ExperianScaresCthulhu: farkityfarker: As a Canadian who recently broke his wrist and had it fixed for free as opposed to the $20K I would have paid as an American, I'm getting a kick out of this...

Nothing is free. You paid for it in other ways, and other people helped you pay for it. Is there a pie chart comparing taxes for Canadians and Americans versus government spending for Canadians versus Americans?

I imagine they save a lot of money by not holding 10-year-long wars and country-building exercises in the middle of the farking godforsaken Asian desert.

relcec: , at the very least it is serving the function of negotiating a fairly significant discount for you from the provider.

That does people soooo much good when the insurance refuses to actually cover claims. It should be illegal for any medical insurance to refuse to cover any claim, from any doctor or hospital, period. No "Well it wasn't life threatening so we're not covering your ER visit" crap, no pre-approvals, no referrals, none of it. As it stands now insurance companies are practicing medicine by proxy and that can not be tolerated.

WhyteRaven74: How about mandating all employers above a certain size provide top shelf insurance, actual insurance not PPO or HMO crap, with employees picking up no more than 5% of the premium?

mom and pops can't afford it and would be destroyed, and bigger companies will have the lawyers at their disposal to loophole their way out of it. or both mom&pops and globalmegacorp will say 'fk it' to employees and go the contract worker route (or the fake franchisee route).

ExperianScaresCthulhu: go the contract worker route (or the fake franchisee route).

Oh no, word it so everyone, even contract employees are covered. And notice I mentioned employers above a certain size, so mom and pops aren't involved. Though it wouldn't take much to make things so their employees could get health coverage too.

some_beer_drinker: my grandfather bought a house for 3000, my dad for 30k, i dont have 300k. i dont own a car, or ever expect to have the lifestyle enjoyed by my previous generation. fark it, i just want to watch the world burn.

Then do us a favor, go live in a cave.

Australian, so Medicare levy covers my ass.
Taxes, what are they good for?

Kuoxasar: ExperianScaresCthulhu: farkityfarker: As a Canadian who recently broke his wrist and had it fixed for free as opposed to the $20K I would have paid as an American, I'm getting a kick out of this...

Nothing is free. You paid for it in other ways, and other people helped you pay for it. Is there a pie chart comparing taxes for Canadians and Americans versus government spending for Canadians versus Americans?

I imagine they save a lot of money by not holding 10-year-long wars and country-building exercises in the middle of the farking godforsaken Asian desert.

That all changes when Russia gets her groove back, and more of the polar ice cap is easy to transverse, yes? (Is the US covering for Canada, or is Britain covering for Canada, or does Canada go it alone defense wise and the US and Britain provide token assistance? What happens to Canada when the US and Britain go belly up?)

ExperianScaresCthulhu: That all changes when Russia gets her groove back,

notsureifserious.jpg

I had a "mild" heart attack in Feb. and I'm unisured, so I'm really getting a kick out of this thread. Well, sort of, I'm in my 30's so I guess I don't count. Yay for undiagnosed diabetes. They really get you coming and going-I now order farkin' Plavix from Canada due to it being $200 a month in the US.

So far down the hole that I might as join the mole men.

ExperianScaresCthulhu: Kuoxasar: ExperianScaresCthulhu: farkityfarker: As a Canadian who recently broke his wrist and had it fixed for free as opposed to the $20K I would have paid as an American, I'm getting a kick out of this...

Nothing is free. You paid for it in other ways, and other people helped you pay for it. Is there a pie chart comparing taxes for Canadians and Americans versus government spending for Canadians versus Americans?

I imagine they save a lot of money by not holding 10-year-long wars and country-building exercises in the middle of the farking godforsaken Asian desert.

That all changes when Russia gets her groove back, and more of the polar ice cap is easy to transverse, yes? (Is the US covering for Canada, or is Britain covering for Canada, or does Canada go it alone defense wise and the US and Britain provide token assistance? What happens to Canada when the US and Britain go belly up?)

I'm certainly not against having a strong military, I'm just making the point it's easier to have both healthcare and a military when you're not burning giant piles of money.

As for Canada's plans for war with Russia, I'm assuming they'd involve the U.S. nuclear arsenal, wouldn't you think so?

RayD8: Australian, so Medicare levy covers my ass.
Taxes, what are they good for?

Plus the public baseline being good keeps the private health insurers honest as well.

Just about to ding 4 weeks in a private hospital and it hasn't cost a cent over my monthly premium. None of this "this is covered, this isn't, squirm out of paying" shiat.

Private hospital saw my member card, I sign a weekly form and that is that. End of story.

LadyMech: I had a "mild" heart attack in Feb. and I'm unisured, so I'm really getting a kick out of this thread. Well, sort of, I'm in my 30's so I guess I don't count. Yay for undiagnosed diabetes. They really get you coming and going-I now order farkin' Plavix from Canada due to it being $200 a month in the US.

So far down the hole that I might as join the mole men.

You sound diabetical.
/I know.

Love the denial that the US is NOT slipping into third world status.

whargarble.........but healthcare provided is socialism.........so is public education, road tax, gasoline tax, armed feces, etc.

100 dollars a month to some is the difference between eating one meal a day to skipping a meal three or for times a week.

Not addressing the fatties that need to back away from their diet cokes.......they could stand to fast periodically.

ExperianScaresCthulhu: aiiee: that's not bright kids. Get the catastrophic coverage that only kicks in after 5000 has been spent. I'ts under 100/mo if you're under 30

$100 a month/$50 bi-weekly is a lot of money. what is the math about how much of one's net income one should take home before it's feasible to spend $100 a month on health insurance?

You generally don't get paid the employer contribution for medical if you decline coverage. In every company I've worked for, it's been use it or lose it. So, if the company has a minimum contribution of $100/month and there's a plan of any type for $100/month or less, it makes absolutely no sense to decline. (Unless you get better coverage on a spouse or parent's plan.) The last two companies I worked for had fixed contributions and multiple plans to pick from. Both had a bare-bones policy that was less than the contribution (translation: zero cost to employee) and neither paid out any net savings.

WhyteRaven74: relcec: , at the very least it is serving the function of negotiating a fairly significant discount for you from the provider.

That does people soooo much good when the insurance refuses to actually cover claims. It should be illegal for any medical insurance to refuse to cover any claim, from any doctor or hospital, period. No "Well it wasn't life threatening so we're not covering your ER visit" crap, no pre-approvals, no referrals, none of it. As it stands now insurance companies are practicing medicine by proxy and that can not be tolerated.

if you knew more about healthcare you wouldn't be pissing on the discounts.

they are often massive, and depending on whether it is a for profit or community/catholic hospital you are unlucky enough to run up your $57k bill in, they will try their damnedest to get you to pay the full amount if you don;t have insurance.

just staying 4 days in a hospital could make all that premium paying for the last 10 years worth it just for the discount that gets lopped off the top, never mind if the insurance never pays a dime.

discount rates for big insurance companies as a percentage of total charges can range anywhere from 60% to 76%. that means even if the you insurance doesn't pay one red cent, on a hospital stay with $50k total charges, the insurance company probably has negotiated a rate with the provider to lop anywhere from $30k to $38k off the bill before you even look at it.

tinfoil-hat maggie: insurance companies are evil and get out of paying anyway they can.

I'm actually surprised no one has gone after one or a few on bad faith grounds. They're taking money then trying to weasel out of paying claims, basically they're selling something they have no intention of making good on if they can help it. Which isn't exactly proper.

zzrhardy: RayD8: Australian, so Medicare levy covers my ass.
Taxes, what are they good for?

Plus the public baseline being good keeps the private health insurers honest as well.

Just about to ding 4 weeks in a private hospital and it hasn't cost a cent over my monthly premium. None of this "this is covered, this isn't, squirm out of paying" shiat.

Private hospital saw my member card, I sign a weekly form and that is that. End of story.

I know, so why can't supposedly developed countries come up with a better system?

relcec: if you knew more about healthcare you wouldn't be pissing on the discounts.

And if you don't go to the right hospital, you don't get the discount. No insurance company should ever have any say period, of any kind, in what doctor or hospital someone goes to. Nor should they ever be allowed to refuse a legit claim.

jtown: ExperianScaresCthulhu: aiiee: that's not bright kids. Get the catastrophic coverage that only kicks in after 5000 has been spent. I'ts under 100/mo if you're under 30

$100 a month/$50 bi-weekly is a lot of money. what is the math about how much of one's net income one should take home before it's feasible to spend $100 a month on health insurance?

You generally don't get paid the employer contribution for medical if you decline coverage. In every company I've worked for, it's been use it or lose it. So, if the company has a minimum contribution of $100/month and there's a plan of any type for $100/month or less, it makes absolutely no sense to decline. (Unless you get better coverage on a spouse or parent's plan.) The last two companies I worked for had fixed contributions and multiple plans to pick from. Both had a bare-bones policy that was less than the contribution (translation: zero cost to employee) and neither paid out any net savings.

Not sure about the OP, but the majority of the people I know who fall into this category don't have the option to get access to a health plan through their employer, let alone a contribution.

I just turned 25. I haven't had health care since I graduated college (Engineering). I'm looking for a good job right now, and I'm afraid I won't be able to ask for health insurance in this economy.

WhyteRaven74 I'm actually surprised no one has gone after one or a few on bad faith grounds. They're taking money then trying to weasel out of paying claims, basically they're selling something they have no intention of making good on if they can help it. Which isn't exactly proper.

Fo reals right? But guess who is in the pockets of the insurance companies........pro tip hint.........it starts at the state legislative level and works its way up.......You will never get health care insurance to provide for health care as they "advert" They do not give a shiat and more importantly have paid enough people off that they do not have to. Why do you think that congress and the senate pay a fraction of what you would have to for SUPERIOR health care coverage? F*ckers have been bought off. Time for the revolution....or meh.....

Oh look...somebody is smoking weed.........lets bust them........

WhyteRaven74: relcec: if you knew more about healthcare you wouldn't be pissing on the discounts.

And if you don't go to the right hospital, you don't get the discount. No insurance company should ever have any say period, of any kind, in what doctor or hospital someone goes to. Nor should they ever be allowed to refuse a legit claim.

listen raven, you are out of your depth. you don't know the first thing about healthcare contracting or the healthcare system, or wtf is going on in this country in general. your god damn solution was to just tell the employers to pay for 95% of it, completely ignoring what the actual problem is that got us here. just put a sock in it.

aiiee: that's not bright kids. Get the catastrophic coverage that only kicks in after 5000 has been spent. I'ts under 100/mo if you're under 30

Don't listen to him kids. Assuming you have $100 / mo. kicking around (not necessarily a valid assumption for someone whose job doesn't include benefits), you're better off putting it into a rainy-day fund that can be used for *any* emergency. As a healthy 20-something, incurring large medical expenses is a low-probability event. Why do you think health insurers are still willing to insure you? You're more likely to be bankrupted by a job loss combined with other expenses such as car repairs or suddenly needing a new place to live.

Weigh the low likelihood of being bankrupted by medical expenses vs. the high likelihood of being bankrupted by something else because all your disposable income is being thrown down the rathole of our corrupt health insurance system. It's not a different calculation to make.

Last time I paid for health insurance, my employer didn't contribute anything even though the plan was through them. It cost me literally 75% of my take home pay every pay period to insure my husband and I. That is unacceptable and just not feasible. If I had been the sole income there is no way I could have afforded even that much. We're without insurance right now, unfortunately, though I may be able to pick up some from the local university in the fall if I take a few throw away classes. Fortunately, the state is covering my son, so, yay for socialism in that accident prone childhood phase of learning to walk!

relcec: listen raven, you are out of your depth. y

No I'm not out of my depth. I just happen to think insurance should have absolutely no say so in where someone goes to a doctor or a hospital, ever. You know, like in the rest of the world. Also, on the employer side, if you're not willing to take care of your employees, you shouldn't be running things.

WhyteRaven74: tinfoil-hat maggie: insurance companies are evil and get out of paying anyway they can.

I'm actually surprised no one has gone after one or a few on bad faith grounds. They're taking money then trying to weasel out of paying claims, basically they're selling something they have no intention of making good on if they can help it. Which isn't exactly proper.


this is a bit dated, but if you are interested it will explain the legal landscape a bit.

http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/HealthPolicy/070404revi se derisa.pdf

Why not? I mean, they're going to live forever and they'll make an infinite amount of money, so...

Why does the USA tie health insurance to employment? I just don't see why they should be linked. Health insurance should just be between the individual and the insurer.

Your system sounds... anti-competitive, and it seems that you are not the customer that the insurer needs to keep, instead your boss is. Wouldn't that promote kickbacks?

I got a bill for three grand today for a stay in the ER last month which consisted mostly of IV fluids (super wasted in public, police made me go). That's some bullshiat, send that to collections, I can't pay that. I am twenty six and have donated my -O cmv negative premature baby blood every two months since I was seventeen, the red cross makes money on it, then the hospital makes money on it and I get a bill for three grand for some suger water. Its a good thing I dont see much promise for the rest of my life or otherwise I might be concerned about getting a bill I cannot pay. But I dont, so im not sweating it too much. I figure I am just not deemed productive enough by society to have rational heathcare available to me.

WhyteRaven74: relcec: listen raven, you are out of your depth. y

No I'm not out of my depth. I just happen to think insurance should have absolutely no say so in where someone goes to a doctor or a hospital, ever. You know, like in the rest of the world. Also, on the employer side, if you're not willing to take care of your employees, you shouldn't be running things.

yes you are out of your depth. you laughed at the massive impact of discounts and then said something about having to go to the hospital to even be eligible for them (wtf) and then proposed a solution that solves the structural problem not one bit. just stick to explaining your personal feelings. don't try to go pontificating about what the current state of the industry actually works because you don't have the foggiest.

relcec: http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/perspectives/HealthPolicy/070404revi se derisa.pdf

I'm familiar with ERISA, however arguing bad faith wouldn't necessitate arguing injury or death due to the insurance refusing to cover something. The simple run around people get, the inability to clearly see what will and won't be covered, that it seems to change from plan to plan offered by the same insurer etc. That doesn't even get into ERISA issues. It gets into the integrity of the actual policies issued.

strangeluck: I have health insurance with my current job, but it's totally worthless, and I keep seriously thinking of dropping it. It covers so little, like seriously will barely cover one doctor's visit for the entire year, and even then I get an overage bill between $50-$100. But as one of my co-workers tells me, it may not cover anything, but it gets you in the door, while the people without insurance are stuck in the lobby waiting longer.

I don't know if that's really true about them waiting longer.

/American healthcare sucks.
//Trying to find that better job with better insurance.
///Slashies are strange.

I guess it depends on what lobby you're talking about, but in my experience for non-ER things (I assume, I have never been to the ER), pretty much everyone is not only happy to have you pay directly but prefers it because they don't have to deal with the insurance companies or do so much paperwork. It's only if they think you somehow can't afford it and are planning on just not paying them that want insurance. If anything, filling out all the insurance crap takes much longer. AND on top of that, depending on the place, they'll charge you less if you pay out of pocket, depending on how much time they figure they'll have to spend wrangling the insurance companies. Just as an experiment, try asking the next time you need something done how much it would be if you paid out of pocket.

ambercat: filling out all the insurance crap takes much longer

That's what I don't get in this day and age there's no excuse for having any paperwork to deal with when it comes to medical insurance. And yet here we are still dealing with paperwork and the money pit it represents.

I have a job with health insurance and with a 35 dollar co-pay, some of my meds are to gotdamn high as well. Stopped taking alot of my meds, just to keep gas in my car so I can make it to work and school.

/is 31
//last visit to the doctors was to have Ulnar Nerve Transposition Surgery
///two years ago

Lando Lincoln: Good thing we won't have an individual mandate to force these freedom-loving kids to buy health insurance. This will never come back to bite them in the ass, or the people that will eventually have to pay for their medical treatment when they will eventually need it.

soshulism!

Adding my vote for free health care. How stupid is it to value profit over your own citizens. Plus, I've always thought that having to pay for health care kinda goes against that whole life-liberty-pursuit of happiness thing...