Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Doctor stops accepting insurance « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 8

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20139
Online
#30 : June 04, 2013, 02:54:22 PM

That has nothing to do with inefficiency, Vince. That assessment is at best, a reach. The reason that affluent people have better options in the UK than poor people do is the same reason that they do here. Because they can afford to.

Huh?

The reason people by private insurance in the UK is because the NHS is GROSSLY INEFFICIENT . . . lol. period. end of discussion. it really is that simple.  There are NHS locations around London and anyone who can afford private insurance never goes to them because they SUCK . . . very very long lines etc.

The reason some Candaian province outlaw private insurance is the same reason Obama's plan taxes people -- the single payer system would not survive against a free market competitor and the system breaks down with less people paying.

By the way, I read that the IRS example for penalties for not signing up for Obabmacare uses an example of a $20,000 year preium for the bronze level coverage for a family of four  . . .  OUCH

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20139
Online
#31 : June 04, 2013, 02:55:53 PM

I think I misunderstood your first post, so my apologies. Having read it more closely,  I now understand what you meant about the cost being absorbed by a larger pool and that makes sense in theory but the part you're leaving out is that it is the government absorbing those costs. in other words, the single payer is not a single national insurer it is the Canadian government, which means taxes.

Actually, the Canadian Medical Protective Association is not funded via taxes, it is funded via premiums, just as a private insurer would be.

CBW, the government reimburses doctors for much of the premiums . .  you know that, right?

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20139
Online
#32 : June 04, 2013, 03:05:41 PM

The difference being, that in a single payer system, everyone gets to at least see a doctor and receive care, whereas in our current system, not everyone does.

who is denied care in the US? One reason health care is expensive in the US is because anyone can walk into a hospital regardless of ability to pay? Am I misisng something?

For profit insurance is not cost effective and is less efficient. It is the primary reason that our medical system is in as bad a shape as it is.

Because you used "primary" that simply wrong.  The PAYER is not the "primariy" problem where the PAYEE (hopsitals, doctors etc) charge $20 for Tylenol etc.  Hospitals and doctors charge those rates to make provits. drive Porsches AND pay for indigant care and the newest, latest, greatest equipment.

Insurance as a concept does not mesh with repetitive, preventative care, its as simple as that. Insurance is for unforseen, catastrophic events.

What you should be looking for is better than what we have, and in the case of virtually every first world country that has some form of socialized medical care, what they have is more cost effectiveness but less satisfaction (see eg UK people buying private coverage) .

I agree with this comment as edited and with this added:  "they also have MUCH HIGHER TAXES and some VERY DIFFERENT VIEWS ON FREEDOM"

The solution is not the government.  The private sector does nealry everything better.  It might be a mix of the two b ut not the govt alone (see the Post Office)
: June 04, 2013, 03:09:26 PM VinBucFan

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#33 : June 05, 2013, 02:31:40 AM

That has nothing to do with inefficiency, Vince. That assessment is at best, a reach. The reason that affluent people have better options in the UK than poor people do is the same reason that they do here. Because they can afford to.

Huh?

The reason people by private insurance in the UK is because the NHS is GROSSLY INEFFICIENT . . . lol. period. end of discussion. it really is that simple.  There are NHS locations around London and anyone who can afford private insurance never goes to them because they SUCK . . . very very long lines etc.

Vince, the reason that people purchase private insurance in the UK has nothing to do with inefficiency. You are the one now who is overstating the relevancy of your argument, and you have absolutely nothing to back it up. The bottom line is that when you live in a society that affords the affluent the ability to receive better than average care if they can afford it, then those who can afford it will typically take advantage of it. It happens everywhere, regardless of whether it is in a socialized system or a privatized one. There is really nothing more to it than that.

If you want to argue over whether or not the NHS is inefficient, then I'm sure you can find other evidence that better supports this claim. Personally, while I think it to be superior to our system, I wouldn't choose a system like the UK's if I were to be calling the shots. But arguing that it doesn't work based on the fact that rich people opt to get better coverage than poor people doesn't cut it. It is like arguing that the fact that rich people prefer expensive cars is proof that there shouldn't be any cheap cars on the market. That is simply a truism, and is no more damning of their system than it is of any system that allows it, including our own. Period. End of discussion.

The reason some Candaian province outlaw private insurance is the same reason Obama's plan taxes people -- the single payer system would not survive against a free market competitor and the system breaks down with less people paying.

If it was the public sector that feared private insurance so much, then why was millions upon millions spent by insurance companies to lobby against passage of a public option? Not to completely publicize the system, mind you, but just to give people the option to receive public insurance?

By the way, I read that the IRS example for penalties for not signing up for Obabmacare uses an example of a $20,000 year preium for the bronze level coverage for a family of four  . . .  OUCH

Your point being?
: June 05, 2013, 02:57:02 AM CBWx2


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#34 : June 05, 2013, 02:37:02 AM

I think I misunderstood your first post, so my apologies. Having read it more closely,  I now understand what you meant about the cost being absorbed by a larger pool and that makes sense in theory but the part you're leaving out is that it is the government absorbing those costs. in other words, the single payer is not a single national insurer it is the Canadian government, which means taxes.

Actually, the Canadian Medical Protective Association is not funded via taxes, it is funded via premiums, just as a private insurer would be.

CBW, the government reimburses doctors for much of the premiums . .  you know that, right?

So they are subsidizing malpractice insurance. How exactly does that make the theory less valid?


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#35 : June 05, 2013, 02:54:25 AM

The difference being, that in a single payer system, everyone gets to at least see a doctor and receive care, whereas in our current system, not everyone does.

who is denied care in the US? One reason health care is expensive in the US is because anyone can walk into a hospital regardless of ability to pay? Am I misisng something?

Yeah, sure. People are not being denied care. They are simply being denied the ability to get care without the cost of it ruining them financially and sinking them into an abyss of endless debt. Oh yeah, and try to see a PCP or a specialist without insurance. See how well that works out for you.

For profit insurance is not cost effective and is less efficient. It is the primary reason that our medical system is in as bad a shape as it is.

Because you used "primary" that simply wrong.  The PAYER is not the "primariy" problem where the PAYEE (hopsitals, doctors etc) charge $20 for Tylenol etc.  Hospitals and doctors charge those rates to make provits. drive Porsches AND pay for indigant care and the newest, latest, greatest equipment.

Actual, "primary" wasn't the wrong word. "Insurance" was. You just made an argument for why for-profit healthcare in general raises costs. Not sure if it was intentional, but it is correct.

Insurance as a concept does not mesh with repetitive, preventative care, its as simple as that. Insurance is for unforseen, catastrophic events.

Insurance as a concept only works when the purpose of the entity providing the insurance is it's sole purpose, i.e., to pay for care as opposed to turning a profit taking precedent over paying for care. All of that other stuff you are trying to sell is irrelevant.

What you should be looking for is better than what we have, and in the case of virtually every first world country that has some form of socialized medical care, what they have is more cost effectiveness but less satisfaction (see eg UK people buying private coverage) .

I agree with this comment as edited and with this added:  "they also have MUCH HIGHER TAXES and some VERY DIFFERENT VIEWS ON FREEDOM"

The solution is not the government.  The private sector does nealry everything better.  It might be a mix of the two b ut not the govt alone (see the Post Office)

Vince, if you can find me a single first world country that is more dissatisfied with their healthcare system than this one is, then maybe I will retract the following comment. You just pulled that from your ass.


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17502
Offline
#36 : June 05, 2013, 07:43:43 AM



Insurance as a concept only works when the purpose of the entity providing the insurance is it's sole purpose, i.e., to pay for care as opposed to turning a profit taking precedent over paying for care. All of that other stuff you are trying to sell is irrelevant.



But it does work , thanks to competition , and the fact that if you don't like the service you are being provided, or the price you pay , you can stop paying and take your business elsewhere.

Insurance works fine with things like car insurance , and those companies still turn huge profits......but then again car insurance isn't forced to issue policies to people who already wrecked their car , or pay for exorbitant repair costs because people without insurance get their cars fixed for free.


What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20139
Online
#37 : June 05, 2013, 08:43:55 AM

That has nothing to do with inefficiency, Vince. That assessment is at best, a reach. The reason that affluent people have better options in the UK than poor people do is the same reason that they do here. Because they can afford to.

Huh?

The reason people by private insurance in the UK is because the NHS is GROSSLY INEFFICIENT . . . lol. period. end of discussion. it really is that simple.  There are NHS locations around London and anyone who can afford private insurance never goes to them because they SUCK . . . very very long lines etc.

Vince, the reason that people purchase private insurance in the UK has nothing to do with inefficiency. You are the one now who is overstating the relevancy of your argument, and you have absolutely nothing to back it up.

CBW, do you know what a "queue" is? It is A LINE OF PEOPLE . . .  to "queue up" means to WAIT IN LINE.  Private medical insurance is sold in the UK as a mean to "Jump the Queue"  ROFLMAO




The NHS is subect to multiple scandals, but by far the most common is people using money, power and influence to do what CBW?   To JUMP THE QUEUE

wow . . . seriously CBW?  I feel a black hole opening . . .


Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20139
Online
#38 : June 05, 2013, 08:59:34 AM



Insurance as a concept only works when the purpose of the entity providing the insurance is it's sole purpose, i.e., to pay for care as opposed to turning a profit taking precedent over paying for care. All of that other stuff you are trying to sell is irrelevant.



But it does work , thanks to competition , and the fact that if you don't like the service you are being provided, or the price you pay , you can stop paying and take your business elsewhere.

Insurance works fine with things like car insurance , and those companies still turn huge profits......but then again car insurance isn't forced to issue policies to people who already wrecked their car , or pay for exorbitant repair costs because people without insurance get their cars fixed for free.

To CBWs comment:  yes, that's why the US Post Office works and FedEx and UPS do not ... Lmao ...it's like CBW lives on another planet ... Oh wait ... He's a self-described socialist who works on healthcare .., it must be the insurance companies. Lol.

On car insurance, it does work and competition is the key bit to my earlier point I have auto insurance for decades, maybe made 3 claims. My family goes to the doctor multiple times a year and we are pretty young and healthy.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#39 : June 05, 2013, 05:43:02 PM



Insurance as a concept only works when the purpose of the entity providing the insurance is it's sole purpose, i.e., to pay for care as opposed to turning a profit taking precedent over paying for care. All of that other stuff you are trying to sell is irrelevant.



But it does work , thanks to competition , and the fact that if you don't like the service you are being provided, or the price you pay , you can stop paying and take your business elsewhere.

What percentage of Americans do you think can actually "stop paying" for their insurance and "take their business elsewhere?" Most people do not have the option to change insurance because they are unhappy with it. They might work for a place that offers insurance from two different providers (key word being might), but even then, their choices are extremely limited, and often times, there is no real major difference in coverage. Like I said, "choice" is merely an illusion for the vast majority of people. In terms of employer provided insurance, which is the kind of insurance the vast majority of people receive, you get what you get.

Insurance works fine with things like car insurance , and those companies still turn huge profits......but then again car insurance isn't forced to issue policies to people who already wrecked their car , or pay for exorbitant repair costs because people without insurance get their cars fixed for free.

Ya. They make huge profits because most people are forced to pay in monthly (Yes forced. You wish to operate a car legally then you are forced to pay for insurance), and receive nothing for it. You could say it works perfectly. You could also say that it's the best racket going at the moment.


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#40 : June 05, 2013, 05:52:57 PM

That has nothing to do with inefficiency, Vince. That assessment is at best, a reach. The reason that affluent people have better options in the UK than poor people do is the same reason that they do here. Because they can afford to.

Huh?

The reason people by private insurance in the UK is because the NHS is GROSSLY INEFFICIENT . . . lol. period. end of discussion. it really is that simple.  There are NHS locations around London and anyone who can afford private insurance never goes to them because they SUCK . . . very very long lines etc.

Vince, the reason that people purchase private insurance in the UK has nothing to do with inefficiency. You are the one now who is overstating the relevancy of your argument, and you have absolutely nothing to back it up.

CBW, do you know what a "queue" is? It is A LINE OF PEOPLE . . .  to "queue up" means to WAIT IN LINE.  Private medical insurance is sold in the UK as a mean to "Jump the Queue"  ROFLMAO




The NHS is subect to multiple scandals, but by far the most common is people using money, power and influence to do what CBW?   To JUMP THE QUEUE

wow . . . seriously CBW?  I feel a black hole opening . . .

Oy veh. This is what I get for trying to have a reasonable conversation with a troll...

Vince, queue jumping isn't a sign of inefficiency. An example of inefficiency would be making the case that what the UK is paying in terms of care doesn't match the level of care that it should for the price.

What queue jumping is, is a sign of how money and influence corrupt the process. Of how if you are a person of means, society tends to treat you better than other people. If that makes their healthcare system inefficient, than it makes ours look like a goddamn trainwreck. You want to know how the US deals with queue jumping? By making it virtually impossible for people without means to receive any sort of quality care at all. There's your solution to this "inefficiency" problem of yours.


CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20139
Online
#41 : June 05, 2013, 05:53:38 PM

They might work for a place that offers insurance from two different providers (key word being might), but even then, their choices are extremely limited,

I would think you would realize this but the customer in the scenario you're discussing is the company not the employee, its the company that shopped the insurance before choosing the plan, that is Dolo's point.  Businesses shop insurance all the time and that is why insurers are price competitive and offer a variety of other services (eg, wellness) because they are COMPETING

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#42 : June 05, 2013, 06:00:09 PM



Insurance as a concept only works when the purpose of the entity providing the insurance is it's sole purpose, i.e., to pay for care as opposed to turning a profit taking precedent over paying for care. All of that other stuff you are trying to sell is irrelevant.



But it does work , thanks to competition , and the fact that if you don't like the service you are being provided, or the price you pay , you can stop paying and take your business elsewhere.

Insurance works fine with things like car insurance , and those companies still turn huge profits......but then again car insurance isn't forced to issue policies to people who already wrecked their car , or pay for exorbitant repair costs because people without insurance get their cars fixed for free.

To CBWs comment:  yes, that's why the US Post Office works and FedEx and UPS do not ... Lmao ...it's like CBW lives on another planet ... Oh wait ... He's a self-described socialist who works on healthcare .., it must be the insurance companies. Lol.

In terms of sheer volume, the USPS pwn's both FedEx and UPS. The fact that FedEx and UPS exist is not an indictment on the USPS. What FedEx and UPS do is provide a specific, or niche, service. They are the equivalent to what a supplemental insurance would be in a socialized system.

On car insurance, it does work and competition is the key bit to my earlier point I have auto insurance for decades, maybe made 3 claims. My family goes to the doctor multiple times a year and we are pretty young and healthy.

Sounds like you are really getting your money's worth from that car insurance...


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#43 : June 05, 2013, 06:03:31 PM

They might work for a place that offers insurance from two different providers (key word being might), but even then, their choices are extremely limited,

I would think you would realize this but the customer in the scenario you're discussing is the company not the employee, its the company that shopped the insurance before choosing the plan, that is Dolo's point.  Businesses shop insurance all the time and that is why insurers are price competitive and offer a variety of other services (eg, wellness) because they are COMPETING

Ah I see. So you are in favor of employer choice, but not individual choice?


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17502
Offline
#44 : June 05, 2013, 06:20:37 PM

..and it's begun ....


What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 8
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Doctor stops accepting insurance « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools