ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags health care issues , health insurance issues

Reply
Old 23rd May 2017, 04:37 AM   #1
King of the Americas
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,513
Health Care is Easy...

Seriously, I have figured it out. It took me a year in grad school, but if you want, I'll help you set up a 501(c)(3) that operates as a non-profit health care savings cooperative, for your hospital district.

The model I developed for my district requires enlistees to pay a marketplace average premium price for their particular demographic, for one year. This subscription price is intended to create a fund large enough to sustain catastrophic loss. Private insurance premium prices current include- care or claims, administrative overhead, legal services, taxes, advertising, as well as profit. Government services can do the same more efficiently, because it can eliminate some of these cost drivers.

If your board members are required to volunteer, you can eliminate ALL of those problems...

After paying one year's marketplace premiums, subscribers become full-members, who's monthly premium is based on the actual health care services and medications consumed by the group the previous year.

The present re-imbersement model hospitals deal with from Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance sources is..."inconsistent"... Hospitals actually have to do a lot of outright guessing when it comes to setting their prices, because they get repaid for the same procedure, at a different rate, depending on who is paying for the services, NOT what care the patient actually receives... As a non-profit, your organization can serve a single hospital, and negotiate/offer to pay 100% of all actual services consumed, at not only their actual price...because the hospital itself can get a tax deduction at the end of the year for donations made to non-profits!

Within your bylaws, you should include another requirements for members like 2 yearly check-ups and annual physical. This is intended to accomplish two things- early detection & create data. The data is really important as a long term cost reducer, as the ability to predict who will arrive at the hospital is the single piece of criteria missing most often.

When government and the marketplace fails, people ban together to form social groups, and the tax code both allows and encourages these actions. If you want to pay the lowest premium cost, while helping your hospital better prepare to serve your needs, create a non-profit health care savings cooperative.

Anyone here a fan of Alexis de Tocqueville?
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2017, 07:05 AM   #2
King of the Americas
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,513
Crickets...?

:/
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2017, 08:07 AM   #3
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
You haven't solved anything anything. There would still be many people that would not be able to afford insurance.

And any kind of health insurance scheme needs large amounts of people to buy insurance without using it much in order to pay for the treatment the sick people need. But those that need insurance the least have the biggest incentive to not buy it. While those that need it have the most incentive.

How would a co-op make sure that enough healthy people buy insurance? They probably couldn't. The members would end up being disproportionately sick, which would force the co-op to increase premiums, which would in turn give healthy people less incentive to buy insurance.

Also, have you never heard of Kaiser Permanente? It is a 501(c)(3) that goes further than what you propose. Not only do they handle the insurance, they own the hospitals and employ the doctors (who are paid a salary). I believe they do a good job, but they still have plenty of competition from regular insurance companies and hospitals.

Last edited by Tony Stark; 23rd May 2017 at 08:08 AM.
Tony Stark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2017, 09:09 AM   #4
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,723
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Also, have you never heard of Kaiser Permanente?
My first thought as well.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2017, 09:16 AM   #5
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Seriously, I have figured it out.
Trump had it figured out, too.

When's your "who knew?" epiphany?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2017, 10:45 AM   #6
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,518
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
And any kind of health insurance scheme needs large amounts of people to buy insurance without using it much in order to pay for the treatment the sick people need.
This seems like such a simple and obvious concept to me, but it's the part that a lot of "fixes" to Obamacare leave out. Not just armchair stuff, either - actual people in charge of policy. How is it that people don't get this part?
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2017, 11:04 AM   #7
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,771
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
This seems like such a simple and obvious concept to me, but it's the part that a lot of "fixes" to Obamacare leave out. Not just armchair stuff, either - actual people in charge of policy. How is it that people don't get this part?
They get it, all right, but their goal is not to cover everybody; it's to reduce government spending and lower taxes, which means kicking off as many people as possible who need Medicaid, who have pre-existing conditions etc.

Last edited by Bob001; 23rd May 2017 at 11:06 AM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2017, 03:35 PM   #8
SOdhner
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,518
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
They get it, all right, but their goal is not to cover everybody; it's to reduce government spending and lower taxes, which means kicking off as many people as possible who need Medicaid, who have pre-existing conditions etc.
Sure, but the plans being proposed are going to cause a total disaster due to not understanding this simple concept, and even if that's what the lawmakers want it seems like much of the general public don't get it.

Though maybe I'm mistaken?
SOdhner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2017, 04:20 PM   #9
King of the Americas
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,513
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
You haven't solved anything anything. There would still be many people that would not be able to afford insurance.

And any kind of health insurance scheme needs large amounts of people to buy insurance without using it much in order to pay for the treatment the sick people need. But those that need insurance the least have the biggest incentive to not buy it. While those that need it have the most incentive.

How would a co-op make sure that enough healthy people buy insurance? They probably couldn't. The members would end up being disproportionately sick, which would force the co-op to increase premiums, which would in turn give healthy people less incentive to buy insurance.

Also, have you never heard of Kaiser Permanente? It is a 501(c)(3) that goes further than what you propose. Not only do they handle the insurance, they own the hospitals and employ the doctors (who are paid a salary). I believe they do a good job, but they still have plenty of competition from regular insurance companies and hospitals.
Haha, we can accept tax-free donations, and extend coverage to those who can't qualify otherwise!

Yes, I have heard of that model. Mine is a form of how they began.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2017, 04:20 PM   #10
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,771
Originally Posted by SOdhner View Post
Sure, but the plans being proposed are going to cause a total disaster due to not understanding this simple concept, and even if that's what the lawmakers want it seems like much of the general public don't get it.

Though maybe I'm mistaken?
The Repub lawmakers might or might not know, but they clearly don't care. Some part of the public, including in Trump Country, is starting to realize what they could lose, and that's why some congressmen are starting to worry about 2018. But it's a foundational Republican premise that there are "makers" and there are "takers," and the takers shouldn't get a damn thing from the makers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-of-americans/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...=.14687c88efe2
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...aborative_2_na
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2017, 04:21 PM   #11
King of the Americas
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,513
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Trump had it figured out, too.

When's your "who knew?" epiphany?
Except the plan he supports reduces coverage.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 11:43 AM   #12
bobdroege7
Master Poster
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,489
Yeah, its easy, health care is 17% of GDP, so your health care premium should be 17% of your income.

Problem solved
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 11:48 AM   #13
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 11,837
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Haha, we can accept tax-free donations, and extend coverage to those who can't qualify otherwise!

Yes, I have heard of that model. Mine is a form of how they began.
So, ...

Your plan to cover poor people is to have rich people donate the money that is needed to pay for the coverage of the poor people.

For some reason, I would not expect such a plan to be successful.
__________________
08 JAN 2018 > Trump says that he is "Like, Really Smart" and that he is "a Very Stable Genius".
11 JAN 2018 > During an Oval Office meeting, Trump asks "“Why are we having all these people from ****hole countries come here?”"

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 12:16 PM   #14
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 17,157
So is Middle East peace.

So is Middle East peace according to the orangutan.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 02:45 PM   #15
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 18,884
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
And any kind of health insurance scheme needs large amounts of people to buy insurance without using it much in order to pay for the treatment the sick people need. But those that need insurance the least have the biggest incentive to not buy it. While those that need it have the most incentive.
This.

You only can have an affordable health care system if you simply require everyone to buy insurance.

Secondly, on top of that, you need a risk equalization pool. For instance, in the Netherlands, 50% of the funding of healthcare insurance is collected by the Tax Office and distributed among the (private) insurers based on the risk profile of their clients. If you leave out this essential part, insurers will try to game the system and only/mainly attract young, healthy clients in order to make a hefty profit. Or you could just do away with the insurance part and go for an NHS-style system (or "Medicare for all").

ETA: and really, we've discussed all this ad nauseam on this forum when Obamacare was in the works.
__________________
Founder of the group "The Truth about Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu aka Mother Teresa"

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

Last edited by ddt; 24th May 2017 at 02:47 PM.
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 03:27 PM   #16
King of the Americas
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,513
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
Yeah, its easy, health care is 17% of GDP, so your health care premium should be 17% of your income.

Problem solved
This guy says plainly smart things...
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 03:34 PM   #17
King of the Americas
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,513
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
So, ...

Your plan to cover poor people is to have rich people donate the money that is needed to pay for the coverage of the poor people.

For some reason, I would not expect such a plan to be successful.
No my plan if for a social group to share coolly the costs of the actual care and services their group receives.

My plan eliminates ALL of the cost drivers not direct associated with health care.
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 06:10 PM   #18
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 11,837
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
No my plan if for a social group to share coolly the costs of the actual care and services their group receives.

My plan eliminates ALL of the cost drivers not direct associated with health care.
Due to your poor spelling, your incoherent writing and your lack of understanding of the issue that you speak of makes me think that your OP is quite incorrect.
__________________
08 JAN 2018 > Trump says that he is "Like, Really Smart" and that he is "a Very Stable Genius".
11 JAN 2018 > During an Oval Office meeting, Trump asks "“Why are we having all these people from ****hole countries come here?”"

A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 08:30 PM   #19
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,771
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
No my plan if for a social group to share coolly the costs of the actual care and services their group receives.

My plan eliminates ALL of the cost drivers not direct associated with health care.
How big is your group? What are you going to do if some members require expensive, long-term care for chronic conditions? State-wide premiums for one company just went up in Iowa partly because one patient was racking up bills of $1 million per month. Can your plan handle that? And how big is your provider network? Will a large number of local doctors and hospitals accept your plan? Or are your members restricted to using one hospital and the docs who practice there?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 08:57 PM   #20
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,086
My plan is even easier than all that. You choose any provider you want, go to them for treatment and then pay them. Kind of like how we deal with food distribution and housing. We have a safety net for the poor and everyone else pays for what they use. You can't get simpler than that.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 10:07 PM   #21
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 38,103
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
My plan is even easier than all that. You choose any provider you want, go to them for treatment and then pay them. Kind of like how we deal with food distribution and housing. We have a safety net for the poor and everyone else pays for what they use. You can't get simpler than that.
Seems something is missing. Perhaps you could give us the conservative solution to that there "safety net" you're speaking of. Or perhaps we're heading for yet another "Who knew how complicated health care is...." moment?
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th May 2017, 10:49 PM   #22
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,771
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
My plan is even easier than all that. You choose any provider you want, go to them for treatment and then pay them. Kind of like how we deal with food distribution and housing. We have a safety net for the poor and everyone else pays for what they use. You can't get simpler than that.
The difference -- and don't even pretend you don't understand this -- is that subsistence food and housing can be paid for by someone earning relatively little money. Even a penniless, homeless person can survive in shelters and soup kitchens. But the costs of health care are literally unlimited. Premiums on the Iowa exchange just went up because one patient with a severe chronic illness is costing $1 million a month. And someone who can't afford basic preventive care is likely to put off treatment until he lands in an emergency room, where he gets uncompensated care paid for by everybody else.

What is your objection to the basic premise of insurance? Everyone needs health care, if not this week or even this year, then sooner or later, and if you're unlucky you'll need treatment for cancer or heart disease or getting run over by a bus. Sharing costs across the widest base is the only way to guarantee that everyone will get the care he needs when he needs it. If you want to argue that health care is a luxury good, and someone who can't afford it doesn't deserve it, you won't find much support outside the Freedom Caucus, and even they are starting to smarten up.

Last edited by Bob001; 24th May 2017 at 11:53 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 05:04 AM   #23
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
Except the plan he supports reduces coverage.
Woosh.

Congratulations for missing the point entirely.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 05:21 AM   #24
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 11,153
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
How big is your group? What are you going to do if some members require expensive, long-term care for chronic conditions? State-wide premiums for one company just went up in Iowa partly because one patient was racking up bills of $1 million per month. Can your plan handle that? And how big is your provider network? Will a large number of local doctors and hospitals accept your plan? Or are your members restricted to using one hospital and the docs who practice there?
Seems like you can never find a death panel when you need one.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 05:26 AM   #25
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 5,816
Originally Posted by bobdroege7 View Post
Yeah, its easy, health care is 17% of GDP, so your health care premium should be 17% of your income.

Problem solved
Originally Posted by King of the Americas View Post
This guy says plainly smart things...
I can see all those tiny babies now, working like mad to pay for their premiums.

Won't someone think of the children.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 06:24 AM   #26
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,086
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Seems something is missing. Perhaps you could give us the conservative solution to that there "safety net" you're speaking of. Or perhaps we're heading for yet another "Who knew how complicated health care is...." moment?
We have had a medical safety net for a long time now. No need to reinvent the wheel, just maybe improve it a bit.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 07:53 AM   #27
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,771
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
We have had a medical safety net for a long time now. No need to reinvent the wheel, just maybe improve it a bit.
The "safety net" is that emergency rooms are required to keep people alive if they can, and some states allow some people to enroll in Medicaid if they can meet tough restrictions. The other alternative is that people get expensive care billed at retail rates, then declare bankruptcy. There is no safety net for the working poor who need treatment for major issues or chronic conditions -- and "working poor" could include pretty much everybody without insurancei if life happens. I repeat, what is your objection to the basic principle of insurance? Or do you think people who can't afford to pay for care out of pocket just shouldn't get it?

Last edited by Bob001; 25th May 2017 at 07:54 AM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 08:20 AM   #28
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,086
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
The difference -- and don't even pretend you don't understand this -- is that subsistence food and housing can be paid for by someone earning relatively little money. Even a penniless, homeless person can survive in shelters and soup kitchens. But the costs of health care are literally unlimited.
So really, the key is determining what the functional equivalent of "shelters and soup kitchens" is in healthcare.
Quote:
Premiums on the Iowa exchange just went up because one patient with a severe chronic illness is costing $1 million a month.
That brings up the next couple of questions: Why does that condition cost so much? Should a healthcare system be expected to meet every need of every citizen regardless of how much it costs?
Quote:
And someone who can't afford basic preventive care is likely to put off treatment until he lands in an emergency room, where he gets uncompensated care paid for by everybody else.
If they are poor, I agree that we should reform Medicaid to cover anyone in poverty; Medicaid is too limited right now. If they aren't poor, then what do you mean "can't afford basic preventative care?" If you have no insurance, a yearly preventive visit will run you somewhere around $150. After that, the best prevention is extremely low cost: diet and activity modifications, don't smoke or drink, don't engage in risky behaviors, etc. Do that, and your risks of chronic illness are much lower.
Quote:
What is your objection to the basic premise of insurance? Everyone needs health care, if not this week or even this year, then sooner or later, and if you're unlucky you'll need treatment for cancer or heart disease or getting run over by a bus. Sharing costs across the widest base is the only way to guarantee that everyone will get the care he needs when he needs it.
I have no objection to the basic premise of insurance. The key word is "insurance." Insurance plans should insure against catastrophe. We shouldn't demand that it covers routine costs that are more efficiently delivered through a cash based model.
Quote:
If you want to argue that health care is a luxury good, and someone who can't afford it doesn't deserve it, you won't find much support outside the Freedom Caucus, and even they are starting to smarten up.
That's not my position at all. Insurance will be affordable when we stop expecting it to cover every possible medical expense we will have. So for most things, you pay healthcare providers directly in cash. The insurance plan will kick in if and when spending exceeds a certain level. Even then, however, it's unrealistic to expect insurance to cover unlimited expenses.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 06:38 PM   #29
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,521
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Should a healthcare system be expected to meet every need of every citizen regardless of how much it costs?
Of course not - the costs would be prohibitive. Insurance should only cover minor illnesses that are cheap to cure. Expensive treatments with low benefit/cost ratio should be refused.

Quote:
The insurance plan will kick in if and when spending exceeds a certain level.
No no no no! You have it backwards. Coverage should be denied when costs will exceed a certain threshold. What benefits the most people - 50000 Viagra prescriptions, or one heart transplant?

The real problem with health insurance is that people expect treatment for major life-threatening conditions. But this is exactly what makes health insurance so expensive! The only way to significantly reduce costs is to just let all the really sick people die. Let's face it - most of them will eventually die anyway, even with treatment.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2017, 07:43 PM   #30
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,086
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Of course not - the costs would be prohibitive. Insurance should only cover minor illnesses that are cheap to cure. Expensive treatments with low benefit/cost ratio should be refused.
Or, we could have insurance pay only for the really expensive stuff while individuals pay for the cheap to cure stuff. The problem arises when we expect insurance to pay for every little thing even tangentially related to health.

Quote:
No no no no! You have it backwards. Coverage should be denied when costs will exceed a certain threshold. What benefits the most people - 50000 Viagra prescriptions, or one heart transplant?
Hows about no Viagra coverage? Eliminate coverage for anything but catastrophic lhealth events.

Quote:
The real problem with health insurance is that people expect treatment for major life-threatening conditions. But this is exactly what makes health insurance so expensive! The only way to significantly reduce costs is to just let all the really sick people die. Let's face it - most of them will eventually die anyway, even with treatment.
Yes, exactly! Insurance should only pay for cheap insignificant things that most people can afford! Why should insurance protect people against the stuff they can't afford? So glad we are on the same page here....
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2017, 05:46 AM   #31
King of the Americas
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,513
Why Health Care is a right...?

Thoughts?
King of the Americas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:33 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.