Health Care

[Zaphod]

Basically, solving healthcare is about getting people to engage in the correct behaviors - keeping insurance, making sound decisions about when to go to the doc, etc.

But who will be the enforcer of that?

In a market system, the market itself provides the enforcement. It makes perfect sense that an insurance company would want to double the premium on a smoker over a non-smoker due to the risk of that person's behavior. Same goes for being overweight, or participating in dangerous activities (scuba, skydiving, etc.). You have the ability to participate or else to pay more if you choose. You also have a choice of providers if the one you are with isn't meeting your needs. It works that way for life insurance, auto insurance, homeowner's insurance, and liability insurance.

But why does healthcare insurance always have to be "Everyone pays a pittance to <fill in the .gov organization> and gets Cadillac-level insurance", or "Your employer pays through the nose for your Cadillac plan or else we send the employer into bankruptcy"? (The second option leaving the "protected" employee in the street without a job OR insurance, but who cares? We got them rich corporate bastards, didn't we?)

All of this is just another power grab. Once the .gov pays for yourt healthcare, they've got you by the short and curlies from birth through death. They will be able to madate your diet, your habits, your employment, your recreation, everything. If you don't comply, they'll cut you off and you'll be screwed because you will have NOWHERE ELSE to go. This is interesting because that's exactly the sort of thing all the free-healthcare-for-everyone idiots are constantly decrying the insurance companies of doing, when they DON'T!

 

[Zaphod]

Indexer isn't worth engaging.

I've noticed.

 

[Pima]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LineInTheSand
Indexer isn't worth engaging.

I've noticed.

So how do we ban trolls? He is obviously a troll, since even in his words he came here to fight since a friend told him to check out the site since it is so anti-Obama! Hit his name, he has never asked anything regarding SA, ROTC, DODMERB, etc. He only lives on the off topic thread to bait this community. He takes joy in fighting, and has no desire to add intellectual value to the conversation. If we can't ban him than as far as I am concerned I will never reply to him no matter how inflammatory

 

[goaliedad]

But who will be the enforcer of that?

In a market system, the market itself provides the enforcement. It makes perfect sense that an insurance company would want to double the premium on a smoker over a non-smoker due to the risk of that person's behavior. Same goes for being overweight, or participating in dangerous activities (scuba, skydiving, etc.). It works that way for life insurance, auto insurance, homeowner's insurance, and liability insurance.

So why does healthcare insurance suddenly have to be "Everyone pays a pittance to <fill in the .gov organization> and gets Cadillac-level insurance", or "Your employer pays through the nose for your Cadillac plan or else we send the employer into bankruptcy"? (The second option leaving the "protected" employee in the street without a job OR insurance, but who cares? We got them rich corporate bastards, didn't we?)

All of this is just another power grab. Once the .gov pays for yourt healthcare, they've got you by the short and curlies from birth through death. They will be able to madate your diet, your habits, your employment, your recreation, everything. If you don't comply, they'll cut you off, which is interesting because that's exactly the sort of thing all the free-healthcare-for-everyone idiots are constantly decrying the insurance companies of doing!

Don't get me wrong. I'm not in favor of a 1-payer system at all. I would prefer it to be treated like most states treat auto insurance (a certain minimum required but an open private market where you can buy more and better).

I think we have a choice of 3 options - Require everyone to be in the insurance system (with specific rules) and paid for or continue to have freeloaders who drive up the cost for the insured until nobody can afford insurance or require hospitals and doctors to deny treatment to the uninsured who don't have cash. Clearly option 3 is not going to be very popular. Our current system (2nd option) is proving to be more unstable as the "free services" available to the uninsured continue to become more costly (no end in sight to this growth).

As I previously mentioned the only government help would be a transitional phase to even out the pool until every is in. No use for many private firms to ramp up such a temporary business.

Yeah, as to incentives insurance companies should be able to reward (through reduced premium) improved behavior. However, some conditions (overweight for example) are not entirely behaviorly bound. A person with physical challenges has a more difficult time regulating weight. And weight in and of itself is not necessarily a true determinate of future health costs. Smoking on the other hand, is entirely an unnecessary behavior. And sometime next year our insurance will be adjusted (higher) for smokers with them given a year of deferral on that premium if they engage in a successful program to quit (subsidized). Both carrot and stick.

I don't think premiums should be set based upon non-controllable factors (genetic diseases, previous accidental or disease injury, etc.) so there is actually a small number of things you can treat this way. Getting periodic exams should be rewarded. In fact, I am disappointed in the limited testing offered at most insurance paid physicals. And having a running record of changes in simple blood tests can do a lot for predicting further tests necessary to spot diseases in their early stages. More data point allows for better analysis.

Lots of things can be done better.

 

[goaliedad]

So how do we ban trolls? He is obviously a troll, since even in his words he came here to fight since a friend told him to check out the site since it is so anti-Obama! Hit his name, he has never asked anything regarding SA, ROTC, DODMERB, etc. He only lives on the off topic thread to bait this community. He takes joy in fighting, and has no desire to add intellectual value to the conversation. If we can't ban him than as far as I am concerned I will never reply to him no matter how inflammatory

Trolls??? Aren't they invisible? Especially if nobody feeds them.

Indexer??? Can't say as I've seen him/her.

Patience...

 

[indexer]

I wonder if the Admissions website for the Service Academy Forums. no about this site,

or about the political bent of some people with the 'moderator label" who are spewing their anti-American and right-wing agenda.

Looks like I need to fire off a few e-mails.

 

[Zaphod]

So how do we ban trolls?

Well, there's this little button, you see........... except I can't get to it anymore!

 

[indexer]

Well, there's this little button, you see........... except I can't get to it anymore!

Something I said?

Good for me, I got a screenshot of the word "zaphod" and "super moderator"

I wonder what the Admissions Site thinks about this kind of character.

 

[Zaphod]

I wonder if the Admissions website for the Service Academy Forums. no about this site,

or about the political bent of some people with the 'moderator label" who are spewing their anti-American and right-wing agenda.

Looks like I need to fire off a few e-mails.

First off, your grammar sucks.

Second, so what if the Admissions Offices DO know about this site? This is a PRIVATE site, and as such the SA's have no say as to what happens here, and can do nothing about it if they don't like it.

Third, "anti-American and right-wing" are mutually exclusive and contradictory. It's the LEFT in this country that HATES this country.

Fourth, only one person with a "moderator" label has posted in this thread, and his reply had to do with how Tri-Care works, so I really have no idea what you're talking about. But then again, neither do you.

 

[Zaphod]

Something I said?

Good for me, I got a screenshot of the word "zaphod" and "super moderator"

I wonder what the Admissions Site thinks about this kind of character.

They'll probably agree that you're a troll and an idiot, since it is perfectly clear that I'm no longer a member of the Site Staff, by my own request long before you showed up.

Enjoy contacting the SA's. Let us know how it goes! You can find them easily. Some of them post here already!

 

[Luigi59]

Unfortunately, even if you throw all the folks who don't have insurance today into a pool, their cost is likely to be (on average) higher than most of the existing pools. Basically, you have a larger percentage of uninsurables out there today than in most companies. By and large, employed people also tend to have healthier lifestyles than those who are not employed (think of the large number of folks on the fringes).

But by increasing the size of the pool, the potential financial risks to the insurance company are spread out much wider than they would be in a smaller pool. By increasing the size of the "healthy pool" along with the "unhealthy pool" the profit margins can still be maintained.

As for the cost, I don't really think that is the main problem - access to the insurance is. And I don't think that access to affordable health insurance should be tied to your employment status. It should be made available to everyone.

 

[Zaphod]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not in favor of a 1-payer system at all. I would prefer it to be treated like most states treat auto insurance (a certain minimum required but an open private market where you can buy more and better).

I would argue that ANY mandated level of insurance is wrong in principle. If you require the services that would have been paid by that insurance, then you personally are on the hook for the money. Granted, some minimum level becomes a reasonable idea when you consider that SOMEONE has to pay the bill at least in the interim, and that some people will NEVER be able to pay back a given sum, so aside from throwing them in debtor's prison, the enforcement is a bit difficult.

I think we have a choice of 3 options - Require everyone to be in the insurance system (with specific rules) and paid for or continue to have freeloaders who drive up the cost for the insured until nobody can afford insurance or require hospitals and doctors to deny treatment to the uninsured who don't have cash. Clearly option 3 is not going to be very popular. Our current system (2nd option) is proving to be more unstable as the "free services" available to the uninsured continue to become more costly (no end in sight to this growth).

Agreed. The freeloaders really are upsetting the applecart.

As I previously mentioned the only government help would be a transitional phase to even out the pool until every is in. No use for many private firms to ramp up such a temporary business.

Won't happen. Government WILL NOT LET GO once they have their claws into something.

Yeah, as to incentives insurance companies should be able to reward (through reduced premium) improved behavior. However, some conditions (overweight for example) are not entirely behaviorly bound. A person with physical challenges has a more difficult time regulating weight. And weight in and of itself is not necessarily a true determinate of future health costs. Smoking on the other hand, is entirely an unnecessary behavior. And sometime next year our insurance will be adjusted (higher) for smokers with them given a year of deferral on that premium if they engage in a successful program to quit (subsidized). Both carrot and stick.

Agreed, and I apologize if I was too broad. Yes, there are some people for whom weight is an issue not under their control. Other conditions would also fall under that unmbrella. It's really no different than reviewing the medical history of a person's family. It may not seem fair, but when you are asking someone else to foot the bill, fair takes a back seat. Still, your point is valid.

I don't think premiums should be set based upon non-controllable factors (genetic diseases, previous accidental or disease injury, etc.) so there is actually a small number of things you can treat this way. Getting periodic exams should be rewarded. In fact, I am disappointed in the limited testing offered at most insurance paid physicals. And having a running record of changes in simple blood tests can do a lot for predicting further tests necessary to spot diseases in their early stages. More data point allows for better analysis.

While my heart agrees with you, this is not (or should not be) an emotional issue. The sad fact is that an insurance company is being asked to cover the healthcare for a person. If that person has a condition that will most likely result in higher costs to the insurance company, then either that person is going to pay more in premiums, everyone else will pay more, or else coverage will be reduced or denied.

Remember that while an insurance company spreads the risk and costs of an incident across several other people, thus protecting them all better, it is still in business to make a profit, not be a humanitarian organization. While everyone has the right to ACCESS to healthcare, they only have the right to RECEIVE what they can afford. It's cold, but it's the way it is. Everyone has the right to obtain a Ferrari, but only if they can afford it. In either case, it is unfair at best and criminal at worst to force someone else to pay for it against their will.

Lots of things can be done better.

No argument there, either. I work with business systems every day, and the one thing you can count on is that, no matter how well something is running, there can always be improvement.

OTOH, when something isn't working, the very last thing you do is make one big system that does the same thing, only worse.

 

[Zaphod]

I don't think that access to affordable health insurance should be tied to your employment status. It should be made available to everyone.

I think the reason that this has become such an issue is because so many employers, either by choice or by force, have implemented plans for their employees. That puts a disproportionate number of consumers into groups vs. those without groups, and the market responds.

If government got the hell out of healthcare altogether (which they should at the Federal Level since nowhere in the Constitution is the Fed authorized to run a healthcare plan or a pension scheme, but that's a different topic), and if employers began transitioning their employees to private insurance, then the market would take over. The bottom line is that there will ALWAYS be a near universal demand for healthcare, so being in the business of joining the consumer with the provider for the least cost will always be a big business. Companies will jump into that void to get their cut, and the competition between them will keep the prices down. In the meantime (and this is where the Marxists just don't get it), people will actually be held personally accountable for their healthcare, their bills, and their actions.

Without addressing the freeloaders, we haven't got a prayer.

 

[Pima]

indexer, you show your ignorance very quickly when asking if the SA's know (notice it has a K and a w in the word) this site.

Start actually hitting other threads that are not general discussion, you will quickly find ALO's, MALO's, BGO's and Dodmerb reps.

I will not enlighten you of what those acronyms mean, it is up to you to figure it out, needless to say they are connected with the SAs!

Also when you see those avatars with the side of a ring, they are people we call ring knockers! SA grads and their yr! They are speaking from SERVICE ACADEMY experience...what is the name of this forum...that's right SERVICE ACADEMY FORUMS

I tried to politely tell you that you should not troll on this site because as service members we protect each other. This site is open to everybody, but it is dedicated to people who are here to help and assist future military members through our own personal military experience! Discussions are a perk, the site was designed to assist future SA members, it was not designed for political forums.

AGAIN if your only goal in joining is to fight politically please join CC Parents cafe election. If you do not know how to here is the step by step
1. www.collegeconfidential.com
2. create screen name and password
3. hit the join discussion
4. Hit the blue parents link on the left
5. hit the blue parents cafe and elections above the topics.
6. Hit the blu link topic that you want to be on

Your count there will increase with each college post you put, so on their site it becomes quite clear that you're a troll for political purposes.

If you chose to report this site to the SA's I double, triple dog dare you because our political opinions mean absolutely nothing since our experience in the SA process and life lightens their load when it comes to applicants, candidates, cadets and parents asking questions. Why I wrote applicant, candidate and cadet I have no clue since I am sure you have no clue of the differences. GO ahead look through the threads for info, but you will show your ignorance. Do you even know the difference between a 4 dig and a plebe? How about I day and R day? Do you even care how the nomination process works? Or how the difference between nom and appt?
The majority posters on this site can at least answer 50% without googling.

I wish you the very best in your future and politely ask, if you cannot support our troops, have no desire in joining the military that you reevaluate why you are a member here!

 

[goaliedad]

But by increasing the size of the pool, the potential financial risks to the insurance company are spread out much wider than they would be in a smaller pool. By increasing the size of the "healthy pool" along with the "unhealthy pool" the profit margins can still be maintained.

As for the cost, I don't really think that is the main problem - access to the insurance is. And I don't think that access to affordable health insurance should be tied to your employment status. It should be made available to everyone.

I disagree. The access is out there (at least those without pre-existing conditions). You can go to BCBS in any state and buy a top-of-the-line policy, private party. Problem is that the cost will be 3 or 4 times what our employers pay for the same coverage. It is the cost. Most people cannot afford that kind of premium.

I'm not defending this practice. It is wrong and unnecessary. Unfortunately, handling private buyers outside of a bigger pool entails more initial marketing cost per subscriber as well as a lower likelyhood of business retention (most employer subscribers stay for multiple years as there generally isn't a choice). Since they have no affinity to stay, insurance companies treat them as a pool of 1. The insurance companies are also a little more suspicious of private buyers without previous insurance history, as often these turn up as individuals with a looming expensive problem.

My point was to remove this last risk from the insurer by getting a temporary secondary insurance source set up while people are transitioning to a mandatory health insurance requirement. Once people are in a system of insurance with proper rewards for good behavior, things tend to even out over time. In this case time, as well as the size of the pool is important to smoothing out the disfunctional market.

 

[goaliedad]

I would argue that ANY mandated level of insurance is wrong in principle. If you require the services that would have been paid by that insurance, then you personally are on the hook for the money. Granted, some minimum level becomes a reasonable idea when you consider that SOMEONE has to pay the bill at least in the interim, and that some people will NEVER be able to pay back a given sum, so aside from throwing them in debtor's prison, the enforcement is a bit difficult.

I'm not buying the libertarian line of less government is better. There is a certain point at which you must enforce a common set of minimum living standards. We have vagrancy laws to keep people from setting up home in public spaces because otherwise some would (and clearly demonstrate in many places), making public spaces less safe. At this point, I think it is proven that a certain set of the population needs governement rules to keep them from becoming vagrants in our healthcare system, setting up camp in our ERs and making the healthcare system unworkable from a financial standpoint.

Everything is a shade of gray.

Our problem with lack of governmental restraint is a bigger problem. I would suggest that the root causes there are a poorly educated populace (there is no reason for a government to educate its citizens in the ideas of rational reasoning much less limiting government and a lack of visibility of their actions). That is another topic for another debate.

 

[justawife]

While everyone has the right to ACCESS to healthcare, they only have the right to RECEIVE what they can afford. [quote/]

Have you seen what hospitals charge and what insurance pays, the difference in crazy. Son went to the ER, they billed 500 to walk in, 165 for a doctor to see him, 75 for a test and 225 for meds.
Insurance paid 130 to walk in, 45 for the doctor, 15 for the test and 21 for the the meds.

If any other industry had 2 tiers of charges, the would be in jail.

I couldn't afford an ER visit at those prices. You wonder why so many people don't even try.

Please don't explain how they charge high price to cover the uninsured walk ways. We all pay those in our bills, too. I wish they would be more up front about, 20 bucks to our pool for the uninsured. It would be more honest.

If an ER visit was 150 flat for broken bones, flus and simple problems, people would pay their bills more often. That is why minute clinics are thriving 65 bucks for strep/UTI then out the door.

The other issue is Drs carrying sh*% loads of student debt, they are going into speciality practices to gain higher pay to cover the debt loads. So now we have a shortage of Family Practice, General Practice and Peds docs.

Businesses and states are now coming on board that something has to be done. Businesses are fearing that they could be the next GM being dragged down by healthcare cost. Costs need to be controlled. It makes our goods and services more expensive, hence cheaper to make or do India/Canada/Europe.

States are mostly self insured, my mother help run the benefits for the state of AZ. This issue with budgets being tight, I am sure that other states will be sending IOUs to drs and Hospitals. Back in 1999, my mom explained the problems they were having getting insurance coverage for state troops in Yuma and Bisbee. The pool wasn't big enough to cover cost to insure poeple in remote areas. I'm sure the problem hasn't gotten any better.

 

[Luigi59]

If government got the hell out of healthcare altogether (which they should at the Federal Level since nowhere in the Constitution is the Fed authorized to run a healthcare plan or a pension scheme, but that's a different topic),

I believe it's covered in the Preamble, with the words "Promote the General Welfare."

I am pretty certain that "the general welfare" of the People of The United States would include their health, wouldn't you?

 

[Luigi59]

Not just no......but hell NO it does not.

Really?

Give us a definition of what "promote the general welfare" means, as used by the FF in the Preamble of the United States Constitution.

 

[indexer]

When Governor Bush of Texas pushed through TARP,

where in the Constitution was that authorized?