# Would universal healthcare be more expensive or less than the current US system? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 24, 2009, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175 "2009-02-24T08:01:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/441 "2009-03-20T06:19:50Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Because they aren’t. First, insurance companies set their premiums based on what their accuaries tell them will cover a high percentage of the subscribers, so it isn’t often that people go way over what they/their employers pay. Second, insurance companies invest the money we pay in, so a subscriber has to use up well over what they/their employers pay in before they are actually taking money out. Third, me personally - I have never been on maternity nor raised children, which are the biggest money sucks for insurance companies until folks get into old age. I’ve been paying group insurance premiums for almost 27 years so even if I do get something expensive, I’ve got quite a bit of money invested in the insurance system. I’m not sure from this if you understand how insurance works, but your use of the word “invested” makes me think you don’t. An insurance program doesn’t have seperate accounts for each of its subscribers (specifically talking about health insurance here, not life insurance). Likewise, payouts don’t depend on how much is paid in. All insurance companies do is charge a premium that’s higher than average payout each period. If there are lots of subscribers the projections based on statistical averages become pretty good, so barring some major unforseen event, insurance companies know pretty well how much they will pay out on average per subscriber. For an insurance company it’s pretty much a pay-as-you-go system; that is, they match premiums each period against expected payouts that period. They don’t really care how long you’ve been a subscriber, or how much you’ve paid in premiums to-date, except as it affects their averages. What that means, is that: [ul][li]Your historic payments mean nothing. [_]They haven’t been building up a reserve in your name. [_]You don’t have an investment any more than you have an investment if you pay your phone bill on time for 30 years.[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/442 "2009-03-20T06:22:24Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Instead of looking at personal experiences, try looking at census data: Don’t care, particularly the part about the children. If the country would quit supporting and glorifying reproduction, maybe fewer children would be without these things. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/443 "2009-03-20T06:24:57Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > I’m not sure from this if you understand how insurance works, but your use of the word “invested” makes me think you don’t. Not repeating myself, read the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/444 "2009-03-20T06:38:52Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Not repeating myself, read the thread. Well, I read the thread a little more closely, and saw where you said this: > [@](#): > > How old are you people? Why can’t you grasp the idea that no matter how many subscribers a group has, there is no way that the premiums they pay cover all of the expenses the insurance company pays out to them? This is completely wrong. There’s a ratio called a “loss ratio” that you can look at for insurance companies. It compares the ratio of payouts to premiums over a given period. I looked at the loss ratio for 14 health insurance companies, before I got bored, and the loss ratio for 11 of the 14 companies was less than 100%, meaning the premiums covered the insurance companies’ expenses for 11 of 14 companies. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/445 "2009-03-20T06:45:02Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > No, hon, you are NOT “invested” in the insurance system. Lose your insurance you are SOL. There is not a pool of premium-derived money sitting somewhere with your name on it. Most of what you paid in premiums (between 90% and 97%, depending on the company) has already been used to pay for claims. Some of those claims are yours, some belong to other people. Sorry I didn’t see this earlier. This is absolutely correct. You said the same thing I said, only you said it earlier and better, but nothing wrong with repeating facts until they sink in. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/446 "2009-03-20T06:52:52Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Well, I read the thread a little more closely, and saw where you said this: > > This is completely wrong. > > There’s a ratio called a “loss ratio” that you can look at for insurance companies. It compares the ratio of payouts to premiums over a given period. I looked at the loss ratio for 14 health insurance companies, before I got bored, and the loss ratio for 11 of the 14 companies was less than 100%, meaning the premiums covered the insurance companies’ expenses for 11 of 14 companies. Sigh - addressed already. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/447 "2009-03-20T06:55:02Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Sorry I didn’t see this earlier. This is absolutely correct. > > You said the same thing I said, only you said it earlier and better, but nothing wrong with repeating facts until they sink in. If they were facts, they would sink in. Try reading the thread before you post. And checking out some facts, since you apparently don’t know anything more about how an insurance company works than **Broomstick** does. And might also notice that **Broomstick** works at misunderstanding what I post. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/448 "2009-03-20T06:56:16Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > And how much reserve do you think Aetna or United Health has to have? Can’t be bother to read their financial statements to check their reserves, but Aetna has $1.1 B in cash and United Health has $7.4 B in cash. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/449 "2009-03-20T07:00:24Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > If they were facts, they would sink in. Try reading the thread before you post. And checking out some facts, since you apparently don’t know anything more about how an insurance company works than **Broomstick** does. And might also notice that **Broomstick** works at misunderstanding what I post. I’ve read the thread, and I saw your post. I even quoted it. In my post. You are and were completely wrong, no matter how much you sigh. Also, if you think that I don’t know how an insurance company works, you are wrong there also. You said earlier that you worked in insurance for 25 years. What were you doing for those 25 years? You were a temp? An admin temp? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/450 "2009-03-20T07:20:41Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Sigh - addressed already. Yes. It was addressed already, when Broomstick explained to you that you were wrong. When she did, you said: > [@](#): > > Where in the world are you getting your numbers? I checked the loss ratios for enough health insurance providers to know that her numbers were spot-on. Then you said: > [@](#): > > How old are you people? Why can’t you grasp the idea that no matter how many subscribers a group has, there is no way that the premiums they pay cover all of the expenses the insurance company pays out to them? Which I demonstrated to be wrong, and anyone who wants to verify it for themselves can check the loss ratios of various health insurance providers. In fact, the numbers Broomstick provided were supported by my research. So you said: > [@](#): > > And checking out some facts, since you apparently don’t know anything more about how an insurance company works than Broomstick does. Every factual claim you’ve made about how insurance companies work has been wrong, unless I missed a post of yours somewhere where you managed to get something right. So I’m going to have to say to you: “You should check out some facts, since you apparently don’t know anything about how an insurance company works” ---
**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:** [March 20, 2009, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/451 "2009-03-20T16:53:38Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > > [@Broomstick](#): > > > > No, but they CAN raise the premiums to ridiculous heights. > > And how often did that happen with a group policy while you were working for Blue Cross? Frequently. Frequently enough, in fact, that Blue Cross companies have set up charitable foundations and worked with state governments to try to find ways to cover those very expensive people who can not otherwise get insurance. Nor is Blue Cross alone in this - in my state, Indiana, both Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield and United Healthcare are participants in a private/government partnership called the Healthy Indiana Plan that helps people with serious, chronic conditions obtain the insurance they need to stay healthy (among other things) with programs targeted specifically at diabetics, hemophilliacs, organ transplant recipients, and others. The cost of individual policies for these individuals is such that even people with 6 digit incomes would have difficulty paying premiums on their own. Oddly enough, we manage to do that in a state that imposes considerably less income tax than yours, Curlcoat. Which reminds me, Desert Nomad - if you lived in Indiana you, too, might be eligible for HIP. The downside is that you would have to establish residency, and last I heard the program was full. However, you may wish to investigate it as it stands now in case the funding is increased. It _may_ be a way for you remain in the US and have health coverage if that is something you’d find desirable. It’s a long shot, but I offer it anyway. > [@](#): > > Don’t care either way. Yes, we’ve noticed your lack of caring for anyone. > [@curlcoat](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > In that case you’re in the same boat as my husband, who is also awaiting determination from the Feds but is accepted as disabled by the state he lives in. But contrary to your materialistic viewpoint, the determination for social security disability is not dependent on funding but on the extent of your disability. The mere fact you can type will probably work against you, as it would seem to indicate your hands work sufficiently for you to hold a sedentary job although I am well aware of the fact that a person can be able to type for brief periods but unable to do so continuously for a full work day, or may have other condiions which prevent their gainful employment. > > Showing how much you know on this subject too… Quite a bit, as a matter of fact, since my stint working in the department managing long term disability claims. Granted, that _was_ almost 20 years ago now, but I expect not that much has changed. Certainly nothing I’ve seen while we’ve pursued my husband’s claim for SSD has surprised me. > [@](#): > > Insurance isn’t even close to the only responsibility parents have to the children they bring into this world. I think I was pretty clear that I wasn’t talking about insurance. No, it wasn’t. What came across is that you somehow think parents can magically extend their coverage over an 18 year old child when the policy ceases for the children at 18 (or whatever age it does) and that if they can’t magically rewrite the policy they are “irresponsible” for not doing the impossible. > [@](#): > > But it is totally relevant to whether or not there are even more people in this country who have medical issues they cannot afford to pay for, that you expect me to take care of. Why do you expect me to be more responsible for these people than their parents were? After reading this thread, I wouldn’t expect you to lift a finger to save a dying human being by even the small effort of dialing 911. I fail to see how punishing children by denying them potentially life-saving access to medical care because of whatever fault(s) you imagine their parents to have is a choice any rational, ethical person could stomach. Even most die-hard supporters of private health insurance normally have no objections to covering _children_ who have no say in what sort of parents they have or what station in life they endure. You ignore the fact that a family could have the income to cover all their needs and then suffer disaster, such as the death of one or both parents, that could leave them without income or their insurance. It doesn’t even have to be death - if the company the family relies upon for salary and insurance goes under it takes the insurance with them, and some very large companies have been known to go down the toilet suddenly (Arther Anderson comes to mind, and Enron, and dozens of other). Yet you’d blame the parents for not being privy to closely-held information that this was about to happen. Your stance comes down again and again to blaming the victim. > [@](#): > > I meant that there were lucky that he wasn’t totally disabled from birth and unable to make a living. Perhaps if you weren’t so bent on making me out to be an evil monster you might do better at reading what I post. By my ethics you ARE an evil monster. A selfish, uncaring, heartless excuse of a human being. Of course, I realize that not everyone shares my ethics. Nonetheless, I do find your viewpoint monstrous. > [@](#): > > Again, I’m not going to repeat myself on that. I keep hearing your voice echo… > [@](#): > > Did I say it was punitive? I said that because of the cost of living here, what appears to be a huge salary to you is merely middle class here. If we move elsewhere, the cost of living would go down and so - surprise! - would the salary. Oh really? Funny - I moved to Indiana precisely to take advantage of the lower taxes and cost of living and not only did my income remain steady I received raises and performance bonuses every one of the following 8 years until my layoff. My income went UP. Since I managed to move and keep my income I will assume that that is also a possibility for your husband as well, as I’m going to assume he’s at least as skilled and competent as myself. > [@](#): > > Because I have the right to live where I want, Yes, you do. You also have the responsibility to take the bad with the good where you live. If you want to live in California you have to deal with the nation’s highest state income tax. If you want to whine about it you are free to do so but we are also free to tell you that if you don’t like there are alternatives, such as moving elsewhere. > [@](#): > > and you definitely don’t have the right to demand that I lower my standard of living so I’ll have money to give to the government rathole you happen to prefer. Really, talk about selfish and narrow minded - _you_ think that a UHC is a wonderful idea and must be put in place, so therefore _I_ am supposed to just chuck everything because _you_ think I should. Well, my personal opinions matter little, really - as it stands, I’ve managed to keep us insured 19 out of the 20 years we’ve been married despite our jacked-up health insurance system - but then, I worked in the industry so I’m a bit more knowledgable than average (and MUCH more knowledgable than you, apparently). I have no power to impose UHC on the US. However, if sufficiently large numbers of our fellow citizens agree with me then yes, collectively, we CAN do that. Over your objections, in fact. Indeed, I’d argue that you might even be better off because the security of _guaranteed_ insurance and acess to healthcare regardless of what your future holds is worth something. Obviously, you disagree, having this quaint notion that bad things not only will not but _can not_ happen to you. > [@](#): > > Give it a rest. I’ve paid into SS for almost 35 years, and am only applying to get what they would be giving me anyway, just a few years early. But if you get it a few years early then you will get more over your lifetime that what you’d get if you retired at the normal age. You’d get more than the average share. Is that fair, when you haven’t paid more than average into the system? > [@](#): > > Ah, I am supposed to be under the threat of homelessness before I can _apply_ for SSDI? I guess technically I was since I applied when my husband was unemployed and we were living on his unemployment check and savings. Then he got a job, but no matter what you want to believe, we are not even close to easy street living on his one salary. Since the government moves slowly and there is always the possibility the husband will lose his job again before he is old enough to retire, I do hope to get that SSDI so I can continue to pay off our bills, build up our savings again and - gosh, what a concept - not end up being a burden to society. You know, that plan ahead thing? But you keep saying responsible people should be able to take care of themselves and _never_ need to go to the government. You claim to be responsible - so why are you asking for a government handout? Such a responsible, plan-ahead person such as yourself shouldn’t _need_ government assistance _so why are you asking for it?_ Why are you applying to a program you despise? Becuase you husband might lose his job? Well, _shouldn’t you be able to plan ahead for that?_ Should you have enough saved up to carry you through _any_ period of unemployment, having had all those _decades_ to get ready for such events? What are you wasting your money on, that you don’t have enough saved up to care for yourselves? Frankly, I’m finding it tedious for you to continue to assert that you are “barely getting by” on an income more than _twice_ the median, and _five times_ what I am currently earning when I manage to pay my bills and owe no one anything. If you can’t get by on your six-digit income _then you need to downsize_. You only have the right to live in the house you have and the neighborhood you do _if you can afford to pay for it._ If you can’t afford it you will have to move elsewhere. You get no sympathy from me if you can’t manage your affairs sufficiently to live well on what you currently make. If you can’t draw up a reasonable budget and stick to it then it’s your own damn fault if you find yourself financially stretched. > [@](#): > > Of course, I assume that the reason that your husband applied for SSDI because the two of you are under the threat of homelessness? :rolleyes: Nope - not at all. My husband applied for SSD because he is disabled. Which is, of course, the real criteria. We are unlikely to become homeless because we have family and friends who like us and who will help us in time of need. Just as we have helped others when we were better off. Of course, if you have no one who likes you it is more understandable how you come to a stance where it’s every man (or woman) for himself. > [@](#): > > Don’t care, particularly the part about the children. If the country would quit supporting and glorifying reproduction, maybe fewer children would be without these things. Well, I’ll give you points for honesty. But it’s still a matter of punishing children for the misfortune of their parents. Seriously, you don’t give a damn that a child may be dead or maimed because they don’t have adequate medical care? > [@curlcoat in reply to Evil Economist](#): > > If they were facts, they would sink in. Try reading the thread before you post. And checking out some facts, since you apparently don’t know anything more about how an insurance company works than Broomstick does. And might also notice that Broomstick works at misunderstanding what I post. 1. They are facts. 2. He did read the thread 3. He did check out the facts - and confirmed them 4. True, his knowledge of insurance companies is at least equal to mine based on his posts 5. Reality is what it is, not what you _want_ it to be. Frankly, I find it disturbing that you refuse to alter your view to conform to reality. By any chance does your disability claim involve mental issues? Because operating in contradiction to the facts is not a good sign in regards to mental health. Of course, I do not expect you to _answer_ that question. > [@Evil Economist](#): > > I’ve read the thread, and I saw your post. I even quoted it. In my post. You are and were completely wrong, no matter how much you sigh. > > Also, if you think that I don’t know how an insurance company works, you are wrong there also. You said earlier that you worked in insurance for 25 years. What were you doing for those 25 years? You were a temp? An admin temp? Evil, please do not insult the many fine temps I have worked with over the years by lumping curlcoat in with them. 😉 > [@Evil Economist](#): > > > [@curlcoat](#): > > > > How old are you people? Why can’t you grasp the idea that no matter how many subscribers a group has, there is no way that the premiums they pay cover all of the expenses the insurance company pays out to them? > > Which I demonstrated to be wrong, and anyone who wants to verify it for themselves can check the loss ratios of various health insurance providers. In fact, the numbers Broomstick provided were supported by my research. Thank you, Evil. It is, after all, public information. Wouldn’t hurt if more people looked up information on their health insurance as a general rule. Knowledge is power. ---
**Author:** ![Desert\_Nomad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desert_nomad/32/177_2.png) [@Desert\_Nomad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desert_Nomad)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/452 "2009-03-20T17:37:23Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Which reminds me, Desert Nomad - if you lived in Indiana you, too, might be eligible for HIP. The downside is that you would have to establish residency, and last I heard the program was full. However, you may wish to investigate it as it stands now in case the funding is increased. It _may_ be a way for you remain in the US and have health coverage if that is something you’d find desirable. It’s a long shot, but I offer it anyway. Thanks for this. I have looked into Texas, Colorado and Washington (state), but don’t think I would like living in Indiana… I like mountains and don’t like basketball. 😃 Most other state’s systems are closed to (Florida has a waiting list years long). Nevada, Oregon, Washington would be ok, otherwise it looks like I’ll just go overseas again. I can manage to move countries every 3 months to stay legal… been doing it for years. One other option I have considered based on the actions of a few friends in my position is to seek asylum based on denial of access to medical care… an American Refugee. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/453 "2009-03-20T20:18:23Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > I’ve read the thread, and I saw your post. I even quoted it. In my post. You are and were completely wrong, no matter how much you sigh. Actually, what is wrong is your interpretation of that post. > [@](#): > > Also, if you think that I don’t know how an insurance company works, you are wrong there also. You said earlier that you worked in insurance for 25 years. What were you doing for those 25 years? You were a temp? An admin temp? I only temped for about five of those years. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/454 "2009-03-20T20:22:31Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Which I demonstrated to be wrong, and anyone who wants to verify it for themselves can check the loss ratios of various health insurance providers. No, you didn’t because loss ratios have nothing to do with whether or not the insurance companies _only_ use premiums to _directly_ pay claims. > [@](#): > > Every factual claim you’ve made about how insurance companies work has been wrong, unless I missed a post of yours somewhere where you managed to get something right. Prove it. In a real way, not just an assumption that “because this is so, that must be so.” ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/455 "2009-03-20T20:51:34Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > No, you didn’t because loss ratios have nothing to do with whether or not the insurance companies _only_ use premiums to _directly_ pay claims. Definition of loss ratio: [ul][li][Compuquote](http://www.compuquotes.com/insurance-definition-loss-ratio.html): Percentage of each premium dollar an insurer spends on claims.[_] [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance): incurred losses and loss-adjustment expenses divided by net earned premium[_][The Free Dictionary](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/loss+ratio): The ratio between the premiums paid to an insurance company and the claims settled by the company.[/li] [/ul] Feel free to check the definition of loss ratios for yourself. You might also find [this](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/business/03options.html) article interesting. It defines loss ratios and shows that United Health had a loss ratio of (approximately, I forget exactly) 85% > [@](#): > > Prove it. In a real way, not just an assumption that “because this is so, that must be so.” What, specifically, would you like me to prove? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/456 "2009-03-20T20:58:30Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Frequently. Frequently enough, in fact, that Blue Cross companies have set up charitable foundations and worked with state governments to try to find ways to cover those very expensive people who can not otherwise get insurance. Nor is Blue Cross alone in this - in my state, Indiana, both Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield and United Healthcare are participants in a private/government partnership called the Healthy Indiana Plan So, apparently, Indiana is having problems for some reason, yet it hasn’t resulted in a UHC. Interesting. > [@](#): > > Yes, we’ve noticed your lack of caring for anyone. No, you haven’t. What you have noticed is my lack of caring for everyone, because that just isn’t possible. Just as you do not care for everyone. > [@](#): > > Quite a bit, as a matter of fact, since my stint working in the department managing long term disability claims. Granted, that _was_ almost 20 years ago now, but I expect not that much has changed. Certainly nothing I’ve seen while we’ve pursued my husband’s claim for SSD has surprised me. So why the cluelessness in the previous post? > [@](#): > > No, it wasn’t. What came across is that you somehow think parents can magically extend their coverage over an 18 year old child when the policy ceases for the children at 18 (or whatever age it does) and that if they can’t magically rewrite the policy they are “irresponsible” for not doing the impossible. Only because you try so hard to find something wrong in every word I write. > [@](#): > > After reading this thread, I wouldn’t expect you to lift a finger to save a dying human being by even the small effort of dialing 911. Such as this. > [@](#): > > I fail to see how punishing children by denying them potentially life-saving access to medical care because of whatever fault(s) you imagine their parents to have is a choice any rational, ethical person could stomach. Did I say that? No. > [@](#): > > You ignore the fact that a family could have the income to cover all their needs and then suffer disaster, such as the death of one or both parents, that could leave them without income or their insurance. And _you_ ignore the fact that it isn’t all that common that things like this are the reason that people “fall on hard times”. Has Octomom “fallen on hard times”? If the Duggars lose Jim Bob, will you think that of them? What about Jon & Kate plus eight? Or all the folks that willingly purchased far more home than they could afford? Or all the children born to welfare mothers? Drug addicts? And you want me to keep throwing money at these people, making them more and more dependant on “the system” and less and less likely to actually be responsible for themselves. > [@](#): > > By my ethics you ARE an evil monster. A selfish, uncaring, heartless excuse of a human being. Of course, I realize that not everyone shares my ethics. Nonetheless, I do find your viewpoint monstrous. That I expect people to be responsible? That I am realistic and intelligent enough to know that something is going to give real soon in this country if we don’t keep bailing out the irresponsible? Why do you think the economy is currently in the toilet, and how much further would you like it to swirl down? > [@](#): > > Oh really? Funny - I moved to Indiana precisely to take advantage of the lower taxes and cost of living and not only did my income remain steady I received raises and performance bonuses every one of the following 8 years until my layoff. You moved there from where? > [@](#): > > Since I managed to move and keep my income I will assume that that is also a possibility for your husband as well, as I’m going to assume he’s at least as skilled and competent as myself. More so, and as I said a looooong time ago in this thread, when he was unemployed we did look into the _one_ job available in his field in Indianapolis and yes, it would have involved a big pay cut. > [@](#): > > Yes, you do. You also have the responsibility to take the bad with the good where you live. If you want to live in California you have to deal with the nation’s highest state income tax. If you want to whine about it you are free to do so but we are also free to tell you that if you don’t like there are alternatives, such as moving elsewhere. I have never whined about the fact that I have to pay taxes here, I merely point out that my husband’s salary is balanced out by the amount of tax we pay. And even tho I’ve said it several times, it just goes over your head because you don’t want to hear it. > [@](#): > > But if you get it a few years early then you will get more over your lifetime that what you’d get if you retired at the normal age. You’d get more than the average share. Is that fair, when you haven’t paid more than average into the system? I probably have paid more than average in, and if I live past whatever they consider to be the average age, I’ll get more then too. In return, I will have a much lower quality of life than the average person. Wanna trade? > [@](#): > > But you keep saying responsible people should be able to take care of themselves and _never_ need to go to the government. Nope, didn’t say that. > [@](#): > > You claim to be responsible - so why are you asking for a government handout? Because, it isn’t. It is my money they took from me for 35 years. > [@](#): > > Why are you applying to a program you despise? Huh? > [@](#): > > Becuase you husband might lose his job? Well, _shouldn’t you be able to plan ahead for that?_ We did - do you even read what I post? > [@](#): > > Should you have enough saved up to carry you through _any_ period of unemployment, having had all those _decades_ to get ready for such events? What are you wasting your money on, that you don’t have enough saved up to care for yourselves? We still have enough that we could live for quite some time, but it would involve cashing out investments that we intend to use for retirement. And no, I am not going to hand that money to anyone else. > [@](#): > > Frankly, I’m finding it tedious for you to continue to assert that you are “barely getting by” on an income more than _twice_ the median, and _five times_ what I am currently earning when I manage to pay my bills and owe no one anything. Your stupidity on this subject is getting tedious too, so I am most likely not going to bother to respond to you any more. > [@](#): > > If you can’t get by on your six-digit income _then you need to downsize_. You only have the right to live in the house you have and the neighborhood you do _if you can afford to pay for it._ And we can. It is absolutely none of your business what we can or cannot afford anyway - just because you want me to be eager to throw money down your personal rathole does not give you the right to tell me what I am “allowed” to spend our money on. > [@](#): > > Nope - not at all. My husband applied for SSD because he is disabled. And I worked for over 15 years after I met the criteria for applying - I only applied after I flat could no longer work. Which one of us is sucking money out of the government for no reason? > [@](#): > > Of course, if you have no one who likes you it is more understandable how you come to a stance where it’s every man (or woman) for himself. Snort - we have no problems there. > [@](#): > > Well, I’ll give you points for honesty. But it’s still a matter of punishing children for the misfortune of their parents. Seriously, you don’t give a damn that a child may be dead or maimed because they don’t have adequate medical care? I don’t give a damn that everyone seems to think that children are more important than every other thing in the whole world, and that they try to use them as a club. > [@](#): > > Frankly, I find it disturbing that you refuse to alter your view to conform to reality. By any chance does your disability claim involve mental issues? Because operating in contradiction to the facts is not a good sign in regards to mental health. Snort. What facts have been presented to rebut _anything_ I’ve posted? **Evil** took _a_ fact and decided that it must fit the subject, which it doesn’t at all. ---
**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:** [March 20, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/457 "2009-03-20T21:00:06Z")
> [@Desert\_Nomad](#): > > Thanks for this. I have looked into Texas, Colorado and Washington (state), but don’t think I would like living in Indiana… I like mountains and don’t like basketball. 😃 Well, admittedly Indiana is mostly flat and full of cornfields. I have never felt compelled to rah-rah for basketball, and in fact my corner of the state (NW Indiana) probably does more rooting for Chicago football and baseball teams due to close proximity and multiple ties to the big city. Don’t know if skyscrapers can substitute for mountains, though. Our winters are also pretty harsh for those not used to cold weather, which from the sound of it (Nevada, Dubai, etc.) you may not be. Southern Indiana does have a milder climate and is in close proximity to Kentucky, so you could drive to the Blue Hills/Appalachia for a short trip, and southern Indiana at least has hills. Good luck on getting health coverage, however you wind up doing it. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/458 "2009-03-20T21:19:11Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Definition of loss ratio: I am well aware of what a loss ratio is - what I said was it doesn’t apply where you think it does. > [@](#): > > What, specifically, would you like me to prove? Anything you think I am wrong about. The thing is, you will need to read my posts and not **Broomstick’s** , since she has spent so much time misunderstanding, misinterpreting and just generally jumping to wrong assumptions that what I actually said is totally lost. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2009, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/459 "2009-03-20T21:23:07Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > I am well aware of what a loss ratio is - what I said was it doesn’t apply where you think it does. If this was just a miscommunication between us then I’m perfectly willing to let the point go. ---
**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:** [March 20, 2009, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175/460 "2009-03-20T21:33:42Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > > [@Broomstick](#): > > > > Frequently. Frequently enough, in fact, that Blue Cross companies have set up charitable foundations and worked with state governments to try to find ways to cover those very expensive people who can not otherwise get insurance. Nor is Blue Cross alone in this - in my state, Indiana, both Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield and United Healthcare are participants in a private/government partnership called the Healthy Indiana Plan > > So, apparently, Indiana is having problems for some reason, yet it hasn’t resulted in a UHC. Interesting. What, in my statement, led you to conclude that Indiana is having “problems”? They have, in fact, come up with a _solution_ to a problem many other states ignore, namely, people with medical conditions being unable to afford medical insurance. As a result of this problem many people who used to be uninsured now have insurance. How do you construe that to be a “problem”? > [@](#): > > No, you haven’t. What you have noticed is my lack of caring for everyone, because that just isn’t possible. Just as you do not care for everyone. Actually, I DO care that everyone be able to get the healthcare they need. Everyone. Even people who aren’t so very nice, or who made mistakes in life. > [@](#): > > Only because you try so hard to find something wrong in every word I write. The forum is “Great Debates”, not “Everyone Agrees With Curlcoat”. > [@](#): > > And _you_ ignore the fact that it isn’t all that common that things like this are the reason that people “fall on hard times”. Has Octomom “fallen on hard times”? If the Duggars lose Jim Bob, will you think that of them? What about Jon & Kate plus eight? Or all the folks that willingly purchased far more home than they could afford? The Duggars, Octomon, and Jon&Kate are _hardly_ typical or average in any sense of the word. > [@](#): > > Or all the children born to welfare mothers? Not all “welfare mothers” were on welfare when their children were born - it is entirely possible for a woman to lose her husband and income, forcing her to go on welfare in order for her children to survive. Not everyone stays on welfare forever. You making the assumption that because someone is poor today they have always been poor, and will always be poor, but that is simply not true in all cases. You are simply prejudiced against anyone of a lower socio-economic class than you are. > [@](#): > > Drug addicts? I think the children of drug addicts are in more need of help than children with sober parents, as their parents cannot be relied upon to give those children consistent care. I would prefer we treat drug addicts and attempt to cure them rather than discard them as if they were trash. They aren’t trash, they’re human beings. They may not be _nice_ human beings, but they’re still people. > [@](#): > > And you want me to keep throwing money at these people, making them more and more dependant on “the system” and less and less likely to actually be responsible for themselves. Again, you make the assumption that once poor always poor, once an addict always an addict, and that is simply not true. You just hate people who don’t meet your exacting standards and wish to deny them the basic medical care that every other civilized nation extends to ALL its citizens, not just a priveleged few. > [@](#): > > That I expect people to be responsible? That I am realistic and intelligent enough to know that something is going to give real soon in this country if we don’t keep bailing out the irresponsible? Why do you think the economy is currently in the toilet, and how much further would you like it to swirl down? I think the economy is in the toilet not because of “welfare mothers” or Octomom but rather because Wall Street played a shell game with the cooperation of the banking industry and their whole house of cards came crashing down just after they left town with their bonus money. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Oh really? Funny - I moved to Indiana precisely to take advantage of the lower taxes and cost of living and not only did my income remain steady I received raises and performance bonuses every one of the following 8 years until my layoff. > > You moved there from where? Chicago. Why on earth would it matter? > [@](#): > > More so, and as I said a looooong time ago in this thread, when he was unemployed we did look into the _one_ job available in his field in Indianapolis and yes, it would have involved a big pay cut. Did you look anywhere else? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Should you have enough saved up to carry you through any period of unemployment, having had all those decades to get ready for such events? What are you wasting your money on, that you don’t have enough saved up to care for yourselves? > > We still have enough that we could live for quite some time, but it would involve cashing out investments that we intend to use for retirement. And no, I am not going to hand that money to anyone else. Well, honey, if you quit working before the normal age of retirement - for ANY reason - you may just have to dip into those investments of yours - what do you think everyone else does? You aren’t _entitled_ to be supported until 65 on the backs of anyone else, and you aren’t entitled to a comfortable old age unless you can afford it. If you can’t pay your bills there are circumstances under which your reitrement investments can be seized whether you like it or not, there are programs you can’t apply for if you have assets to support yourself. It’s not even about handing the money to someone else, it’s a matter of sometimes you have to dip into the nest egg earlier than anticipated. > [@](#): > > And I worked for over 15 years after I met the criteria for applying - I only applied after I flat could no longer work. Which one of us is sucking money out of the government for no reason? I probably have paid more than average in If you stopped working before 65 no you _haven’t_ paid more than average. The typical working life is between 18 and 65, or 47 years. You only worked 35 years - you want to get benefits without paying for the remaining 12 years of normal working life. Oh, and _by the way -_\*\* if you are capable of working you will NOT be considered disabled for purposes of SSDI\*\*. Sorry. Doesn’t matter _what_ your disability is, if you are _capable_ of working you will NOT get those benefits. That is why people who are blind or deaf or in wheelchairs who work even 20 hours a week do not get SSDI. If you have been told otherwise you are sadly misinformed. > [@](#): > > In return, I will have a much lower quality of life than the average person. Poor baby - can’t get by on six-digits a year AND retirement investments. You poor, poor thing - you get no sympathy from me, you have the means to take care of yourself without _any_ help, yet you whine about how hard you have it. > [@curlcoat to Evil Economist](#): > > Anything you think I am wrong about. The thing is, you will need to read my posts and not Broomstick’s, since she has spent so much time misunderstanding, misinterpreting and just generally jumping to wrong assumptions that what I actually said is totally lost. Right, don’t read anyone’s posts but curlcoat’s, because you might read something that proves her wrong. Curlcoat, Evil Economist _already_ confirmed several of my statements. > [@Evil Economist to curlcoat](#): > > If this was just a miscommunication between us then I’m perfectly willing to let the point go. More likely, she’s too stubborn to admit she’s wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-universal-healthcare-be-more-expensive-or-less-than-the-current-us-system/487175.md?page=24)