What If We Got Rid of Health Insurance (salaries, dollars, party)

[Proud2beAMom]

Originally Posted by marlinfshr

Do you have any concept of money? I bought a $140,000 house which was/is still within my abilities to pay and still eat, have electricity, put gas in my car, save, etc. I COULD NOT HAVE AFFORDED A BIGGER HOUSE. So, How in the hell would I be able to afford hospital payments for a $500,000 bill. So they cut off 100 grand---it's still 400,000 dollars. It's like telling me that it's no problem for me to buy 3 more houses and have 3 more mortgages. Are you for real?

Another thing the poster forgets as well is that, while she's paying for the care in "payments", the equipment, staff and resources utilized for the treatment aren't waiting to get paid over the years (probably decades) a high bill would take to pay off or even down. So that they would need to increase cash flow. Prior to ACA, they would do that by raising prices for all others to compensate.

[kgordeeva]

Originally Posted by Proud2beAMom

Another thing the poster forgets as well is that, while she's paying for the care in "payments", the equipment, staff and resources utilized for the treatment aren't waiting to get paid over the years (probably decades) a high bill would take to pay off or even down. So that they would need to increase cash flow. Prior to ACA, they would do that by raising prices for all others to compensate.

Even if you had health insurance that covered 80 percent, you would still have to pay some of the costs. For example, let's say you had a major surgery for $150,000. You would still have to pay $30,000 after insurance paid their part. Many people still don't have that kind of money laying around and would have to make monthly payments until everything is paid off.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by kgordeeva

Like I said before, you can make monthly payments. No one would expect you to pay $400,000 all at once.

I agree with the poster who asked if you had any concept of money. Since you are on your parents' plan(s), you are under 26. Get back to us when you're about 35.

In my 40+ years of adulthood, my family and I have been pretty healthy. But we still have had several hospitalizations (two for childbirth) that would require us paying a large percentage of our income to health care providers, if we did it your way.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by kgordeeva

Even if you had health insurance that covered 80 percent, you would still have to pay some of the costs. For example, let's say you had a major surgery for $150,000. You would still have to pay $30,000 after insurance paid their part. Many people still don't have that kind of money laying around and would have to make monthly payments until everything is paid off.

Paying off $30K is a lot easier than paying off $150 K. Actually, most plans pay for all but a smallish co-pay for surgery/hospitalization. It's the doctor bills where they charge 20%.

[lycos679]

Originally Posted by kgordeeva

Even if you had health insurance that covered 80 percent, you would still have to pay some of the costs. For example, let's say you had a major surgery for $150,000. You would still have to pay $30,000 after insurance paid their part. Many people still don't have that kind of money laying around and would have to make monthly payments until everything is paid off.

Insurance policies usually come with a lifetime cap, so even with a 20% coinsurance your out of pocket might only be $10K.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by kgordeeva

Obviously this country will never support a completely national healthcare system.

Neither will the US Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by kgordeeva

But what if we just got rid of health insurance and paid for our healthcare out of pocket?

That would be really stupid and unnecessary.

Originally Posted by kgordeeva

I truly believe the reason healthcare is so expensive is because of the health insurance companies. If we got rid of health insurance, costs would probably drop by like 50 percent.

That would be a fantastic example of bigotry...extreme prejudices based on a false belief system.

Health plan coverage does not drive up the costs of healthcare per se.

To see how silly what you're saying sounds, you're saying that if we lower the price of auto insurance or home insurance, then the price of autos and homes will drop by 50%.

Also, it seems you might have engaged in the typical Liberal Fallacy of Equivocation, by conflating healthcare costs with the costs of health plan coverage...they are not the same thing.

If you truly want to reduce the cost of healthcare, instead of disingenuously claiming you want to reduce healthcare costs while doing absolutely nothing about it, and worse than that, blocking healthcare reforms as a subterfuge to getting free health care, then there are things that can be done, but the federal government has no power or authority to do anything, and the US Supreme Court recently affirmed that in its ruling on the ACA.

1 *************

You, like all English-speaking States, use the Hospital Model for whatever strange bizarre reason. The Hospital Model might have worked fine in the 16th Century, but this is the 21st Century and the Hospital Model is outdated and obsolete.

The Hospital Model is the most costly, but least efficient means of delivering healthcare services ---- not "health insurance."

For that reason, the Euro-States and so many other States have abandoned the costly inefficient Hospital Model for either the Clinic Model or the Poli-Clinic Model (see Germany).

Clinic and Poli-Clinic Models are highly efficient and effective, while delivering quality healthcare --- not "health insurance" and doing so at very low cost.

As I have said for years, if you want an healthcare system like Europe, then you need to be doing what Europe does, and that means getting rid of hospitals.

The federal government has no power here.....the States would have to effect a tax, perhaps an annual operating license fee, define an hospital as any medical facility that offers more than 3 services, and set the fee equal to 100% of the hospital's gross revenues.

Since hospitals could not afford the license, they would have to close, and in their place comes the clinics and poli-clinics, and the cost of healthcare drops drastically.....about 300% to 700%.

2 *************************

Force the break-up of the monopolistic hospital cartels that illegally collude to illegally fix prices.

Again, the federal government has no power here. Normally, the Federal Trade Commission investigates and prosecutes collusion and price-fixing, but since healthcare is intra-State Commerce, the FTC has no authority.

I'm not sure what actions the several States could take to accomplish that. My best guess would be through regulatory action.

To prevent illegal collusion and illegal price-fixing by hospitals, the States could take action to ensure that only one entity owns an hospital in a given Market (MSA or MMSA.....doesn't matter which).

I have to wonder if legal action, perhaps class action lawsuits by consumers might help, but I'd have to think about the torts involved.

3 *************************

Force transparency upon the monopolistic hospitals.

Again, the federal government has no constitutional authority or power here. Only the States can act. This might be another regulatory action where the several States require hospitals to post prices for services and miscellaneous items.

Given that people are charged different rates based on which "insurance company" they have, and that the uninsured are charged higher rates, I have to wonder if there's a possibility of legal action here. I have an hunch that people have sued hospitals for "price discrimination" but those lawsuits were settled, and of course, the case files sealed.

4 **********************

Now that you have done everything you can to allow the Free Market to drive down the costs of healthcare, you need to have a Come-to-Jesus Meeting.


The Christ Hospital
2139 Auburn Ave.
513-585-2000
thechristhospital.com

* Additional Features: All-private birthing suites and post-partum rooms; feng sui and hydrotherapy birthing suites; nursing staff with an average 20 years experience; new interactive TV system; dine-on-demand room service; updated infant security system; no restrictions on visitation hours (some limitations may be in place during flu season); neonatologists on call 24 hours; Special Care Nursery with individualized bed space that can be personalized

Atrium Medical Center’s Family Birth Center
1 Medical Center Dr., Middletown
513-424-2111
atriummedcenter.org

* Children permitted in delivery room with mother’s approval. Additional Features: Board-certified doctors and nurses experienced in obstetrics, neonatal care, including nursery and fetal monitoring. Contemporary birthing suites include flat-screen TVs, On-Demand movies and bathrooms with showers and jet tubs. Babies may stay in nursery or “room” with mom; fold-out sofas for overnight guests. Prenatal services and childbirth education classes available.

That's for real......I'm not making that up......and what is most rich, is that an ACA supporter actually had the gall to ask this question....

Why does one night in an American hospital room cost the same as 7.2 nights in a Finnish hospital room?

I don't know....do you think Feng Shui and jacuzzi and Plasma TVs and On-Demand Movies might have something to do with it?

That completely destroys the Liberal argument about healthcare costs being higher in other States.

GDP is a reflection of Affluence.....Affluence begets Affluence.....

....you're too good to stay on an hospital ward with 23 other patients....you want better....because your GDP is higher and you have Affluence.....you get the hospital ward with 11 other patients....but you're still too good for that.

Now, you're in a smaller ward with 3 other patients.....but your GDP and Affluence says you're too good for that...you want better.

Now you have a semi-private room......except that ain't good enough for you.....you want a private room.

And not just a private room, but a private room with real furniture, and jacuzzi, and cable/satellite, and Feng Shui, and a big $5,000 Plasma TV mounted on the wall, so you can watch On-Demand Movies, and order food from the On-Demand Room Service with food preparers standing by waiting for your beckon call.....

Am I describing an Hilton Hotel room, or an hospital room?

Only someone whacked in the head would believe the hospital rooms in other States look like those in America.

And then people have the gall to suggest that America spends more? Plasma TVs? Really? Oh, I forgot.....there are no Chem-Trails.....only Plasma-Trails with Plasma TVs falling out of the sky into hospital rooms for free.


So, as a country, you need to have a Come-to-Jesus Meeting and decide what constitutes "healthcare."

Is having food-preparers stand around getting paid in a kitchen waiting for someone to call for Room Service healthcare?

Is Feng Shui healthcare?

Are Plasma TVs healthcare?

Is On-Demand Movies healthcare?

Is Viagra healthcare?

Are private or semi-private rooms healthcare?

Are you really paying for healthcare, or are you paying to maintain an extraordinary hedonistic life-style?

If people are taking prescription drugs, and not taking those drugs will not cause death or injury, then why should the taxpayers or insurance companies pay 100%?

Why should they even pay 10%?

If you want to take a drug that you don't really need "just because" then you reach into your pocket and cough up the money, instead of digging in my pockets for money.

I mention that, since that is what Euro-States have done, so if you want an healthcare system like Europe, then you need to make some major changes, like getting rid of the Feng Shui and the jacuzzi and the On-Demand Movies and such, and stop handing drugs that are not life-saving or life-sustaining.

Originally Posted by kgordeeva

Healthcare has just gotten way too complicated since health insurance companies go in the way.

Do you have evidence to support that?

Health insurance companies forced hospitals to issue their own insurance plans? No.

Health insurance companies forced hospitals to set minimum standards and engage in price-fixing? No.

Health insurance companies developed the "Out-of-Network" clause to drive out competitor hospitals who were not members of the American Hospital Association? No.

Health insurance companies lobbied State legislatures for "enabling laws" to skirt State insurance regulations and gain an unfair competitive advantage over health insurance companies? No.

Health insurance companies forced the IRS and National War Labor Board to declare health plans as fringe benefits? No.

Health insurance companies started the first health insurance company in 1946....the Blue Cross? No.

Health insurance companies forced the US Supreme Court to issue its bad decision In Re: Inland Steel in 1949? No.

Health insurance companies forced Congress and the IRS to amend the IRS tax code in 1954 to financially punish health insurance companies? No.

Health insurance companies wanted annual and life-time limits removed under Obamacare so they could sustain tremendous losses? No.

You have a lot to learn....

Mircea

[marlinfshr]

Originally Posted by kgordeeva

Even if you had health insurance that covered 80 percent, you would still have to pay some of the costs. For example, let's say you had a major surgery for $150,000. You would still have to pay $30,000 after insurance paid their part. Many people still don't have that kind of money laying around and would have to make monthly payments until everything is paid off.

That's where the OOP max comes in. As an example the health insurance pays 80 % after deductible. You pay your deductible and 20% of the rest up until the OOP max is met in which insurance covers 100%.

Example 2500/ded with 4000 OOP max (using my current as an example).

$150,000 bill.
I pay my deductible of 2500 plus my share of the 20% which is only 1500 because I pay a 4000 out of pocket max which includes the deductible. The insurance pays the remaining $146,000.

$7,000bill
I pay my deductible of 2500 plus 900 which is my 20% share of the remaining 4500 in which insurance will pay $3600.

[Ringo1]

Originally Posted by bobtn

LOL! A crown is largely done for cosmetic reasons-usually dental covers the least expensive alternative in any situation, and tooth removal is that option in this case.

Originally Posted by kgordeeva

No, this is not for cosmetic reasons. I have to put a crown over a root canal I had done. If I don't put it on, my tooth could get infected again and I would need another root canal.

OR, you could remove the offending tooth as bobtn indicated. This would be the cheaper option which - IF you were actually paying out of pocket for, you might have to choose.

Luckily you have insurance to pay the majority of the costs.

[kgordeeva]

Originally Posted by Ringo1

OR, you could remove the offending tooth as bobtn indicated. This would be the cheaper option which - IF you were actually paying out of pocket for, you might have to choose.

Luckily you have insurance to pay the majority of the costs.

Well my the tooth isn't so bad now that it would need removed. You shouldn't remove a tooth unless it is completely dead. And if you choose to remove a tooth, you have to replace it with something like a crown or dental implants and those can cost thousands of dollars. A missing tooth could cause your other teeth to shift.

[Proud2beAMom]

Originally Posted by kgordeeva

Even if you had health insurance that covered 80 percent, you would still have to pay some of the costs. For example, let's say you had a major surgery for $150,000. You would still have to pay $30,000 after insurance paid their part. Many people still don't have that kind of money laying around and would have to make monthly payments until everything is paid off.

Indeed.. but $30,000 beats having to pay the full $100,000!

THAT is... that is less than 1/3 the cost.

Funny.. people cry about Obama giving "free healthcare".. which the rest of us know it doesn't do.

But then they whine about having to contribute to that healthcare with copays, etc.

Doesn't make much sense to me, if you ask me.

I mean, did they suddenly expect Obamacare to roll back say a $100,000 surgery to $5,000?

No, it was designed to slow the double digit growth in health care costs. It's a long term goal type of fix. There is no such thing as an instant fix.