You can’t do away with health insurance for the same reason we can’t get rid of home or auto insurance. Americans have a less than zero percent savings rate.
So initially it might sound like a good idea to pay for your own health care, even using an HSA. And first it would seem to make sense. Instead of $800 or more in premiums put that towards your health savings and spend your money wisely.
So first month, then second month, nice, you’re into March, no health care expenses. Then the wife needs her yearly, there goes $300. Her yearly prescription is something like $200.
And then for no ones fault, you need an ambulance to the ER. That will cost you over $2,400, do you have that ready to go?
Turns out you need surgery to repair the fractured bones in your ankle costing over $12,000. Are you ready to shell that out too?
Physiotherapy over the next couple of months is going to cost $100 a week if you’re lucky.
Followup visits, imagine, there goes another couple grand.
Essentially, you have home owners insurance because few people are prepared to replace the front of their house tomorrow.
And you have auto insurance because you could hit ice tomorrow and go through the front of someones house.
If you think single payer is the way to go, take a look at what cancer treatment costs, then come back and tell me your new plan to save us all.
So lets review this case. Your son wasn’t in need of non-critical care yet he got a doctor’s appointment, an MRI, and he contacted doctor(s) (plural), some of whom didn’t want to deal directly with his insurance. (Not that the insurance wouldn’t pay). In summary, he got immediate care for a non-life threatening health issue (that was painful and limited his mobility) and had a choice of doctors who could immediately operate.
Lets look at the alternative.
Meet Christina Woodkey from Calgary Canada, age 72. She went to a clinic because of pain that limited her mobility. She was referred to a hip specialist which took a year to see. That doctor referred her to a back specialist because of a compressed disk. That was an 8 month wait. She asked how long the wait would be for surgery and was told 18 months after the back specialist saw her.
So from the time she went to the doctor it would have taken her over 3 years to have a simple operation. She didn’t have a list of doctors to choose from who were willing to do the operation. Her insurance “option” was to live in pain for years or go to the United States and get the operation. She spent $50,000 and it was taken care of in days.
So while your son had to put up with inconvenience of shopping for a doctor who would deal directly with his insurance, Christina was rationed into a 3 year wait.
Which system would you like to fix?
My own personal experience with kidney stones falls into the same comparison. It wasn’t life threatening medical problem yet at the emergency room I got an MRI after the X-ray failed to show anything. In the space of 2 weeks I went to the doctor twice to change pain medication and after 14 days the specialist gave me a choice of waiting to see if it passed or surgery. At additional expense to me I chose surgery. It was scheduled 3 hrs later and I was back to work the next day.
compare this to the mindset in the UK where choice is seen as unfair. Cancer patients who were willing to spend money for additional drugs were met with denial of payment for regular treatment:
**Ministers claim that to allow patients to pay for top-up drugs would be ****unfair **to those who cannot afford them and lead to a two-tier NHS. The health department has issued guidance to NHS trusts warning that such co-payments are not allowed.
These are people fighting for their lives in a one-size fits all national health rationing system.
I’ll ask again, which system would you rather fix?
Dude, stop it. That’s frankly a well-known number, and divide it up by 10, and it’s still huge.
No one is pretending any such thing, though it seems to be a preferred strawman for you. I am not disputing that I already pay for health care programs. Why you think I believe that, I can’t imagine. I am asserting that the coverage proposed will cost a lot of money. In your world, $90B/year might be small, not in mine, and the number isn’t trivialized when you compare it other government boondoggles that piss money away. I have every reason to believe that this program would carry on this proud tradition and that we’d soon be fondly recalling the CBO’s current projections for being tiny indeed, relatively speaking.
And expanded coverage does NOT simply shift emergency room care that is already being paid for. Emergency rooms aren’t providing chemo treatments. They aren’t removing tumors. And expanding coverage will also prompt many people to seek treatment–since it’s covered–that they haven’t sought previously, not in an emergency room, not anywhere. You aren’t accounting for that at all, ISTM. This is expanded coverage and it costs a LOT, according to the CBO, and I don’t for a second believe that the offsets that are “promised” will be delivered any more than they have been in the past, which is to say, for the most part, not at all. So enough with the “you’re already paying” canard. I’m not already paying for this.
The more you write, the more I believe you don’t truly understand your own analogy.
You’re saying that because gasoline is baked into everything we buy, we can easily transfer that aspect as a recurring bulk purchase to the government. By doing so, gasoline will be cheaper for everyone. Instead of paying for gas directly (and indirectly via products & services) with our credit cards, we pay higher taxes and redeem them for gasoline. All gas station pumps will take a government assigned swipe card. The result is that more gasoline will be provided to everyone at cheaper cost. The people who don’t own cars before could “buy” gasoline – and now many of them could afford cars. The gas guzzling SUV owners will find gas cheaper. Lawn service companies pay less for gas. It’s a win win for everyone. MORE gasoline is given out and yet it costs less for EVERYONE. Amazing.
The reason you’ve stated repeatedly is that you’re already paying for gasoline in virtually everything you buy!!!
I guess you feel you have a stunning piece of economics insight there. Well, it seems like that method could be applied to everything: The cost of electricity is baked into everything we buy. The cost of food to feed the entire workforce which keeps our economy humming is baked into everything we buy. We could just use this private-pay-switch-to-tax-and-redeem and all of our products and services would instantly be cheaper. It’s magic.
What you’ve missed in the analogy is that it’s not about making things “cheaper” it’s about making them available.
If 50million Americans lacked access to quality gasoline, and were going to die as a result, then you’d have a case to make.
This is not even a new concept, I’m not about to get the Nobel in Economics by explaining how a cost that everyone in society is paying can be switched to a single payer tax funded system. There are a thousand examples of aspects that don’t make sense to switch, such as gasoline and big screen tvs.
But there are also thousands of examples where we did decide to switch: fire, police, military, roads and highways, the legal system (imagine having to hire a judge), snow removal, and water/sewage.
Right now everyone on my block pays for garbage collection directly to one of 8 companies, each of who make a profit from that. I personally think we’d be better off having that $10 a month added to our property tax and having a single, not-for-profit provider collect our garbage. I can see how most people like the privatized system. It basically comes down to personal preference.
Within that argument you could point to a place like Canada with crappy government provided garbage collection that goes on strike every three years, and I could point to the 6 of 8 companies that suck and actively screw over their customers.
But here’s the kicker, we currently ALSO have government provided recycling collection.
Do you see how right now, I am paying for BOTH a private and a public system. So if someone proposed to switch to purely public, it would be stupid for me to say, “I don’t want to pay for other people’s garbage” when I already am. Yes it would cost $10 in taxes, that $10 was what I was already paying. And I was also ALREADY paying a few bucks in taxes for the recycle collection.
To carry this forward: Imagine that one person on my block can’t afford the monthly fee. It’s in our best interest, as a neighbourhood, to make sure he’s not just piling it up in his backyard. There is a common good, and should this be the case, I would gladly chip in my fair share, along with the rest of the neighbourhood, to make sure he doesn’t die as a result, or poison me.
I’ve also noticed in a lot of areas the city stopped plowing sidewalks, and instead required homeowners to do it at penalty of fine. So walking down the sidewalk looks great for the first 9 houses, and you think to yourself, this is great, the government saved $ X billion a year. Until you get to the 10th house who decided not to (or couldn’t afford to) shovel his part. Now the sidewalk is completely useless. It looks like the government saved money, each other home owner thinks, “great, less taxes,” but the sidewalk has been rendered useless. But we still didn’t eliminate government provided snow clearance, they are still plowing sidewalks for 100million people, just not the 50million that actually need it.
So great, you saved $90billion a year, but the sidewalk is still useless, and the garbage is piling up at the end of the block.
One way they use is to declare it a pre-existing condition. But when the hospital calls the insurance company to get billing procedures, the insurance company has doctors on their staff trying to find excuses for denying coverage. Their bonuses and salaries are dependent on the amount of care they can reject. When the house had hearings, many doctors working for the insurance companies testified to that. They can fight any procedure they want to fight. There are many stories of ill people getting the run around from the insurance companies.
Ours. I have lots of Canadian friends and relatives and they all love their system and wonder how stupid you would have to be to defend the American system. They laugh at our neanderthal system.
I have a friend in Canada who got a heart transplant. It took a long time for them to exhaust all the alternatives before they actually did it. He is not wealthy and if he lived here he would most likely be dead now.
Just think what it would be like to not have insurance coverage affect all your decisions in life. Want to change jobs? You will have to go without insurance for 90 days while you qualify in the new job. If you get laid off, your coverage is gone. Then you can not afford it. Is that a good thing? I will answer yet again. Our system is screwed up. it is a cost of doing business ,which damages our ability to compete. Are you happy with that? There is profit in denying coverage. Are you fine with that? We have millions uncovered and more are added every day. Are you at peace with that? Our system is not very good, no. 37 on the WHO list. You have no problems with that? Ours costs double and delivers less. Are you pleased with that?
My son has coverage. yet he will battle to get his shoulder fixed. You think that is OK? He may have it denied totally. Care to defend that?
Health Insurance “Innovation” – The Baseline Scenario Here is a story on rescission, the practice that happens when you get sick and may need health care. They the insurance company digs up some excuse to dent coverage. you may have been paying premiums for years. Yet if you get sick they can find a way not to pay. They have denied paying because a cancer patient did not reveal they were treated for acne in the past. They have refused to pay when an agent put the wrong weight in the application. Of course they take the premiums without trouble until you get sick, then they try to find a way not to pay. They can give a huge list of conditions and ask if you have been treated for them in the past. Some can be technical and strange. The health care exec in front of congress admitted he was not familiar with some of them. yet ,if you make a mistake on one, you can be denied coverage. The reason they exist, is to give the insurance companies a way out of paying. This is a crooked system that should be dismantled.
Once again I will try to dispel the “government bureaucrat who decides who gets what medical service based on politics” meme. What you are arguing against is a strawman.
The way a government system works is that there is a board that decides on what servies EVERYONE gets. Everyone, including that bureaucrat’s family, the families of policticians and famous people as well as joe public gusy like me.
In Canada, medical decisions about how much care to give are NOT handled on an individual patient basis. For example, in BC, they are handled by the Guidelines and Protocols Advisory Committee, which is composed of members from a provincial (in this case) medical association (eg. group of doctors) and members from a ministry of health (mainly doctors). Decisions on what procedures to pay for are decided upon on the basis of:
Literature search (previous guidelines, critical literature reviews, randomized controlled trials)
Consultation with experts
Guideline drafts
External review (random sample of general practitioners, random sample of relevant specialists, experts in the field, professional organizations)
Consultation with experts
Approvals (from B.C. Medical Association, Medical Services Commission)
Three to five year planned review (may occur earlier when prompted by new information)
Guideline evaluation
(oh and to add, since this is government, the decisions of this group are public, and are open to public viewing. Can the same be said of private insurer’s decisions?
Under this enlightened system you propose… What exactly would happen to the person who could not afford 100’s of dollars per month for insurance? Or, say, the person who cut his hand shortly after being laid off, and had not had a chance to get other insurance?
Would you be OK with people dying of septicemia from a cut when a simply doctors visit and antibiotics would have saved them?
Would you be fine with a hospital turning someone out to die in the street if they failed to pay a bill?
Because that is what you are proposing. Can’t afford it? So sorry, but you will have to die now.
You talk as if this is some unavoidable affliction when it’s actually a lifestyle choice. Americans could be savers. They have been savers in the past (interestingly, in times when people paid for their own medical bills).
But I don’t use my homeowners insurance to replace my water heater, and I don’t use my auto insurance when I need new tires. These insurance schemes work because they’re truly for accidental, catastrophic situations. Everything else is on your own dime. This is also why it doesn’t cost $20,000 to replace a transmission. People are accountable for their own decisions on consumption. This is why medical treatments cost so much… people figure hey, I’m not paying for this, I’ll just consume as much as I can. That is why healthcare costs too much.
I don’t have a new plan to save us all. You also don’t have a plan that saves us all. And that’s okay, because actually we don’t need a plan that saves us all.
The plan, UHC. Universal Health Care with Health Insurance Companies out of it. They gobble up 30 percent to administrate a complex system that adds nothing at all to health care. Doctors have to have a staff to call and deal with the Insurance Companies. They are not part of the solution. They are a big part of the problem.
Well in America he will not get his shoulder operation at all . Care to defend that.? In Canada they would fix it. He will live with an agonizing shoulder that limits his ability to move without pain until he can save enough money to pay for it himself. But ,he has insurance. yep, they are collecting premiums each and every month, while not providing health care. That you defend?
Response to the Senator accusing Canada of having "staggering" wait times from Canadian Surgeon - Democratic Underground The wait times in Canada are fabrications of those who have an interest in keeping the American Health Care system. MAGIVER is desperately grasping at anything he believes will buttress a bad argument, with any goofy ass report he can find. I have many Canadian friends and relatives. They agree that the Canadian system is not perfect. They see flaws in it. But they can actually get health care ,without worrying about it. It would be nice to have that cloud taken off our minds. None would change for our corrupt ,self serving, Insurance system.
Thanks for the opportunity to deal with yet another Health Care Myth.
I would like to see a cite for Canadians waiting YEARS (your caps) for basic care. Go ahead. Who is waiting years, and for what sort of care?
Let me point that out again. You claim that Canadians must wait YEARS for basic care. You are wrong. You are incorrect. You are mistaken. You are writing statements that are inopperative. You’re barking up the wrong tree here.
Are you aware that wait times for various procedures are published for many provinces? Here’s a cite for some examples from Alberta:
Note that wait times for Non-urgent coronary bypass graft are 8 - 9 weeks for 50% of patients, 15 - 20 weeks for 90% of patients
Note that the wait times for ELECTIVE hip surgery is 13 weeks for 50% of patients and 33 weeks for 90% of patients.
What, pray tell, are the average or median wait times for those surgeries in various hospitals thoughout the United States? Is this data published by private insurance companies? Please don’t forget to include wait times for someone without insurance to get elective hip surgery.
Magiver, please don’t be put off by the fact the link goes to democratic underground. It is a copy of a letter from the VP at Kingston General Hospital, where he corrects Senator McConnell’s completely erroneous reporting about wait times at KGH. It seems that Senator McConnell is either so stupid he cannot understand simple numbers, or he and/or his staff simply fabricated a bunch of crap about waiting times at this hospital, thinking they would not be caught
You didn’t really use the democratic underground as a reference did you? Start with the the waiting time listed. That didn’t include diagnosis time. The waits are substantial, and Canadians have no options beyond coming to the US or other countries.
I posted an example. Care is a combination of diagnostics and treatment. Canadians are waiting for a doctor, then a specialist, then a surgion. If more than one specialist is involved then this process is drawn out for years. Some locations have lotteries for primary care doctors. LOTTERIES!
If you’re happy with a surgery target of 26 weeks then all I can say is WOW. I would never accept this. The last time I was delayed by a specialist I picked up the phone, called my primary doctor and asked for someone who was available. Done. There’s a whole phone book full of primary doctors, specialists, and surgeons to choose from. that’s the difference between private and government run systems. When my kidney stones didn’t pass I elected to have them removed. The surgery was scheduled 3 hrs later and that was only because I wanted time to arrange for a ride. Not 26 weeks, Not 10 weeks, not 10 days. It was 3 hrs after consulting with a specialist. In the 2 weeks from the time I was in pain I saw 4 doctors including specialists and surgeons.
When my mentor was having problems with shortness of breath he went to a doctor who sent him to a hospital where he was diagnosed with artery disease and he had heart by-pass surgery the next day. They didn’t bump him down a waiting list because of his age or smoking history like they’re doing in the UK. There was no waiting list to be bumped down on. Doctor to hospital to surgery in 2 days. What kind of system sets up goals that involve waiting for routine health care? That’s not a goal, that’s rationing.
Magiver, would you mind waiting until the next thread to discuss the myth of wait times. We’re trying to deal with one myth at a time, it really slows things down having to keep explaining something new to you. I have no doubt that after conclusively dispelling the wait time myth you’ll jump onto another bandwagon. There are many, many myth that we need to get through. Let’s finish up with the “I don’t want to pay for other people’s health care” first.
But just to give you a preview, you are horribly mistaken, both on the length of wait times in Canada, and the lack of wait times in the US. Quite simply, everything you think you believe is wrong, and if I have the time and patience I hope to correct all of the mess Fox News has caused.
What you don’t realize is that you can point to a year wait in Canada, and a 3 hour wait in the US. I can point to a 3 hour wait in Canada and an infinite wait in the US.
I must congratulate you though, upon realizing you lost round one, you managed to spin and deflect the conversation without a pause.