|
freedomdwarf1 -> RE: If a man doesn't pay for maternity benefits... (11/2/2013 6:40:29 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It should not be that difficult to maintain a database of members and what coverage they have. Don't you see the ridiculousness of this, though? A single male buying an individual health insurance plan will be paying a higher rate for something that he will never, ever have to use. Never. Ever. The same would apply to female birth control medications and procedures.
I get that the more people there are in a pool, the less an increase in cost for a subset of that group impacts everyone, but when you get thrown into a pool that is huge and you're at the shallow end of that risk pool, you are paying the same as the ones that will be using it more.
It's not ridiculous.
And better than 99.9% of the population wouldn't be in the shallow end of the pool either.
You obviously understand the logic of decreasing costs in a pool-based system.
Now wrap your head around this little nugget -
If the whole nation is in that pool (not just a few in an insurance group, or even a whole state, I mean the whole nation of American people, all 314 million of you), the cost per person is greatly reduced and there is no 'shallow end'.
At a guess, the average Joe is reasonably healthy and most ailments are cheap to fix.
Sure, there is always childbirth and cancer etc (and any complications arising from those), but on the whole, the money going into the pot from healthier people not needing treatment will outweigh the money taken from the pot for those with serious long-term and expensive conditions.
Let me give you a very small example when I worked at Bradford Pennine Insurance (part of Sun Alliance and dealt with motors insurance for a number of manufacturers) -
We already had a blanket plan in place from Sun Alliance but certain manufacturers wanted something special for customers buying their cars and supposedly a better deal too. So BPI got a pool of 7 programmers for the PC side, another 15ish for the mainframe side, 5 project leaders/managers to oversee it all and about 37 girls who would take customer calls and also test the system. Leaving aside the cost of office space, equipment and supplies, there were about 65 people's salaries to pay for the duration. It took 3 years to pull apart the basics of the blanket plan and re-cobble it to make a specifically worded plan, change the wording and layouts and logos and stationary, get all the small-print double-checked for legallity by the company lawyers; all for just one manufacturer. It took another 9 months~ish to iron out the bugs and implement loads of small changes before it was really usable for the customers on the end of a phone line. The same crap was done for 3 other manufacturers (each company with different sales staff) that all wanted something different. For one small subsiduary with one small office, that was a majorly huge task and it cost each company £millions just to achieve the end result.
End result after a total of 5 years solid work? We tested it...
Same basic info put in, Sun Alliance premiums were about £400pa for the insurance.
Volvo came out about 80% more expensive; Vauxhall was more than double the price; Leeds insurance was almost tripled; BMW was just out of this world and complete crap (but anyone buying a BMW could afford it, right?).
All the advertising and spin was saying to buy the specific taylored insurance to get big discounts and save money. What a load of hooey and those customers thought they were getting a good deal out of it too!!
Bottom line is, BPI made a huge profit on the investment and were laughing all the way to the bank at the expense of the pundits.
This is just one real-life example of how insurance companies recoup costs, and then some, at the expense of its customers who are duped into thinking they are getting a good deal.
Now apply that same logic to something like the size of US healthcare and it's frightening.
That's why any insurance-based private system will always be more expensive than a single-payer system.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I know health insurance costs a shitload. I also know it costs a shitload for each procedure and service (which is what drives the cost of insurance). Obamacare doesn't impact the cost of individual procedures and services. It is nothing more than a cost shifting of the price of insurance.
I absolutely agree.
As I said in my last post, the US dropped the ball when they tried to shoe-horn the concepts of a single-payer system into a private system monopoly.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I see absolutely no reason why shifting to a national health care model would reduce the costs we pay in the US for health care. No one in a country that has a national health care system has chosen to show that costs have dropped. Why? That you pay less than we do now doesn't mean our costs will drop.
Very simple logic really.
Every working person pays into a single pot; costs are negotiated directly with big pharma and hospitals/doctors etc for services, equipment and proceedures and hugely reduce the overal costs by reason of direct supply. Insurance companies should be completely cut out of the equation as they aren't needed in a single-payer system.
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Even if the rate of increase slows, we'll still be spending 2-3x what everyone else is paying for the near term, and, will likely maintain the large spread (in terms of $) that exists now. Why? Should I think costs in the US will rise slower than in countries that already have a national health care system?
I would think the final cost to the end-user (the patient) and the treatment available with no deductables or pre-existing condition exclusions, would give you a good clue as to why a private system is waay more expensive than any properly designed single payer system.
Our system isn't the best, but the numbers speak for themselves.
|
|
|
|
