The Latest Republicunt Health Care Travesty

[henryp]

That's how insurance works

That's definitely how they try to make it work.  Unfortunately, a healthy 24 year old can figure out that paying 10k a year so they only have to pay $20 for their yearly checkup instead of $200 isn't how insurance should work. So they don't buy it because they can count, and then it doesn't work.

[Fireball]

That's how insurance works

That's definitely how they try to make it work.  Unfortunately, a healthy 24 year old can figure out that paying 10k a year so they only have to pay $20 for their yearly checkup instead of $200 isn't how insurance should work.  So they don't buy it because they can count, and then it doesn't work.

Cites for costs, please.

[vorlon13]

The entire 'overhead' of the executive levels and infrastructure of the health insurance companies could be eliminated . . . .


Now, does that savings equal or exceed the inevitable loss of efficiency of having the government "do it all", that is manage all the hospitals, hire and fire all the staff, run all the doctor offices, and all the specialists shops ??

[henryp]

That's definitely how they try to make it work.  Unfortunately, a healthy 24 year old can figure out that paying 10k a year so they only have to pay $20 for their yearly checkup instead of $200 isn't how insurance should work.  So they don't buy it because they can count, and then it doesn't work.

Cites for costs, please.

Why?  Do you think it's possible for the real numbers to be such that the point doesn't apply?

[Minimalist]

The entire 'overhead' of the executive levels  and infrastructure of the health insurance companies could be eliminated . . . .


Now, does that savings equal or exceed the inevitable loss of efficiency of having the government "do it all", that is manage all the hospitals, hire and fire all the staff, run all the doctor offices, and all the specialists shops ??

The US spent 3.2 trillion on health care last year.  How much more expensive could National Health Insurance be?

Let's not pretend that we aren't paying a metric fuckton now.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...1f75bb0bc5

[vorlon13]

I note of all the problems the VA has, funding is no where near the top of the list . . . .

[Jackalope]

Cites for costs, please.

Why?  Do you think it's possible for the real numbers to be such that the point doesn't apply?

Absolutely, once you factor in the risks that you're managing against. Suggrsting that insurance is about seeing the doctor for $20 is really disingenuous. Priced out an appendectomy, knee surgery, or extended hospitalization?

Do you carry homeowner's insurance? It's the same freaking concept. You're insuring against catastrophic financial ruin, not for routine care (even though many plans cover that for a copay - mine does not).

[henryp]

Why?  Do you think it's possible for the real numbers to be such that the point doesn't apply?

Absolutely, once you factor in the risks that you're managing against.  Suggrsting that insurance is about seeing the doctor for $20 is really disingenuous.  Priced out an appendectomy, knee surgery, or extended hospitalization?

Do you carry homeowner's insurance?  It's the same freaking concept.  You're insuring against catastrophic financial ruin, not for routine care (even though many plans cover that for a copay - mine does not).

The issue is the ROI.  The expected return on homeowner's insurance is the averaged out risk and you add in the insurer's cut.  That's fair.  You're losing money in the long run, but you're avoiding the risk.  That's how insurance works.

Health 'insurance' is really buying health coverage.  If a person who is guaranteed to have at least 100k in expenditures the following year can buy in for 10k a year that's not really insurance.  They're buying health coverage for 10k. You can't burn down your house, then go buy homeowners insurance, and expect homeowners to pay for your burnt down house.  

So the ROI for health 'insurance' for a healthy 25yo is the averaged out risk, and you add in the insurer's cut. But then, on top of that, you add on even more to cover all the losses that the company takes from all the people with an ROI over 100%.  

That's the system. But the ROI has gotten so obviously bad for healthy 25yo, that it's become too lousy of an investment, and they're willing to risk catastrophe.  I don't think this is up for debate.  It's said over and over on the news that this is a key problem with Obamacare.  That young healthy people aren't buying in, and the insurance companies/govt. were counting on overcharging them to make up for all the improvements for everyone else.

So when I say me quoting the exact numbers doesn't matter, they don't.  Because whatever the actual ROI currently is, it's a shitty investment for young healthy people by design, and they are doing the math, and deciding not to sign up.

---

I'll add, I don't have a problem with health coverage rather than insurance. I was with Bernie on this one. Nationalize it, and pay for it with a reasonable tax system. That makes sense to me. Then the burden will be spread in a reasonable manner, rather than putting it on the backs of young people trying to get going in life.

[Minimalist]

Fuck the republicunts!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/15/healt....html?_r=0

In Clash Over Health Bill, a Growing Fear of ‘Junk Insurance’

State insurance regulators say the proposal harks back to the days when insurance companies, even household names like Aetna and Blue Cross, sold policies so skimpy they could hardly be called coverage at all. Derided as “junk insurance,” the plans had very low premiums but often came with five-figure deductibles. Many failed to pay for medical care that is now deemed essential.

One Aetna plan, for example, defined hospitalization coverage as mainly for room and board. It capped coverage at $10,000 for “other hospital services,” a category that included such routine care as medication and operating room expenses.

This is the shit they are peddling while waiting for McCain to get over his first-class surgery at the Mayo clinic in the hopes they he will get back to Washington and vote to fuck the poor.  I have so little confidence in McCain that I imagine he will do just that.

[Jackalope]

Absolutely, once you factor in the risks that you're managing against.  Suggrsting that insurance is about seeing the doctor for $20 is really disingenuous.  Priced out an appendectomy, knee surgery, or extended hospitalization?

Do you carry homeowner's insurance?  It's the same freaking concept.  You're insuring against catastrophic financial ruin, not for routine care (even though many plans cover that for a copay - mine does not).

The issue is the ROI.  The expected return on homeowner's insurance is the averaged out risk and you add in the insurer's cut.  That's fair.  You're losing money in the long run, but you're avoiding the risk.  That's how insurance works.

Health 'insurance' is really buying health coverage.  If a person who is guaranteed to have at least 100k in expenditures the following year can buy in for 10k a year that's not really insurance.  They're buying health coverage for 10k. You can't burn down your house, then go buy homeowners insurance, and expect homeowners to pay for your burnt down house.  

So the ROI for health 'insurance' for a healthy 25yo is the averaged out risk, and you add in the insurer's cut. But then, on top of that, you add on even more to cover all the losses that the company takes from all the people with an ROI over 100%.  

That's the system. But the ROI has gotten so obviously bad for healthy 25yo, that it's become too lousy of an investment, and they're willing to risk catastrophe.  I don't think this is up for debate.  It's said over and over on the news that this is a key problem with Obamacare.  That young healthy people aren't buying in, and the insurance companies/govt. were counting on overcharging them to make up for all the improvements for everyone else.

So when I say me quoting the exact numbers doesn't matter, they don't.  Because whatever the actual ROI currently is, it's a shitty investment for young healthy people by design, and they are doing the math, and deciding not to sign up.

---

I'll add, I don't have a problem with health coverage rather than insurance.  I was with Bernie on this one.  Nationalize it, and pay for it with a reasonable tax system.  That makes sense to me.  Then the burden will be spread in a reasonable manner, rather than putting it on the backs of young people trying to get going in life.

"investment"

You keep using that word.

I'll start by saying that referring to health insurance and/or coverage as an "investment" and referring to a ROI in this context is wholly fallacious because it's not an investment at all, not any more than homeowner's insurance is. You know what, it's really difficult to even find a handle on your position to respond to when you get it that fucking wrong out of the gate. I'm not going to bother, except to say it's not exactly rocket science as to why young people tend to not buy insurance both pre- and post- ACA: because they would rather spend it elsewhere, and young people tend to think bad, financially ruinous things won't happen to them.