wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:48:50 -0400, hk
wrote:

The insurance companies add absolutely nothing to the equation of
ensuring everyone has access to good medical care. In fact, they simply
make it more difficult.

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, nom=de=plume wrote:


It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...tcy_study.html

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is "free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't want a
small problem to turn into a big problem.


--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is "free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't want a
small problem to turn into a big problem.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance cost would
pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay lots more for
insurance and not have to budget for a doctors checkup?

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is "free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't want a
small problem to turn into a big problem.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance cost
would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay lots
more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors checkup?



Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that ingrown
hair to turn into gangrene?

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their
own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is "free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't want
a small problem to turn into a big problem.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance cost
would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay lots
more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors checkup?



Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that ingrown
hair to turn into gangrene?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not go to the doctor and pay the bill for that toenail. A lot cheaper
than paying some insurance company to pay the bill for you. Just like auto
insurance. A $250 deductible will cost you about $125 a year more than a
$500 deductible. Go 2-3 years without crashing the car and you are ahead of
the curve financially. A $2000 a year deductible health insurance policy
will cost you at least a $1000 less than a $200 deductible. Pay for
probably one office visit a month for the savings.

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at
all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their
own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is "free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't want
a small problem to turn into a big problem.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance cost
would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay lots
more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors checkup?



Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that
ingrown hair to turn into gangrene?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not go to the doctor and pay the bill for that toenail. A lot cheaper
than paying some insurance company to pay the bill for you. Just like
auto insurance. A $250 deductible will cost you about $125 a year more
than a $500 deductible. Go 2-3 years without crashing the car and you are
ahead of the curve financially. A $2000 a year deductible health
insurance policy will cost you at least a $1000 less than a $200
deductible. Pay for probably one office visit a month for the savings.



That's all really fine, except when you can't pay the doctor for the
treatment. As to the rest, I agree that higher deductibles lower your rates
a bit, which is fine, if you can afford the $2000 a year or whatever. Lots
of people can't. Feel free to blame the poor if that's where you're going.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:09:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

What insurance does is create a target rich environment for
lawyers.
Between the two of them you are right, it is a huge drag on the
economy. We would actually be better off without any insurance at
all
but then people would have to plan for their own futures and their
own
problems,



It's not all about poor planning. Few people can afford to deal with
catastrophic illnesses. Even millionaires have gone broke.

Most people want a lot more than catastrophic coverage. If that was
all we wanted it would be pretty cheap. My $3000 deductible is "free"
from IBM (costs them less than $2k a year) but the PPO would cost me
$12,000 a year plus their $2k and still be a $20 co pay.
The poor planning part is people who can't save up a few hundred a
year for routine checkups and minor care unless they have the
insurance company "save" it for them (with a 17% handling charge).
People are not talking about insurance here, they are talking about a
medical bookie that collects the "vig" on every procedure and
treatment.
The classic is the drug plan. You know you are going to buy the drug,
the insurance company knows you are going to buy the drug. How in the
hell can it end up being cheaper letting them broker the
transaction?


They want a lot more than catastrophic coverage because they don't
want a small problem to turn into a big problem.


--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance cost
would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay lots
more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors checkup?



Try reading my sentence again. Do you really want to wait for that
ingrown hair to turn into gangrene?

--
Nom=de=Plume


Why not go to the doctor and pay the bill for that toenail. A lot
cheaper than paying some insurance company to pay the bill for you. Just
like auto insurance. A $250 deductible will cost you about $125 a year
more than a $500 deductible. Go 2-3 years without crashing the car and
you are ahead of the curve financially. A $2000 a year deductible health
insurance policy will cost you at least a $1000 less than a $200
deductible. Pay for probably one office visit a month for the savings.



That's all really fine, except when you can't pay the doctor for the
treatment. As to the rest, I agree that higher deductibles lower your
rates a bit, which is fine, if you can afford the $2000 a year or
whatever. Lots of people can't. Feel free to blame the poor if that's
where you're going.

--
Nom=de=Plume


If you can save a 1000 a year in insurance costs, would not be long before
you could pay that $2k deductible, and still be putting a $1000 a year in
the bank. But since most of the poor spend all the money they get, not
necessarily wisely, they will spend the $1k and not save it.

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 18:00:24 -0400, gfretwell wrote:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:29:40 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance cost
would pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay lots
more for insurance and not have to budget for a doctors checkup?

Exactly my point. It would actually save most people a lot of money and
they would be a lot more conscious about what they paid. People would
argue about ridiculous bills. We had an article here about hospital
bills (Lee Memorial Hospital) and it turns out they bill about 4 times
what they actually will take if you negotiate.

Hospital bills have to be taken with a large dose of salt. I suspect
they are padded quite heavily to aid in insurance company negotiations.
While Joe Blow might be able to negotiate the bill, the insurance company
often tells the hospital what it is willing to pay, or has pre-
negotiated. The end result, those without insurance often pay the
highest cost.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:29:40 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

Why not just catastropic coverage only? The savings on insurance cost
would
pay for a bunch of office visits. But they would rather pay lots more for
insurance and not have to budget for a doctors checkup?

Exactly my point. It would actually save most people a lot of money
and they would be a lot more conscious about what they paid.
People would argue about ridiculous bills. We had an article here
about hospital bills (Lee Memorial Hospital) and it turns out they
bill about 4 times what they actually will take if you negotiate.


Good GAWD! It's not just about "saving money." We're talking about people's
health. Sometimes there's a correlation but not always. How would you like
to walk around with an ingrown toenail for a couple of months until it
festered to the point of amputation?

--
Nom=de=Plume