Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I didn't mean in that way. What I meant was that people would accept paying for this if mandated. It's something they can understand and know it might happen to them.

I wouldn't be, if I were allowed to opt in at the point I need it. Why would I pay $X/year times all the years I don't need it when I can wait until I do and then start paying $X?

There's a word for people who choose the alternative of paying every year--suckers.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Check out the latest issue of Health Affairs. I think that this article is quite interesting. My employer is experimenting with this sort of thing with regard to bariatric surgery (copay $5000). I imagine that we'll see a lot more of it in the future.

Any idea on the approximate Rack Rate for bariatric surgery? Or the approximate negotiated rate in existing plans that cover it?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

I wouldn't be, if I were allowed to opt in at the point I need it. Why would I pay $X/year times all the years I don't need it when I can wait until I do and then start paying $X?

There's a word for people who choose the alternative of paying every year--suckers.

Yes you would, because it doesn't cost you anything (or much). You, like others, I assume, have health care paid by your employer, and you are not going naked on your health insurance, because you are risk adverse.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

I hope not. I like Medicare.

How do you feel about Medicaid? Which is currently forecast to be the whipping boy of the Rs in the budget cutting process.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Any idea on the approximate Rack Rate for bariatric surgery? Or the approximate negotiated rate in existing plans that cover it?

that's not a polite thing to ask a lady. besides RT ain't needing it. Send adder a PM. I'm sure he has the numbers.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Yes you would, because it doesn't cost you anything (or much). You, like others, I assume, have health care paid by your employer, and you are not going naked on your health insurance, because you are risk adverse.

As of today, I cannot opt in, no matter what, the day I or my wife or kids get sick and have the treatment covered. Also, as of today, there is tremendous provider price discrimination b/t those w/ insurance and those w/o (those with get discounts of 50% or more off the rack rate of virtually everything). Also, as of today, if I want to opt in next week, the rate I would pay would be much higher, as there is tremendous insurer price discrimination.

Get rid of all three of those problems, and I would not carry insurance

Also, you hypothesized that everyone would be okay paying substantially more to cover anyone who has a catastrophic illness who decides to opt-in after diagnosis--what this would mean is that (say) 50% of Americans carry no coverage until they are diagnosed with cancer, then they all initiate coverage to defray the cost of their (again, say) $1,000,000 course of treatment. How much does insurance have to cost to cover all these people opting out until *immediately* prior to incurring a huge expense? Remember, everyone similarly situation by age has to pay the same rate, regardless of existing illness.

If there were no price discrimination by providers or insurers and I could opt in and out of insurance coverage as I saw fit (ie, whenever I needed it), hell yes I wouldn't pay for it every month**, because insurance would cost way more than $15000 per person per year (with current total medical expenditure of about $7500/person/year), to cover for all of the people who opt not to (or can't afford to) carry insurance and then drop it immediate after completion of a course of (expensive) treatment, which would be *most*.

**note, this is theoretical as my wife would not let this happen. I would *absolutely* do it, given those (impossible) facts.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

How do you feel about Medicaid? Which is currently forecast to be the whipping boy of the Rs in the budget cutting process.

I like it too. Differently, but like. I'm against those Rs.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

As of today, I cannot opt in, no matter what, the day I or my wife or kids get sick and have the treatment covered. Also, as of today, there is tremendous provider price discrimination b/t those w/ insurance and those w/o (those with get discounts of 50% or more off the rack rate of virtually everything). Also, as of today, if I want to opt in next week, the rate I would pay would be much higher, as there is tremendous insurer price discrimination.

Get rid of all three of those problems, and I would not carry insurance

Also, you hypothesized that everyone would be okay paying substantially more to cover anyone who has a catastrophic illness who decides to opt-in after diagnosis--what this would mean is that (say) 50% of Americans carry no coverage until they are diagnosed with cancer, then they all initiate coverage to defray the cost of their (again, say) $1,000,000 course of treatment. How much does insurance have to cost to cover all these people opting out until *immediately* prior to incurring a huge expense? Remember, everyone similarly situation by age has to pay the same rate, regardless of existing illness.

If there were no price discrimination by providers or insurers and I could opt in and out of insurance coverage as I saw fit (ie, whenever I needed it), hell yes I wouldn't pay for it every month**, because insurance would cost way more than $15000 per person per year (with current total medical expenditure of about $7500/person/year), to cover for all of the people who opt not to (or can't afford to) carry insurance and then drop it immediate after completion of a course of (expensive) treatment, which would be *most*.

**note, this is theoretical as my wife would not let this happen. I would *absolutely* do it, given those (impossible) facts.

hmmm, do you understand how insurance can cost less than the medical procedures?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

As of today, I cannot opt in, no matter what, the day I or my wife or kids get sick and have the treatment covered. Also, as of today, there is tremendous provider price discrimination b/t those w/ insurance and those w/o (those with get discounts of 50% or more off the rack rate of virtually everything). Also, as of today, if I want to opt in next week, the rate I would pay would be much higher, as there is tremendous insurer price discrimination.

Get rid of all three of those problems, and I would not carry insurance

Also, you hypothesized that everyone would be okay paying substantially more to cover anyone who has a catastrophic illness who decides to opt-in after diagnosis--what this would mean is that (say) 50% of Americans carry no coverage until they are diagnosed with cancer, then they all initiate coverage to defray the cost of their (again, say) $1,000,000 course of treatment. How much does insurance have to cost to cover all these people opting out until *immediately* prior to incurring a huge expense? Remember, everyone similarly situation by age has to pay the same rate, regardless of existing illness.

If there were no price discrimination by providers or insurers and I could opt in and out of insurance coverage as I saw fit (ie, whenever I needed it), hell yes I wouldn't pay for it every month**, because insurance would cost way more than $15000 per person per year (with current total medical expenditure of about $7500/person/year), to cover for all of the people who opt not to (or can't afford to) carry insurance and then drop it immediate after completion of a course of (expensive) treatment, which would be *most*.

**note, this is theoretical as my wife would not let this happen. I would *absolutely* do it, given those (impossible) facts.

Under your theory, we are essentially back to a PayGo system, except with respect to catostrophic illness, which is exactly what Sebby is proposing, because everyone would do exactly what you are suggesting.

What I am suggesting is within the current framework. The overwhelming majority of people are covered via their employer, so the costs of insurance are subsidize (in some cases, like my firm, we subsidize 100% of our employees costs, and just make them pay a portion for dependents). I highly doubt that your wife would allow you to allow your family to go naked, and I think that is where most people would be. So what I am suggesting is that most people who are already paying for insurance (whether as an employer benefit or as subsidized by their employer) would be OK with paying a premium so that others could not be denied for pre-existing condition. They may not be thrilled about it, but they could swallow it.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Quantitative Easing Explained.

"'The printing money' is the last refuge of failed economic empires and banana republics, and the Fed doesn't want to admit this is their only idea."

Cute, but rife with factual errors.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Cute, but rife with factual errors.

thanks mooch!

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

thanks mooch!

No worries. I know you totes love the deflation, because the inflation makes stuff cost more which is bad for people who have to buy stuff!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

No worries. I know you totes love the deflation, because the inflation makes stuff cost more which is bad for people who have to buy stuff!

My IQ is somewhere between 180 and 183. Still, I don't get a lot of what you're trying to say. You need to really simplify your messages.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

My IQ is somewhere between 180 and 183. Still, I don't get a lot of what you're trying to say. You need to really simplify your messages.

Wow. I am in awe. Have you thought of joining Mensa? I took a quiz in an in flight magazine once, and I got like half right, but invite you woulda aced it. You should totally look into it.

Eta: omg! I just realized that your iq is the same a my waistband (depending on how much lefse I had for lunch)! That's gotta mean something right? I don't know. You're the smart one, but could we be soul mates?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

My IQ is somewhere between 180 and 183. Still, I don't get a lot of what you're trying to say.

Not likely. The folks I know with IQs measured at that level don't have nearly your social skillz.

S_A_M