Do Conservatives know what health insurance is?

[westwall]

On Fox 'n' Friends, Brian Kilmeade lamented that healthy people pay for sick people.

That is literally what health insurance is.

Congrats to the not-presently-on-fire for paying for firefighters.

Do progressives understand that "health insurance" does not equate to health care?

 

[RodISHI]

If Healthcare providers would start working to cure patients verses merely treat patients so they can keep them long term cash cows you may have an argument but the fact is you don't as the majority of the medical community now merely treats and does not attempt to cure. It works out for all those working to get a cut and most ignorant dumb asses don't have a clue they just willing take whatever shit the current medical establishment is willing to toss out there for them.

Health care providers make tons of money now, so they have no incentive to change the system.

Exactly and forcing people into government mandated or paid for insurance and medical only enables them more. In a totally free market system they can either be damn good at what they do or lose out period.

 

[The Derp]

o progressives understand that "health insurance" does not equate to health care?

Do you!?!?!?! Doesn't seem like it. You guys don't know the first thing about health insurance.

 

[The Derp]

Exactly and forcing people into government mandated or paid for insurance and medical only enables them more. In a totally free market system they can either be damn good at what they do or lose out period.

What in your view is a "total free market system"? Does it include private insurers? If so, then it's not free market at all. Not even close.

Wouldn't a total free market system be that every provider is reimbursed the same, thus leveling the playing field and forcing providers to compete for your care by improving outcomes and reducing costs? That way you can see any doctor you want instead of only seeing the doctors, and getting the procedures, and getting the drugs, your unaccountable private insurer wants so they can protect their profit margins.

 

[iceberg]

i've put thought to posts to you before and you dance around and scream at people like you or they are 12. i'm not 12, so i'm not going to talk to someone who acts that way.

You don't want to be treated like a child, yet that is how you act. Remember, you were the one who arrogantly responded to my post, not vice-versa. I brought down the hammer on you after you had already planted your flag on arrogant ground. So you have no one to blame for feeling like a piece of crap but yourself. Grow up.

you're not the child but "i brought down the hammer" is in your vocabulary.

have a nice day.

 

[westwall]

o progressives understand that "health insurance" does not equate to health care?

Do you!?!?!?! Doesn't seem like it. You guys don't know the first thing about health insurance.

Wrong bucko. I understand that health insurance is merely a method of PAYMENT. It is NOT health care. Progressives seem a little slow in figuring that out.

 

[RodISHI]

Exactly and forcing people into government mandated or paid for insurance and medical only enables them more. In a totally free market system they can either be damn good at what they do or lose out period.

What in your view is a "total free market system"? Does it include private insurers? If so, then it's not free market at all. Not even close.

Wouldn't a total free market system be that every provider is reimbursed the same, thus leveling the playing field and forcing providers to compete for your care by improving outcomes and reducing costs? That way you can see any doctor you want instead of only seeing the doctors, and getting the procedures, and getting the drugs, your unaccountable private insurer wants so they can protect their profit margins.

Insurance companies can sell insurance and the medical community sells their products to both insured or non insured would be a free market. You do not get to set the pricing anymore than you would be able to tell me I would make or paint you a master piece at the price you wanna pay. If the drug companies charge too much for their shit people do not have to buy it. No one gets to force vaccines or any other product onto the public. And you do not get to require a license for anything other than standards in testing for competence. Vaccine makers and all other drug pushers are fully and totally liable for their product in a free market so attorneys will have to work for their money if they want to sue the doctors, hospitals, clinic or pharmaceutical giants and chemical companies.

 

[iceberg]

On Fox 'n' Friends, Brian Kilmeade lamented that healthy people pay for sick people.

That is literally what health insurance is.

Congrats to the not-presently-on-fire for paying for firefighters.

Do progressives understand that "health insurance" does not equate to health care?

i always said we don't have a healthcare problem in this country. on it's own it's one of the best in the world.

however it's over-regulated, insurance has doubled cost just to pay for those who can't or won't pay for themselves, and everyone but the people in it keep trying to build a plan to save it.

get the healthcare and insurance experts in a room and make them come up with a plan.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Health insurance does insure me..

So now you're playing the not-so-clever game of goalpost shifting. That you (singular) suddenly change what you (plural) was intended. Health insurance insures you (singular) against what? Financial ruin. If you incur more health care costs than you pay in premiums, you have already stated that is welfare. So you prove my OP correct when I say that Conservatives don't know what health insurance actually is, what insurance companies do, and how it relates to your health care delivery. And you prove my post about your cognitive dissonance correct when you simultaneously say health insurance is and isn't welfare.

Allowing people to get "insurance" after they get sick isn't health insurance. It's welfare.

No, it's health insurance. You said so yourself. And pre-ACA anything can be considered a pre-existing condition. That was the problem. So you are either denying that it was a problem, or you are denying what health insurance is. So which is it? Where is your denial?

That sounds like insurance to me.

Like I said, your definition of "insurance" seems to change depending on how your argument is faring. You say it's welfare, then you say it isn't, then you say it is, then you say it isn't. I think that's all by design so you can fatigue the conversation so you don't have to admit you've been full of shit this entire time.

Your anecdotes are very convincing.

So this is the denial I mentioned earlier. The denial that insurers would routinely deny care, kick people off coverage, practice rescission, or inflate premiums pre-ACA. In order for your shitty argument to make sense, you have to deny the reality of the system prior to Obamacare. So we cannot have a discussion about this until you get over yourself and accept the truth of what was happening before Obamacare that prompted its creation. You make the active choice to deny that because of your ego. There's no other reason.

Insurance is different than welfare. You haven't figured that out yet.

I have not figured out your fluid, ever-changing, goalpost-shifting belief system. You simultaneously say insurance is welfare, and that it's not welfare. So what that says to me is that you don't know what insurance is at all, and your denial of the reality pre-ACA is the proof.

Obamacare allowing pre-existing conditions to buy coverage the day before they need expensive care means Obamacare is not insurance.

That's not what Obamacare is or does. Obamacare has an open enrollment period. Which you would know if you actually knew anything you're talking about, or did the hard work of knowing it. So you can't just hop onto Obamacare at any given time. Because Obamacare is merely a marketplace where insurers offer plans. And insurers have enrollment periods specifically to prevent what you're saying. But you don't know that because you don't know what health insurance is, what insurance companies do, and how it relates to your actual health care. You don't even know the first thing about the law, let alone how insurance works, how you enroll in it, and when you enroll in it. Seriously, what is your excuse for being this uninformed? Is it an active choice you make? Is it not? What gives?

Yes, allowing people to steal my premiums makes it welfare, not insurance.

So again, you don't seem to know what health insurance is. At this point, I think you're deliberately not understanding it because you're too afraid to admit you're not as smart as you think you are.

If you allow me to pay $200 only after my appendix burst then yes, that would be stealing someone else's premiums. If I was enrolled in the plan and then at some point in the future my appendix burst, that's not stealing.

So you're a dumb-dumb who obviously has never had to buy health insurance for yourself, otherwise you would know that you cna't get insurance anytime you want. There are open-enrollment periods. For the plans on the exchanges, the period runs from October through January. If you choose to not get insurance, then you're fucked because you can't pick it up mid-year, and you have to pay a fine.

our confusion between actual insurance and welfare or stealing is amusing considering your OP.

No, the problem is you have standards that seem to change depending on how your argument is faring. Then you pretend it doesn't when we can all take a look at the thread and see for ourselves. I mean, you don't even know the fundamental basics of how to actually get health insurance. You obviously have never had to get it for yourself, choosing instead to have someone else do it for you because you're too lazy to bother with understanding it. Heck, you didn't even know about enrollment periods. Your entire argument hinges on the belief that you can just hop onto the exchanges any time and pick up coverage. But that's not even remotely true. So you just made it up in order to fit the false narrative you're constructing in your equally false argument.

Pathetic.

So now you're playing the not-so-clever game of goalpost shifting

Nope. Not even a tiny bit.

Health insurance insures you (singular) against what?

Let's look at a definition.

a thing providing protection against a possible eventuality.

That one works for me. Does it work for you?

If you incur more health care costs than you pay in premiums, you have already stated that is welfare.

Nope. Never said that. Not even once.

Allowing people to get "insurance" after they get sick isn't health insurance. It's welfare.

No, it's health insurance. You said so yourself.

No, it's welfare, I said so myself.

Like I said, your definition of "insurance" seems to change depending on how your argument is faring.

No. My definition has been consistent, whether you're too stupid to understand it or not.

Like I said, your definition of "insurance" seems to change

Repeating your confusion doesn't make you any less confused.

So you're a dumb-dumb who obviously has never had to buy health insurance for yourself, otherwise you would know that you cna't get insurance anytime you want.

Every time I started a new job, I got the opportunity to get new insurance, immediately.

You simultaneously say insurance is welfare, and that it's not welfare.

Wrong. I say Obamacare, where you can buy a policy after you're sick, is not insurance.
The insurance we had before Obamacare fucked things up was actual insurance.

 

[BlueGin]

You really are one stupid son-of-a-bitch.

No, you guys are stupid because you don't know what health insurance is, and you never have. That's why you can't articulate a replacement plan. Because you lack the brain power to understand it. Whether or not you're being deliberately obtuse is a whole other question.

You get a big medical bill and they will put you on a payment program.

Right...they garnish your wages. That's the "payment plan". And when you pay cash, you're paying over-inflated prices that are in the chargemaster. Or they give you a discount, but that discount just gets paid by those on insurance, who have taken personal responsibility.

Thanks for making my point, dickhead. You get a bill for 33K, you sell your car and pay off the hospital.

Math is hard for your guys.

$25K =/= $33K.

So you're still $8K in the hole.

You can set up a payment plan with your doctor OR apply for a grant from a non profit of which there are many ( or hospital charity fund)...that will pay your hospital care. Want to know how a lot of the grants are funded? A huge percentage are paid directly from donations from hospital and healthplan employees taken directly from their pay checks.

You are welcome.

And this is needed only a small percentage of the time.

This gets overblown because there are people like some on this board, who can't stand that doctors make good money.

They want them to work for free.

 

[BlueGin]

It's not supposed to pay for medical treatment for people who decided to get this "insurance" after they've been diagnosed with a serious medical issue.

Exactly. For the same reason you don't buy flood insurance as your house is getting flooded. So what you're doing here is making the case for single payer health care, or at the very least automatic enrollment in a Public Option. Because, as you correctly point out, you don't know what will happen the next second you draw a breath. So in the event that you might get struck down by an expensive disease, or hit by a bus, you have to insure yourself to prevent financial ruin. My point is and always has been that having a private insurer skim as much as 20% off the top for themselves to serve the function of administration is pointless, costly, a waste, and does nothing to improve or enhance your health care. They reimburse after you've already had the treatment. So they're just doing administration. Why does that part of health care have to be privatized and what benefit of having it privatized is there to the patients? None so far as I can see. Medicare serves the exact same function, yet Medicare's budget only allocates about 1% to administration vs. a company like Aetna, that allocates 17%.

So what's the better deal for patients?

Medicare also doesn't pay out as much as Aetna does to your healthcare providers...which means you owe the majority of the bill.

 

[BlueGin]

security.

Security for what? All an insurance company does is administer reimbursement to your provider after they've already treated you. So what an insurance company does is not germane to your health care. So what benefit to the patient is there to have Aetna reimburse your provider instead of Medicare? With Medicare, you can go to providers nationwide. With Aetna, you cannot.

Aetna covers more AND pays out more in reimbursents.

 

[debbiedowner]

You buy car insurance, you can get all different kinds.

Used to be you could buy a catastrophic plan (and spare me the junk plan bullshit...never existed until Obama fucked up the roll out) for 75/month.

Now they call the same thing a bronze plan and want 400/month for it.

Don't get too excited but I saw today that insurance companies can have what they call a simple choice plan, standardization, cat what ever you want to call it in their plans. All insurance companies don't have to have one but HHS is allowing them to if they so desire.

 

[BlueGin]

LOL! So this is what I'm getting at! They reduce the bill, but what they reduced still must be paid. So what happens? Whatever the hospital reduced for you ends up getting passed on to those with insurance who see higher premiums as a result. Secondly, you're not getting any kind of discount when a hospital reduces a bill. In fact, you're probably paying exactly what the chargemaster at your hospital has determined what the cost will be. So the hospital says your procedure cost $50K, but they decide to charge you $30K...but that $30K is what the actual charge is. So you're getting a "discount" on an imaginary price so you don't question it. Only a sucker would think that's a deal.

I've had several friends work the processd and come out with a "fair" settlement.

LOL! "fair" for the hospital because that "discount" is what the chargemaster sets as the price anyway, that an insurance company already pays.

Dumb.

I'm going to interject my 2 cents here.

Health insurance is like anything else, if you can afford it, you get it and reap the benefits of it. If you can't afford it, you're not entitled to it, so you don't get it. You can also choose (or should be able to choose) not to buy it, and if you get sick and need health care, pay for it out of your own pocket. If you can't pay for it, oh well. You go broke.

Its exactly the same thing as car insurance that you use. You have to buy car insurance ONLY if you own a car. However, your plan limits can be set very low, but you can do a hell of a lot more damage than those limits. You're on the hook for the bill, just like you're on the hook for the medical bill. If you can't afford it, oh well. You go broke. It's a risk you take.

But its YOUR risk to take. I should not be forced to buy insurance because YOU can't afford your medical bills. That's redistribution of wealth. Very liberal and disgusting.

And who says who can afford and who can't ?

I've seen far to many situations where won't pay hospital bills while doing things like taking international vacations.

Hell..half of the little ungreatful assholes on Medicaid refuse to call the benefits line to update their information so their bills can be processed.

 

[BlueGin]

Realizing that hospitals spend their revenues is relying on faith? Sure, LOL!

No believing that a $137 markup on an IV bag that costs less than $1 somehow will trickle down into the economy is the faith I'm mocking.

The price of an IV bag is part of a contract negotiated between three parties. The distributor,the company that holds the contract and the hospital.

 

[BlueGin]

Realizing that hospitals spend their revenues is relying on faith? Sure, LOL!

No believing that a $137 markup on an IV bag that costs less than $1 somehow will trickle down into the economy is the faith I'm mocking.

It's not the same thing.

And let's be clear...Obamacare has done nothing for costs.....period.

You know an IV bag costs less than 1$ ? Provide the link. You gonna hook it up yourself...more power to you. But right now, you'll pay a nurse to do that.

It's part of a negotiated contract. You may pay more for an IV but in return get free OR soap, soap dispensers,maternity kits...and really cheap surgical gloves...etc.

 

[BlueGin]

It's not the same thing.

It is exactly the same thing. Why do you think providers inflate the price of things like cotton swabs and tylenol? To make a profit at your expense.

And let's be clear...Obamacare has done nothing for costs.....period..

It has slowed the average growth in premiums below what it was pre-ACA, during Bush the Dumber. For those who qualify for subsidies, it has reduced their out-of-pocket costs. The most famous case being Julie Boonstra, the right-wing sow who starred in a Koch-prooduced ad ahead of the 2012 election claiming that her health care costs exploded because of Obamacare. After a reporter looked into her claims, it was revealed by her insurer that her health care costs didn't rise, but rather declined by $2,400...nearly the exact amount Obama said the average family would save. When confronted with these facts, Boonstra's response was "I choose to not believe that." So that's where we're at with you guys...you choose to not accept facts because of your egos.

You know an IV bag costs less than 1$ ? Provide the link. You gonna hook it up yourself...more power to you. But right now, you'll pay a nurse to do that.

All links are annotated in the below video. Go to 0:35. It is from Elizabeth Rosenthall's NYT article from December 2nd, 2013:

Providers have nothing to do with the cost of a Tylenol.

 

[BlueGin]

And who says who can afford and who can't ?
I've seen far to many situations where won't pay hospital bills while doing things like taking international vacations.

So, your anecdotal, third-hand account of something is not a sufficient piece of evidence to enter into this debate. We know the toll health care takes on people because before the ACA, 60% of all bankruptcies were medical related, with the average debt of $17K. Of those folks, 75% of them had insurance. Mostly those "catastrophic plans" you think are such a steal...until you hit your lifetime cap. So they're not really catastrophic plans at all. They're a rip-off.

You've provided no evidence. Your 60% number does not differetiate between medical and non medical costs.

Here are some facts.....

It's not the same thing.

It is exactly the same thing. Why do you think providers inflate the price of things like cotton swabs and tylenol? To make a profit at your expense.

And let's be clear...Obamacare has done nothing for costs.....period..

It has slowed the average growth in premiums below what it was pre-ACA, during Bush the Dumber. For those who qualify for subsidies, it has reduced their out-of-pocket costs. The most famous case being Julie Boonstra, the right-wing sow who starred in a Koch-prooduced ad ahead of the 2012 election claiming that her health care costs exploded because of Obamacare. After a reporter looked into her claims, it was revealed by her insurer that her health care costs didn't rise, but rather declined by $2,400...nearly the exact amount Obama said the average family would save. When confronted with these facts, Boonstra's response was "I choose to not believe that." So that's where we're at with you guys...you choose to not accept facts because of your egos.

You know an IV bag costs less than 1$ ? Provide the link. You gonna hook it up yourself...more power to you. But right now, you'll pay a nurse to do that.

All links are annotated in the below video. Go to 0:35. It is from

It's not the same thing.

It is exactly the same thing. Why do you think providers inflate the price of things like cotton swabs and tylenol? To make a profit at your expense.

And let's be clear...Obamacare has done nothing for costs.....period..

It has slowed the average growth in premiums below what it was pre-ACA, during Bush the Dumber. For those who qualify for subsidies, it has reduced their out-of-pocket costs. The most famous case being Julie Boonstra, the right-wing sow who starred in a Koch-prooduced ad ahead of the 2012 election claiming that her health care costs exploded because of Obamacare. After a reporter looked into her claims, it was revealed by her insurer that her health care costs didn't rise, but rather declined by $2,400...nearly the exact amount Obama said the average family would save. When confronted with these facts, Boonstra's response was "I choose to not believe that." So that's where we're at with you guys...you choose to not accept facts because of your egos.

You know an IV bag costs less than 1$ ? Provide the link. You gonna hook it up yourself...more power to you. But right now, you'll pay a nurse to do that.

All links are annotated in the below video. Go to 0:35. It is from Elizabeth Rosenthall's NYT article from December 2nd, 2013:

:

No mention of an IV bag costing less than 1$.

California...that far right wing bastion...has high medical costs.

Stitches where I live...don't cost but 15% of your NY bills.

Sutures are another thing hospitals negotiate for low cost ...since they use them constantly.

 

[BlueGin]

And just a quick run down on how prices are set in a hospital.

Hospitals pay a fee to a buying group that purchases all of their supplies from the vendors/distributors. Each buying group negotiates pricing contracts between vendors/distributors and hospitals.

There are 8 large hospital buying groups and several small ones ...all with different contracts and pricing.

Hospitals price Tylenol based on which buying group has the best pricing contacts on the majority of their needed supplies.

 

[BlueGin]

It's not the same thing.

It is exactly the same thing. Why do you think providers inflate the price of things like cotton swabs and tylenol? To make a profit at your expense.

And let's be clear...Obamacare has done nothing for costs.....period..

It has slowed the average growth in premiums below what it was pre-ACA, during Bush the Dumber. For those who qualify for subsidies, it has reduced their out-of-pocket costs. The most famous case being Julie Boonstra, the right-wing sow who starred in a Koch-prooduced ad ahead of the 2012 election claiming that her health care costs exploded because of Obamacare. After a reporter looked into her claims, it was revealed by her insurer that her health care costs didn't rise, but rather declined by $2,400...nearly the exact amount Obama said the average family would save. When confronted with these facts, Boonstra's response was "I choose to not believe that." So that's where we're at with you guys...you choose to not accept facts because of your egos.

You know an IV bag costs less than 1$ ? Provide the link. You gonna hook it up yourself...more power to you. But right now, you'll pay a nurse to do that.

All links are annotated in the below video. Go to 0:35. It is from Elizabeth Rosenthall's NYT article from December 2nd, 2013:

Providers have nothing to do with the cost of a Tylenol.