. But you get health care you need.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
Because people go to the doctor for stupid, minor things

And far too many people wait too long before going to the Doctor, which is why some problems, like cancer, are far more expensive to treat. My bet is that the financial position of the patient is related to how often they see a doctor.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
Another fine thing would be to allow us to buy insurance across state lines.

That only works if you have federal oversight for the health insurance industry and some strict laws governing their approval or rejection of test/treatment requests.

We certainly don't need insurance being sold out of states without strict bad faith laws.

We would also need to shift tort law from the state to federal courts when there is a conflict as it is very problematic to let insurance companies hide behind state legislatives.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 16):
I hope you enjoy the free medical research paid for by UK taxpayers. You are welcome.

Fred

We have a really queer situation in hte US. Federal research dollars go to research (which is a good thing) and when a breakthrough (or important finding) is made there are papers published in journals like the NEJM.

The queer part? Asa tax payer you have to actually PAY to read the paper you financed with your tax dollars. Most Americans obviously won't bother, until they get hit with a nasty diagnosis. Then they get the shaft. Maybe we need to set up some very high windfall profit taxes on the fee.

UK medical research has been pretty outstanding. The most noticeable achievement in modern medical history is the total hip replacement. The top bone doc here went to the UK to learn the procedure and start hip replacements in TUL. That was close to 40 years ago, BTW.

Quoting aa757first (Reply 22):
If you accept the premise that most people are fairly healthy, and given that the NHS covers everyone, most NHS members are healthy.

But then you have to look at costs related to trauma care. Younger people do get into trouble learning to drive, etc. We also have a very large number of guns in this country and Second Amendment Trauma Care changes the equation - especially when it is the lower income, uninsured individuals shot.


25 PPVRA : No, they can't. Unless you mandate things that have no business whatsoever being covered by insurance in the first place. Then, yes, the most bizarre
26 rfields5421 : Employers offer health insurance to attract workers. They pay a substantial portion of the cost of the health insurance in most companies - usually a
27 moo : Unfair comparison? How? Seriously, how is it an unfair comparison? I can't even begin to understand how you came to that ridiculous conclusion. My co
28 Post contains links moo : Are there no GlaxoSmithKlines of the world? How about Bayer? None of them around? I can count 41 drug and medical practice research companies in Camb
29 Post contains links PPVRA : Just because UK pharmaceutical companies spend $12 billion in R&D does not mean it's all spent in the UK/EU! These are, after all, multinational
30 KiwiRob : You need to back this statement up. Simple explanation in Canada the govt subsidises the prescriptions in the US they don't, that has nothing to do w
31 Post contains links PPVRA : Page 36 of the following report: http://tinyurl.com/brbu9z7
32 tugger : Point taken and noted. I think some people misinterpreted your original statement to mean the Europeans Pay more overall for healthcare. That is obvi
33 PITingres : That is certainly a reason, but very far from the only reason. Group coverage is simply cheaper than individual coverage for equivalent coverage leve
34 Ken777 : Investing in medical research isn't always to extend life expectancy. Look at investments in fighting cancer. Major efforts and achievements have bee
35 PPVRA : The answer to that is in the part of my statement you didn't quote.
36 PITingres : I sure didn't see any answer, but I suspect a mis-communication here. The doctor does not under any circumstances HAVE to get approval from an insure
37 Pyrex : There are, but even those make the majority of their earnings in the U.S. market (and so make investment decisions on what new drugs to research acco
38 fr8mech : It all depends on the policy and type of plan you have. My plan does not require pre-approval or authorization for any procedure the doctor deems med
39 moo : What rubbish and nationalistic crap, you aren't even worth discussing with.
40 Pyrex : So what exactly of what I said is wrong? Are drugs not more expensive in the U.S. than anywhere else in the world?
41 KiwiRob : The consumer/end user pays more but I'm sure that's because other countries governments subsidise perscriptions, I don't believe that the actual cost
42 Ken777 : I believe that consumers to pay more in the US. We even had the pharma industry basically write the Part D Medicare plan that made it illegal for the
43 fr8mech : I don't see my salary being offset by my benefits as a problem. I work for a compensation package. My salary, my benefits, my pension, my 401K are al
44 tugger : Actually most don't subsidize them as much as negotiate with the drug companies and basically say "If you want to sell into our market you will charg
45 Post contains links fr8mech : Government is grossly inefficient. How can you possible say that we will add millions to the insurance rolls and not increase our taxes? The bureaucr
46 Post contains links tugger : Medicare has burden rate of about 2-7% (depending on which data you are looking at, even the highest put it at about 14% at worst). That is vastly lo
47 Ken777 : And if an employer can cut his nanny care costs by, say, 80%, then your package has rtoom for growth, or your employer can use the funds to grow the
48 fr8mech : The cost doesn't go away...it is shifted. It goes into the increase in taxes that the same corporation will pay in order for the government to take o
49 Post contains images pilotsmoe : You mean 3 months until Obama gets re-elected It's gonna be pretty close, but I don't think Romney has a chance.
50 fr8mech : Electoral college will be close, but, it will break for Romney. I think the popular vote is going to go big for Romney. Job approval ratings suck for
51 tugger : Did you read the link? They already serve a THIRD of the nation for healthcare! They are larger than any current health insurance group/company (no s
52 aa757first : You'd have to show what the NHS spends only on people who are old and/or poor. The NHS spends more on a 76 year old impoverished women than they do o
53 Post contains links Pyrex : http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/chemicals/drugpricingstudy.pdf http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/comp_policy/oft885f.pdf http://www.oecd.org/els/heal
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canadians - Auto Insurance For High Risk Drivers posted Fri Aug 31 2007 15:37:58 by YOWza
What Are Your Views On Auto Insurance? posted Tue May 11 2004 08:09:01 by StarAC17
Auto Insurance posted Fri Aug 10 2001 02:05:57 by FlyBoeing
Insurance Rip Off - Encourages Dishonesty? posted Wed Oct 6 2010 19:27:53 by YVRLTN
Hertz International Vehicle Insurance Deductible? posted Wed Mar 24 2010 16:29:18 by UA777222
German Members I Need Help Getting Heath Insurance posted Wed Mar 3 2010 08:54:33 by LTU932
Show Your National Health Insurance Card! posted Mon Dec 28 2009 06:09:40 by AverageUser
Dead Peasants Insurance posted Sun Oct 4 2009 16:23:31 by WestWing
U.S. Auto Industry - Facts Vs. Fiction posted Tue Dec 9 2008 14:46:26 by Superfly
Car Insurance: How Much Do You Pay A Year? posted Fri Dec 28 2007 11:33:27 by F.pier