# Insurance company poopyheads **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 7, 2009, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/insurance-company-poopyheads/502151 "2009-07-07T01:54:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/insurance-company-poopyheads/502151/81 "2009-07-08T22:34:36Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > You don’t get it; you are already paying for all 46 million. There are no more. If a UHC was established in the US, I would end up paying the premiums for all of those uninsured 46 million who right now do not have insurance. On top of what I am paying for now. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/insurance-company-poopyheads/502151/82 "2009-07-08T22:36:15Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > If a UHC was established in the US, I would end up paying the premiums for all of those uninsured 46 million who right now do not have insurance. On top of what I am paying for now. And that is my point. You are already paying a thousand dollars a year more on your premium because those 46 million don’t have insurance. If they had insurance, your premiums would go down. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/insurance-company-poopyheads/502151/83 "2009-07-08T22:42:20Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > No, you pay extra on your premium for people who pay nothing at all, because they have no insurance. No, I was talking there about within the group policy that we have. My husband and I pay more per person than a family of four does because the premiums are Single, Employee and Spouse, Employee and Children or Employee, Spouse and Children. The last time we had open enrollment, the premium for a Single was a bit more than half of Employee and Spouse, but the multiple member premiums were only about 25% - 30% more than we pay and there is no cap on how many children can be covered. This is not unusual with group coverage. This doesn’t even include the fact that we also end up paying so others can have things like IVF… ---
**Author:** ![Harriet\_the\_Spry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Harriet\_the\_Spry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harriet_the_Spry)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/insurance-company-poopyheads/502151/84 "2009-07-08T22:43:17Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > If a UHC was established in the US, I would end up paying the premiums for all of those uninsured 46 million who right now do not have insurance. On top of what I am paying for now. Not necessarily. Some of those folks would be paying taxes toward healthcare while they are now deciding not to pay premiums and just rely on public (or private, if they know they can get it when they need it) payors when they get a big expensive claim. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/insurance-company-poopyheads/502151/85 "2009-07-08T22:45:14Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Do you have any evidence this is the case? Or is it just common knowledge? My point is that there doesn’t seem to be any evidence either way, just the assumption that all of these people can’t get insurance because they are so poor they are barely getting by just paying for food and shelter. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/insurance-company-poopyheads/502151/86 "2009-07-08T22:48:41Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > And that is my point. You are already paying a thousand dollars a year more on your premium because those 46 million don’t have insurance. If they had insurance, your premiums would go down. No, my insurance premiums have nothing to do with the uninsured, it is my taxes that pay for them to go to the ER and all that. But I believe that I would end up paying a higher premium to a UHC _and_ more in taxes if we had socialized medicine here. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/insurance-company-poopyheads/502151/87 "2009-07-08T22:52:13Z")
> [@Harriet\_the\_Spry](#): > > Not necessarily. Some of those folks would be paying taxes toward healthcare while they are now deciding not to pay premiums and just rely on public (or private, if they know they can get it when they need it) payors when they get a big expensive claim. I don’t believe that would be a significant number of people tho. Plus, once they had free (or greatly reduced fees) access, I’m quite sure they would start going to the dr far more often. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/insurance-company-poopyheads/502151/88 "2009-07-08T22:57:14Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > No, my insurance premiums have nothing to do with the uninsured, it is my taxes that pay for them to go to the ER and all that. This is not true, and I have already posted a cite supporting that. Your insurance premiums are higher because hospitals increase their rates for all services, including those paid by your insurance company, to pay for people who use the ER as their primary care. They are not paid for solely by your taxes, they cause your premiums to go up. If they all had insurance, the free market would cause your insurance premiums to fall. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/insurance-company-poopyheads/502151/89 "2009-07-08T23:12:35Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Medicaid is usually not a problem for the provider - their issues are elsewhere. If you never had much trouble with Medicare doing such things as denying claims because they came out of order, your clinic was very unique. Or maybe I was just competent at following instructions and completing paperwork accurately - which was pretty much what my job consisted of and what I was paid to do. > [@](#): > > Well, since it’s been over 10 years since Medicare started going private, it’s kind of hard to dig up cites on that, eh? Except not ALL of Medicare went private, and my parents certainly never took the private option with Medicare - they stuck with the government issue all the way. > [@](#): > > As for being lazy - I don’t see why I should spend 20 minutes waiting for something to load just to make you happy. You don’t have to - but don’t expect us to take you seriously if you won’t even look at cites in a thread. > [@](#): > > Where did I say that you were going to be able to find a private policy that will cover pre-existing conditions? If it won’t cover his health conditions what the FUCK good is it? Really? Are you _that_ dense? He’s a _diabetic_ - why on earth do you think we could shell out $700/month (using your figure, which I still say is low-balling the numbers) AND pay out _another_ several hundred dollars on his diabetes medication and testing materials, AND pay for his quarterly tests to monitor how his diabetes is doing, AND pay for his medical items for his spina bifida which is _another_ couple hundred a month? The non-covered items would be $500-600, with $800 for the quarterly testing - we _know_ this because for those months we had no insurance _we paid that out of pocket_. And it damn near broke us and left us out on the street. Except we didn’t get his quarterly testing done _because we didn’t have the money_. We were spending more on medical care than on _all other expenses combined_, I was negotiating reduced rates with providers everywhere we went and **we STILL couldn’t afford to pay for everything he should have had!** What the FUCK good is insurance that pays for nothing that you need? If he does not get these medical needs taken care of\*\* _he WILL die_\*\*. It’s that simple. We can either do the maintenance - or wait until his kidneys fail or he lapses into a diabetic coma and THEN take him to the ER, followed by a stay in ICU, maybe long-term dialysis after that, and even if not, run up a bill of tens of thousands of dollars (at least) which will bankrupt us utterly and which we simply will NEVER be able to pay. It really is in your self-interest to help maintain the health of people like my husband even if it costs you a few pennies a month because if you _don’t_ then your looking at subsidizing a MUCH higher cost when his condition goes critical. Because what we can’t pay the hospital has to cover somehow, and that’s ultimately either out of your tax money or your private health insurance premiums or both. > [@](#): > > Give me a break with the holier than thou attitude. You by your own admission are in no position to pay to cover all of the those who are uninsured in this country, yet you have no problem EXPECTING that I and others like me will. And once again you are _assuming_ that we have _always_ been poor and will continue to be poor - although I have told you _multiple_ times in other threads on this subject that up until two years ago I was making a very comfortable middle class income and - SURPRISE! - _my_ share of my health care premiums and my taxes were subsidizing all the uninsured who had to put off getting care until it was a life-or-death emergency and wound up running up bills they couldn’t pay. So get off your high horse, you aren’t the only one who’s ever paid taxes. The difference is, I don’t get my panties in a twist over it. And, despite being officially poor, I STILL have to pay taxes - in fact, since most of my income comes from being an independent contractor these days I’m paying taxes _quarterly_. Oh joy. So please, until you’re living off a food budget of $25-30 per person per week in the household at today’s food prices don’t lecture me about how painful it is to pay taxes on top of it. > [@](#): > > And that is the whole problem right there - the expectation that someone will come along and pay to take care of you, whether you deserve it or not, whether you have earned it or not, whether you have been at all responsible for yourself in the past or not. I paid taxes when I was middle class and making a good salary with the expectation that if I fell on hard times society would provide a safety net. I don’t see a problem with that. For that matter, with you collecting SSDI, _you_ are taking advantage of that safety net which, yes, you helped to pay for. So why are you upset that, given my husband’s very real health issues, society is helping us to pay for the insurance and health care necessary to keep him healthy and not cost even more? > [@](#): > > I have no idea whether or not you deserve help And you know what? It’s not your place to make that determination about me. Or anyone else. If you wanted that privilege you should have gone into social work, or gotten a job with the social security administration. > [@](#): > > All I said was assuming ou are not failing to include past irresponsibilities because, obviously, I have no way of knowing that do I? No, you have no way of knowing - it’s that you _default assumption_ is that everyone not you is irresponsible and undeserving that I find so sickening. > [@](#): > > Except when you pre-judged me all over the place… No, I post-judged you based on statements not only in this thread but in prior threads on this subject. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/insurance-company-poopyheads/502151/90 "2009-07-08T23:19:18Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > No, my insurance premiums have nothing to do with the uninsured, it is my taxes that pay for them to go to the ER and all that. But I believe that I would end up paying a higher premium to a UHC _and_ more in taxes if we had socialized medicine here. Except that in countries that have socialized medicine most people _never_ pay a private insurance company a premium, the “premiums” all come out of taxes. So really, what would most likely happen is that your insurance premium drops to zero as your taxes go up just enough to pay for new program. Since everybody else is paying significantly _less_ than we are for comparable care my assumption is that the amount of money you have in hand will actually go up slightly. Now, if you WANT to purchase an additional private policy that would be your choice… but you won’t have to. It’s not premium + taxes it’s _just taxes_. So taxes + cost of UHC \< current premiums + current taxes. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/insurance-company-poopyheads/502151/91 "2009-07-08T23:20:51Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Plus, once they had free (or greatly reduced fees) access, I’m quite sure they would start going to the dr far more often. From the standpoint of long term health, that might be a GOOD thing. It is almost always cheaper to treat earlier in the disease/condition than later. Our current system forces people to wait until it’s a crisis - that’s bad medicine. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2009, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/insurance-company-poopyheads/502151/92 "2009-07-08T23:22:15Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > I don’t think I have an issue with socialized medicine per se, tho I do hear many stories of treatment delayed or not given from folks in Canada and the UK. Again, speaking of evidence, do you have anything other than anecdotes or stories from disgruntled consumers of healthcare in Canada or the UK? Some facts would bolster your case. If we’re just sharing stories, then: It is my experience that those who complain about waiting lists in Canada are frequently complaining about not getting in quickly for a non-urgent condition. I had a student who waited 6 months for knee surgery - he could walk just fine, but could not play competitive soccer. Man, did he bitch about wait lists. Others who complain are often older folks who are really, really irritated that some poor smelly persons heart attack takes priority in the triage system over their very, very important pain in their arthritic hip that means that its hard to get 18 holes of golf in every day. They are RICH, dammit, and they are very used to being able to pay to get priority service above the filthy dirty poor people. They get very mad when this does not work in our health system, and complain that “they had to wait and wait to get treated” ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_Stream](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@Carol\_Stream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_Stream)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/insurance-company-poopyheads/502151/93 "2009-07-09T02:29:56Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Here’s [360,000 Irresponsible people](http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db20090630_274637.htm) who recently lost healthcare coverage. This is not true. Job losses do not automatically equal lost healthcare coverage. Some of those people will have healthcare coverage as part of their serverance package, some will take advantage of COBRA, some will be covered under their spouse’s insurance, some will be covered by private insurance, and some don’t need or want coverage because they’re young and healthy. Trying to equate “losing your job” to “losing your healthcare coverage”, as if there were a 1:1 ratio between the two, is a damn lie. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/insurance-company-poopyheads/502151/94 "2009-07-09T02:46:28Z")
> [@Carol\_Stream](#): > > Trying to equate “losing your job” to “losing your healthcare coverage”, as if there were a 1:1 ratio between the two, is a damn lie. You are right. Some of those people weren’t receiving health insurance from their employers in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Carol\_Stream](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c2a13f/32.png) [@Carol\_Stream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carol_Stream)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/insurance-company-poopyheads/502151/95 "2009-07-09T03:00:21Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > You are right. Some of those people weren’t receiving health insurance from their employers in the first place. Well, yes, those people, too. However, that doesn’t explain why **EP** is posting lies on the SDMB. Can’t say I blame **curlcoat** for not rising to his bait. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/insurance-company-poopyheads/502151/96 "2009-07-09T04:02:53Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > My point is that there doesn’t seem to be any evidence either way, just the assumption that all of these people can’t get insurance because they are so poor they are barely getting by just paying for food and shelter. You think it’s an open question whether there are people who are too poor to afford health insurance in America? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Maia\_s\_Well](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3bc359/32.png) [@Maia\_s\_Well](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maia_s_Well)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/insurance-company-poopyheads/502151/97 "2009-07-09T04:32:06Z")
Look, I just want to throw in a comment about assumptions. I’ve learned that it’s pretty stupid of me to get angry because of things I “assume” are true. That’s why I started the GD thread on this topic, because there is SO much I don’t know. Imagine if I had the belief that an odd sock disappears in my house once in a while because the dumb ol’ dirty fairies steal just to be mean. Well, that is so not OK for so many reasons! Those socks don’t belong to the fairies! They did pay for them; I did! And they don’t even WEAR them; they just throw them away! Mebbe I wouldn’t be so mad if the fairies were stealing the socks to keep their poor little fairy babies warm! But come on, this is FLORIDA! So, mebbe I have to ask myself, are the dirty-naughty no-good fairies really the ones that are stealing the socks? Or, I could ask myself if there really are stoopid-mean ol’ fairies in this area. Or anywhere. Answering any of these questions will _make me less angry_, which is good, ‘cause I don’t particularly enjoy being outraged. Also, while I’m blaming the trash-talkin’, fornicatin’ fairies for my circumstances, _I am rendering myself unable to deal with and resolve the problem_. My point is, I think we all agree that random, odd socks are disappearing. And we are all offering each other experiences and facts that can break down some of these mistaken assumptions about randy old drooling fairy-thieves. The problem is, assumptions are so much easier, aren’t they? Belief that a mythical group of anything (whether naugahyde-sucking, pudge-pooping fairies or “selfish people who don’t want to help anyone else and think they should all die” or “lazy-assed losers who could make better choices but don’t because they’d rather be lazy-assed losers”) is the cause of all our problems creates a simple situation in which we can dismiss complexity and be free of the _responsibility as Americans_ to address some of these problems. You know, the missing socks, like the fact that Medicare is going broke, we’re paying one way or another for poor people who go the ER with heart attacks, and poor people can’t get preventative care that might keep them from having to go to the ER with a heart attack. These are only a few of the socks, but there are lots o socks missing. Here’s the thing; I kinda like Broomstick and curlcoat both, and I kinda understand where each is coming from. What I think might be more significant (and watch out, this is an assumption on my part and might be wrong), is that curlcoat doesn’t want broomstick’s husband to suffer and broomstick doesn’t want curlcoat to be crippled by taxes. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/insurance-company-poopyheads/502151/98 "2009-07-09T04:34:21Z")
**curlcoat** doesn’t want socialized medicine because it doesn’t fit her worldview, and doesn’t care whether or not it works. Which is fair enough, I suppose, but ultimately meaningless, since the system is broken and single-payer healthcare is the only plausible fix. **Broomstick** just doesn’t like insurance companies, which is also fair. ---
**Author:** ![Cemetery\_Savior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/439d5e/32.png) [@Cemetery\_Savior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cemetery_Savior)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/insurance-company-poopyheads/502151/99 "2009-07-09T23:26:22Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > You think it’s an open question whether there are people who are too poor to afford health insurance in America? :rolleyes: **curlcoat** got my thought mostly right. When we hear “46 million”, we think of the economically disadvantaged, wishing to have coverage, but unable to do so due to monetary reasons. I do know that part of that 46 million consists of the wealthy who don’t elect to take coverage, there is always a floating number of people in waiting periods and on certain types of State Consinuation plans (not all report as “insured”…I’ll try to dig up a cite later this evening), and young immortal people who are fresh out of college/HS and unwilling to buy individual coverage prior to employment. There are also those people who work for small companies who have gone to a Defined Benefit plan, who elect to receive a cash payout as opposed to taking an individual plan with that money. In addition to the thoughts I posted earlier, why not raise the allowable poverty definition to allow more Medicaid patients? If a Government run program is run so well, what’s wrong with Medicaid? It may be that you don’t get to select your doctor. Then again, not all docs accept Medicare, either. If the outcome ends up like most in the industry think it will, the new goverment plan will be rife with antiselection. This is an industry term that says the following: if there is an open plan (i.e. accepting all, no Gatekeeper) at a lower price, with a higher-priced higher quality plan (like the Insurance Companies), the low-price plan will quickly move to include a large slice of the real risk. This will make it unstable, and eventually untenable. Be careful what you wish for. I’d rather pay premiums to a public company than have my taxes raised to pay for everyone else. -Cem ---
**Author:** ![Cemetery\_Savior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/439d5e/32.png) [@Cemetery\_Savior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cemetery_Savior)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2009, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/insurance-company-poopyheads/502151/100 "2009-07-09T23:34:51Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Again, speaking of evidence, do you have anything other than anecdotes or stories from disgruntled consumers of healthcare in Canada or the UK? > > Some facts would bolster your case. > > If we’re just sharing stories, then: > It is my experience that those who complain about waiting lists in Canada are frequently complaining about not getting in quickly for a non-urgent condition. I had a student who waited 6 months for knee surgery - he could walk just fine, but could not play competitive soccer. Man, did he bitch about wait lists. > > Others who complain are often older folks who are really, really irritated that some poor smelly persons heart attack takes priority in the triage system over their very, very important pain in their arthritic hip that means that its hard to get 18 holes of golf in every day. They are RICH, dammit, and they are very used to being able to pay to get priority service above the filthy dirty poor people. They get very mad when this does not work in our health system, and complain that “they had to wait and wait to get treated” Hey EP, isn’t this entire thread a collection of anecdotal evidence? Try thinking a little bit. If the student in your anecdote was unable to play soccer, could it possibly be that he had a condition that would worsen over 6 months? I suppose it’s possible that it would be fine after 6 months, but who knows? Alter your story slightly, and the kid could have joint deterioration, cartilage tearing, ligament tears, etc. Who’s to say his quality of life is not important, Snooty? Nice broadbrush on the older folks. Again, why is their quality of life less important than the ‘filthy dirty poor people’? If you reversed the polarity and extolled the 'FDPP’s hip operation over the rich person’s heart medication…you get the drift. Classist, Age-ist, and unaware of how our system works. Nice set of planks on that platform, EP. -Cem [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/insurance-company-poopyheads/502151.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/insurance-company-poopyheads/502151.md?page=6)