|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/08/2008 11:51:38 AM · #176 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
...snip... As a product engineer, I have to disagree. Products on the whole are far shoddier than they used to be. |
Planned Obsolescence. <-- Product Design Engineers are The Devil ! ;-P
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 12:19:50 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
...snip... As a product engineer, I have to disagree. Products on the whole are far shoddier than they used to be. |
Planned Obsolescence. <-- Product Design Engineers are The Devil ! ;-P |
Actually, blame marketing. They go make up some doofus survey and ask their friends to take it and the results tell them that the average housefrau wants a new washer every 4.635967 years. |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 12:21:20 PM · #178 |
You guys still are not answering my question. Spazmo, I get the feeling that you hate everything. Is there anything you think IS good and true and right and proper?
Re-state the original question again: if the insurance companies are getting SO rich by screwing people over, WHY is competition NOT presenting to provide a better product for less money and becoming fabulously popular as a result? Come on, I'm looking for an answer to explain the prevalence of crappy product and scarcity of good product. Anybody? Don't tell me again how crappy the product is...I know, and agree...tell me WHY???
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 12:22:17 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
Most of the stuff I've been to the doctor for in Canada isn't covered by medicare.
Dental? Nope.
Chiropractor? Nope.
Athlete's foot treatment? Nope. (over a hundred bucks for just the first treatment - I got it taken care of here for a bit less than five bucks)
Dermatologist anything? Nope.
Allergist visits? Nope.
Glasses? Contacts? Nope.
Antibiotics? sometimes |
You've been to the doctor in Canada and most times it wasn't covered? That's unusual in the extreme. You're right about dental, chiropractic, and glasses. A doctor will look at you for dermatological problems including athlete's foot and you'll never pay for the doctor's visit, but the remedies are never free, including antibiotics, unless you have coverage through work. |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 12:33:07 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
You guys still are not answering my question. Spazmo, I get the feeling that you hate everything. Is there anything you think IS good and true and right and proper?
Re-state the original question again: if the insurance companies are getting SO rich by screwing people over, WHY is competition NOT presenting to provide a better product for less money and becoming fabulously popular as a result? Come on, I'm looking for an answer to explain the prevalence of crappy product and scarcity of good product. Anybody? Don't tell me again how crappy the product is...I know, and agree...tell me WHY??? |
I hate corporate and personal greed more than anything. Well, except maybe lying politicians. Unfortunately, the world seems awash in both. I'm not against profits, but almost everything thet happens in the corporate world is motivated strictly by profits and disregards the effects for the little guy.
How would they do that? Offer low cost coverage to patients that are going to suck more out in benfits than they put in through premiums and deductibles?? That's not a recipe for profits, that's a recipe for bankruptcy.
You don't understand what the insurance company's real product is. It's not insurance. It's company stock. Their customers aren't the insured, their customers are the stockholders, the insured are just the mechanism by which they make a profit for their customers.
Message edited by author 2008-04-08 12:45:05. |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 12:43:52 PM · #181 |
You're still not addressing the question. I'm not asking about how they do it, or why. I'm asking an economics question: if the product doesn't fit the market, as you say, and "profit" is the motivator, why are there not more providers in the market, driving down the margins and driving up the quality? Must be a reason, other than people being mean and crooked.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 12:50:04 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
You're still not addressing the question. I'm not asking about how they do it, or why. I'm asking an economics question: if the product doesn't fit the market, as you say, and "profit" is the motivator, why are there not more providers in the market, driving down the margins and driving up the quality? Must be a reason, other than people being mean and crooked. |
The product does fit the market. They are offering a quality product, insurance company stocks have a great performance record.
The people aren't mean, just greedy.
There aren't more providers because there's not a sufficient risk pool that would allow a profit.
Message edited by author 2008-04-08 12:51:02. |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 01:37:09 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by karmat:
It may not be fair that there are people with obscene masses of wealth and others can't afford to buy their a piece of bread. But, how is that remedied?
Robin Hood? |
What would Jesus do? (Not meant to be snide at all!). The making of money by the lending of money (interest or usury) is forbidden in Islam, and I believe the principle derives from the Bible ... (unregulated) Capitalism, with its overarching goal of using money to accumulate/maximize material wealth, would seem about as anti-Christian a societal scheme as can be imagined. |
The making of money by the lending of money (I believe called usury) is also forbidden in the Old Testament, so is quite possibly not done by practicing Jewish people either.
As far as what Jesus would do -- He was fairly clear about that -- take care of the poor.
BUT, why, all of a sudden, are we expecting multi-million/billionaires, who may not follow the teachings of Christ, or even believe that Christ exists beyond a historical character (just as many on these forums believe), to do what HE commanded. If that is the new rule, then I should think some of the arguments in the Rant section just changed. :P |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 02:49:44 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by Louis:
See my tax rates for Canadians in the above-referenced link. How do yours compare? |
using the "taxable income" line (this is after all deductions) and the "total tax after credits" line from my 2007 tax returns and the information in the link above, i would have paid an extra $2,542.30 in tax had i lived in canada. i pay $132 per month in medical insurance (not including dental and vision, which i understand the canadian system doesn't cover either).
that's a difference of $958.30 i saved by living in a warmer climate and i've never, EVER had to wait a single day for something as simple as an x-ray or a week for an ultrasound...
just for, you know, example...
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 03:25:46 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by kudzu:
Originally posted by Louis:
See my tax rates for Canadians in the above-referenced link. How do yours compare? |
using the "taxable income" line (this is after all deductions) and the "total tax after credits" line from my 2007 tax returns and the information in the link above, i would have paid an extra $2,542.30 in tax had i lived in canada. i pay $132 per month in medical insurance (not including dental and vision, which i understand the canadian system doesn't cover either).
that's a difference of $958.30 i saved by living in a warmer climate and i've never, EVER had to wait a single day for something as simple as an x-ray or a week for an ultrasound...
just for, you know, example... |
I read with interest the comments you made but what I truly would love to know is whether or not your $137.00/month insurance payments cover everything, including hospitalization, medical treatment, operations, nurse services, medication and the like.
We could be comparing apples and oranges here.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 03:34:01 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by kudzu:
Originally posted by Louis:
See my tax rates for Canadians in the above-referenced link. How do yours compare? |
using the "taxable income" line (this is after all deductions) and the "total tax after credits" line from my 2007 tax returns and the information in the link above, i would have paid an extra $2,542.30 in tax had i lived in canada. i pay $132 per month in medical insurance (not including dental and vision, which i understand the canadian system doesn't cover either).
that's a difference of $958.30 i saved by living in a warmer climate and i've never, EVER had to wait a single day for something as simple as an x-ray or a week for an ultrasound...
just for, you know, example... |
Is that through your employer? If so, you are not paying the full cost. Does that policy cover just you, or your spouse and kids? Do you have any chronic conditions? What about your out of pocket maximums? Deductibles?
If you want the real cost, try to find out what you'd pay if you lost your job and had to get coverage through COBRA.
I know that when I lost my insurance through a layoff, the cheapest coverage I could find was $878/mo with a $15k out of pocket max. That was just for my wife and I. They would not even consider covering my youngest child because of a previous condition. We had to get coverage for him through the state. That makes an annual cost of $10,536 or $25,536 had the worst case scenario happened.
The COBRA cost was a total joke at $1586/mo. or, $19032 dollars annually, excluding the out of pocket maximums.
just for, you know, real world examples...
Message edited by author 2008-04-08 15:50:39. |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 04:14:51 PM · #187 |
Hate to harp on this, but I'm still kinda pondering why, oh why, there's not a better moustrap. The kinds of dollars you are talking about should be inviting competition...but apparently there is some "monopoly" going on that prevents it.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 04:18:35 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Hate to harp on this, but I'm still kinda pondering why, oh why, there's not a better moustrap. The kinds of dollars you are talking about should be inviting competition...but apparently there is some "monopoly" going on that prevents it. |
There's a monopoly on licensure of those who are allowed to practice medicine. In order to maintain the average provider's income, there must be guild-like restrictions on the quantity of providers.
Disclaimer: I am a licensed medical professional practicing in the private non-profit sector since 1986, and as a medical volunteer for some ten years before that. |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 04:20:34 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Hate to harp on this, but I'm still kinda pondering why, oh why, there's not a better moustrap. The kinds of dollars you are talking about should be inviting competition...but apparently there is some "monopoly" going on that prevents it. |
I understand what you're saying. Other business sectors have stiff competition driving them to give better deals for lower prices, why is this not happening here?
eta; typed before the General's response
Message edited by author 2008-04-08 16:21:17. |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 04:20:56 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Hate to harp on this, but I'm still kinda pondering why, oh why, there's not a better moustrap. The kinds of dollars you are talking about should be inviting competition...but apparently there is some "monopoly" going on that prevents it. |
What better mousetrap?
A more efficient way to milk the insured while not giving them any tangible benefit? I'm sure the industry is hard at work on just that. If you have some ideas, maybe you can get some consulting work. Unfortunately for them, there are a few laws that limit what the insurance companies can and cannot do in their pursuit of profits. So, they have to figure out ways around the laws.
Some of the latest "new" ways to screw the desperate for insurance:
High deductible policies - You pay the first $10-25k out of your pocket, then coverage kicks in. Premiums here are still much higher than an employer subsidized plan and they won't take any "high-risk" policies. Great if you're in perfect health.
HSA's - Meant to help alleviate the pain of a high deductible policy should something happen by tying up your assets. You start with an initial deposit of a few thousand dollars. When you go see the Dr. that money is used to pay your bill. It really does very little, if anythign to mitigate costs, but since you can't spend that money on anything else somehow you're supposed to feel all warm and fuzzy about it.
Message edited by author 2008-04-08 16:29:23. |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 04:26:58 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I read with interest the comments you made but what I truly would love to know is whether or not your $137.00/month insurance payments cover everything, including hospitalization, medical treatment, operations, nurse services, medication and the like.
We could be comparing apples and oranges here. |
i guess i should have qualified that the amount paid covers pretty much everything for myself, my wife and our child (though it actually covers any # of children) there are two choices for insurance here, and i've chosen the more expensive of the two...
here are the fine details for your perusal. i'm fully aware i have a fine job with fairly good benefits, though honestly, we have had better. i say that (and post this...), not to brag, but to hopefully add to the discussion. it's rather hard to distill such things down to a single number...
i'm not so sure the COBRA cost is germane to this discussion, since it should only ever be used as "hold over" until a new employer plan kicks in, or you find a decent self-pay plan that would cost far less... of course, a job is still required to afford even that...
i think, though, we're still kinda comparing apples to oranges (in the final cost quoted in my previous post) because i made the assumption that the amount of deductions in the two tax systems would be roughly equivalent. they may, in fact, have been way off in either direction...
Deductible per calendar
Per person $100
Max per family ( max. deductibles = 3)
Maximum Out of Pocket (per yr)
Per person $1,000
Max per family ( max. deductibles = 3) $2,500
Lifetime Maximum
$2,000,000
Health Coverage
Inpatient 10%
Outpatient 10%
Physician office visits- Primary Care $10 copay
Physician office visits- Specialist $20 copay
Mammograms $25 copay
Hospice 10%
Home Health Care 10%
Other Covered Services 10%
Emergency room visit $50 copay
Urgent Care (Minor medical) $25 copay
Mental/Substance Abbuse
Inpatient 10%
Outpatient 10%
Services and Supplies 10%
Pharmacy
Retail Prescription Drugs (31 Day) $10/ $25/$40 copay
Mail Order Drugs-Caremark (90 Day) $20/ $40/$60 copay
Cost Fulltime Part time COBRA
EE+Spouse+Child(ren) $132 $264 $1,453
**we also have separate long term care insurance should i develop something like cancer or parkinson's so such that would prevent me from working...
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 04:40:38 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by kudzu:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I read with interest the comments you made but what I truly would love to know is whether or not your $137.00/month insurance payments cover everything, including hospitalization, medical treatment, operations, nurse services, medication and the like.
We could be comparing apples and oranges here. |
i guess i should have qualified that the amount paid covers pretty much everything for myself, my wife and our child (though it actually covers any # of children) there are two choices for insurance here, and i've chosen the more expensive of the two...
here are the fine details for your perusal. i'm fully aware i have a fine job with fairly good benefits, though honestly, we have had better. i say that (and post this...), not to brag, but to hopefully add to the discussion. it's rather hard to distill such things down to a single number...
i'm not so sure the COBRA cost is germane to this discussion, since it should only ever be used as "hold over" until a new employer plan kicks in, or you find a decent self-pay plan that would cost far less... of course, a job is still required to afford even that...
|
The COBRA cost is the amount YOU would pay for the coverage without employer subsidy; it's entirely relative. As for being a "holdover", maybe you live in fairytale land where jobs are falling off of the trees, but it's not uncommon for people to be laid off for significant amounts of time. And good luck finding a decent self pay plan that comes anywhere near the cost you pay through your subsidized plan while providing comparable benefits. If you get laid off and don't have a significant amount set aside for insurance, aren't totally healthy and/or have benes available through a 2nd job, you'll be screwed.
Message edited by author 2008-04-08 16:41:53. |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 04:50:58 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The COBRA cost is the amount YOU would pay for the coverage without employer subsidy; it's entirely relative. As for being a "holdover", maybe you live in fairytale land where jobs are falling off of the trees, but it's not uncommon for people to be laid off for significant amounts of time. And good luck finding a decent self pay plan that comes anywhere near the cost you pay through your subsidized plan while providing comparable benefits. If you get laid off and don't have a significant amount set aside for insurance, aren't totally healthy and/or have benes available through a 2nd job, you'll be screwed. |
yes. losing my job would suck. but then, i've not been fired since i was in college. the last time i needed a new job, i found one in 2 weeks that paid better and had better insurance, so maybe i am living in "fairlytale land"... or maybe your anecdotal evidence differs from mine. and, despite a slow spot in the economy lately, we're still at around 5% unemployment, which, by all accounts, is really, really good... of course, individual mileage may vary...
as for your list of alternatives to being screwed, i've chosen option A.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 05:06:56 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by kudzu:
here are the fine details for your perusal. |
Maybe I don't understand how it works, but it looks like you pay more. With deductibles if you actually need health care and only percentages of services paid for, you still seem to be paying more. Plus it seems if you lose your job for whatever reason (illness or accident maybe?) you are no longer covered. Not so in Canada. |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 05:07:44 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by kudzu:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The COBRA cost is the amount YOU would pay for the coverage without employer subsidy; it's entirely relative. As for being a "holdover", maybe you live in fairytale land where jobs are falling off of the trees, but it's not uncommon for people to be laid off for significant amounts of time. And good luck finding a decent self pay plan that comes anywhere near the cost you pay through your subsidized plan while providing comparable benefits. If you get laid off and don't have a significant amount set aside for insurance, aren't totally healthy and/or have benes available through a 2nd job, you'll be screwed. |
yes. losing my job would suck. but then, i've not been fired since i was in college. the last time i needed a new job, i found one in 2 weeks that paid better and had better insurance, so maybe i am living in "fairlytale land"... or maybe your anecdotal evidence differs from mine. and, despite a slow spot in the economy lately, we're still at around 5% unemployment, which, by all accounts, is really, really good... of course, individual mileage may vary...
as for your list of alternatives to being screwed, i've chosen option A. |
You should count youself as very fortunate.
I've had to consider the very real possibility that an illness could cause my family to lose everything. |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 05:12:02 PM · #196 |
O.K. I've been trying to get an opinion from you / your pov on why they get away with it, and why that product is so not suited to the market you are complaining about, but you keep going all around the subject. There is a reason that the market is not operating properly. If you don't want to participate in the market, well, too bad, you're screwed. You don't want there to be a market at all. But it IS a market, no matter what you want it to be.
You seem to know lots of the facts - here's the question straight up: do you think there could be some government interference with the free operation of this market that is allowing the greedy bastards to fleece the poor medical consumer? You don't? You mean those greedy bastards are dictating all by themselves the conditions under which they pick your and my pockets? All that scratch that could be helping the uninsured and high-risk and poor is going into the stockholders pockets, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it?
Do you think there could be a barrier to competition? Like I said, you probably know the answers, or how to find out, way better than I. I would think there is a whole lot of shakin' going on between government and insurers and providers that they're not telling us...
here's the punch line...
AND YOU GUYS WANT TO GIVE THEM AN EVEN BIGGER RESPONSIBILITY THAN THEY NOW HAVE, by mandating universal health care, and letting them administer the whole deal, without benefit of ANY competition or market forces.
Hmmmmmmm...
Oh, and General, sorry, I really wasn't referring to the medical profession. God bless 95% of them, it's a hard job, and should be rewarded greatly.
Message edited by author 2008-04-08 17:15:30.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 05:14:32 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Plus it seems if you lose your job for whatever reason (illness or accident maybe?) you are no longer covered. Not so in Canada. |
BINGO!
By law, if you lose your job (except maybe if you get terminated for cause), employer has to offer coverage for up to 18 months under what is termed COBRA (some acronym, i dunno) at the cost the employer pays. See my earlier post to get an idea of how much that can be, but unless you are so rich you can afford your own wing at the hospital, it's not really an option.
Also, if you are self employed, since you are the employee and the employer, you get to pay a huge amount as well or select drastically reduced benefit levels. |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 05:22:39 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by kudzu:
here are the fine details for your perusal. |
Maybe I don't understand how it works, but it looks like you pay more. With deductibles if you actually need health care and only percentages of services paid for, you still seem to be paying more. Plus it seems if you lose your job for whatever reason (illness or accident maybe?) you are no longer covered. Not so in Canada. |
not really... the amount listed is nearly $1000 different. (again, assuming i could deduct the same amounts before calculating taxable income...)
my maximum out of pocket is $1000 ($2500 for the whole family), but it would have to be something quite major to get me to that point. thus, most people, for most years, would pay significantly less.
loss of job is always an issue, but again, loss job is an exception case and can be responsibly planned for... but then, this brings up the issue of personal responsibility and when do you force others to pay for someone else's lack of forethought, etc... but that rant's not really on topic ;)
again, the bottom line number still isn't accurate until you compare actual tax rates in the real world. any canadian cpa's on here wanna take my comfortably-middle-class numbers from this year and calculate would would be my actual tax rate in canada?
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You should count youself as very fortunate. |
i sincerely thank God on a regular basis, yes...
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 05:27:20 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Do you think there could be some government interference with the free operation of this market that is allowing the greedy bastards to fleece the poor medical consumer?
You mean those greedy bastards are dictating all by themselves the conditions under which they pick your and my pockets?
All that scratch that could be helping the uninsured and high-risk and poor is going into the stockholders pockets, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it?
Do you think there could be a barrier to competition? |
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Your problem is that you cast government as one big, all powerful entity (for discussion of omnipotent entities, please see the theology section in the Rant forum). It's not. For every supporter of a comprehensive health care plan, there's a equally ardent supporter of the opposing view that's not to mention the insurance industry lobbyists, pumping millions into the re-election funds of those in government favorable to their cause.
Unfortunately, while the power plays and corporate sweet talking of government representatives goes on the average guy gets screwed.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2008 09:23:46 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
O.K. I've been trying to get an opinion from you / your pov on why they get away with it, and why that product is so not suited to the market you are complaining about, but you keep going all around the subject. |
I think that you have been answered a couple of times quite clearly. The market drives efficiencies and profit, which ultimately reduce the extent to which insurers are able to share risk among insureds.
Insurance companies traditionally operate through spreading risk across a large number of insureds. As your ability to predict risk improves, market forces compel you to offer more and more competitive rates to the low risk insureds (or else you lose their business). However, that means that the low risk people are shouldering less of the overall burden, so premiums for the high risk people must go correspondingly up.
As insurance becomes more efficient at predicting what risk level you are (which free market competition drives it to do in order to better service low risk groups) then the less meaningful is the concept of insurance and shared risk: eventually you will pay an amount (plus margin) that directly equates to the your level of claim.
Originally posted by farfel53:
AND YOU GUYS WANT TO GIVE THEM AN EVEN BIGGER RESPONSIBILITY THAN THEY NOW HAVE, by mandating universal health care, and letting them administer the whole deal, without benefit of ANY competition or market forces. |
I quoted some figures earlier - a social system (even an inefficient one like the NHS in the UK, which is free at source) can be more efficient than a private system:
"in 2002 the amount spent per person on health care in the UK was £1,233 (US$2,160) per person (7.7% of gross domestic product) compared to £3,006 (US$5,267) in the U.S."
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 07:13:40 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/06/2025 07:13:40 PM EDT.
|
