Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Medicare Trustee Blahous: ObamaCare costs at least $340 billion deficit

Medicare Trustee Blahous: ObamaCare costs at least $340 billion deficit (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2012, 05:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Think about what you are saying. I have had cancer. I've been clear for over 8 years now, but there is a possibility it could return. If I move back to the states and AHCA is not fully implemented, there is a good chance that any health insurance I get will not cover me for cancer. I make a pretty good living by most standards and am responsible with money. I could not afford to pay out of pocket for cancer treatment no matter how much I save- just not realistic. So I go bankrupt and become a problem for the tax payer- or I'm left to die.

What is your solution to my not unique problem?

As a society we need to either agree that we are going to let the sick poor die or we are going to pool our resources and pay for those that can't afford it. If we choose the latter, why wait until otherwise financially sound and contributing members of society have lost everything to start helping?

The NHS is so far from perfect but I know without question that as long as I live in the UK I can expect first world health care without worry- no matter my medical past and no matter my current employment status. I pay a good bit for it in National Insurance tax, but there are no surprises. It's hard to imagine going back to the health care lottery in the states unless things get sorted.
Your not the only one. Canada has a lot of American refugees who want to go back for what ever reasons but can't because of medical reasons.

Can't Go Home: Americans In Canada Share Health Care Stories - YouTube

To cases of it.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2012, 07:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I spend my money on things that are a bit more important- my family's future.
Like a .mac webpage subscription?

The point is if you can't afford it, someone else is paying for it. Systems that merely mitigate symptoms for capable people with unfortunate circumstances create unsustainable systems; eventually a most unfortunate circumstance for all. Don't take my word for it, ask your grandkids later.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2012, 08:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Your not the only one. Canada has a lot of American refugees who want to go back for what ever reasons but can't because of medical reasons.

Can't Go Home: Americans In Canada Share Health Care Stories - YouTube

To cases of it.
Critically ill patients rushed to U.S. for care

The anecdotes abound don't they? I mean, we could do this all day long.
ebuddy
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2012, 12:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Critically ill patients rushed to U.S. for care

The anecdotes abound don't they? I mean, we could do this all day long.
And it was paid for by Canadian Medical Insurance. Funny, don't seem like care is rationed or limited when they go to that extent to ensure a Canadian gets prompt medical care at what ever the cost. Because sending patients to the US is not cheap.

Should I post a couple cases of pregnancies being flown to Seattle Hospitals from BC too? I mean what you posted really didn't strengthen your case. It just proved that Canadians are taken care of no matter what the cost. Show me a US insurance company that would do that.

That said I am glad I live in a Major city vs a small town. Seems Ontario has some issues to deal with from rapid growth. This is what happens when you allow a quarter million immigrants into the country every year. Hospitals and Schools can't keep up.

Case in point, Surrey Memorial was designed for a city population of 50 000, in the last 20 years Surrey has grown to 450 000 people. The Hospital has been a issue for the last 10 years and the expansion wont be completed for another year to catch up.
( Last edited by Athens; Apr 19, 2012 at 12:36 AM. )
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2012, 07:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I mean what you posted really didn't strengthen your case.
Of course it did. Your point was that there are American refugees stuck in Canada because of preexisting conditions and you cited some anecdotes. My point was that the silly anecdotes abound and I cited some showing Canadian refugees rushed into the US for existing conditions. One set of examples indicates folks concerned they won't get the care they need if they need it and another set of examples shows people not able to get the care they need.

I'd rather be in a position of saying; "Gosh, it'd sure be neat to visit Canada some time." over "Holy sh!t, I need to go to Canada now because of this nagging cerebral hemorrhage."
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2012, 08:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Of course it did. Your point was that there are American refugees stuck in Canada because of preexisting conditions and you cited some anecdotes. My point was that the silly anecdotes abound and I cited some showing Canadian refugees rushed into the US for existing conditions. One set of examples indicates folks concerned they won't get the care they need if they need it and another set of examples shows people not able to get the care they need.

I'd rather be in a position of saying; "Gosh, it'd sure be neat to visit Canada some time." over "Holy sh!t, I need to go to Canada now because of this nagging cerebral hemorrhage."
If I understand correctly:
- Athens was saying that there are Americans who are in Canada receiving health care and cannot return to the US for medical reasons. ie, US medical insurance providers likely won't cover the expenses for their existing medical conditions?

- ebuddy responds with "Critically ill [Canadian] patients rushed to U.S. for care" as a counter example. But, again if I understand correctly, the issue in the US isn't providing medical care to people with existing medical conditions, but rather who will pay for it? And, US medical insurance providers often refuse to pay for medical care related to existing medical conditions? And, in ebuddy's example, the medical care provided in the US was paid for by *Canadian* medical insurance, so the "existing conditions" point is moot here, since Canadian medical insurance doesn't discriminate over existing conditions.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2012, 01:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Like a .mac webpage subscription?

The point is if you can't afford it, someone else is paying for it. Systems that merely mitigate symptoms for capable people with unfortunate circumstances create unsustainable systems; eventually a most unfortunate circumstance for all. Don't take my word for it, ask your grandkids later.

Somebody else is paying for it, but risk is spread. Isn't this the premise of insurance in general? How is this fundamentally different whether this is in the private or public sector?
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2012, 01:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
another set of examples shows people not able to get the care they need.
But they did get the care they needed. They didn't languish at home and die. They got transported to facilities for care at extreme cost to the tax payer to ensure they got care. In order for you to say with a straight face not able to get care they need, they would have had to have not gotten care.

If you are with prudential for medical coverage and the in network hospital you are allowed to go to is full do you think prudential will pay for your coverage still with the out of network hospital you ended up at?

The one horror story that irks me deep down is that story in Sicko about that child with the fever. The mother brought the child to the nearest hospital (first mistake) and her insurance company wouldn't cover the child because it was a out of network hospital for what the insurance company provided coverage for. So they told her to take a taxi because they wouldn't authorize a ambulance to get to a in network hospital which was a lot further away. The child died.

Of course that hospital she went to would have probably treated the child. But it would have been all out of pocket despite having "medical" insurance. She could have called a Ambulance originally but of course that has to be pre approved by the insurance company otherwise that comes out of your pocket. The Ambulance probably would have brought the kid to the nearest hospital as well. What kind of life is that to have to think about all that during a emergency. Oh its a fever I think its safe to spend a hour trying to get to the proper hospital to save on $40,000 to $200,000 on costs that can't be afforded. Must make use of the proper medical coverage to get moneys worth out of that $400 a month + premiums paid.

Was this a example of a extreme case. Yup. I don't think this is the norm either because Michael Moore has a agenda and a biased perspective. But It did happen and I'm sure it happens a lot where insured people end up having to make a choice like that all the time. Some paying the ultimate price while others just end up financially ruined even though on paper they had medical coverage.

You know if there was 2 major incidents that caused the major hospitals to be full like a couple years ago when a driver crashed into a dozen people on the road and hours before that a hot air balloon crashed into a trailer park both resulting in dozens of casualties, I'm actually ok with being flown to a US hospital across the line for care. Because its not going to cost me anything. I am going to get the care I am promised. Would prefer to stay at home because I have more faith in my hospitals doing everything possible to save my life vs what is economically justifiable at a US hospital. But that's a minor detail.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2012, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Somebody else is paying for it, but risk is spread. Isn't this the premise of insurance in general? How is this fundamentally different whether this is in the private or public sector?
SMACK DOWN! That is the best point ever made about it.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2012, 03:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Somebody else is paying for it, but risk is spread. Isn't this the premise of insurance in general? How is this fundamentally different whether this is in the private or public sector?
Exactly. But there is one fundamental difference. Universal health care insurance provided in the public sector spreads the risk as wide as is possible. It also can also eliminate the profit component of the insurance itself from the overall health care cost mix.

OAW
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2012, 04:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
SMACK DOWN! That is the best point ever made about it.
Thanks, but please, no smackdown awards, I'm not a fan of them...
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2012, 04:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Exactly. But there is one fundamental difference. Universal health care insurance provided in the public sector spreads the risk as wide as is possible. It also can also eliminate the profit component of the insurance itself from the overall health care cost mix.

OAW

Agreed. I hope that sooner than later this country realizes that trying to make the private based system work more or less as it is today is bashing a square peg into a round hole.

I think what this country needs is a hybrid system where doctors offices and other medical institutions can run private practices and reap the benefits of having a lower administrative overhead and not have to wrestle with private insurance providers (i.e. an expanded and greatly cost controlled and revamped Medicare/Medicaid like system), while those that want supplementary private insurance and/or to pay for more advanced stuff that those former system wouldn't cover can do so.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2012, 04:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Exactly. But there is one fundamental difference. Universal health care insurance provided in the public sector spreads the risk as wide as is possible. It also can also eliminate the profit component of the insurance itself from the overall health care cost mix.

OAW
And dealing with a single provider removes a lot of administrative over head. And as a single insurance provider it also has power to control medical delivery prices as well through negotiation of services. And in the case of ours in Canada the provincial insurance buys or negotiates much lower drug prices which is why Canadian drug prices are a lot cheaper. Its bought in bulk at negotiated lower prices and differences in patent laws I believe allow for generics sooner here too.


Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Agreed. I hope that sooner than later this country realizes that trying to make the private based system work more or less as it is today is bashing a square peg into a round hole.

I think what this country needs is a hybrid system where doctors offices and other medical institutions can run private practices and reap the benefits of having a lower administrative overhead and not have to wrestle with private insurance providers (i.e. an expanded and greatly cost controlled and revamped Medicare/Medicaid like system), while those that want supplementary private insurance and/or to pay for more advanced stuff that those former system wouldn't cover can do so.
Which country?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2012, 04:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Which country?
I think the US will need to come up with something unique.

The relationship between public and private insurance/coverage is inconsistent from province to province in Canada AFAIK, but in America since we're starting from a private system there would probably be great interest in continuing to support private insurance on a wide scale basis to cater towards those that want bleeding edge stuff, or stuff that would not be covered under a national public system (e.g. perhaps dental or elective procedures if the US were to copy Canada). Because there are many more states than provinces there would probably need to be a different sort of national regulation or at least coordination to deal with private insurance settlements that are out-of-state/out-of-network, referrals from one system to the other, perhaps something to decide whether there should be public coverage in all areas or whether private monopolies are okay, whether there should be cost controls in the case of the latter, etc.

There would be a tremendous amount of details to sort out, but Americans are definitely going to want to feel like they can spend their money on the bleeding edge type stuff or special care if they want the best care that money can buy - high end stuff. The one (and perhaps only) fair advocacy of the current American system is that if you have adequate insurance in place, care and options can be excellent. This new American system should probably aim to preserve the quality of care, and to do so they'll need to encourage the continuation of the advanced bleeding edge type stuff in the private sector (which may eventually trickle down into the public sector). I think the advanced bleeding edge type stuff and the money making possibilities help inspire the best doctors, surgeons, drug companies, etc. because it probably isn't all that interesting to just deliver children or put casts on people's broken bones for a living. These fringe/unusual type cases help separate the elite minds from the average ones, so we should setup an environment that rewards and encourages the success of those elite minds, which is best done in the private sector with the prospects of a gazillion dollars.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2012, 04:55 PM
 
I think the model Switzerland used would be a perfect fit for the US because the model Switzerland changed from was exactly like the US system is today. Private company only model with very strict rules. Can't deny coverage for any one or charge one rate for one person higher then another person. Can't make a profit on medical coverage, it has to be at cost. The insurance companies make money on the extra insurance products sold with medical such as life insurance, auto insurance, home insurance. Its still all private but every one is covered for a ok price and every one treated mostly the same. They still pay easily 3 times as much as we do in Canada in that model. But they pay a good deal less then Americans as well.

What is killing the US is having private/public together. Poor and sick or disabled end up on Medicare, medicad while Insurance companies cherry pick the healthy. In that mix you have people that dont have either plus lots of illegal immigrants sucking down the US medical delivery side of things which causes higher rates to those that are insured.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2012, 05:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
What is killing the US is having private/public together. Poor and sick or disabled end up on Medicare, medicad while Insurance companies cherry pick the healthy. In that mix you have people that dont have either plus lots of illegal immigrants sucking down the US medical delivery side of things which causes higher rates to those that are insured.

I think this is mostly because Medicare doesn't cover the middle class, the private insurance companies have to carry the full load of the middle class, so they pretty much have a monopoly with few cost controls. It's not really a private/public pairing as much as it is a private system with a safety net for the fringe poor people, and a system that contributes a little bit (but an inadequate amount) to the elderly in a system that is completely broken due to a number of other factors, including what I've already stated.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2012, 05:12 PM
 
I think the US public system would make the most sense if it only covered generic drugs too.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2012, 05:20 PM
 
US Medicare costs 5 times more then Canadian Medicare for the same coverage. It has serious issues. But thats partly to do with who it has to look at and does not have the ability to force prices in the market. Some doctors and hospitals from what I understand and I guess a yank could correct me on this, will not even accept patients or medicare coverage
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2012, 09:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Somebody else is paying for it, but risk is spread. Isn't this the premise of insurance in general? How is this fundamentally different whether this is in the private or public sector?
Yes, but it should be a product people want to buy under a more competitive provider environment hindered now by limited and skewed, state-by-state risk pools. The public means of distributing this benefit must relinquish too much control to a centralized authority that begs the kinds of ongoing abuses and distorted markets we're seeing today. Again, this includes health care costs that are what they are merely because they can be. I give people enough credit to know that given the proper circumstances, they will vote with their feet when it comes to abusive companies and services. As it is today, the most egregious abusers are only in the position they are because of government aid. We have the ability to be a lot more aware than we are and I think our distractions come at a great cost. My .02.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2012, 09:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Yes, but it should be a product people want to buy under a more competitive provider environment hindered now by limited and skewed, state-by-state risk pools. The public means of distributing this benefit must relinquish too much control to a centralized authority that begs the kinds of ongoing abuses and distorted markets we're seeing today. Again, this includes health care costs that are what they are merely because they can be. I give people enough credit to know that given the proper circumstances, they will vote with their feet when it comes to abusive companies and services. As it is today, the most egregious abusers are only in the position they are because of government aid. We have the ability to be a lot more aware than we are and I think our distractions come at a great cost. My .02.

But doesn't your theory about how everything woud be better if there weren't state monopolies (to paraphrase) predicated on the premise that insurance companies *want* to be national providers? Maybe they are happy only doing business in a state or two. Your theory is also predicated on the premise that insurance companies want to compete directly with others where they might be deeply entrenched already.

Do you see companies lining up to compete against Walmart? Target? No, and this is one of the downfalls of capitalism. If a company were to compete against Walmart and Target just as they'd start to do well they'd either be bought out or forced out of business by a Walmart or Target that just conveniently opened a few blocks down.

Capitalism works best when companies haven't reached their full maturity and there is room for competition. Once you have monopolies, they don't go away very easily. You can't tweak a couple of things and make them go away.

What you want to do would be nice if it were possible, but it isn't terribly practical.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 19, 2012, 10:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Yes, but it should be a product people want to buy under a more competitive provider environment hindered now by limited and skewed, state-by-state risk pools. The public means of distributing this benefit must relinquish too much control to a centralized authority that begs the kinds of ongoing abuses and distorted markets we're seeing today. Again, this includes health care costs that are what they are merely because they can be. I give people enough credit to know that given the proper circumstances, they will vote with their feet when it comes to abusive companies and services. As it is today, the most egregious abusers are only in the position they are because of government aid. We have the ability to be a lot more aware than we are and I think our distractions come at a great cost. My .02.
Yet in the real world this isn't the case. In the real world when you attach Profits and share holders and requirements of unlimited financial growth the product ends up being more expensive.

The last comparison I saw on the subject which was on a US network perhaps frontline, I will have to dig around for it that US health care costs the MOST in the entire world with lack luster numbers to show the value of that price. Comparing of Canadian Health Care with US health care our government spends HALF of what the US spends. Individually citizens in Canada spend 1/6th as much for the same list of services and treatments. And when it came to wait times and success rates it was mixed. Some was better in Canada for wait times while others where better in the US. Knee surgery was twice as quick in the US with a average wait time of 2-3 weeks while the average in Canada was 4-8 weeks. But for heart surgery the average weight time in Canada was exactly the same as in the US for a wide ranges of types and for transplants it was twice as fast in Canada. On care out come some cancers had a statistically better out come in the US while other cancers had a statistically better out come in Canada. When it came to access there was a massive difference between Canada and the US and not talking about uninsured people only. Even people insured had limited access to services because insurance companies would deny or limit access. As for horror stories both countries have the exact same stories all stemming from HUMAN ERROR and is the exception not the norm. When it came to non critical care there was a massive difference between Canada and the US for those that could not afford follow up care. Even some hospitals resorted to paying taxi's to drop patients off at homeless shelters after treating the legally required amount but not full care some one would require to recover fully. Mentally handicapped people suffered the worst with this kind of treatment. And overall Canadians live longer, and are healthier longer then Americans at a fraction of the cost Americans pay. So I like to see where this open market of Insurance benefits people outside of share holders. Because it sure the hell does not benefit the sick or injured, just the healthy who are happy to pay into it thinking they will be taking care of until that day comes they need to use it.

How much do you pay monthly for medical insurance? Or the value of what your employer pays for it? I'm just curious if its $300 a month on the low end of things or in the $500 a month average medium range of things.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2012, 07:16 AM
 
I love the reasoning here. You can't compete against Target and Walmart? Sure you can. What about Shopko, Walgreen's, Bed Bath & Beyond, any endless array of boutiques across the country, and a bunch of others I'm certain I'm missing here. See, there are always going to be the popular whipping-boy examples for those who think one big-assed centralized authority has more integrity than dozens of retailers all competing against one another for price and quality. You get a defeated system by appealing to embittered defeatists. That's reality.

I was having a drink with a buddy of mine last night and his wife started a business a couple of years ago making bunt cakes. Bunt cakes. Ya know... my first thought was how on earth can some shlep making bunt cakes make it in today's market?

Reality you say? Well they're making out like friggin' gangbusters and they're opening another store soon. Doesn't Walmart sell cakes too? defeatists.
ebuddy
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2012, 01:01 PM
 
Hum, tell your buddy you know a Canadian that would like to bring his burnt cake business to Canada
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2012, 01:16 PM
 
I generally don't call people out for typos but Bunt cake and Burnt cake are kinda funny.

OAW
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2012, 01:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I love the reasoning here. You can't compete against Target and Walmart? Sure you can. What about Shopko, Walgreen's, Bed Bath & Beyond, any endless array of boutiques across the country, and a bunch of others I'm certain I'm missing here. See, there are always going to be the popular whipping-boy examples for those who think one big-assed centralized authority has more integrity than dozens of retailers all competing against one another for price and quality. You get a defeated system by appealing to embittered defeatists. That's reality.

I was having a drink with a buddy of mine last night and his wife started a business a couple of years ago making bunt cakes. Bunt cakes. Ya know... my first thought was how on earth can some shlep making bunt cakes make it in today's market?

Reality you say? Well they're making out like friggin' gangbusters and they're opening another store soon. Doesn't Walmart sell cakes too? defeatists.

You can't compete against Target and Walmart trying to do exactly what they are doing. The stores you have listed are all different with different business models, different demographics, different niches, etc.

How do you propose differentiating yourself in the health insurance business? Starting an insurance business that specializes in treating diseases that start with A and goes up to F? There are no niches, it's pretty much have insurance or don't have insurance, the main differentiation being prices and caveats (which are basically prices), one important caveat being which provider is in-network with the local hospitals and clinics, which takes the choices completely out of the realm of the consumer.

Therefore, all of this stuff about bunt cakes, as interesting as it is, is completely irrelevant here.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2012, 01:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I generally don't call people out for typos but Bunt cake and Burnt cake are kinda funny.

OAW


Not a typo, I sadly read it as burnt cakes, freaking dyslexia
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2012, 01:53 PM
 
So what OAW is saying is that dyslexia is funny?


Just being a jackass, don't mind me
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2012, 05:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post


Not a typo, I sadly read it as burnt cakes, freaking dyslexia
Oh well my bad then. I had no idea.

OAW
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2012, 06:03 PM
 
I know that insurance companies would hate it, but how about a system like Germany's? You have lots of insurance choices, but to be a provider you have to be a non-profit. This eliminates one of the big contributors to higher rates if it is no longer profit driven. From what I've read, Germany's health care system actually runs a surplus.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2012, 07:10 PM
 
Are the high rates insurance companies or care delivery. I think its a combination of both.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2012, 10:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
I know that insurance companies would hate it, but how about a system like Germany's? You have lots of insurance choices, but to be a provider you have to be a non-profit. This eliminates one of the big contributors to higher rates if it is no longer profit driven. From what I've read, Germany's health care system actually runs a surplus.

For that to work there would have to be enough non-profit providers to cover all of America, even podunk rural hillbilly country.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2012, 11:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You can't compete against Target and Walmart trying to do exactly what they are doing. The stores you have listed are all different with different business models, different demographics, different niches, etc.
Of course not. Competition is often death to the competitor by a thousand cuts. You don't want to do exactly what your competitor is doing. For example, if Bed Bath & Beyond continues to do well, is it possible the "beyond" part may extend to other Target niches? It seems fairness and sound market principles in your estimation require that all these entities model one another entirely. That's not how competition works and of course its relevant.

How do you propose differentiating yourself in the health insurance business?
Specializing in certain coverages or coverages for certain occupations for starters, but you see in most cases they cannot.

Starting an insurance business that specializes in treating diseases that start with A and goes up to F? There are no niches, it's pretty much have insurance or don't have insurance, the main differentiation being prices and caveats (which are basically prices), one important caveat being which provider is in-network with the local hospitals and clinics, which takes the choices completely out of the realm of the consumer.
The primary differences are the state-by-state regulations and Federal regulations that create monoliths and monopolies, without which a host of players could enter the market by specializing in the aforementioned niches. Since you're stuck in this silly notion that all players have to succumb to the same business model, I can see where this would be a difficult concept to grasp.

Therefore, all of this stuff about bunt cakes, as interesting as it is, is completely irrelevant here.
What can I say... I disagree.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2012, 12:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Yet in the real world this isn't the case. In the real world when you attach Profits and share holders and requirements of unlimited financial growth the product ends up being more expensive.

The last comparison I saw on the subject which was on a US network perhaps frontline, I will have to dig around for it that US health care costs the MOST in the entire world with lack luster numbers to show the value of that price. Comparing of Canadian Health Care with US health care our government spends HALF of what the US spends. Individually citizens in Canada spend 1/6th as much for the same list of services and treatments. And when it came to wait times and success rates it was mixed. Some was better in Canada for wait times while others where better in the US. Knee surgery was twice as quick in the US with a average wait time of 2-3 weeks while the average in Canada was 4-8 weeks. But for heart surgery the average weight time in Canada was exactly the same as in the US for a wide ranges of types and for transplants it was twice as fast in Canada. On care out come some cancers had a statistically better out come in the US while other cancers had a statistically better out come in Canada. When it came to access there was a massive difference between Canada and the US and not talking about uninsured people only. Even people insured had limited access to services because insurance companies would deny or limit access. As for horror stories both countries have the exact same stories all stemming from HUMAN ERROR and is the exception not the norm. When it came to non critical care there was a massive difference between Canada and the US for those that could not afford follow up care. Even some hospitals resorted to paying taxi's to drop patients off at homeless shelters after treating the legally required amount but not full care some one would require to recover fully. Mentally handicapped people suffered the worst with this kind of treatment. And overall Canadians live longer, and are healthier longer then Americans at a fraction of the cost Americans pay. So I like to see where this open market of Insurance benefits people outside of share holders. Because it sure the hell does not benefit the sick or injured, just the healthy who are happy to pay into it thinking they will be taking care of until that day comes they need to use it.

How much do you pay monthly for medical insurance? Or the value of what your employer pays for it? I'm just curious if its $300 a month on the low end of things or in the $500 a month average medium range of things.
I don't even know where to start. You've obviously not been paying attention to what has already been said regarding each and every point you make including the impossibilities of comparing the two systems. Besson has brought up mortality rates between the two countries and it just doesn't play. Two entirely different demographics and yes, the simple fact of the matter is that Americans get hurt more. Secondly, we can practically fit the entire Canadian health care system into a couple, major US cities. I'm for States rights which would naturally afford differing regions of the US the ability to use varying models to address their unique situations and in fact, give themselves a shot at more localized management of services like you get in countries like Canada that rank 35th in population. Third, there are few places more successful than the US in critical care including cancer treatment and related survival rates. The anecdotes and factoids won't do. Less watching, more reading Athens. There's only so much that can be fit into a 60 minute TV exposé on something as complex as health care and the numerous variables involved.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2012, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Of course not. Competition is often death to the competitor by a thousand cuts. You don't want to do exactly what your competitor is doing. For example, if Bed Bath & Beyond continues to do well, is it possible the "beyond" part may extend to other Target niches? It seems fairness and sound market principles in your estimation require that all these entities model one another entirely. That's not how competition works and of course its relevant.


Specializing in certain coverages or coverages for certain occupations for starters, but you see in most cases they cannot.


The primary differences are the state-by-state regulations and Federal regulations that create monoliths and monopolies, without which a host of players could enter the market by specializing in the aforementioned niches. Since you're stuck in this silly notion that all players have to succumb to the same business model, I can see where this would be a difficult concept to grasp.


What can I say... I disagree.


I can't make any sense out of your responses here, sorry.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2012, 04:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I can't make any sense out of your responses here, sorry.
Um... there was absolutely nothing cryptic in my rebuttal besson. I'll take this response as acknowledgement of how silly your argument was.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2012, 05:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Um... there was absolutely nothing cryptic in my rebuttal besson. I'll take this response as acknowledgement of how silly your argument was.

It was extremely cryptic.

1) First paragraph: not much to do with my point, because my point is that your comparison to niche markets as being able to compete against Walmart and Target doesn't work, because with health insurance there aren't really any niche markets.

2) Specialization in certain coverages? Do you really think that customers are going to want to have multiple kinds of health insurance for different sorts of ailments? *This* is ridiculous, that you'd call my points ridiculous is ridiculous. We buy insurance because we don't know what sorts of problems we are going to have, and by the time we have certain problems it may be too late to switch to a different provider that specializes in the coverage we need.

3) Besides, all of this is completely moot and irrelevant in areas where hospitals and clinics *do not support the competitor's coverage anyway because it is deemed "out-of-network"*. ebuddy, you keep on repeating the same sorts of arguments yet you seem to refuse to look at the concept of in-network vs. out-of-network coverage. Until these stupid network problems can be fixed, this whole private insurance fantasy of yours is bashing a square peg into a round hole. There is no competition, there is the network - plain and simple, and assuming that out-of-state providers will want to compete (which is still not a given) still doesn't change the fact that medical providers are allowed to create their stupid bewildering networks that customers often don't even know exist until it is too late. It is my opinion that these networks are designed to create monopolies, and little side deals between providers and insurance companies that help maintain these monopolies. That is just a hunch of mine right now though.

That being said, I'm hesitant to think that you really think that we should have multiple insurances for different ailments, so perhaps I'm jumping the gun here. At any rate, your lack of specificity is cryptic.

3) Your third paragraph really makes it sound like you think there should be niche providers that cover or specialize in certain kinds of ailments, which again, is retarded, and I don't think you're this dumb, so I'm assuming that I'm misunderstanding something.

There cannot be niche providers that specialize in certain ailments, just insurance providers that provide health insurance, just like there is auto insurance that provides auto insurance... Different levels of service (just as there is in health insurance with deductables/co-pays, that is fine), but still, it is auto insurance, not "auto insurance for being rear ended" and "auto insurance for crashing into something due to hydroplaining"
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2012, 10:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It was extremely cryptic.
You have a reading comp problem.

1) First paragraph: not much to do with my point, because my point is that your comparison to niche markets as being able to compete against Walmart and Target doesn't work, because with health insurance there aren't really any niche markets.
You brought up specific points to make your argument and I addressed them. The problem is you had no idea going in how easily they'd be unraveled. I'll give you another example. Are Apple and Microsoft not competitors? Do they conduct business the exact same way? Do they have the exact same niches? Haven't both eventually taken measures to extend their niches to compete with the other? With regard to niche markets and insurance, there are a wealth of various occupations that can be pooled together nationally. There are also insurance packages of greater with greater or lesser coverage options to tailor a plan that best meets your current situation and finances such as catastrophic-only options etc. Too often they can't do it under the current circumstances. I'm not defending the status quo besson, I'm telling you why your ideas of public vs private are silly and demonstrating why the examples you provide to make your arguments are the direct result of the public sector managing most of the care provided in the US, not private.

2) Specialization in certain coverages? Do you really think that customers are going to want to have multiple kinds of health insurance for different sorts of ailments? *This* is ridiculous, that you'd call my points ridiculous is ridiculous. We buy insurance because we don't know what sorts of problems we are going to have, and by the time we have certain problems it may be too late to switch to a different provider that specializes in the coverage we need.
No one said anything about coverages for certain ailments besson. If you're compelled to respond to me, please respond to me.

3) Besides, all of this is completely moot and irrelevant in areas where hospitals and clinics *do not support the competitor's coverage anyway because it is deemed "out-of-network"*. ebuddy, you keep on repeating the same sorts of arguments yet you seem to refuse to look at the concept of in-network vs. out-of-network coverage. Until these stupid network problems can be fixed, this whole private insurance fantasy of yours is bashing a square peg into a round hole. There is no competition, there is the network - plain and simple, and assuming that out-of-state providers will want to compete (which is still not a given) still doesn't change the fact that medical providers are allowed to create their stupid bewildering networks that customers often don't even know exist until it is too late. It is my opinion that these networks are designed to create monopolies, and little side deals between providers and insurance companies that help maintain these monopolies. That is just a hunch of mine right now though.
Silliness. Are you really going to pretend you haven't a clue what I advocate with regard to health care besson? Apparently I've not repeated myself near enough. Once again, you're citing the symptoms of problems caused by a government-distorted system and blaming it on private enterprise. The challenges you cit are all the direct result of government distorting the health insurance marketplace with regulations that do nothing to control costs. For that matter, you don't have an example of a system that can control health care costs because they're all essentially based in some large degree on the public panacea.

That being said, I'm hesitant to think that you really think that we should have multiple insurances for different ailments, so perhaps I'm jumping the gun here. At any rate, your lack of specificity is cryptic.
Yeah, you're not jumping the gun here, you're jumping the shark railing on arguments no one has made.

3) Your third paragraph really makes it sound like you think there should be niche providers that cover or specialize in certain kinds of ailments, which again, is retarded, and I don't think you're this dumb, so I'm assuming that I'm misunderstanding something.
Ailments. Reading comp besson. I won't go so far as to say this is all retardation, but...

There cannot be niche providers that specialize in certain ailments, just insurance providers that provide health insurance, just like there is auto insurance that provides auto insurance... Different levels of service (just as there is in health insurance with deductables/co-pays, that is fine), but still, it is auto insurance, not "auto insurance for being rear ended" and "auto insurance for crashing into something due to hydroplaining"
Eesh man. I guess I'll wait for you to come around to something I've said.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2012, 02:40 PM
 
ebuddy, I told you that I probably didn't understand what you wrote because I found it cryptic.

If you are interested in restating it, please do. If you are interested in just accusing me of having a reading comp problem, then don't bother, cause I'm no longer interested in the conversation.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2012, 04:54 PM
 
Heh. ebuddy is the most charitable poster on any forum anywhere. I don't know why he bothers, time after time trying to talk sense to the same thick skulls that basically when refuted just go "NUH UH!" or pretend they can't understand what was said. (Gee, what an original tactic!)

Bless 'im.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2012, 08:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
If you are interested in restating it, please do. If you are interested in just accusing me of having a reading comp problem, then don't bother, cause I'm no longer interested in the conversation.
If you think I'm truly stupid enough to suggest different insurance options for different sicknesses, you weren't really interested in the conversation to begin with. In which case, it has been a bother. Otherwise, it seemed like you were going out of your way to misunderstand me.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2012, 08:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Heh. ebuddy is the most charitable poster on any forum anywhere. I don't know why he bothers, time after time trying to talk sense to the same thick skulls that basically when refuted just go "NUH UH!" or pretend they can't understand what was said. (Gee, what an original tactic!)

Bless 'im.
Thank you.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2012, 09:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
If you think I'm truly stupid enough to suggest different insurance options for different sicknesses, you weren't really interested in the conversation to begin with. In which case, it has been a bother.

The onus is on you to make yourself clear, just as it is for me. I've gotten into a lot of trouble having to defend and re-defend what I've said awkwardly, you shouldn't feel like you have no responsibility in making your points clear. And no, I didn't intentionally misunderstand you, I don't play those sorts of games.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2012, 09:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Heh. ebuddy is the most charitable poster on any forum anywhere. I don't know why he bothers, time after time trying to talk sense to the same thick skulls that basically when refuted just go "NUH UH!" or pretend they can't understand what was said. (Gee, what an original tactic!)

Bless 'im.

You should learn from him then, maybe you'd have better emotional self-control?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2012, 07:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The onus is on you to make yourself clear, just as it is for me. I've gotten into a lot of trouble having to defend and re-defend what I've said awkwardly, you shouldn't feel like you have no responsibility in making your points clear. And no, I didn't intentionally misunderstand you, I don't play those sorts of games.
I'm skeptical. Meaning, I'm not sure I believe you.

If you could going forward, please provide some idea of how invested you are in your arguments on a scale of 1-10. 10 being genuinely interested in conversation and 1 being; "I'm just ranting".
ebuddy
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2012, 08:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
If you think I'm truly stupid enough to suggest different insurance options for different sicknesses, you weren't really interested in the conversation to begin with. In which case, it has been a bother. Otherwise, it seemed like you were going out of your way to misunderstand me.
When you used Bed & Bath & Beyond as an example of how companies can compete with WalMart, that's where I thought you were going as well. B&B&B competes with WalMart by offering better service. They are able to do so because they operate in a niche of the range of product offered by WalMart.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2012, 01:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm skeptical. Meaning, I'm not sure I believe you.

If you could going forward, please provide some idea of how invested you are in your arguments on a scale of 1-10. 10 being genuinely interested in conversation and 1 being; "I'm just ranting".

Maybe you could provide a scale of how open minded you intend to be?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2012, 08:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
When you used Bed & Bath & Beyond as an example of how companies can compete with WalMart, that's where I thought you were going as well. B&B&B competes with WalMart by offering better service. They are able to do so because they operate in a niche of the range of product offered by WalMart.

Thank you, I was wondering if it was just me that had this impression.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2012, 10:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You can't compete against Target and Walmart trying to do exactly what they are doing. The stores you have listed are all different with different business models, different demographics, different niches, etc.
Target and Walmart compete against each other, as does Kmart, Costco, BJ's, ShopKo, Meijer, Amazon, Macy's, Kohl's, and Sears (yeah, they still exist, it's true). You're saying X is impossible, meanwhile dozens are doing X every day, including the two parties from your own example. Open your eyes.

How do you propose differentiating yourself in the health insurance business?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2012, 10:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Target and Walmart compete against each other, as does Kmart, Costco, BJ's, ShopKo, Meijer, Amazon, Macy's, Kohl's, and Sears (yeah, they still exist, it's true). You're saying X is impossible, meanwhile dozens are doing X every day, including the two parties from your own example. Open your eyes.
You open your eyes, I said this:

You can't compete against Target and Walmart trying to do exactly what they are doing
Target and Walmart do not do the exact same thing.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2012, 11:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You open your eyes, I said this:

Target and Walmart do not do the exact same thing.
How are they different, and how does it matter? They are both warehouses, they both sell groceries along with everything else under the sun, and if you google "walmart competitors," every single link mentions Target by name.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum 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
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:38 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,