Why does health insurance vary state to state

[brewer12345]

Hey, MKLD:

I think we all value your suggestions on how to find coverage, technical aspects of policy provisions, etc. But on the subject of healthcare reform, how individuals are responsibble for getting cancer, why we should all just deal with a completely unfettered free healthcare market, etc., I suspect I am not alone in wishing you would just SHUT THE **** UP!






Oh yeah:

[mykidslovedogs]

I never said people are responsible for getting cancer or any other illness that they get. Granted, I do believe some lifestyle choices lead to illness that could be prevented. My opinion is that a universal system will ultimately lead to lower quality of care for a much higher cost, alienating a lot more people than the current system does. I never said there wasn't room for improvement. I just think many people are very misguided in their thoughts that universalizing will be the utopian fix for our troubles, and I prefer a system that works the best for the most amount of people vs. a system that fails more people than it helps.

The Canadian system is a good model for comparison, because many who are in favor of single-payor are also NOT in favor of two-tiered systems where there is any inkling of "inequality". The Canadian system tried to eliminate inequality, and look where they are today. The sickest individuals cannot get the care they need and many end up crossing the border looking for better, quicker care from the USA. Like it or not, we will end up in the same situation 10-20 yrs down the road. Universalization is inevitable. As soon as Clinton is elected (and she will be), changes will be made quickly. All I can say is that only time will tell. We won't know for 10 or 20 years what the consequences will be, but once it happens, it will too late to fix and even though the older people (people who are older right now) might never be affected, our children will have a mess on their hands.

[teejayevans]

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs

The Canadian system is a good model for comparison, because many who are in favor of single-payor are also NOT in favor of two-tiered systems where there is any inkling of "inequality".

There always will be 2 tier systems like UK, etc. Currently we people leaving the US
for places like Thailand to get care because of the cost. There is no perfect solution,
but having some basic level of medical care seems necessary.

If I were president:
I would legalized assisted suicides, we talk about being humane to our pets because
they're in pain, but for humans, nope. It's just a way for the medical establishment to
suck the last dime from your pocket.

I would like to see a breakdown of where the money goes, ie how much for
insurance, etc. I really like to see how much mal-practice insurance is costing us?

Also I would eliminate advertising for prescription drugs, makes no sense to me.
Tom

[mykidslovedogs]

Originally Posted by teejayevans

There always will be 2 tier systems like UK, etc. Currently we people leaving the US
for places like Thailand to get care because of the cost. There is no perfect solution,
but having some basic level of medical care seems necessary.

You are right....no perfect solution. People may leave to get care from Thailand because of cost, and that is fine, as long as Thailand can provide those services. We also see a lot of people leaving their countries for care in the USA because they don't have access to the technology that we do, and they are willing to pay for it! Once the USA system goes to the same as everyone else's people won't have those choices anymore...The whole world will be in the same boat....so if you want the best, forget it, because there won't be anyplace to go for the best, because that choice will be gone, even if you are willing to pay more for it.

Anyway, maybe in 10 or 20 years it won't matter because people won't have any concept of what they are missing out on! (unless of course, they look back into history and find that in the "old days" people never had to wait 10 or 20 weeks for high tech services.

[Peter]

Originally Posted by brewer12345

Hey, MKLD:

I think we all value your suggestions on how to find coverage, technical aspects of policy provisions, etc. But on the subject of healthcare reform, how individuals are responsibble for getting cancer, why we should all just deal with a completely unfettered free healthcare market, etc., I suspect I am not alone in wishing you would just SHUT THE **** UP!

You are not alone .....

[bright eyed]

If you've been knee-deep in sh*t sometimes you forget you stink...and then try to convince others it's nice in there!

it ain't so bad...come on in!

[mykidslovedogs]

Wait times in Canada...A detailed analysis...

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/...s/wyt2006.pdf#

[brewer12345]

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs

Wait times in Canada...A detailed analysis...

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/...s/wyt2006.pdf#

What about the price of tea in China, ***?

Edit: removed profanity.

[Rich_in_Tampa]

The Fraser Institute
"Our vision is a free and prosperous world where individuals benefit
from greater choice, competitive markets, and personal responsibility.
Our mission is to measure, study, and communicate the impact of
competitive markets and government interventions on the welfare
of individuals."

[mykidslovedogs]

Originally Posted by Rich_in_Tampa

The Fraser Institute
"Our vision is a free and prosperous world where individuals benefit
from greater choice, competitive markets, and personal responsibility.
Our mission is to measure, study, and communicate the impact of
competitive markets and government interventions on the welfare
of individuals."

Make sure that you don't read the rest of the study. Sentence #1 tells all! There is nothing to be gained from learning about the actual data that was collected

[bright eyed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute

great source of unbiased info huh?

[mykidslovedogs]

Originally Posted by bright eyed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute

great source of unbiased info huh?

There is a lot of data that is included in the report that you can draw your own conclusions from. You don't have to accept Fraser Institutes conclusions, but at least look at the data. Oh...I forgot...that's too much to ask of this group.

[brewer12345]

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs

There is a lot of data that is included in the report that you can draw your own conclusions from. You don't have to accept Fraser Institutes conclusions, but at least look at the data. Oh...I forgot...that's too much to ask of this group.

Nah, I'd rather watch Fox "News."

[Rich_in_Tampa]

Originally Posted by mykidslovedogs

Make sure that you don't read the rest of the study. Sentence #1 tells all! There is nothing to be gained from learning about the actual data that was collected

Your escalating sarcasm doesn't enhance your credibility.

Nonetheless, the political or economic agenda of an information source is fair game and, indeed, an important component for a reader to be aware of in drawing conclusions. The content of such "studies" (or the decision about which studies to cite) may be biased by the slant of the sponsoring organization. This is why I try to rely on objective, often academic research from unbiased sourced if available. This is especially true on the web, where anyone can cast a google hook out there and turn up "support" for virtually any opinion, regardless of its validity.

Similarly, I also refuse to use pharmaceutical reps as my source of information about new drugs, probably wouldn't trust any political advocacy group's own data in drawing my conclusions (liberal or conservative), and wouldn't ask a BMW dealer what the best car brand is.

Perhaps it is not "this group" (as you condescendingly refer to it) which has a closed or doctrinaire attitude on the issues.

[brewer12345]

Originally Posted by Rich_in_Tampa

Your escalating sarcasm doesn't enhance your credibility.

Now c'mon, doc: you just don't want to see the "facts" here.

[mykidslovedogs]

Originally Posted by Rich_in_Tampa

Your escalating sarcasm doesn't enhance your credibility.

Nonetheless, the political or economic agenda of an information source is fair game and, indeed, an important component for a reader to be aware of in drawing conclusions. The content of such "studies" (or the decision about which studies to cite) may be biased by the slant of the sponsoring organization. This is why I try to rely on objective, often academic research from unbiased sourced if available. This is especially true on the web, where anyone can cast a google hook out there and turn up "support" for virtually any opinion, regardless of its validity.

Similarly, I also refuse to use pharmaceutical reps as my source of information about new drugs, probably wouldn't trust any political advocacy group's own data in drawing my conclusions (liberal or conservative), and wouldn't ask a BMW dealer what the best car brand is.

Perhaps it is not "this group" (as you condescendingly refer to it) which has a closed or doctrinaire attitude on the issues.

Please post the studies you have read from "unbiased" sources. I like to read up as much as I can about this subject.. So far, I have read plenty of articles from both sides, but obviously, it is difficult to find an "unbiased" source on this subject. Most are either on one side or the other. My sarcasms is a defensive response to some of the other nasty comments on the board, which, by the way, don't seem to ever receive any kind of criticism. My conclusions have been drawn from information presented by both sides as well as personal experience.

Being in the industry, I have been subject to the effect of irresponsible legislation and have had to spend lots of time explaining away the high cost of small group health plans to my clients. Prior to 2003, Colorado had modified community rating. We were down to only three competitors when rates starting rising 25-50%/yr at every renewal. Imagine trying to explain that to your customers!

In 2003, legislators fiinally approved rating flexibility in Colorado. The unhealthier groups became subject to a maximum 10% rate factor, while the healthiest groups now get up to a 25% discount below indexed rates. This legislation brought a LOT of small groups back into the marketplace helping to allow the healthy risk to mitigate the cost of some of the bad risk. Five new competitore entered or re-entered the small group market, and rates started flatting to an average renewal increase of only about 10% as compared to 25-50%. Now, the Left is trying to reverse the legislation and go back to community rating. It will all but destroy the small group market here in Colorado in the name of equality. They want everyone's rates to be the same. And yes, everyone will have the same rates, but everyone will have the same, MUCH higher rates, as competitors begin dropping like flies. What good will that do for the unhealthy risk when small groups start dropping their benefit plans altogether because the bottom line is much too unaffordable?

Sometimes, equality hurts more people than it helps. Right now, at least the unhealthy can get guaranteed coverage through work, but if the employers drop their benefit plans, they aren't going to have any coverage at all. Tell me...how is that better?

[brewer12345]

Were you ever a used car salesman?

[ladelfina]

ALso, MKLD.. please stop using ONLY Canada as an example.

Here in Italy we get prescriptions either free or with a co-payment depending on a classification system (much like an insurance company might use).

DH had some high BP / cholesterol numbers and was given Bayer asprin (BAYER only no generics!) free, Seacor (pharma grade fish oil) free, Cardura (doxazsin) free, Totalip (a statin?) free, and Moduretic (Amiloride cloridrato biidrato/idroclorotiazide) free..

The Cardura has a "retail price" marked on it of €18.92 for 30 2mg pills. The Moduretic €2.53 for 20 5mg/50mg pills. He finished the other meds and quit taking them after a couple months as his numbers went into a good range and have stayed there, so I don't have the other items on hand to give you prices. Aspirin is $ here, though.. if you don't have an Rx for it.

Of course we do pay for it via higher sales taxes, etc. But it's nice to know if I get hit by a bus someone will take care of me. Maybe I won't get Mayo-clinic-level treatment, but then few people do, even in the US. I have my doctor's cell phone and can call him anytime which is a comfort, though I would only do so in an emergency.

We can also buy private health insurance which would pay towards private clinics and private doctors should we want to do so.

It's if we come back to the US that we would have the problem of being among the "uninsurable" or practically so.. no matter what happens here. Having stupidly moved to a place where everyone is covered. Or should I have kept up my $700/month US payments just so as not to "lose my place in line"?? What a sad state of affairs.