Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MineralMan

(146,359 posts)
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:10 AM Jun 2012

I went without health insurance until I was 40.

As a freelance journalist, health insurance seemed like something that I couldn't afford, given my income. So I skipped it. I was a young guy, without any serious health problems, so I figured I could do without health insurance.

When I turned 40, I decided that it might be a good idea to change that, so I joined my University's alumni association and signed up with the group health insurance they offered, and added my wife at the time to that policy. And it was a very good thing I did. Within three years, my wife developed a rare cancer. She survived that cancer, and we're no longer married. Then, when I turned 45, I wound up in the hospital in a coma after getting viral encephalitis. Again, it was a good thing I had insurance, since even my 20% of the costs of that illness ended up being over $20,000.

The thing I realized, after all of that, was that my former wife could have gotten that cancer and I could have had viral encephalitis before I had the health insurance. Neither illness was age-related at all. If that had happened, everything would have changed. My parents and her parents would probably have stepped in, but that doesn't change the fact that I should have been carrying insurance all along.

Instead, I decided to take the risk of not having it, because I was young and healthy and, like many young, healthy people, I couldn't imagine that a devastating illness could ever happen to me.

The bottom line is that I didn't join the pool of people paying into health insurance. I wasn't contributing to the pool of funds available. Had I gotten sick during that period, I'd almost certainly have gotten health care, at the expense of others. My illness and the illness of my wife taught me a valuable lesson. I realized, after that, that everyone needed to be in the pool. If everyone is in the pool, the young and healthy are contributing to everyone's health care, keeping costs overall down for everyone and keeping the health care system in balance. For the young and healthy, being in the pool also means that if they stop being healthy for some reason, which happens far more often than any of the young and healthy think, they'd be covered.

In my opinion, the ideal situation is a single-payer, single-pool system, funded by tax payments by each and every individual, from birth to death, with subsidies and a progressive taxation system to compensate for the poor and elderly. The young and healthy are automatically in that pool, which reduces the per capita costs of the system, since they typically do not use much health care. That ideal seems to be something that's difficult to sell in the US, given the political divisions here.

So, we have this ACA thing. It's far from perfect, and it's very far from being single-payer, single-pool. The mandate, however, included in that system moves partway toward the single-pool system. Eventually, I believe the US will have a single-payer, single-pool system, but not for some time. I may be gone by then, but I'm in the Medicare single-payer system, modified by a supplemental insurance policy that my health insurance company was eager to sell me. In fact, every insurance company that offers that supplemental policy in my state spent a great deal of money trying to sell me their plan.

If you're young and healthy, you may believe you don't need health insurance. You will need it. If you're part of the single-pool, you'll benefit from having it when you don't think you need it, when a time comes when you need it. That time could be tomorrow, or it could be years down the road. A mosquito bite, from a mosquito carrying Eastern Equine Encephalitis is all it takes. Or a random cell in your body that gets screwed up and starts growing uncontrollably. It happens.

Single-payer, single-pool. Failing that, something. Right now, that something is ACA. It's a good thing, even if it's a stopgap. It's a move in the right direction.

The insurance companies? Well, if we end up doing Medicare for All, they'll be selling those supplemental policies like crazy. They love them for Medicare people. Truly.

110 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I went without health insurance until I was 40. (Original Post) MineralMan Jun 2012 OP
Could not imagine subjecting my children to that FreakinDJ Jun 2012 #1
I didn't have children. I do not have children. MineralMan Jun 2012 #81
You can no longer be denied for pre-existing conditions. Why not pay the minimal penalty, Romulox Jun 2012 #2
Because I'm not a libertarian. MineralMan Jun 2012 #4
I didn't ask your political philosophy. You post was about economically rational behavior... Romulox Jun 2012 #6
My decision was not rational at all. MineralMan Jun 2012 #7
I was discussing rational behavior *under the ACA*. I thought that was the subject of your post... Romulox Jun 2012 #14
Rational behavior under any circumstances can also include MineralMan Jun 2012 #63
"Economically rational" is a "term of art". Please study a subject FIRST, lecture SECOND! Romulox Jun 2012 #67
However the ruling that it is constitutional has paved the way RegieRocker Jun 2012 #18
I also think EC Jun 2012 #35
"Libertarian" = selfish, hypocritical opportunists. nt nanabugg Jun 2012 #37
From a social parasite's point of view ... GeorgeGist Jun 2012 #20
What are private, for-profit insurers if not parasites? Romulox Jun 2012 #21
ACA requires insurance cos to spend 85% of what they take in on actual healthcare costs emulatorloo Jun 2012 #85
Those are FAR better margins than many private industries. Look into grocers, some time. nt Romulox Jul 2012 #95
Those aren't profit margins. bornskeptic Jul 2012 #98
They're GROSS margins. Still far better than many industries. Costco, for example (COST) Romulox Jul 2012 #100
Hmm, you could do that but Live and Learn Jun 2012 #49
What happens if you refuse to identify yourself during your exboyfil Jun 2012 #52
Preventive care will be covered under the plan. Live and Learn Jun 2012 #58
Very good answer. nt MineralMan Jun 2012 #57
It's a terrible answer, but you've painted yourself into a rhetorical corner, so... nt Romulox Jun 2012 #68
I think this is common. mick063 Jun 2012 #3
Yes, it is. And there are a lot of younger Americans MineralMan Jun 2012 #5
Totally true. LiberalCatholic Jun 2012 #12
I experienced that recently. In my 50's. Unemployed for short time. Had to buy COBRA...EXPENSIVE! Honeycombe8 Jun 2012 #79
The Heritage Foundation thanks you for fighting for them! Zalatix Jun 2012 #8
Whatever you say... MineralMan Jun 2012 #9
Like I said, 99.99% of the ACA is perfect. Zalatix Jun 2012 #15
You just crossed the line bahrbearian Jun 2012 #17
How so? And what are the consequences? Zalatix Jun 2012 #19
The one that appears to be drawn,the clear bright line,, No consequences, if you keep moving. bahrbearian Jun 2012 #23
Okay ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2012 #31
Taxes on the rich. Zalatix Jun 2012 #33
I, specifically requested ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2012 #38
But yet we can enact a law first pushed by the Heritage Foundation and the GOP. Zalatix Jun 2012 #40
Okay ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2012 #56
Okay so since the obvious isn't obvious here Zalatix Jun 2012 #66
Can you please let it go. That is so early 90's. This is 2012 and Heritage Foundatio HATES OBAMACARE emulatorloo Jun 2012 #86
President Obama hated the Mandate when he was a candidate. Zalatix Jun 2012 #88
Except the GOP hates it. Heritage Foundation Hates it. emulatorloo Jun 2012 #89
A friend of mine died last year because he couldn't afford health care proud2BlibKansan Jun 2012 #10
Many people died last year for the same reason. MineralMan Jun 2012 #11
He would've died being unable to afford co-pays, since he didn't qualify for Medicaid... nt Romulox Jun 2012 #16
and yet people keep blaming the uninsured for the high costs of insurance Ghost of Huey Long Jun 2012 #26
And they are sued for the medical bills they accumulate. proud2BlibKansan Jun 2012 #27
yes, and they will hound you for that money..forever! Ghost of Huey Long Jun 2012 #30
I know someone else who was assaulted proud2BlibKansan Jun 2012 #32
Actually ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2012 #34
This is a pernicious myth. Provide some cites or quit spreading disinformation, please. nt Romulox Jun 2012 #69
People without health insurance die ,,, 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2012 #90
Neither of your links spoke to your assertion: "this cost is bourne by others...". nt Romulox Jul 2012 #91
The links point to ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2012 #92
OK, but we were speaking about the "uninsured get FREE healthcare!" myth. Your links didn't prove Romulox Jul 2012 #93
No we weren't ... n/t 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2012 #99
I'll take that as a concession that the poor DO NOT get "free" care, by and large. nt Romulox Jul 2012 #101
I have NEVER ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2012 #106
The poor oftentimes just go without. Please see this story from yesterday's Detroit Free Press: Romulox Jul 2012 #107
Yes ... 1StrongBlackMan Jul 2012 #110
I had an appendectomy when I was 13 and developed a staph infection. shcrane71 Jun 2012 #13
original bill for just the anesthesiologist was over $10,000 Ghost of Huey Long Jun 2012 #28
It was an emergency appendectomy done on a Sunday morning. shcrane71 Jun 2012 #36
so even in a non profit hospital, the anesthesiologist still will make a huge profit Ghost of Huey Long Jun 2012 #39
I agree with you on the $10K bill, and that was 30 years ago. shcrane71 Jun 2012 #43
Geebiz, you got lucky NNN0LHI Jun 2012 #22
I made it to 42 without insurance. tridim Jun 2012 #24
20% of the costs of that illness ended up being over $20,000. Ghost of Huey Long Jun 2012 #25
Hospitals will often double charge people for the same medication shcrane71 Jun 2012 #46
Exactly. The prices charged are insanely absurd and flat out predatory. Waiting For Everyman Jun 2012 #51
Since you don't know what my treatment for encephalitis involved, MineralMan Jun 2012 #61
yikes! I am sure it was worth it, I am just questioning hospital costs in general Ghost of Huey Long Jun 2012 #64
Back in the day, I would have just died. MineralMan Jun 2012 #65
Good Piece ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2012 #29
most people think it's a step toward permanenty being forced to buy insurance from evil companies Ghost of Huey Long Jun 2012 #44
+1000... We need to know exactly what benefits we will get from this legislation. nt shcrane71 Jun 2012 #47
My boyfriend We are Devo Jun 2012 #41
Welcome to DU! Does the pre-existing portion of the bill take effect immediately? shcrane71 Jun 2012 #48
Thanks! We are Devo Jun 2012 #50
I have been the other side of the normal discussion here ...... oldhippie Jun 2012 #42
If you ski, hike, rock climb, cycle, play lacrosse DevonRex Jun 2012 #45
It's the optimism of youth. MineralMan Jun 2012 #59
You are so right about you can get sick at any age. riverbendviewgal Jun 2012 #53
What a nightmare for you. At least you MineralMan Jun 2012 #62
Maybe the 100th monkey theory will work in America riverbendviewgal Jun 2012 #54
what if your insurance didn't pay? then you'd be worse off than being without it. nt StarryNight Jun 2012 #55
My insurance did pay, though. MineralMan Jun 2012 #60
Insurance companies make money by *taking in more premiums than they pay out in care*. Romulox Jun 2012 #70
That is correct. Since I had that illness, I've not been ill. MineralMan Jun 2012 #71
Then you've been a good little revenue center. Giving money to corporations has not a whit to do Romulox Jun 2012 #72
As I said, I'm not a libertarian. MineralMan Jun 2012 #73
You also lack even a crude working knowledge of economics, apparently. Libertarianism hasn't a whit Romulox Jun 2012 #74
Excellent post. nt Honeycombe8 Jun 2012 #75
Trying to make a moral (or "ethical") case here collapses: Insurers make money by DENYING care. nt Romulox Jun 2012 #76
My family has never been refused any care riverbendviewgal Jun 2012 #78
Um, you don't have *MANDATORY* for-profit insurance in Canada. Romulox Jun 2012 #80
Under Obamacare, insurance cos are NOT ALLOWED to deny care or to drop you if you are sick emulatorloo Jun 2012 #87
They do not treestar Jul 2012 #94
Um, yes, they do. This is basic to how insurance works ("actuarial principles"). Romulox Jul 2012 #96
They invest the money treestar Jul 2012 #104
Utter nonsense. nt Romulox Jul 2012 #105
Facts. treestar Jul 2012 #108
They take in MORE in premiums than they pay out. After they subtract their overhead, the remainder Romulox Jul 2012 #109
+1 DCBob Jun 2012 #77
I was 23, and they thought I had bone cancer. Ilsa Jun 2012 #82
Dear "young and healthy": Accidents, by their very nature. . . DinahMoeHum Jun 2012 #83
Accidents and illnesses. MineralMan Jun 2012 #84
The "young and healthy" have up to 50% unemployment rates. Good luck with saddling them with the Romulox Jul 2012 #97
I can understand that - I was without it for a few years too. TBF Jul 2012 #102
Thanks for your reply! MineralMan Jul 2012 #103

MineralMan

(146,359 posts)
81. I didn't have children. I do not have children.
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 11:34 AM
Jun 2012

That was a decision I made when I was 20 years old. There are enough children on the planet. I needn't add any.

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
2. You can no longer be denied for pre-existing conditions. Why not pay the minimal penalty,
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:12 AM
Jun 2012

then sign up for insurance after you're diagnosed with a major illness?

It's the most economically rational thing to do, given the ACA's incentives.

MineralMan

(146,359 posts)
4. Because I'm not a libertarian.
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:16 AM
Jun 2012

That's why. It's the same reason I didn't mind paying for Social Security and Medicare before I needed it. Others needed it. The penalty, at least, is assurance that those who can pay something, at least, into the pool. It's not enough, of course.

Again, the ideal is single-payer, single-pool. That's apparently not a doable thing right now. So, something is better than nothing, as it always is. If I can't eat filet mignon, hamburger will have to do.

I didn't pay into the pool until I was 40. I realize now, and realized before long even then, that was the wrong way to go.

MineralMan

(146,359 posts)
7. My decision was not rational at all.
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:22 AM
Jun 2012

Before I was 40, I made an irrational decision. I was lucky. Not everyone is lucky. The rational decision would have been to obtain health insurance as soon as I graduated from the University. I did not make that decision. I was lucky.

I don't necessarily answer only the questions you ask. I have the option to post as I choose.

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
14. I was discussing rational behavior *under the ACA*. I thought that was the subject of your post...
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:37 AM
Jun 2012

"The rational decision would have been to obtain health insurance as soon as I graduated from the University."

Not based on basic statistics. At any rate, the discussion is about rational behavior under the ACA; since one cannot be denied insurance coverage under the ACA, it is MUCH safer to forgo insurance until it is needed now. Previously, one took their chances. Now, coverage is guaranteed, and the tax is small and affordable.

MineralMan

(146,359 posts)
63. Rational behavior under any circumstances can also include
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 02:39 PM
Jun 2012

thinking beyond one's own personal needs and about the society in general. Personally, I think a single-payer, single-pool system is very rational. Lacking that, requiring everyone to have insurance or pay a penalty through taxation is pretty rational, too.

What's irrational is thinking an individual has a right to game a system that spreads costs to the larger pool. I think that's irrational. But, then, I think that libertarianism is irrational, so what do I know.

 

RegieRocker

(4,226 posts)
18. However the ruling that it is constitutional has paved the way
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:02 AM
Jun 2012

for a single payer system. The reason the industry was in trouble was just that. Way too many young people are not paying into the system. With the baby boomers coming into much needed health care something had to be done. The loss of unions which negotiated health care for it's members caused this increase of younger persons not paying into the system. The extremely low wages in respect to cost of living further exacerbated the problem. You're correct. It was a giant step toward the right direction.

EC

(12,287 posts)
35. I also think
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:40 AM
Jun 2012

the 80% medical costs requirement for the insurance companies will help push single payer faster too. I'm thinking stock in health insurance won't be very profitable any more if 80% of all premiums have to go to medical costs. 20% can't leave much for administrative costs, CEO bonus' (and pay) and shareholders.That won't cut it for long. I'm pretty sure a public option will have to be added to the registry due to loss of private insurers offering full health plans. They will go to other products instead of health insurance. They'd do better just offering supplemental policies for their health divisions.

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
21. What are private, for-profit insurers if not parasites?
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:11 AM
Jun 2012

There's no social responsibility to maximize insurance company profits...

emulatorloo

(44,278 posts)
85. ACA requires insurance cos to spend 85% of what they take in on actual healthcare costs
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 01:26 PM
Jun 2012

They now have to operate at 15% overhead.

I know a guy from another board who has quit his job with an insurance company because his bosses told him he would go from making $250,000 a year (because of commissions) to $50,000 a year (because of the 85% requirement)

bornskeptic

(1,330 posts)
98. Those aren't profit margins.
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 02:24 PM
Jul 2012

Profit margins of for profit health insurance companies run about 4%. Most of that 15% goes to employee salaries, from customer service reps to claims examiners, to actuaries, to CEOs and other top executives.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/health-insurance_industry_stil.html

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SoMLoWBKM4I/AAAAAAAAK4g/wKdZyg5LxQ0/s1600-h/profits.bmp

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
100. They're GROSS margins. Still far better than many industries. Costco, for example (COST)
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 04:12 PM
Jul 2012

has only a 12% GROSS margin (and that isn't GUARANTEED by law.)

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
49. Hmm, you could do that but
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:34 PM
Jun 2012

it would be very hard to get your insurance in the middle of having a heart attack or similar emergency so you would already be out thousands for that crisis.

And that bill would be yours to cover since you chose not to have insurance.

Plus you would have to pay for all the urgent care illnesses people have in life, e.g., the ear ache that feels like it is killing you but isn't a real emergency, the back ache you can't work or sleep with

Think most would prefer the insurance.

exboyfil

(17,867 posts)
52. What happens if you refuse to identify yourself during your
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:48 PM
Jun 2012

emergency visit?

Most insurance plans expect you to cover those other issues as well. My $4500 deductible insurance through work does not pay anything towards seeing doctors (unless it is a physical) until the $4500 deductible is reached. We have only reached it once in the last 8 years or so.

Young and healthy and low income have an incentive to pay the penalty instead. Also I am still wondering on the enforcement mechanism for the penalty.

Live and Learn

(12,769 posts)
58. Preventive care will be covered under the plan.
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 02:09 PM
Jun 2012

And low income people will get free or subsidized insurance. Families with even a moderate income are exempted from the penalty. They really did work to ensure you could actually afford to get insurance and only have to pay a penalty if you still refuse to.

There are lots of good things in this act. It is not perfect but it will help many that are now suffering. Will some people abuse it? Sure, but that is no reason to deny the many it will help.

 

mick063

(2,424 posts)
3. I think this is common.
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:15 AM
Jun 2012

Forty was the magic number for me too. You eventually find a "home" where the insurance is a primary reason you do call it home.


Why I am thrilled........


When I eventually lose my job (sad that this is America's expectation/reality), I should be able to retain insurance at an affordable rate (If I understand the ACA correctly).

MineralMan

(146,359 posts)
5. Yes, it is. And there are a lot of younger Americans
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:18 AM
Jun 2012

who oppose ACA, because they won't be able to use that option and delay joining the system. It's fairly simple to understand, really.

LiberalCatholic

(91 posts)
12. Totally true.
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:37 AM
Jun 2012

My husband lost his job three years ago. He was out for about a year. Since we are in Ma. we were able to keep our healthcare from his old company. We also could have gone to an exchange to switch as well. It took a lot of stress off our backs...

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
79. I experienced that recently. In my 50's. Unemployed for short time. Had to buy COBRA...EXPENSIVE!
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 11:32 AM
Jun 2012

I couldn't risk going without insurance even for a short while, at my age. Thankfully, I had to pay the $ for the ins. It was over $620 a month! Just for me. No medical conditions whatsoever. Non-smoker. Healthy as a horse. $620 a month.

I'm sure others could not have afforded to pay that and would have had to go to open market to buy SOMETHING they could afford.

Now, they'll get assistance, if they can't afford ins. And exchanges should help with the cost, is my understanding. In the meantime, the govt's healthcare site, where you can shop for insurance, was IMMENSELY helpful to me in shopping for ins. If I hadn't found a new job right away, I was going to have to buy a policy on the open market. On that site, I was able to put in my stats, and get pages of policies available to me, sortable by monthly cost or deductible or insurance company, etc. Also, I was able to click on a tab and it would show a company's offer to provide a policy for a set period of time, like 3 months or 6 months, at a discount.

It's www.healthcare.gov I think.

It should not be when people lose their jobs, they lose their healthcare, which could mean they lose their lives, as well, or have to file for bankruptcy if they get sick. And others are stuck for the bill.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
8. The Heritage Foundation thanks you for fighting for them!
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:23 AM
Jun 2012

On a side note, though, over 99% of this law was a godsend.

MineralMan

(146,359 posts)
9. Whatever you say...
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:24 AM
Jun 2012

ACA provides insurance for many who could not have it before. Single-payer, single-pool would be better. We don't have that. We have something, though.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
15. Like I said, 99.99% of the ACA is perfect.
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:38 AM
Jun 2012

The individual mandate is the fucked up part. And the Heritage Foundation was the ones who proposed it.

I can back up my assertion with a cite. Can you?

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/28/nation/la-na-gop-insurance-mandate-20110529

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
31. Okay ...
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:35 AM
Jun 2012

We get it; You don't like ... hate, even, ... the I/M.

Now please explain how we support the perfect 99.99% of the ACA without an I/M?

(For both our sakes, please don't provide any, "It's simple, we just close our eyes real tight and click our heels 3 times, and when the unicorn comes ..." explanations. Thanks. )

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
38. I, specifically requested ...
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:07 PM
Jun 2012

that you NOT provide any, "It's simple, we just close our eyes real tight and click our heels 3 times, and when the unicorn comes ..." explanations.

You say, "Simple ... We just tax the rich". Haven't you noticed that we can't even let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire!

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
56. Okay ...
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 01:49 PM
Jun 2012

Now you have me completely confused ... was that an attempt to answer my question, i.e., how do we support the 99.99% of the ACA that is perfect without an I/M?

Or, was it a mere distractive non-sequitor?

My guess is the latter.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
66. Okay so since the obvious isn't obvious here
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 06:00 PM
Jun 2012

You're basically saying that we're expecting to fund the ACA by wringing money out of the working poor (those making in the area of $30,000/year), who cannot even afford to pay for health insurance of any sort?

Using tax penalty laws that, by the way, many of your fellow individual mandate supporters here claim are utterly toothless?

Even if it were not toothless and these tax penalties for not buying insurance could put liens on aforementioned poor people, it's basically going to be an act of extracting blood from a turnip. A tax penalty of $6xx per year per person ain't gonna fund this, especially when a lot of it is going to wind up either unenforceable or uncollectable. Oh and did I mention that it is also very likely that people who don't pay for insurance may get sick and then get insurance, and if this actually is the case, it will really put a big fat hurt on the system? Note, I HOPE and pray that absolutely none of what I suspect in this paragraph is actually true, because legislative incompetence of this magnitude makes us look really stupid as a species. But this is what I am getting from all the analyses being made of this law.

In short, the individual mandate is unlikely to produce the funding that it hopes to produce for the ACA, at least from those who aren't upper middle class.

So yeah, we're going to need to go back to square one. Tax the rich. The individual mandate will fail to do its job. The whole ACA will not fail but the individual mandate itself has little chance.

emulatorloo

(44,278 posts)
86. Can you please let it go. That is so early 90's. This is 2012 and Heritage Foundatio HATES OBAMACARE
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 01:30 PM
Jun 2012

Including the Mandate.

Obamacare’s Failings Go Well Beyond the Individual Mandate and Medicaid
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/06/four-of-the-worst-features-of-obamacare

Spend some time at the site if you can stand it.

Heritage Foundation hates Obamacare.

They may have had their plan to counter HillaryCare in the 90's, but this is not the 90's, and Obamacare is not their plan.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
88. President Obama hated the Mandate when he was a candidate.
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 01:38 PM
Jun 2012

He hated it right up until the GOP bullied him into accepting it.

emulatorloo

(44,278 posts)
89. Except the GOP hates it. Heritage Foundation Hates it.
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 01:39 PM
Jun 2012

Their plan was to counter HILLARYCARE in the 90s.

It is not the 90s anymore, and their 90s plan isnt = Obamacare,

From that heritage foundation page I linked to:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/06/four-of-the-worst-features-of-obamacare

Repeal Is the Only Solution

If the Supreme Court invalidates all of Obamacare, a huge cloud now hanging over the economy and health system would be lifted. But such a decision from the Court is not assured. And if the Court leaves any of Obamacare on the books, there will be continued threats to a robust economic recovery and the quality of American medicine. Congress needs to stand ready to perform its duty and repeal whatever remnants of Obamacare remain in place after the Court has rendered its verdict.

proud2BlibKansan

(96,793 posts)
10. A friend of mine died last year because he couldn't afford health care
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:26 AM
Jun 2012

That's the bottom line for me.

Anything is better than what we've had - a system that killed my friend.

MineralMan

(146,359 posts)
11. Many people died last year for the same reason.
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:30 AM
Jun 2012

Fewer will die because of ACA. Fewer still would die with a single-payer, single-pool system. In my opinion, it's always better that fewer people die unnecessarily. Right now, I'm celebrating the fact that ACA was not thrown out by the SCOTUS. I'll celebrate even more when we have single-payer, single-pool.

Something is better than nothing.

 

Ghost of Huey Long

(322 posts)
26. and yet people keep blaming the uninsured for the high costs of insurance
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:21 AM
Jun 2012

uninsured people don't get free health care, they just die! I don't know what the hell everyone is talking about.

proud2BlibKansan

(96,793 posts)
27. And they are sued for the medical bills they accumulate.
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:26 AM
Jun 2012

My friend who died - his wife got a bill for the ambulance and ER treatment.

 

Ghost of Huey Long

(322 posts)
30. yes, and they will hound you for that money..forever!
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:27 AM
Jun 2012

I am so angry at the scapegoating of the uninsured, blaming poor people for absurd profit margins of the hospitals and insurance companies.

proud2BlibKansan

(96,793 posts)
32. I know someone else who was assaulted
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:35 AM
Jun 2012

He stopped a guy from hitting his wife and the guy turned on him and he and another guy beat the crap out of him. Someone called the police, they came and arrested the guys who beat him up, and they called an ambulance. He went to the hospital, was treated, sent home and billed for the care. He had no insurance and was recently unemployed. So the hospital told him to file for help paying his bill via a state victims compensation fund. They asked for his tax returns, which were fine since he had just lost his job. So his claim was denied and the hospital came after him for the money.

The guys who beat him up were incarcerated. Both had lengthy arrest records and one was on probation. So they are in prison now, with health care, while my friend is being sued. For doing the right thing.

This health care system sucks. All of us can tell lots of stories.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
34. Actually ...
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:39 AM
Jun 2012

they die AFTER receiving the most expensive form of medical care, i.e., in emergency room or trauma center ... And, this cost is bourne by others.

This is why we need from cradle to grave universal coverage.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
90. People without health insurance die ,,,
Sun Jul 1, 2012, 01:42 AM
Jul 2012

after receiving the most expensive form of medical care, e.g., ERs, Critcal care/ Urgent Care, because of a lack of healthcare insurance a myth?!?

Okay ...

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-18/health/deaths.health.insurance_1_health-insurance-david-himmelstein-debate-over-health-care?_s=PM:HEALTH

But then again, maybe you're right ... Sometimes those accessing the emergency rooms and critical/urgent care units because they do no habe health insurance, live.

http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20110619/FREE/110619892/report-uninsured-patients-3-times-more-likely-to-use-emergency-departments-are-sicker

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
92. The links point to ...
Sun Jul 1, 2012, 11:38 PM
Jul 2012

the fact that the insured get their medical treatment in the most expensise ignificant portion of theve place out therei ... medical care emergency/urgent care units. And a significant portion of these are uninsured folks die ... regardless of who pays for it.

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
93. OK, but we were speaking about the "uninsured get FREE healthcare!" myth. Your links didn't prove
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 01:16 PM
Jul 2012

that point.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
106. I have NEVER ...
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 05:31 PM
Jul 2012

EVER argued that the poor get "free" care, nor have I seen anyone else on this site argue that.

We all know that someone is paying for it; but in the case of the poor, it is someone else. This is the point of universal coverage with the individual mandate.

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
107. The poor oftentimes just go without. Please see this story from yesterday's Detroit Free Press:
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 05:36 PM
Jul 2012

It sounds like we both want the same thing here. I just don't like the argument that the poor are getting something for nothing. (I've even read "stealing" healthcare on a comment today!)

People in Detroit age faster and die sooner than their counterparts elsewhere in Michigan, according to a study that draws the tragic conclusion that the city's new "elderly" are as young as 50.

Residents in the study area, which included eight smaller communities, who are 50-59 years old are 60-74 in terms of their health and die at a rate 131% higher than their peers around the state, according to "Dying Before Their Time," a report to be released next week by the Detroit Area Agency on Aging.

The higher mortality rate is driven mainly by Detroit residents who have more chronic illnesses, require more hospitalizations and have less access to health care than people of the same age in the rest of Michigan, the study found.

http://www.freep.com/article/20120701/COL10/207010590/Rochelle-Riley-Dying-before-their-time
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
110. Yes ...
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 06:25 PM
Jul 2012

I believe we are on the same side of this issue. But again, I have never said that the poor get healthcare for free, as I realize that when/if they get treatment that they cannot pay for, the cost is eaten by the medical provider ... at years of harassing the patient for payment.

shcrane71

(1,721 posts)
13. I had an appendectomy when I was 13 and developed a staph infection.
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 10:37 AM
Jun 2012

My parents were uninsured. This was in the early 1980s, and the original bill for just the anesthesiologist was over $10,000. My grandmother and aunt (years and years prior) also had appendectomies, developed infections, and were put back under anesthesia to have a tube inserted to drain the life-threatening infection.

I was sent home with heating pads put on my stomach. I returned to the doctor's office 24 hours later with a swollen stomach. Mom found a very old pair of cut-off sweat pants that would fit over my stomach. It was February in the Midwest.

At the doctor's office, I was held down by several nurses as the doctor removed some of the staples (they still used staples back then), and pushed the infection out of guts. Then the wound was packed with some form of sterilized gauze to keep it open, and we were instructed to get bandages, and keep them clean. That was the most pain I've ever been in my life. It was excruciating.

Here in America as a 13 year-old, I watched my parents fear bankruptcy because I got sick. I don't think American children will need to go through that type of physical or psychological pain again. Good.

 

Ghost of Huey Long

(322 posts)
28. original bill for just the anesthesiologist was over $10,000
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:26 AM
Jun 2012

Why?

Why have we allowed medical bills to get so out of hand? That could not possible have cost the hospital $10,000.

We need real not for profit hospitals.

shcrane71

(1,721 posts)
36. It was an emergency appendectomy done on a Sunday morning.
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:50 AM
Jun 2012

So the anesthesiologist had to be paid to come in on his day off, that's what our family practice doctor told my mother. It was a Catholic associated not-for-profit hospital. We were lucky that our family practice doctor drained my infection without anesthesia as he could have been sued for malpractice. He's dead now, and my mother called when she learned of his passing. He saved my life, and he saved my parents from certain bankruptcy.

 

Ghost of Huey Long

(322 posts)
39. so even in a non profit hospital, the anesthesiologist still will make a huge profit
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:10 PM
Jun 2012

I'm really happy you survived, not trying to take away from that...but the cost are still above and beyond what was required.

Who else comes in on their day off and gets 10,000? And isn't it their job to be staffed 24/7 because emergencies are generally..emergencies?

It use to be that doctors were out to save lives, now they just want to make a killing.

shcrane71

(1,721 posts)
43. I agree with you on the $10K bill, and that was 30 years ago.
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:16 PM
Jun 2012

I remember that most of my friends parents' homes were selling at around $18-$20K in our neighborhood in the early 80s.

I'm sure there are some doctors who go into the profession for save lives, but I keep meeting ones that go into it to make a killing.

NNN0LHI

(67,190 posts)
22. Geebiz, you got lucky
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:13 AM
Jun 2012

My non-smoking father had his first heart attack when he was 38.

I remember even back then the hospital bills were tremendous. He would have went bankrupt trying to pay off the doctors and hospital.

You were very fortunate.

Don

tridim

(45,358 posts)
24. I made it to 42 without insurance.
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:16 AM
Jun 2012

Though I did have it throughout my 30's, back when companies actually provided decent insurance as a perk.

I was offered insurance at my current company but it is so horrible and expensive that I'm going with an individual policy instead. The company policy is an HSA, which from what I can tell is a total rip off. I can buy the exact same policy my company offers for half the price (though with company matching it ends up being the same cost to me). The policy I ended up with is a mid-range deductable PPO with copays that costs 75% less than the company plan. Unreal.

 

Ghost of Huey Long

(322 posts)
25. 20% of the costs of that illness ended up being over $20,000.
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:17 AM
Jun 2012

When will we deal with the ridiculous charges at the hospitals?

In Japan, an MRI is $97...in the US + $3000


How can we afford this? We can't. So many people blame insurance companies(and they suck I know)..but who is holding the hospitals accountable for ridiculous charges?


(And no it is not the uninsured people's fault, most poor people would rather die than go to emergency, and no it is not free and the 'insured have to pay for it'-bullshit!)

Why do they keep blaming uninsured people for the cost of health care? Why don't they put limits on how much the hospitals can charge.

Why does everyone automatically blame the insurance companies, when the hospitals are ripping everyone off?

shcrane71

(1,721 posts)
46. Hospitals will often double charge people for the same medication
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:23 PM
Jun 2012

or the same service. It's getting ridiculous. My sister worked for a hospital where she had a surgery. She thought it was all paid for until THREE YEARS later, she was sent bills for over $4000.00. She got married in that time, and they said that they couldn't find her new address, and the bills never got to her.... but she worked for the same hospital chain.

Waiting For Everyman

(9,385 posts)
51. Exactly. The prices charged are insanely absurd and flat out predatory.
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:42 PM
Jun 2012

Last edited Fri Jun 29, 2012, 01:48 PM - Edit history (1)

That is definitely the central problem to address. It doesn't just need containment, those costs need a major rollback. If the prices made some sense, then the insurance would be more in line with what normal people could pay too, and more people would want to be in the pool. Insurance has only facilitated the overpayment of insane costs to the health corporations. Otherwise, it couldn't have continued as long as it has. This is just such a major unaddressed ripoff.

We are treated like ATM machines, all the while being paid less and less. We are long past the point where the scalping is unsustainable.

It's the $5 aspirin syndrome. And where did that padded-on $4.95 go? It went straight to the corporations, and from the corporations it went to the overpaid CEO's. And who sets top level pay rates? Those making top level pay. This should all be a CRIME.

Instead of asking ourselves "how can we pay this?" we should be making it a crime and taxing the ill-gotten gains back into the system... it's the only practical way to return the thefts to the people robbed.

MineralMan

(146,359 posts)
61. Since you don't know what my treatment for encephalitis involved,
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 02:31 PM
Jun 2012

you have no idea what the costs included. You should have seen the bill before the insurance company imposed its agreed-to rates on the hospital.

I was in intensive care for almost two weeks, had several CAT scans, a couple of MRIs, absorbed multiple drugs, including some that were over $1000/dose. They did not know what was wrong with me until after I was on the road to recovery, when the virus titers came back. I quickly became a CDC statistic for equine encephalitis that year, one of very few who had contracted that illness in 1991.

After two weeks in Desert Hospital in Palm Springs, I was transferred to a hospital close to my parents' home, where I spent two more weeks recovering further. Then, I got to reteach myself some stuff that was lost after the brain infection. That, I did on my own. Finally, I moved back to my own home, along with my fiancee, who had been driving the car when I went into seizures and got to meet my parents for the first time while I was in intensive care in Palm Springs. It was an eventful year. We got married in December that year. For six months, I wasn't allowed to lift anything over 20 lb., because my spleen was swollen. Since I had a seizure, I had to take Dilantin for a year, and go through a stress EEG before I could drive again legally.

Was it expensive? Yes. The alternative, though, wasn't acceptable. It was a devastating illness. I got better. That's a good thing, I think. It was worth $20,000 to me and to my wife.

 

Ghost of Huey Long

(322 posts)
64. yikes! I am sure it was worth it, I am just questioning hospital costs in general
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 02:41 PM
Jun 2012

Back in the day (heh) a person could have a procedure and pay for it. Now the costs have gotten so out of control one must have insurance, now it is permanent legislation.

Just questioning how these costs got so out of control. Anyone who has seen a hospital bill knows it is a racket.

MineralMan

(146,359 posts)
65. Back in the day, I would have just died.
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 02:51 PM
Jun 2012

Truly. The day has changed, and there are all sorts of new technology and medications. What saved me was the fact that the hospital put me on a drip with Acyclovir, along with the many other drugs that didn't fix what I had. The other drugs, which included some really, really expensive antibiotics, were used, because there was no precise diagnosis. I still have all the images from all the imaging that was done on me. I can see my own brain from every angle, and in slices, if I want to.

Truly, back in the day, the lack of that Acyclovir would have been a death sentence for me. It's a better day now. I lived, because that drug was available. I lived, because it wasn't "back in the day."

You don't even want to think about what two weeks of an Acyclovir drip cost back in 1991. Truly.

Food for thought.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
29. Good Piece ...
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 11:26 AM
Jun 2012

I am so glad, in particular, that you wrote this:

So, we have this ACA thing. It's far from perfect, and it's very far from being single-payer, single-pool. The mandate, however, included in that system moves partway toward the single-pool system.


Why can't others see this?
 

Ghost of Huey Long

(322 posts)
44. most people think it's a step toward permanenty being forced to buy insurance from evil companies
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:20 PM
Jun 2012

And I honestly do not know all that is in the bill, but some of the supporters post information to people who might benefit from this, might receive free health care even...it has been extremely helpful. I have seen desperate people that this is already going to help, so I must support them.

I think the supporters of this bill need to stop reacting to everyone, and instead present a well explained but succinct explanation on how this is going to help people, what is available to the poor uninsured people on DU right now!

Let's stop playing the 'we won, they lost game'...and discuss the exact details of who it is going to help and how to get that help ASAP.

The corporate media lies, we know we cannot trust them to explain this properly...can you please post something that details exactly how this will benefit the members of DU who are poor and uninsured...give us the real numbers, do the math for us? Tell us what income is going to pay what, who is getting the real help etc. I have the feeling the corporate media is lying (LOL) and no one really knows how this might benefit them.

We are Devo

(193 posts)
41. My boyfriend
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:13 PM
Jun 2012

will be 50 next month and he hasn't been able to get ins. due to pre-existing condition. He is an adjunct professor at two schools.We are very happy about the scotus decision...

We are Devo

(193 posts)
50. Thanks!
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:37 PM
Jun 2012

That is a good question, don't know. Even if it does, I'm not sure he could afford ins. anyways! I wonder if he should try to get a plan with a high deductible or something. We shall see!

 

oldhippie

(3,249 posts)
42. I have been the other side of the normal discussion here ......
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:16 PM
Jun 2012

I have paid for health insurance (through my workplace) for my entire 40 year carreer. In that time, I can count the number of times I have voluntarily seen a doctor on one hand with fingers left over. (Not counting a few mandatory exams for work or insurance.) I'm 64, and I have never been admitted to a hospital or even been in an emergency room. My wife is 69 and is even healthier than I am. She has had a couple of outpatient procedures, but I have always had to pay for them with my deductible. My son was on my policy until he was 21. I don't ever remember him seeing a doctor after his normal childhood visits and vaccinations. He's now 32 and I don't think he has ever gone to a doctor or a hospital.

Bottom line is that I am lucky that my family is so healthy. I have paid my premiums for 40+ years, and only a couple times have I met my deductible and actually gotten a benefit from the insurance company. I hope all that money went to someone who appreciates it.

DevonRex

(22,541 posts)
45. If you ski, hike, rock climb, cycle, play lacrosse
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 12:21 PM
Jun 2012

how can you go without insurance? Does everyone here who advocates going without insurance live a sedentary lifestyle or something?

MineralMan

(146,359 posts)
59. It's the optimism of youth.
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 02:15 PM
Jun 2012

Many young people never concern themselves with risks. That, despite knowing people their own age who have had serious medical issues or accidents.

riverbendviewgal

(4,255 posts)
53. You are so right about you can get sick at any age.
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 01:07 PM
Jun 2012

My son was just short 2 weeks of his 25th birthday when he got his first ever seizures at work...No indication of any problems before, no headaches...nothing...3 days later he is getting brain surgery. the first of 3..He was diagnosed having Glioblastma Multiforme Brain tumour ..the same as Ted Kennedy....He died at 26 and half after all the surgeries, chem, radiation, transfusions, and intensive care (two weeks) and hospital palliative care (1 week)...No hospital or doctor costs...just parking fees for us at the hospital, which I later learned I can claim as medical expenses.

two months later after our son was diagnosed my husband was diagnosed with Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma...He was 52. He had surgery, chemo , radiation, stem cell harvesting, month long hospital stay for one of the chemos, and 3 months palliative care in the hospital.

We all had Psychotherapy sessions at the cancer centre, as a family and individually. My son, husband, my son's fiancee and my older son, and me. Which cost us nothing..

The way I look at one payer...you are going on a trip. Gas is $400...you go alone, you pay it all...you go with one friend, you split it. you go with more friends, you split it more.....and you all get to where you going. Group rates are cheaper than solo rates...In Canada most of all feel like we are all in this boat together.

I thank God everyday I live here. and this health care is really making my conservative boyfriend think twice about his conservativism. He is actually watching Rachel Maddows and enjoying her.

MineralMan

(146,359 posts)
62. What a nightmare for you. At least you
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 02:33 PM
Jun 2012

weren't faced with crippling bills after all that. I wish we had Canada's system. We don't. Maybe we will, someday.

riverbendviewgal

(4,255 posts)
54. Maybe the 100th monkey theory will work in America
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 01:16 PM
Jun 2012

I just read this and thought once people get to have the Obamacare they will accept and like it.

Then something startling took place. In the autumn of 1958, a certain number of Koshima monkeys were washing sweet potatoes -- the exact number is not known. Let us suppose that when the sun rose one morning there were 99 monkeys on Koshima Island who had learned to wash their sweet potatoes. Let's further suppose that later that morning, the hundredth monkey learned to wash potatoes. THEN IT HAPPENED!

By that evening almost everyone in the tribe was washing sweet potatoes before eating them. The added energy of this hundredth monkey somehow created an ideological breakthrough!

But notice. A most surprising thing observed by these scientists was that the habit of washing sweet potatoes then jumped over the sea --

Colonies of monkeys on other islands and the mainland troop of monkeys at Takasakiyama began washing their sweet potatoes. Thus, when a certain critical number achieves an awareness, this new awareness may be communicated from mind to mind. Although the exact number may vary, this Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon means that when only a limited number of people know of a new way, it may remain the conscious property of these people. But there is a point at which if only one more person tunes-in to a new awareness, a field is strengthened so that this awareness is picked up by almost everyone!"

(from the book "The Hundredth Monkey" by Ken Keyes, jr. The book is not copyrighted and the material may be reproduced in whole or in part.)

http://www.spiritualrealist.com/SPIRITUALREALISM/Aquarian%20Consp.asp



MineralMan

(146,359 posts)
60. My insurance did pay, though.
Fri Jun 29, 2012, 02:23 PM
Jun 2012

However, the air ambulance that took me from Quartzite to Palm Springs in a coma wasn't covered. That was $5000 by itself. My policy excluded all air ambulance costs. Even after the insurance company reduced the price paid to the hospital, though, my out of pocket costs totaled over $20,000. Fortunately, I was able to pay that all off in a year.

My insurance coverage paid out exactly as it was supposed to. There were exclusions in it, along with my deductible for that year and it all added up to over $20,000. Imagine what it would have been without the insurance. Without the care, I would certainly have died. With the care, I recovered completely in a couple of months, and resumed my normal life, except that I had a new wife. I did miss chairing a roundtable discussion at Summer Comdex in Atlanta, though. I also missed writing one month's column for the magazine I wrote for mostly. Beyond that, it all ended up fine. Without the insurance, I wouldn't be writing this today.

Why wouldn't the insurance company pay? I was covered. They paid.

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
70. Insurance companies make money by *taking in more premiums than they pay out in care*.
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 10:58 AM
Jun 2012

Hope this helps.

Why wouldn't the insurance company pay? I was covered. They paid.


MineralMan

(146,359 posts)
71. That is correct. Since I had that illness, I've not been ill.
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 11:09 AM
Jun 2012

So, my premiums are being used to pay for other people's care. I'm part of the pool. When I got sick, premiums paid by people who did not get sick paid for my care. The same is true in single-payer systems, too. Everyone pays in, and the sick get treated.

No matter how it is handled, that is the way it will work. Profit margins are limited under ACA. Under single-payer, there will either be no profit, or the government will contract with a company to deal with it, and there will be a profit for whatever company that is. Or even multiple companies. Still, the well will care for the ill. It is how it works, under any system.

Is all profit obscene? Some believe so.

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
72. Then you've been a good little revenue center. Giving money to corporations has not a whit to do
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 11:13 AM
Jun 2012

with "morality".

And I noticed you've largely ignored the "economically rational" arguments. I don't blame you--your thesis is essentially that we have a "moral" duty to enrich insurers. Nothing about that is "rational".

MineralMan

(146,359 posts)
73. As I said, I'm not a libertarian.
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 11:20 AM
Jun 2012

Everyone pays, as they are able to pay. Everyone receives, as they need to receive. It's a social issue, not an economic one. With health care, everyone is likely to need it, so the society should make care available. Medical care is expensive. The ideal method is a single-payer, single pool, where the costs are paid by everyone, and everyone gets the care. The cost is divided among the entire population of the society, and all benefit equally.

It's very simple. It's very rational. In most of the world, it works that way. Everyone who can pay pays. Everyone gets care, based on need.

Nothing irrational about that. Economically or otherwise. Yes, it is an ethical duty. I don't use the word moral. Ethics are based on rationality.

You disagree. That is your absolute right.

Finally, the total of all of my insurance premiums before Medicare are less than the cost of my health care in that single illness. I was cared for and it was paid for by others. Since then, I've been paying for others' care as part of the pool. When I was ill, the pool paid for my care.

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
74. You also lack even a crude working knowledge of economics, apparently. Libertarianism hasn't a whit
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 11:23 AM
Jun 2012

to do with "economic rationalism", either.

It's very simple. It's very rational.


You'd do well to familiarize yourself with Google. Even after being told you are using a term incorrectly, you persist.

"There are none so blind..."

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
80. Um, you don't have *MANDATORY* for-profit insurance in Canada.
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 11:34 AM
Jun 2012

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? In the US, even with insurance, you'd owe tens of thousands of dollars, and INSURERS (not doctors) must approve each procedure.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
94. They do not
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 01:22 PM
Jul 2012

They'd have been put out of business by the fraud arms of the government.

They make a contract, and can be taken to court to enforce that contract. They have no legal right to make a denial unless it is something just not covered in the policy you make with them. You too cannot mandate they cover anything you did not contract with them to cover. Do they have to pay just because you want them to? You should be aware of what they cover and what they don't.

They invest money while they have it, and that is how they make money, and enough money to pay claims. It would be silly if they didn't make enough money to pay the claims.

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
96. Um, yes, they do. This is basic to how insurance works ("actuarial principles").
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 01:26 PM
Jul 2012
They make a contract, and can be taken to court to enforce that contract.


From a hospital gurney (or a coffin?)?

They invest money while they have it, and that is how they make money, and enough money to pay claims.


I don't know if you actually believe this, but I can't be arsed to give you a lesson in basic economics. Suffice it to say that the fundamental business plan for any insurer is to take more in premiums than they pay out in claims. That's because insurers, by and large, are organized a "for profit" entities in the United States.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
104. They invest the money
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 05:23 PM
Jul 2012

And buy reinsurance in case of really big losses.

The contract you make with the insurance company comes long before you get sick.

There are some non-profit insurance companies.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
108. Facts.
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 05:37 PM
Jul 2012

for crying out loud, do you really think an insurance company could get away with taking premiums and then never paying out on claims they contracted to pay out on? They are heavily regulated. There are lawyers out there ready to sue them at drop of a hat, too, and that on contingency basis.

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
109. They take in MORE in premiums than they pay out. After they subtract their overhead, the remainder
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 05:40 PM
Jul 2012

is called "profit".

Ilsa

(61,721 posts)
82. I was 23, and they thought I had bone cancer.
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 11:41 AM
Jun 2012

Fortunately, I didn't, but I was grateful for the then-generous coverage of my employer health insurance. Youthfulness doesn't necessarily protect us from catastrophic illness.

Your post is most excellent. I'm glad you were able to stay healthy for so long and get and maintain your coverage for a decent price.

DinahMoeHum

(21,845 posts)
83. Dear "young and healthy": Accidents, by their very nature. . .
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 11:47 AM
Jun 2012

. . .are unexpected and unpredictable. They happen.

Just sayin'.

MineralMan

(146,359 posts)
84. Accidents and illnesses.
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 11:55 AM
Jun 2012

Very good friends of my wife, and now mine, too, were enjoying their lives. They had excellent health insurance from work. When their two year old daughter got an always-fatal form of kidney cancer, their health insurance covered that illness. It was a devastating thing for them, but that devastation was not increased by an inability to do everything possible for their daughter.

When we are young, we can often not imagine that terrible things might happen to us. We are full of optimism and hope, and can easily ignore things that are real possibilities. The young man with his young family, may have a car accident. A child may develop an illness that will be fatal if not treated aggressively and expensively. We never expect such things in our youth, but they occur anyway and are always potentially there.

Taking risks with such things is a very, very common thing. Having your life destroyed when it happens to you is always possible.

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
97. The "young and healthy" have up to 50% unemployment rates. Good luck with saddling them with the
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 01:27 PM
Jul 2012

bill.

TBF

(32,162 posts)
102. I can understand that - I was without it for a few years too.
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 04:25 PM
Jul 2012

My dad worked in a factory so we had insurance, but only went when we were very ill or something really hurt (in the case of teeth etc...). It was a rural area I lived in. I was covered through college on his policy (by that time he was disabled and relying completely on the VA - so the policy was from there at that time). But after college for 2 years I had low-level jobs while settling in a new city and doing a post-grad certificate program and no insurance. To be honest I didn't even think about it - I was too busy working, taking classes, and planning my future. I eventually was hired by a large law firm and focused on the tasks and salary - benefits weren't even on my radar. It was during orientation that I realized I now had health insurance and learned about things like going in for well visits, etc... At that time, in the early 90s, those policies were free or cheap with your job.

ACA is not perfect. There are some good features - but we really do need universal health care. It should be modeled on social security and paid for by taxes. Then the pool is huge and risk is spread out as it should be.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I went without health ins...