beachbumbabs
Administrator
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
  • Threads: 75
  • Posts: 8649
March 10th, 2017 at 11:47:08 AM permalink
Paradigm,

I didn't like the snarky tone in your response to me, so I responded in kind. Sorry; we're both better than that. I'd like to continue the conversation.

My personal situation (since you discuss yours, it seems relevant) is, that for 32 years, I've had the best private health care available, and have been able to afford it. My premiums in 1985 were 25/mo. They've gone up yearly to where now, in retirement, I'm paying 219/mo, with required co-pays of 25-35/visit. Certainly affordable, compared to most, but still a 9x increase.

I started topping out the fica deduction in 1998. I definitely enjoyed the 7.15% "raise" the end of every year, but I wouldn't have missed it, either. I can't imagine anyone who does top out really needs the money more than those uninsured who can't afford the early intervention visit that would keep them from becoming more seriously ill, or those who don't have catastrophic coverage that would prevent financial ruin.

But I got mine, as they say, and before i did, i had no health issues, so it's hard to appreciate what it's like to be without it.

Police and fire are paid for on a mil rate by property valuation nearly everywhere. Your property taxes don't top out; the more your property is worth, the more you pay for those services. I don't find that unfair, but perhaps you do, and we have philosophical differences rather than the same goal with different solutions.

I still don't see how opt in/opt out will provide universal coverage. I know when I was young and broke, I didn't have any, and wouldn't have voluntarily bought it without issues that required it. Several here in that boat have said the same. So how do you build a pool?

Current practices haven't curbed pricing through competition ; instead, they've skyrocketed. Doctors are making less than they used to, though nurses are making more; not sure what the labor cost curve looks like, but as a percentage I'm guessing flat or a little down. A lot of the increase has to be in technology. But administrative and shareholder costs are huge and unnecessary burdens.
"If the house lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game."
Rigondeaux
Rigondeaux
Joined: Aug 18, 2014
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 779
March 10th, 2017 at 1:25:25 PM permalink
Quote: Paradigm

I like my private medical insurance that I pay for 100% and based on its coverage have zero chance of going bankrupt due to medical costs. You do you and I'll do me...how about that?

You know the hospital doesn't get paid $750 for that IV...that crappy, disastrous private insurance company empire tells them to take $15 in payment for it or they won't be part of their network and the hospital says "OK". I am good paying $15 for an IV that costs $2 when it comes with a trained nurse administering its implementation.



So presumably, you are either a well off single man, or a very well off family man. I agree, the system is ok for those people. Less efficient, but has it's perks. It's only objectively terrible for maybe 85% of the population.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of less fortunate people go bankrupt, or die (yes the snopes article says the exact number is uncertain. Maybe it's only 572,000.) Apparently, this has no weight in your evaluations. Which is why it is a naked power struggle. "I kinda like this system and I'm have money" vs. "I don't want my life destroyed to cater to the whims of people with more money." And obviously, huge corporations.


Quote:

My personal situation (since you discuss yours, it seems relevant) is, that for 32 years, I've had the best private health care available, and have been able to afford it. My premiums in 1985 were 25/mo. They've gone up yearly to where now, in retirement, I'm paying 219/mo, with required co-pays of 25-35/visit. Certainly affordable, compared to most, but still a 9x increase.

I started topping out the fica deduction in 1998. I definitely enjoyed the 7.15% "raise" the end of every year, but I wouldn't have missed it, either. I can't imagine anyone who does top out really needs the money more than those uninsured who can't afford the early intervention visit that would keep them from becoming more seriously ill, or those who don't have catastrophic coverage that would prevent financial ruin



Which raises another issue. I know this forum is populated by people who fill out tax returns for fun. But to most people, this stuff is a confusing, tedious chore with mostly guess work. Millions of hours of unpaid labor by people who don't know what they're doing.

vs. "I broke my arm, so I'm going to the hospital." Another massive inefficiency.

And yet another, touched upon at the end. We have no incentive for preventative care, down to feeding school kids decent food. People skip preventive care or neglect to go to the doctor early on, and problems become bigger, deadlier and more expensive.
Rigondeaux
Rigondeaux
Joined: Aug 18, 2014
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 779
March 10th, 2017 at 1:43:06 PM permalink
Quote: Nathan

That is kind of messed up that you have to pay for gambling addiction treatments.



Who do you think pays for bankruptcy courts? Who do you think gambling addicts steal money from? Who pays to manage the homeless population, and for divorce courts, or kids from broken homes who wind up in jail?

From a total selfish perspective, it probably makes more sense to pay to treat someone else's gambling addiction than to treat their cancer. The person with cancer is just going to go off somewhere and die.

Moreover, I don't understand what is surprising about mental health issues being covered by medical.

  • Jump to: