Fines Proposed for Going Without Health Insurance

Jiro said:
why so surprised? It's how we do it in America. Cash Option.... it's a good deal. Remember my post about my chiropractor? I paid about $50(??) cash for procedure + x-ray when the actual cost was about $300+ with insurance.

damn. i'm bad with remembering numbers but you get the idea.
Click to expand...

Why do you think his fee was $300.00 to begin with?
 
Jiro said:
if that's the case, then what about the unemployed patient with a very very costly medical cost because of cancer?

This reform will fail and we will be broke.
Click to expand...

You fail to recognize that we are all paying for that patient now. And we are paying more than necessary because we need health care reform.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. All but number one involve changes in the way patients are insured. Too many insurance companies refuse to pay for preventive care...people only see a doctor after becoming seriously ill, thus increasing costs of treatment. It has long been known that preventive care reduces costs, but insurance companies will not pay for it in most circumstances. The bill proposes changes in that.
Click to expand...

refuse to pay for preventative care? Are you sure? Mine pays 100% for preventative care including routine check-ups.
 
jillio said:
You fail to recognize that we are all paying for that patient now. And we are paying more than necessary because we need health care reform.
Click to expand...

how does the reform (like mandatory health insurance) help reduce the cost for that same patient?
 
The insane cost of health care is due to insurance companies spoiling those who can afford good insurance. they are babied at the expense of those more poor. This allows the insurers to make more money while serving less people.
The rich provide enough so medical field doesn't have to work harder for thier money.
Then the republicans conservatives whoever talk about work for your money.
spoiled babies in health and insurance industries.
Make em work for it like everyone else. And don't try and spin it into self righteous self glorification as usual.
 
Jiro said:
refuse to pay for preventative care? Are you sure? Mine pays 100% for preventative care including routine check-ups.
Click to expand...

Then you are one of the lucky ones. Most insurance companies get away with not paying for preventive care in one of two ways: either it is a clause written into the policy, or they make the out of pocket expenses that must be met before insurance kicks in so high that the patient can never receive reimbursement for routine preventive care.
 
Jiro said:
how does the reform (like mandatory health insurance) help reduce the cost for that same patient?
Click to expand...

It would reduce costs for all patients. Plus, if that patient was insured, the hospital would be receiving some payment for treatment, meaning that the amount they would lose is reduced. The number of uninsured patients that pay zero dollars for catastrophic care would be virtually none. It is when the hospital receives no payment for this kind of treatment that they raise costs overall to defray it.
 
jillio said:
Then you are one of the lucky ones. Most insurance companies get away with not paying for preventive care in one of two ways: either it is a clause written into the policy, or they make the out of pocket expenses that must be met before insurance kicks in so high that the patient can never receive reimbursement for routine preventive care.
Click to expand...

maybe it's because the people opt for "cheaper" option or picked shrewd health insurance company that's full of gimmicks for best bang of your buck. I find it hard to believe that they would not pay for preventative care because it's much cheaper than the cost to treat the illness.

There are dozens and dozens of health insurance companies. Just gotta pick a good one such as Aetna and Blue Cross and not be stingy on options.
 
Jiro said:
maybe it's because the people opt for "cheaper" option or picked shrewd health insurance company that's full of gimmicks for best bang of your buck. I find it hard to believe that they would not pay for preventative care because it's much cheaper than the cost to treat the illness.

There are dozens and dozens of health insurance companies. Just gotta pick a good one such as Aetna and Blue Cross and not be stingy on options.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It is cheaper to pay for preventive costs. But think about it. 100% of the insured would be taking advantage of having coverage for preventive care. That means pay out on a greater number of insured for the company. They hedge their bets on the fact that only a small percentage of people will ever need catastrophic care in a given year, and that increases the chance for profit. Likewise, when they use pre-exisiting conditions to refuse reimbursement, it increases their hedge. And when they drop a client because he is being treated for catastrophic care, it increases their hedge even more.

Would you consider Blue Cross/Blue Shield to be one of those shrewd insurers? They do this all the time. And people often don't have a choice as to what coverage they are provided. They have to take what is available.
 
jillio said:
It would reduce costs for all patients. Plus, if that patient was insured, the hospital would be receiving some payment for treatment, meaning that the amount they would lose is reduced. The number of uninsured patients that pay zero dollars for catastrophic care would be virtually none. It is when the hospital receives no payment for this kind of treatment that they raise costs overall to defray it.
Click to expand...

:dizzy: I will have to try my best to understand it. maybe in time, I will.

such a complicated and confusing cause-and-effect scenario... "If all patients are insured via mandatory health insurance, then......"
 
Jiro said:
:dizzy: I will have to try my best to understand it. maybe in time, I will.

such a complicated and confusing cause-and-effect scenario... "If all patients are insured via mandatory health insurance, then......"
Click to expand...

Yes, it can get complicated. But it is definately a cause and effect.
 
Jiro said:
why so surprised? It's how we do it in America. Cash Option.... it's a good deal. Remember my post about my chiropractor? I paid about $50(??) cash for procedure + x-ray when the actual cost was about $300+ with insurance.
Click to expand...

The difference between $20 cash and health insurance over $296 is too exaggerated and insane... No wonder why the doctors are greedy and see after your insurance then charge 6 or 7 times more than you pay cash... too exaggerated... IMO.

Example:

There´re most between 10% to 20% discount when you decide to pay cash, if not then you will lost discount which is a normal but it´s not normal what Reba mentioned in her post.

What the doctor did is too exaggerated... no wonder why many Americans give up health insurance because health insurance companies raise the health insurance more and more... I remember from read the some comments who had experienced... She said that she paid $400 for family per month... she have to pay more than $1,000 within 2 years later after she join health insurance company... She & her husband cannot afford anymore and give up. Over 60% people lost their home to medicial bill which is a sad.

damn. i'm bad with remembering numbers but you get the idea.
Click to expand...

Is what you referring to your previous post at other thread?

AllDeaf.com - View Single Post - Universal Health Care
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Jiro said:
if that's the case, then what about the unemployed patient with a very very costly medical cost because of cancer?

This reform will fail and we will be broke.
Click to expand...

Durch tax payers or social insurance payers...

Look at other countries...



Edit: Oh yes.. how about medicare/medicaid/TRICA ?

 
jillio said:
Proposed health care changes are very much about insuring the uninsured, reducing cost, and making health care accessible to all.

The rest of your post can be attributed to the Republican dissidents, the Tea Baggers, and the far right Libertarians.
Click to expand...
According to CBO projections, HR3200 would result in over $200 billion in deficits in just the first decade while the program is ramping up and will most likely generate even further deficits past that. It would also leave millions uninsured. The federal government has such a poor track record, I don't know why we keep turning to it. Medicare is going bankrupt, the VA is a mess (you don't want to get my brother started on the VA), and the Indian Health Service is a travesty. The Post Office is operating $7 billion in the red despite the advantages it has over its profit-churning private competitors- namely zero taxes and a monopoly on mailboxes.

Perhaps we should wait for one of the states to get it right before we impose this thing on the entire nation. Neither Maine, Massachusetts or Hawaii has produced anything we want to emulate, but maybe one of the states will finally get it right. At least if a state's program creates financial havoc, the damage is limited. If the federal government's program is a disaster, we're all screwed.

Now, what if the Republican dissidents, the Tea Party movement, and the libertarians are right? Simply asserting what the bill is intended to do and throwing out crude sexual terms like "teabaggers" doesn't do much to prove them wrong.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. It is cheaper to pay for preventive costs. But think about it. 100% of the insured would be taking advantage of having coverage for preventive care. That means pay out on a greater number of insured for the company. They hedge their bets on the fact that only a small percentage of people will ever need catastrophic care in a given year, and that increases the chance for profit. Likewise, when they use pre-exisiting conditions to refuse reimbursement, it increases their hedge. And when they drop a client because he is being treated for catastrophic care, it increases their hedge even more.
Click to expand...
That's a quite a huge risk to hope that the percentage will remain SMALL for people with catastrophic care. Perhaps 50 years ago, that reform will probably work. but right now.... we're already past far ahead the line where there are too many people with costly illnesses. Obesity, heart attacks, diabetes, etc. :(

jillio said:
Would you consider Blue Cross/Blue Shield to be one of those shrewd insurers? They do this all the time. And people often don't have a choice as to what coverage they are provided. They have to take what is available.
Click to expand...
I have heard of such cases - including CIGNA. very shameless but it's not their fault because the current broken system and laws allowed them to do so. *cough* greed *cough*
 
darkdog said:
According to CBO projections, HR3200 would result in over $200 billion in deficits in just the first decade while the program is ramping up and will most likely generate even further deficits past that. It would also leave millions uninsured. The federal government has such a poor track record, I don't know why we keep turning to it. Medicare is going bankrupt, the VA is a mess (you don't want to get my brother started on the VA), and the Indian Health Service is a travesty. The Post Office is operating $7 billion in the red despite the advantages it has over its profit-churning private competitors- namely zero taxes and a monopoly on mailboxes.

Perhaps we should wait for one of the states to get it right before we impose this thing on the entire nation. Neither Maine, Massachusetts or Hawaii has produced anything we want to emulate, but maybe one of the states will finally get it right. At least if a state's program creates financial havoc, the damage is limited. If the federal government's program is a disaster, we're all screwed.

Now, what if the Republican dissidents, the Tea Party movement, and the libertarians are right? Simply asserting what the bill is intended to do and throwing out crude sexual terms like "teabaggers" doesn't do much to prove them wrong.
Click to expand...

Please indicate using sections of the bill any support for the fact that millions will be left uninsured. This is simply not fact.

Because instituting it at state levels will not produce desired results.
 
About car insurance...

1. It's a requirement only for those wanting to drive. Nobody's forced to buy anything. If you don't want it, you don't drive.
2. At least in my state, I'm only required to buy liability insurance to cover losses I incur on others. I'm not required to insure against my own losses, though I am free to do so.
3. It's done by the states. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes Congress to force anybody to buy anything. It is, however, constitutional if the states want to do that, so when Massachusetts forced people to buy insurance, that was constitutional (not wise, in my opinion, but at least constitutional).
 
Jiro said:
That's a quite a huge risk to hope that the percentage will remain SMALL for people with catastrophic care. Perhaps 50 years ago, that reform will probably work. but right now.... we're already past far ahead the line where there are too many people with costly illnesses. Obesity, heart attacks, diabetes, etc. :(


I have heard of such cases - including CIGNA. very shameless but it's not their fault because the current broken system and laws allowed them to do so. *cough* greed *cough*
Click to expand...

Well, it is still a tactic that is used to increase profits, and since they are still using it, chances are that it is still increasing profits.

And the insurance company will rule out payment for many of those illnesses you just mentioned through their pre-existing clauses. For instance, if a person with diabetes suffers from kidney complications, the insurance company denies payment because it is a consequence of a pre-existing condition...diabetes.

Reform will place the needed restrictions on the insurance companies to make certain that they are not permitted to engage in "shameless" decisions such as this.
 
Back
Top