patrick.net

You'll be bankrupted for sure at your first major illness without insurance.

I bet the Irony there would be profound.

Chances are the insurance company will drag out the treatment and block much of the effectiveness with red tape and they will and wont pay. Like follow up Catscans, at 8 grand a pop. Your company will eventually have to fire you if you're not back with in three months. Unless you have "Working" spouse, with insurance also. Chances are you're going to end up, either dead, or unemployed and or bankrupt, anyway.

I can't say we don't have a Government healthcare plan is the Republicans fault, then first of all, the Democrats had two years to craft such a plan and get it passed. Not only did they fail to, they never even considered what you're talking about after the election. We GOT what the Democrats made, and it's irresponsible to blame anyone else.
Lets not forget, Democrats don't run on Republican constituent Votes, so why they would craft a Republican Wet Dream(Sans the Preexisting clause, which they only gripe about the mandate part makes it unconstitutional, because it's an easy excuse.) Of course they don't care about the mandate part, truth be told otherwise, that would make them a ton of money. Even if they get to keep raising rates indefinitely, like the insurance companies seem to be doing anyway, even post Obama care passage, they don't like the idea of having to keep the Pigeons around after they get sick.

But that's not the point, Obamacare only has ONE bad republican thing built in, yet almost the whole plan is the Antithesis of what I would expect to come from a group of great or super Liberals. It stinks like a Corporate Internet Mission-statement, than genuine legislation. But let's not Kid our selves Who's Baby this is.

Better results, lower cost, higher satisfaction with care.

And rationing. And suicide. And euthanasia. And smaller populations. And more homogenous populations.

Just ignore the facts and the outcome you desire rears its ugly, god forsaken head.

By blocking every attempt at a government option that would give the private insurance cartel some real competition.

Why you have so much faith in a system that has never lower prices and expanded access to anything in all of human history is a real mystery to me Patrick.

Yet you are so apt on real estate matters is a sign that you are aware of how regulatory environments plus predatory practicioners can shuffle along their corrupt ways to achieve a garbage outcome for everyone.

Tenouncetrout says

Chances are the insurance company will drag out the treatment and block much of the effectiveness with red tape and they will and wont pay.

Oh They pay. Large claims of this nature get approved by the board of Doctors actually, not by insurance junkies. This gets very expensive, as I've seen claims that go into multiple millions of dollars when people stick around ICU for a while.

The problem with insurance as I see it, it hides the costs. So an average person doesn't even know how much they are paying their medical provider when they go to the hospital because the insurance pool covers it. I bet if basic insurance went away, and most of the costs were out of pocket, the entire healthcare would become A LOT cheaper.

In olden days we had only catastrophic insurance and healthcare was much more affordable. Because basic crap like coughing sneezing headaches and bee stings weren't a trip to an emergency room by the populace.

Of course Democrats won't allow it, as really broke illegals wouldn't be able to afford it without some sort of a subsidy, which Republicans won't go for.

i think youve gone off the deep end Patrick ive started several small business' and ive never offered my employees health coverage, i pay what i pay if they want health care they can go buy it

if people could only afford the health coverage their salaries could buy then services would be made availibile at those prices, granted it might be really crappy service, but hey thats life you get what you pay for, (except) once the govt is in charge of giving out health care the price will be the highest they can get the govt to pay, which is alot more than the average worker can afford, pushing up prices for everyone, same as the education racket, the more govt backed education loans there are the more expensive college gets, people pay what they can afford and services will meet those prices through market economics

surfingerman says

same as the education racket, the more govt backed education loans there are the more expensive college gets, people pay what they can afford and services will meet those prices through market economics

Thats exactly the problem with healthcare. The more government backs it the more expensive it gets. Every single corporate entity in the industry salivates when government starts sob stories to provide subsidies for the "poor", because they know prices will rise because of these subsidies.

wtfcapinv says

Why you have so much faith in a system that has never lower prices and expanded access to anything in all of human history is a real mystery to me Patrick.

How about roads? Water supply? Police? Elementary school education? Fire department? Libraries? Courts? Sanitation?

What have the Romans (government) ever done for us?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

surfingerman says

ive started several small business'

How did you pay for health insurance for yourself and your family before you had any profits?

wtfcapinv says

And rationing. And suicide. And euthanasia.

Rationing = could speed up death, suicide = artificially early death, euthanasia = artificially early death. Please explain exactly death being sped up in other countries results in a lower life expectancy in the US.

Please also explain how rationing does not occur in the US under the current system. I bet you can't.

Every sane plan involves rationing. There are cost-benefit analyses that must be made in all plans. It is not cost effective to spend $1M to give a 20% chance of extending someone's life 1 day. That's how it goes. If you can afford the $1M yourself, godspeed, but please explain to me why a government plan or any other plan would sensibly pay it.

Everyone wants the best medications for the best purposes, etc. but not everyone can get that. This is not really a good criticism against healthcare being too expensive here.

FortWayne says

Because basic crap like coughing sneezing headaches and bee stings weren't a trip to an emergency room by the populace.

Who are these fake people you invented that go to the ER for coughing?

As far as I can tell, if you're referring to bee stings causing anaphylactic shock, generally EVERYONE who goes into anaphylactic shock should probably go to the ER. Routine bee stings, again, who are these fake people?

Tenouncetrout says

But that's not the point, Obamacare only has ONE bad republican thing built in

Actually, Obamacare is largely the Republican party's healthplan from the 90s.

Why don't you just get it over with and say "death panels"?

Come on, you know you want to.

HousingWatcher says

Why don't you just get it over with and say "death panels"?

Exactly. Apparently these "death panels" that cause early death result in those countries having higher life expectancies. It's actually quite impressive, if you think about it.

corntrollio says

Obamacare is largely the Republican party's healthplan from the 90s.

The one thing Congress added was subsidized healthcare.

These subsidies are quite significant for poor people and phase out when you make ~$45,000!

Person aged 50 making $30,000 gets a $4500/yr subsidy. Sweet!

Age 32 with family of 4 making $45,000 gets $8000/yr subsidy! Thank you Obama!

What's weird though is age 50, make $46,021 and you get $2600. Make $46,022 and you get NOTHING, LOL.

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

corntrollio says

Please also explain how rationing does not occur in the US under the current system. I bet you can't.

"rationing" = "pay for your own damn care". Didn't some right-wing twit here say that recently?

Data for me from your link...

Premium:$13,716
on top of...

The maximum out-of-pocket costs the person/family will be responsible for in 2014 (not including the premium) is $12,500. Whether a person or family reaches this maximum level will depend on the amount of health care services they use. Currently, about one in four people use no health care services in any given year. The minimum coverage available will have an actuarial value of 60%. This means that for all enrollees in a typical population, the plan will pay for 60% of expenses in total for covered benefits, with enrollees responsible for the rest. Specific provisions like deductibles and copyaments may vary from plan to plan, and out-of-pocket costs for any given individual or family will depend on their health care expenses. Preventive services will be covered with no cost sharing required.

That's $26,000 a year, while only covering 60% of a Cancer treatment or blood infusion.

That's 26,200 a year, I could put that in the bank for 10 years and have 260,000 dollars.

What a racket.

The maximum out-of-pocket costs the person/family will be responsible for in 2014 (not including the premium) is $12,500.

In utter woids, on top of the hefty premiums, you'll pay for 12K of your health care for that year out of your own pocket, that will include pretty much everything a healthy family of four would pay with or with out insurance anyway. Well actually we don't get sick. But if we did, I'd expect the insurance to do its job.

FortWayne says

In olden days we had only catastrophic insurance and healthcare was much more affordable.

That would be the olden days when life expectancy was 40 and virtually none of the major health problems could be treated other than with comfort and sympathy? It was a hell of a lot more affordable in the olden days where people simply died of things like cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung disease, diabetes, etc. without having to spend any money actually treating them.

bob2356 says

FortWayne says

In olden days we had only catastrophic insurance and healthcare was much more affordable.

That would be the olden days when life expectancy was 40 and virtually none of the major health problems could be treated other than with comfort and sympathy? It was a hell of a lot more affordable in the olden days where people simply died of things like cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung disease, diabetes, etc. without having to spend any money actually treating them.

that's not true Bob. Life expectancy has Ben much higher for a long time.

There is simply too much government involvement in the system. In Capitalism market always meets the desires of their clients. But when government steps in and starts subsidies (which go all to large corporations, they aren't giving you or me cash) all it does is raise the price artificially. It always ends up "how much a month", like housing. And hence healthcare ballooned. Before subsidy it was x cost, today its x cost plus subsidy.

Just look at Obamacare. Insurance rates skyrocketed with it. And it's not like insurance companies kept them low before because they didn't want to raise prices. Simply Obamacare allowed economics to raise the prices and corporations jumped on it.

corntrollio says

Who are these fake people you invented that go to the ER for coughing?

These people aren't fake. Go work in ER in Tarzana Medical Center for a few month and see for yourself. You'd be surprise how much stupidity you'll run into. People stop by for headaches, sneezing, aches, etc... And most get sent back often with prescription for tylenol at most.

You'll see homeless who show up and by law must be treated so they stay in the hospital until sheriff kicks them out a few month later. And every day they get treated to a free bed and breakfast and lunch and dinner, etc...

You'll see illegals, a bit more rare, being dropped off by certain businesses who like to hire illegals at low wages and pass the costs onto society.

Who required that hospitals treat peopel regardless of whether they can afford to pay? Let's see, the law was enacted in 1986. If only I can remember who was president then. Was it St. Reagan?

Come on Patrick. I almost feel sorry for you.

I am self employed and I am my family have lived without health insurance for large portions of time for the past 15 years. Since when did health insurance become an necessity? The vast majority of human beings live without health insurance.

You are confusing health insurance with health care. You can have health care without health insurance.

Furthermore if you want health insurance you can get it for your family for under $400 per month.

Patrick - if health insurance is your highest priority in life then I'd recommend you go to work for the government. From what I hear state and federal workers have pretty good coverage.

gromitmpl says

I am self employed and I am my family have lived without health insurance for large portions of time for the past 15 years.

You're insane. Your family is inevitably doomed in America without health insurance.
Either you will be bankrupted and forced to use some kind of socialized insurance, or someone in your family will die without treatment. I feel sorry for your children.

gromitmpl says

if you want health insurance you can get it for your family for under $400 per month.

Please tell me where and what it covers.

gromitmpl says

The vast majority of human beings live without health insurance.

Almost correct! What you meant to say was "The vast majority of human beings die without health insurance."

gromitmpl says

Since when did health insurance become an necessity?

Since even the most basic visit to the doctor set you back hundreds of dollars? Since something as routine as child birth started going for $50k+?

The insurance system has caused the price of all medical services to rise to absurd levels, making obtaining health care from said system all but impossible unless you are insured.

gromitmpl says

The vast majority of human beings live without health insurance.

This is simply not true. More than half of the world's population has health insurance of some sort (government run, like China, or privatized, like the US). Of the countries that aren't insurance based, about half have national health care programs, and the rest are patient pays systems (almost universally third world countries).

Both Health-care and insurance/finance are two of the most regulated industries. Any wonder why things are thoroughly broken where the two converge?

Kevin says

government run, like China

Countries like China and Russia have government-run health-care, in theory, if you want to die in the hall ways of hospitals. If you want to get real medical service, you can either

(1) Go to a private practice in those countries (not cheap) or fly yourself out of there to seek medical service in other countries, including the US.

(2) Bribe the doctors and nurses to give you actual medical service. Heck, they'd even un-suture you right on the operating table if cash payment is not forthcoming.

In other words, medicine in those countries is cash-and-carry; what's included in those countries' free government health-care is your luck and death.

Almost correct! What you meant to say was "The vast majority of human beings die without health insurance."

Vast majority of human beings do die. Actually, ALL human beings eventually die. There is no such thing as "health insurance" except as a scam, because as desirable as "health"is it can not be insured. Insurance is for unexpected events; getting sick at some point, and especially preventive medicine, is not an unexpected event.

Insurance against getting mugged (getting hit by a huge medical bill), when the mugging is organized to induce insurance purchase . . . that's called a protection racket, aka taxation.

gromitmpl says

You can have health care without health insurance.

Without health insurance, don't expect a round of more sophisticated tests if screening tests are less than certain.

That new chest pain? That suspicious lump? Why bother an uninsured patient with expensive follow-ups? Hey, the screening tests get it wrong less than half the time.

HousingWatcher says

Who required that hospitals treat peopel regardless of whether they can afford to pay? Let's see, the law was enacted in 1986. If only I can remember who was president then. Was it St. Reagan?

Presidents do not legislate. There was no Line Item Veto in 1986. Stop the silly political game.

bob2356 says

FortWayne says

In olden days we had only catastrophic insurance and healthcare was much more affordable.

That would be the olden days when life expectancy was 40 and virtually none of the major health problems could be treated other than with comfort and sympathy? It was a hell of a lot more affordable in the olden days where people simply died of things like cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung disease, diabetes, etc. without having to spend any money actually treating them.

As opposed to now, doctors cut people's breasts off and prostates out because there is a potential for cancer. Everyone is a ticking time bomb for cancer development. DNA replication being a somewhat Markov Process, replication error is certainty if the coin toss is repeated enough times.

After spending all that trillions of dollars, the average life expectancy of an old person has improved by only a few months. The life expectancy improvement is mostly due to lower infant mortality, not older people living longer.

corntrollio says

HousingWatcher says

Why don't you just get it over with and say "death panels"?

Exactly. Apparently these "death panels" that cause early death result in those countries having higher life expectancies. It's actually quite impressive, if you think about it.

Life expectancy is mostly a function of three factors:

1. Infant mortality (which is very low among typical Americans but relatively high among some sections of new immigrants who are not yet integrated into our society)

2. The reporting of infant mortality (government statstics issue; in Cuba, a person is not officially born until he/she is 10 months old, as a way of keeping infant mortality statistics down)

3. Genetics and diet. Japanese have very high elderly longevity expectancy with fish and rice diet; French have relatively high elderly longevity expectancy while living on wine, cheese and butter. Don't expect a Japanese to live long if put on a diet of wine, cheese and butter.

corntrollio says

Every sane plan involves rationing. There are cost-benefit analyses that must be made in all plans. It is not cost effective to spend $1M to give a 20% chance of extending someone's life 1 day. That's how it goes. If you can afford the $1M yourself, godspeed, but please explain to me why a government plan or any other plan would sensibly pay it.

Which is why the decision should be left to the individual instead in the hands of monopolistic bureaucrats. Do you honestly think a monopolistic bureaucrat would refrain from spending $1M of your money to get a 20% chance of extending the life of his mother or his son for 1 day at your expense?

The would-be central planners still suffer from the gov=god delusion. . . aka god-delusion imagining themselves would be in charge in a new dictatorship instead of being trampled upon at the bottom of a human pyramid

How about roads? Water supply? Police? Elementary school education? Fire department? Libraries? Courts? Sanitation?
What have the Romans (government) ever done for us?

I think it's fair to say, given your original post, that the focus is in the FEDERAL government, not *ALL* or *ANY* government. Do you think that roads, water supply, police, elementary school, fire department, libraries, etc. etc., should all be federalized?

I know this to be true from painful first-hand experience with Patrick.net. It is very hard to start a small business in America unless you're already rich, because Republicans have blocked every attempt at a national health insurance option.

Sure... And discussion about increasing competition by allowing people to purchase insurance plans across state lines (i.e., someone purchase coverage from a company based in another state where that state allows further flexibilty in plans offered) is just a "talking point" that has no relevance, right?

Paralithodes says

I know this to be true from painful first-hand experience with Patrick.net. It is very hard to start a small business in America unless you're already rich, because Republicans have blocked every attempt at a national health insurance option.

Sure... And discussion about increasing competition by allowing people to purchase insurance plans across state lines (i.e., someone purchase coverage from a company based in another state where that state allows further flexibilty in plans offered) is just a "talking point" that has no relevance, right?

Yes, it is.

tatupu70 says

Yes, it is.

Awesome retort! And I guess this is because of some reason other than you (and others specifically for the position of a nationally run program) simply declare it to be so?

gromitmpl says

Furthermore if you want health insurance you can get it for your family for under $400 per month.

I demand to see a link to a quote.

I just returned from Germany after a two month stay and wanted to share my experiences there with the medical system and general attitudes to healthcare in Germany. (It goes without saying that Germany has a universal healthcare system like the rest of Europe.) I should add that I have been in Germany in 2009 for 7 months and last summer as well.

My direct experience with the German health system was in 2009. While playing soccer, I managed to smack my toe on another players ankle. I kept playing but afterwards I knew it was broken. I have Kaiser here in California, but it was really only good for emergencies (hospitalization) and this wasn't that bad. After hobbling around for a week, I decided to see a doctor.

I had no idea how much it would cost out of pocket and no one could tell me - they were all covered! So I took out 500 Euros, brought along my credit card and hoped for the best. I was sweating the price - I mean, consultation, x-rays, this could really add up! I was also thinking, long waits (you know like they say in Canada) and bad service..etc.

So I get to the office and wait about 30 minutes (I didn't have an appointment). The doctor comes to see me and we discuss my injury. He orders an Xray (total takes about 30 minutes). They I get a second consultation with the Xray in hand (crap, this is starting to add up). Indeed, I have a broken toe - a hairline fracture that, luckily, needs no surgery and I can just walk around with tight shoes.

Feeling better, but now dreading the bill, I limp over to the counter to pay, hoping I have enough. Guess how much? 50 Euros. Total. Are you kidding me? No insurance?

I celebrated by limping over to my favorite beer shop and buying a Jever Pils for 80 cents. To dull the pain of course. That was my interaction with the German healthcare system.

My other anecdote from the Italian healthcare system. My brother and sister in law took their baby to Italy for a vacation. We came along with our little son (2 years). Before we got there, apparently, their kid started to hyperventilate! They freaked out. Was it an allergy? Was he going to die? My brother in law is a surgeon so you think he would be able to diagnose something, but he may be more of a worry-wort because he is a physician. At any rate, they call the ambulance and go to the emergency room. It turns out that the baby was probably just upset at the brand new travel crib they brought along and felt claustrophobic.

Wow, emergency room, ambulance ride...how much would that cost in the US uninsured? AND they have a doctor in the ambulance, not just the EMTs! This is going to cost THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS (Euros)! What a insurance nightmare with the reimbursement.

The total cost: "No problem sir. Don't worry about it." 0 Euros. Although my brother in law is pretty conservative and a surgeon ($$$) this really changed his tune about universal healthcare. He was a straight Republican voter, even signed up as a reservist after 2001. But after this experience, he was really impressed with the care and really thinks our system is crap, despite his $400K/year salary.

I also note that my father in law is English, has almost no money and works in a pub. But he gets free dental care and free checkups with the doctor. Otherwise, WE would be stuck with the bill...

Now, here is my indirect experience with the European system:

Number of German friends complaining about their healthcare system: 0
Number of people I talked to who even mention healthcare or dentistry (also covered) in daily conversation: 0
Number of friends there with no health insurance (incl. students, kids, coffee shop workers): 0

And on a broader scale, the costs are lower for healthcare in Germany (and everywhere else per capita), they live longer even though everyone smokes and eats pork all the time, and the number of bankruptcies due to medical bills: 0.

I hear and read all sorts of comments by Americans about other systems, how we have it better, how "socialized" medicine is so bad..etc. So I figured I'd give my personal perspective as an American in Europe. BTW, making sure my son can speak German so he has a few more opportunities elsewhere....with health insurance!

Paralithodes says

tatupu70 says

Yes, it is.

Awesome retort! And I guess this is because of some reason other than you (and others specifically for the position of a nationally run program) simply declare it to be so?

Hey, you asked.

OK--here's what I think. Insurers can sell health care plans in any state they want right now. There is no restriction against a health care company operating in all 50 states. They do have to follow the laws governing each state, however.

So what you are proposing is a way to circumvent state laws that some insurance companies find objectionable. And as such, you would not reduce health care costs per service but rather simply reduce services.

It wouldn't be more efficient--it would just be crappier coverage. That's not the direction I'd like to go in...

skully says

Feeling better, but now dreading the bill, I limp over to the counter to pay, hoping I have enough. Guess how much? 50 Euros. Total. Are you kidding me? No insurance?

Well you feel ashamed of your self, not paying over 500 euros, I mean how can all of the 401K pensioners make their nest egg for wall street to skim from?

skully says

The total cost: "No problem sir. Don't worry about it." 0 Euros. Although my brother in law is pretty conservative and a surgeon ($$$) this really changed his tune about universal healthcare. He was a straight Republican voter, even signed up as a reservist after 2001. But after this experience, he was really impressed with the care and really thinks our system is crap, despite his $400K/year salary.

So how much does Doctor like his counterpart in Germany get paid? Where's the money coming from? obviously not from the patients paying 0 Euro.

BTW, a "0" fee system is probably not sustainable with highly mobile population like in the US. I'm sure you have heard of the racist anti-immigrant politics in Germany; it's only a prelude to accusations of "free-loading" between the regions like the north-south difference in Italy. When something is free of charge, people would cross regional borders to get it.