Well, lipo actually isn’t required for a proper breast reduction. Some doctors do like to do lipo on the sides of the breast and under the arms for contour and to reduce band size, but some docs don’t like side lipo and don’t do it. My surgeon was against the lipo and didn’t do it.
A free market system would be nice, with competition holding down prices and offering more options to customers. That is not what we have.
http://www.wvpubcast.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=9708 Study after study, state by state ,it is clear that there is no competition or any pressure on the companies to take care of customers. They can jack up premiums , drop people at will and offer less services if they are so inclined. We have oligarchy. They don’t compete. Premiums go up year after year, far outstripping inflation.(which some people say is minimal) We n=made a serious error when we kept them in place.
On the other hand, Rover likes his insurance.
I would think, by definition, that declining to pay for lipo means that Canadian health care doesn’t suck. 
And how is forbidding employers and employees jointly agreeing to allow employers to negotiate with insurers on behalf of all employees an example of the free market again? You mean the situation of a government law forbidding private agreements is a freer market than the case without this law?
Not to mention that on your planet individuals with no market power and limited time to research the market can make better insurance deals than large companies with significant market power and full time staff who can investigate the full range of health insurance pricing.
Now, if I wanted to show problems with a free market, I could describe the freedom of a person with a pre-existing condition, whose satisfaction or not with an insurance company is not going to count, since he will not be able to get coverage anywhere else. Him getting screwed is indeed a benefit of the free market.
Too bad. If you had had three, you could have made enough money from National Enquirer to cover the operation.
My father in law had a long battle with his doctor and insurance company over payment for his Pap smear. I think it took about a year to convince them that this probably wasn’t a good charge for a 75 year old man.
I agree with you. So let’s create a system that allows the market to work. We could use your help, if you have the time (to borrow a maudlin phrase from one of our esteemed maudlin posters).
No, I mean only removing the incentive for employers to offer health insurance to employees.
Employers don’t look at the same thing as would individual consumers when it comes to buying health insurance.
There are so many flaws with this that I have but time to mention a few. For one, a person could remain with an insurance company for a very long time over many job changes, thus not having the possibility of developing a pre-existing condition. For another, dinner’s ready.
I’m sure that is true. However, judging from what I hear here, my insurance is significantly better than the individual insurance people have, and not just in cost. The only times a claim was turned down turned out to be because of a mistake by the doctor. In fact, I just moved from a big company to an even bigger one, and my insurance improved appreciably. However, assuming that the interest of the employer in providing a benefit to the employee is reasonably well aligned, you have not addressed my point that a company has more market power than an individual.
Most group policies (and this may be the law) forbid not giving an employee coverage based on a pre-existing condition. So a person changing jobs from one group plan to another is not going to have a problem. However a person changing coverage in the individual policy situation is in trouble - at least until the new law kicks in. I have a pre-existing condition (who at my age doesn’t) and I’m sure glad I don’t have to worry about an individual plan.
I assume your sentence about not developing a pre-existing condition over many job changes is garbled in some way - or perhaps I addressed it above. Under a totally free system, the insurance company would have the option of dropping coverage of someone who developed an illness when the term of whatever contract he signed runs out. So our friend might want to keep the same insurance company over job changes, but cannot.
In any case, we seldom become dissatisfied with an insurance company until we use it. If I am pissed off at my current company (and I’m not) I can complain to HR. If enough people do, the company can change providers easily enough. If, however, I have an individual policy, get sick and get bad service, I might now have a pre-existing condition and not be able to change to a better provider.
I doubt review sites will be much help. I’m a fan of hotel review sites, and have had wonderful experiences in hotels that got trashed by some people, and horrible experiences in hotels with good reviews. And it is much easier to change hotels than providers.
Still, your point about being able to switch to a better provider is far stronger under the new system. So I trust you agree that this part of the law, at least, strengthens the free market for individual policies.
But even that depends on many factors. When my company was bidding out our health plan last year, no one would even look at us except the company we already had. Kind of put us behind the eight ball with very, very limited options if we wanted to avoid a 30% rate increase. I’m very far from an expert, but the impression I got was that even an employer’s options are limited by the size and location of the company and its employees, the demographics of its employees, and the claims history of the company. Our insurer had us by the balls, frankly. We were lucky to come away with what we got, and it caused a lot of stress for my boss.
I believe alot depends on your State, too and which companies can operate. Doesn’t each state have its own requirements that an insurance company must meet in order to do business in that state?
Every time I was involved in health insurance for a company, the fees and coverage for all options were similar. I did not see any competition. to lower costs. , We had to cut back on coverage, have larger copays ,or eliminate optical or dentistry. Then the rates just went up every year by far greater than inflation. No matter what you did ,you paid more and got less as time went on.
Yeah, that’s what I meant by where your company is located. We have employees in several states, but are limited to who we can even shop by where our corporate office is.
Heh, just got notice today that our premiums are going up again. Now they’re full on doubled what they were 3 years ago when I got the policy. 100% increase over 3 years. Fuckers.
It really makes me feel like a second-class citizen, since I can’t even shop around for a cheaper policy. It’s just such bullshit. The only light at the end of the tunnel is the hope that the 2013 reforms are going to change things.
Oh, the 2013 reforms will change things alright. You’ll hearken back to the glory days of 2010 when your premiums only doubled every three years.
Are you really happy wallowing in your ignorance?
Maybe this time you should wait before you start dancing on graves…
What am I ignorant of exactly?
The outcome of the health care reform bill.
I’m pretty sure I could forego a “Hi Opal!” in that list.
Right, that’s what I thought Lobohan was getting at. But that’s impossible. Do you see why?
Does it make a difference? It won’t stop you from making douchey predictions based on nothing but your silly ideology.