cadenas
Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:
ORIGINAL: cadenas
Ummm... Since this health insurance mess is a purely domestic matter, providing health insurance can never be a competitive advantage on the global scale, only a disadvantage. In fact, health care is one of the things that did GM in (the Hummer is the other, of course) - the cost of US health insurance added $1525 to the cost of each car.
It has nothing to do with "global scale", I was talking about competitive advantage between companies hiring in the US at current health care rates. The GM problem is actually RETIREE health care, which became exorbitant due to the decline in the workforce. If they did not have those legacy costs they would be very competitive with Japanese manufacturers with US plants, which do provide health insurance comparable to GMs active coverage.
Brain was talking about the global economy, so there was a mismatch between his statement and your post. The GM retiree health care issue was yet another problem. By the way, Toyota also opened its latest plant in Ontario, EXPLICITLY citing the cost of health insurance as one of the two main reasons (education being the other).
quote:
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:
You mean, because they make just above minimum wage, health insurance isn't important to them for some strange reason? Maybe those people are too poor to get sick? Here's an idea: you should patent that; you could become a millionaire by selling minimum-wage jobs as the cure to all illness. Oh wait. You'd be a millionaire, and millionaires do get sick. Maybe you should give me all the millions you'd be making selling this cure.
No, I said because of WHO they are health insurance isnt AS important to them. They are generally very young and don't give a shit about it, or are second earners and have coverage under their spouse's plans.
Well, obviously, then, they aren't complaining, right? Oh wait...
quote:
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:
What I find interesting is that the conservative side seems to have two directly conflicting opinion. You are saying that "all government can do either add costs or ration". Yet at the same time, the Republicans are arguing that "a government option would drive private health insurance companies out of business" (because they could provide better services cheaper).
So which is it?
There is no conflict between the two, and the parenthetical at the end is incorrect...that is not the reason that private health insurers will be crowded out. Any company provided health plan must remain "qualified" under the bill. Any change in provisions whatsoever requires employers to requalify the plans, and guess who decides whether the new plan is qualified?
I'd be concerned about the opposite effect, that any government plan would be so watered down and unattractive as to be useless.
quote:
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Already the number one reason Americans go bankrupt is because of health care costs. You will be better off with the government plan anyway. At least the government will not take you off because you are costing too much. That's what happens with private companies providing insurance.No it doesnt. Health care policies generally cannot be cancelled because you contract a covered illness. The most frequent cause of cancellation is material ommissions in applications, by far.
quote:
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:
Actually, the most frequent reason people lose health insurance is because they lose their job - often due to the very illness.
The quote you are referring to was about individual insurance. Company policies are almost never cancelled, they are re-negotiated or replaced. People dont lose company health insurance because they lose their job, they lose health insurance because they lose their job and opt out of COBRA or don't buy their own coverage. Pre-existing conditions are not excluded as long as there is continuous coverage.
True, fair enough. COBRA of course is unrealistic. You lose your job, and as a same time you are expected to somehow come up with employer's share as well as your own? In most cases, that will suddenly double your premium just as your income drops to zero. Only a politician could have thought of such a scheme and call it a "solution".
quote:
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:
Health insurance companies are canceling policies due to expensive illnesses left and right. And contrary to what you said, in many states, that's actually legal. In California, where you and I both live, it indeed is against the law, I grant you that, but it is still happening on a massive scale. It's called "post-claims underwriting". These things should get resolved - and could have been - during the initial underwriting. California has started cracking down on that practice and recently forced Blue Shield to reinstate thousands of insurances that had been rescinded after a claim was made. And they also forced Blue Shield to dismantle the post-claims underwriting department they had set up specifically to rescind policies after a major illness. California also was able to prove that Blue Shield knew or should have known about the applications problems immediately, instead of only after the claim.
And that was just the tip of the iceberg. Healthnet was fined for paying employees bonuses for finding ways to rescind policies. Kaiser Permanente has also been fined.
The fines are minimal, though. Healthnet was fined a paltry $1 million - but "saved" $34 million.
They wouldnt have saved a dime if there werent legitimate reasons to deny the claims. They would have paid the claims, legal fees and punitive damages.
You are assuming, of course, that each affected patient sues - which they are often far too ill to do.
In reality, it is the Department of Insurance who steps in. And all they usually can do is impose these laughable fines.
In the case of Blue Shield, the Dept. of Insurance had enough evidence to rescind their insurance license, which would have put them out of business. That is why in that case, the settlement was a bit more generous and actually exceeded the "savings". Cold comfort to those patients who have died in the meantime because they could no longer afford their treatment.
quote:
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:
Funny because you are already paying five times right now - that's why US health care cost is 17% of GDP vs. 10.6% in Canada.
This is too silly to be serious.
Laugh as much as you want - that doesn't exactly change that you ARE already paying twice as many dollars as the Canadian citizen does, even if he, as you claimed, has to pay some things twice.
|
RE: HEALTH CARE - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread