Health Insurance Is Not Synonymous With Health Care

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Massachusetts has a mandatory health insurance coverage plan, if you don't have health insurance, can pay up to 900 bucks per year in additonal taxes. This opened the door for crooks to sell health insurance that either doesn't cover anything or doesn't meet the minimum state coverage requirements. The key word is that one point sized print that is under the heading of exclusions.

Certainly hope they do not use Massachusetts as a model.

Health insurance companies redefines the meaning of the middleman, really don't do anything nor provide any service of any useful value, but provide a means of sharing medical expenses.

Say if they had 1,000 policy holders each paying 12,000 per year, that's 12 million bucks, but to stay in business, can only pay out 6 million in benefits, because they have an operating cost of 25% plus try to make another 25% for the stockholders. Translated, this means policy holders are paying twice as much for their actual medical treatment. To maintain their profit margin, need a strong say in medical benefits, what tests can be done nor not done, thus dictating to the doctor what they can and cannot do. Plus consuming the doctors' office and his staff in many additional hours in dealing with them.

A fun exercise would be to add up all of your medical bills for the last 25 years plus putting your policy payments in a good investment fund, if you can find one today, and see what the difference would be, you may learn that you would have been a millionaire. Some clinics have opened on a cash only basis with far reduced rates as they don't have to deal with insurance companies. Health insurance companies are one big fat parasite. Has to be a better way.

That's odd, I live there and never hear or read about crooked health policies. If your employer doesn't provide insurance, and you cannot afford a plan on your own, there are four providers you can chose from to get reduced cost coverage. Check out http://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/ for more info.

[mawilson 2,133]

My impression is that much of the opposition against having a single payer system, whether you call it National Healthcare or Universal Healthcare, is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what it actually would be like....calling it socialized medicine. Nope - socialized insurance maybe.

No, it's the fact that if the government provides a "free" healthcare system for everyone

("free" as in "paid for by your tax dollars, whether you want it or not"), American employers

will no longer buy private insurance for their employees. Hence everyone will be stuck with

the same crappy government-run system.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

My impression is that much of the opposition against having a single payer system, whether you call it National Healthcare or Universal Healthcare, is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what it actually would be like....calling it socialized medicine. Nope - socialized insurance maybe.

No, it's the fact that if the government provides a "free" healthcare system for everyone

("free" as in "paid for by your tax dollars, whether you want it or not"), American employers

will no longer buy private insurance for their employees. Hence everyone will be stuck with

the same crappy government-run system.

It wouldn't have to be like that. In Canada, as in other countries that have national healthcare, you can still buy you're own private insurance. The health care providers will still be in competition with one another to provide service. The Fed could even set it up where there is room for negotiating the price.

[NickD 203]

Massachusetts has a mandatory health insurance coverage plan, if you don't have health insurance, can pay up to 900 bucks per year in additonal taxes. This opened the door for crooks to sell health insurance that either doesn't cover anything or doesn't meet the minimum state coverage requirements. The key word is that one point sized print that is under the heading of exclusions.

Certainly hope they do not use Massachusetts as a model.

Health insurance companies redefines the meaning of the middleman, really don't do anything nor provide any service of any useful value, but provide a means of sharing medical expenses.

Say if they had 1,000 policy holders each paying 12,000 per year, that's 12 million bucks, but to stay in business, can only pay out 6 million in benefits, because they have an operating cost of 25% plus try to make another 25% for the stockholders. Translated, this means policy holders are paying twice as much for their actual medical treatment. To maintain their profit margin, need a strong say in medical benefits, what tests can be done nor not done, thus dictating to the doctor what they can and cannot do. Plus consuming the doctors' office and his staff in many additional hours in dealing with them.

A fun exercise would be to add up all of your medical bills for the last 25 years plus putting your policy payments in a good investment fund, if you can find one today, and see what the difference would be, you may learn that you would have been a millionaire. Some clinics have opened on a cash only basis with far reduced rates as they don't have to deal with insurance companies. Health insurance companies are one big fat parasite. Has to be a better way.

That's odd, I live there and never hear or read about crooked health policies. If your employer doesn't provide insurance, and you cannot afford a plan on your own, there are four providers you can chose from to get reduced cost coverage. Check out http://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/ for more info.

My crazy Wisconsin Public Radio had a discussion about that, have been over 5,000 lawsuits filed already against these crooks. Maybe you have to live in Wisconsin to know what's going on in Massachusetts. And vice-versa, they don't want to broadcast nasty things about our state, everything is great here.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Massachusetts has a mandatory health insurance coverage plan, if you don't have health insurance, can pay up to 900 bucks per year in additonal taxes. This opened the door for crooks to sell health insurance that either doesn't cover anything or doesn't meet the minimum state coverage requirements. The key word is that one point sized print that is under the heading of exclusions.

Certainly hope they do not use Massachusetts as a model.

Health insurance companies redefines the meaning of the middleman, really don't do anything nor provide any service of any useful value, but provide a means of sharing medical expenses.

Say if they had 1,000 policy holders each paying 12,000 per year, that's 12 million bucks, but to stay in business, can only pay out 6 million in benefits, because they have an operating cost of 25% plus try to make another 25% for the stockholders. Translated, this means policy holders are paying twice as much for their actual medical treatment. To maintain their profit margin, need a strong say in medical benefits, what tests can be done nor not done, thus dictating to the doctor what they can and cannot do. Plus consuming the doctors' office and his staff in many additional hours in dealing with them.

A fun exercise would be to add up all of your medical bills for the last 25 years plus putting your policy payments in a good investment fund, if you can find one today, and see what the difference would be, you may learn that you would have been a millionaire. Some clinics have opened on a cash only basis with far reduced rates as they don't have to deal with insurance companies. Health insurance companies are one big fat parasite. Has to be a better way.

That's odd, I live there and never hear or read about crooked health policies. If your employer doesn't provide insurance, and you cannot afford a plan on your own, there are four providers you can chose from to get reduced cost coverage. Check out http://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/site/connector/ for more info.

My crazy Wisconsin Public Radio had a discussion about that, have been over 5,000 lawsuits filed already against these crooks. Maybe you have to live in Wisconsin to know what's going on in Massachusetts. And vice-versa, they don't want to broadcast nasty things about our state, everything is great here.

Which crooks? What companies are they talking about? If there are 5,000 lawsuits I would expect it to be on the front page of the Globe and Herald and all of the tv stations. They broadcast every negative they can find, why would they avoid something of this magnitude?

[mawilson 2,133]

My impression is that much of the opposition against having a single payer system, whether you call it National Healthcare or Universal Healthcare, is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what it actually would be like....calling it socialized medicine. Nope - socialized insurance maybe.

No, it's the fact that if the government provides a "free" healthcare system for everyone

("free" as in "paid for by your tax dollars, whether you want it or not"), American employers

will no longer buy private insurance for their employees. Hence everyone will be stuck with

the same crappy government-run system.

It wouldn't have to be like that. In Canada, as in other countries that have national healthcare, you can still buy you're own private insurance. The health care providers will still be in competition with one another to provide service. The Fed could even set it up where there is room for negotiating the price.

That's the point - I don't want to buy anything. I have a very good private insurance plan which is fully paid for by my employer.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

In Canada, as in other countries that have national healthcare, you can still buy you're own private insurance.

Not in Quebec.

[rebeccajo 14]

My impression is that much of the opposition against having a single payer system, whether you call it National Healthcare or Universal Healthcare, is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what it actually would be like....calling it socialized medicine. Nope - socialized insurance maybe.

No, it's the fact that if the government provides a "free" healthcare system for everyone

("free" as in "paid for by your tax dollars, whether you want it or not"), American employers

will no longer buy private insurance for their employees. Hence everyone will be stuck with

the same crappy government-run system.

It wouldn't have to be like that. In Canada, as in other countries that have national healthcare, you can still buy you're own private insurance. The health care providers will still be in competition with one another to provide service. The Fed could even set it up where there is room for negotiating the price.

That's the point - I don't want to buy anything. I have a very good private insurance plan which is fully paid for by my employer.

Marc -

I wonder what percentage of the population you would be in - what percentage of Americans consider their coverage "good"?

And I bet you're in a miniscule percentage of people who can say their coverage is "entirely" paid for by their employer. VERY miniscule.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I wonder what percentage of the population you would be in - what percentage of Americans consider their coverage "good"?

70%.

Gallup's annual Healthcare survey, conducted Nov. 11-14, finds ... eighty-three percent of Americans rate the quality of healthcare they receive as excellent or good, while only 15% say theirs is poor. Slightly less, 70%, say their healthcare coverage is excellent or good.

[rebeccajo 14]

I wonder what percentage of the population you would be in - what percentage of Americans consider their coverage "good"?

70%.

Gallup's annual Healthcare survey, conducted Nov. 11-14, finds ... eighty-three percent of Americans rate the quality of healthcare they receive as excellent or good, while only 15% say theirs is poor. Slightly less, 70%, say their healthcare coverage is excellent or good.

Interesting.

I really wouldn't have thought it would be that high.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I wonder what % of that 70 had to actually use it. And I don't mean for routine preventive care.

[HannahP 119]

I wonder what percentage of the population you would be in - what percentage of Americans consider their coverage "good"?

70%.

Gallup's annual Healthcare survey, conducted Nov. 11-14, finds ... eighty-three percent of Americans rate the quality of healthcare they receive as excellent or good, while only 15% say theirs is poor. Slightly less, 70%, say their healthcare coverage is excellent or good.

Interesting.

I really wouldn't have thought it would be that high.

How many of those people have chronic illnesses that require quite a bit of coverage? How many have been turned down for private coverage because of pre-existing conditions? How many struggle with the total lack of mental health coverage offered by many private insurance companies? How many are just grateful that they /have/ insurance?

I wonder what % of that 70 had to actually use it. And I don't mean for routine preventive care.

lol, jinx

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Most group policies cover pre-existing. It's the individual policies that tend not to.

Also, not just chronic illnesses but major surgical interventions in response to life threatening events ... reveal a lot about the quality of coverage.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Massachusetts has a mandatory health insurance coverage plan, if you don't have health insurance, can pay up to 900 bucks per year in additonal taxes. This opened the door for crooks to sell health insurance that either doesn't cover anything or doesn't meet the minimum state coverage requirements. The key word is that one point sized print that is under the heading of exclusions.

Certainly hope they do not use Massachusetts as a model.

Health insurance companies redefines the meaning of the middleman, really don't do anything nor provide any service of any useful value, but provide a means of sharing medical expenses.

Say if they had 1,000 policy holders each paying 12,000 per year, that's 12 million bucks, but to stay in business, can only pay out 6 million in benefits, because they have an operating cost of 25% plus try to make another 25% for the stockholders. Translated, this means policy holders are paying twice as much for their actual medical treatment. To maintain their profit margin, need a strong say in medical benefits, what tests can be done nor not done, thus dictating to the doctor what they can and cannot do. Plus consuming the doctors' office and his staff in many additional hours in dealing with them.

A fun exercise would be to add up all of your medical bills for the last 25 years plus putting your policy payments in a good investment fund, if you can find one today, and see what the difference would be, you may learn that you would have been a millionaire. Some clinics have opened on a cash only basis with far reduced rates as they don't have to deal with insurance companies. Health insurance companies are one big fat parasite. Has to be a better way.

$900 a year is cheap! That only covers me for two months here in Calfornia.

[HannahP 119]

Most group policies cover pre-existing. It's the individual policies that tend not to.

Also, not just chronic illnesses but major surgical interventions in response to life threatening events ... reveal a lot about the quality of coverage.

And how many people actually get health insurance through their job these days? I remember how elated my husband was about getting his job because it was one of the few companies left who still offered comprehensive health insurance.