Paperwork that Insurance companies require are for legal reasons. They have the paper work to comply with government regulations. If an insurance company is making someone fill out paperwork for no other reason than in hopes that people will not file a claim or will do something wrong would be bad faith. They would face more in penalties than the actual cost of paying the claim.
Against Universal healthcare, why ?
- Thread starter otago
- Start date
Paperwork that Insurance companies require are for legal reasons. They have the paper work to comply with government regulations. If an insurance company is making someone fill out paperwork for no other reason than in hopes that people will not file a claim or will do something wrong would be bad faith. They would face more in penalties than the actual cost of paying the claim.
Masquerouge
Deity
Ok, here's how it is in France: you are paying your doc, the private doc that you chose. Then the government reimburses you the cost of your visit.
Nobody gets a cut, there are no intermediates involved, you're not forced to see a specific doctor, there are no intrusions.
Of course there are. What if the doctor charges 50,000 thousand euros for some routine procedure that should cost one thousand, than the government reimburses me and we split it 50/50?
If the government is to reimburse you, one of the following must apply:
a)The government will only reimburse up to some value. Which means that you still have to pay to get the doctor you want, and also creates a whole bunch of problems related to how much reimbursement is applicable for each procedure, which may vary from region to region, age group from age group, etc.
b)The government sets a limit on how much the doctors may charge for every procedure. This is hugely intrusive and moronic from an economic POV.
Option "a" is problematic but doable. It's like most private health insurances work. Option "b" is soviet inspired.
stuge
Emperor
If the doctor charges 50 000 for a 1000 operation, they're going to go out of business pretty fast.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Basically the gag is that Foley drives a beat-up old Chevy. For which reason Jenny specifically refuses to allow him behind the wheel of her car.
Well, then, that explains the OP question, don't it? Why don't you do it our way? Because you live in CANADA and you want to do it a different way, who gives a crap if it doesn't make any sense.
The problem is that it needs to work both ways, and with the creation of this thread, it's not going both ways. You never saw me start a thread ripping on the Canadian health care system. Yes, I did rip on Canada a few posts ago, but that was a retaliatory strike, and I was entitled to it.
If people don't create threads ripping on American health care, then I won't rip on Canadian health care. Deal?
No, really, this is another instance where theory and practice separate. If you were an insurance company, you'd want to make it tough for the expensive claims to be reimbursed. You'll happily use whatever tricks you can use to delay or discourage claims.
Berzerker
Deity
That sounds reasonable, but it ignores the costs inherent to that kind of system. Even if we assume no or limited rationing, the taxpayers are still footing the bill and that makes it a 3rd party payment system. And does that mean you have to come up with thousands for an operation and wait for reimbursement? I imagine the rules change and the govt pays for the operation and not the patient.
Basically the gag is that Foley drives a beat-up old Chevy. For which reason Jenny specifically refuses to allow him behind the wheel of her car.
Well, then, that explains the OP question, don't it? Why don't you do it our way? Because you live in CANADA and you want to do it a different way, who gives a crap if it doesn't make any sense.
The problem is that it needs to work both ways, and with the creation of this thread, it's not going both ways. You never saw me start a thread ripping on the Canadian health care system. Yes, I did rip on Canada a few posts ago, but that was a retaliatory strike, and I was entitled to it.
Ripping American health care, hardly dear boy.
Nothing wrong with your doctors, nurses, hospitals.
But I am amused that so many would choose to keep an inefficient system that wastes money because of the mess your insurance companies make.
Berzerker
Deity
Cutlass
Cleo
And thats why we buy insurance, we voluntarily pool our money to cover the catastrophic costs of a serious illness. But what paperwork do I cause when I consult with my Doc? A receipt - thats it. The Doc can write it on a napkin for all I care. But in comes the govt and insurance companies regulated by govt and a mountain of paperwork starts building. Somebody is paying for that...
Cleo
And thats why we buy insurance, we voluntarily pool our money to cover the catastrophic costs of a serious illness. But what paperwork do I cause when I consult with my Doc? A receipt - thats it. The Doc can write it on a napkin for all I care. But in comes the govt and insurance companies regulated by govt and a mountain of paperwork starts building. Somebody is paying for that...
I don't really understand your complaint. Is it that bureaucracies, public or private, create too much paperwork? Sure, that's bad, but what does that have to do with the question of whether there's a third party between you and your doctor? I think I'm missing something.
Cleo
Masquerouge
Deity
Which is overall a cheaper system than a private one.
I believe you are correct. I do not have first-hand experience of expensive operations, but I seem to recall that you just need proof that you're insured and the hospital will bill the government directly.
Overall, what I find kind of irritating is that people seem to assume that universal health care does not work because of ideological reasons, when in practice a lot of countries have successfully adopted it.
They're not perfect systems, of course, but they're able to deliver the same kind of health care quality at a much lower cost for the individual than the US health care system.
What is equally irritating is that people have no idea of the true problems facing universal systems. It's not quality of care and it's not freedom of choice - again ideological reasons that are invalidated by actual, running models. The major problem facing universal models is the aging of the population coupled with dwindling birth rates - in short, since only working employees support the system with their taxes, and there are more and more retired people and less and less working people, the subvention model is being stretched out right now.
My personal experience of both the US and French system is that they're both able to deliver the same quality of health care, but it was a lot cheaper in France, and I had more freedom of choice in France since I didn't have to check if the doctor I wanted to go to was part of my insurance carrier network - I wonder what subtle jab Luiz has in store for that restriction of my freedom of choice in a private health care system: Ford-inspired? Taylor-inspired?
So that covers routine visits, but not serious illnesses or injuries, or even something routine but expensive like pregnancy. A number of docs in private practice will charge as little as half as much if you pay cash instead of insurance, because that's how much of a burden the insurers have made of themselves.
Since you still need insurance of some sort, why not go with the single payer system that will be the cheapest option available?
That's not true. They require highly detailed justifications for anything a doc does. If they don't get it, they don't have to pay. The harder they make it for the docs, the better off they are.
As for the law, what law? This is the United States of America we are talking about. The law does not penalize insurers for not paying on their policies if they can claim a justification, no matter how flimsy. If you feel your insurer has done that wrongly, you can sue. And you will then discover that your insurance company has more lawyers on staff than have hairs on your head. There has been cases of a person denied treatment by their insurers winning in court. But there has also been cases of people with cancer denied treatment for extended periods of time while the lawyers argued. And that can easily be too late for you life, or of not your life, then your finances.
I would like to see your sources for this as you're sounding more like opinion than fact. But lets assume for a minute you're right, the insurance companies can do whatever they want to keep from paying. Who regulates the insurance companies? Government. If Government is what allows this stuff to happen, why is it going to suddenly be better when Government takes over? It's their job already to regulate and apparetnly they're not doing a good job at it.
Masquerouge
Deity
To be honest you have not been exactly the greatest provider of sources in this thread either
Your logic seems weird. You're saying that government should not be in charge because they don't regulate enough?
So government could place a big regulatory apparatus over the insurers, or they could just take over. Which includes less bureaucracy?
It's not really a matter of regulation. It's a matter of the adversarial legal system. There's a system in place to settle disputes between two private entities, it's called the courts and all their spin offs. So if you want an operation done, your doctor hires a lawyer or bureaucrat to force your insurance company (who you've been paying for years) to pay for your procedure. They hire a bureaucrat to prevent it. Eventually, things mostly shake out, but at an inflated cost (two bureaucrats required!). The costs are passed onto the customer. Investors in the insurance company still make their money.
Now, this is the nature of the adversarial process. In Canada, whenever we run into the adversarial process, inefficiencies happen. But our health care is much more efficient.
In last sunday's Helsingin Sanomat (the best newspaper in the world), there was an article which simply dropped my jaw. I didn't think it's worth own thread, so I popped in here to tell you about it. Quick glance through this thread showed that at least part of it is known to you already.
However I thought some of you appreeciate foreign view of your health care, so I tried to translate the core of the article (unfortunately it's not available in English, and the whole Finnish version is behind password). The translation isn't that good, and might be misleading somewhere.
Labtec600: As far as I know the regultory part in Finland is done by the doctors: they simply decide if the patient needs treatment or not, and I suppose they very rarely have to justify it to anyone.
Basket Case: If someone wants to go to private doctor in Finland, part of the cost is payed by the state. I don't know how big it is exactly, but at least it isn't very big.
Over all I've had no complaints with the health care. I understand that the queue for dentists for example is quite long, but I blame the right wing governments for that. They are also trying to shift Finland to more market decided health care, but I like that neither.
Also, I'm not going to quarrel much about this with any of you, I just came by to tell about that article.
EDIT: Tried to add link, but even the short version isn't available anymore for nonsubcribers.
However I thought some of you appreeciate foreign view of your health care, so I tried to translate the core of the article (unfortunately it's not available in English, and the whole Finnish version is behind password). The translation isn't that good, and might be misleading somewhere.
Spoiler part of the article translated by me :
Spoiler the article in Finnish :
Labtec600: As far as I know the regultory part in Finland is done by the doctors: they simply decide if the patient needs treatment or not, and I suppose they very rarely have to justify it to anyone.
Basket Case: If someone wants to go to private doctor in Finland, part of the cost is payed by the state. I don't know how big it is exactly, but at least it isn't very big.
Over all I've had no complaints with the health care. I understand that the queue for dentists for example is quite long, but I blame the right wing governments for that. They are also trying to shift Finland to more market decided health care, but I like that neither.
Also, I'm not going to quarrel much about this with any of you, I just came by to tell about that article.
EDIT: Tried to add link, but even the short version isn't available anymore for nonsubcribers.
obviously you don't know how horrible medicare fraud can be.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
If there's socialized healthcare, I would advocate a ban on smoking and eating too many fatty foods if you don't consistently excercise. I have no desire to subsize your crappy living habits.
Merkinball
Deity
I am against universal healthcare for a few reasons. The first being is that society does not have a universal responsibility to pay for the healthcare of the rest of society. Healthcare is an individual responsibility, and until people live equally responsible lives, they should not be supporting a healthcare system equally.
Atticus makes mention of an article which displays how rotten the majority of society lives. Fast food dominates, sugar laden soda pops, microwave dinners, smoking, rampant drug abuse, alcohol abuse, people breeding like rabbits.
I'm sorry, but responsibly individuals should not be bilked by the government for any of it.
People would probably be a lot better health wise if they actually paid and suffered the consequences for those decisions. Instead of me supporting people who make 400% more than the poverty line who are on medicare/medicaid in this state. Otherwise, these jokers will continue to think that I somehow owe them money to pay for their disgusting life styles.
Atticus makes mention of an article which displays how rotten the majority of society lives. Fast food dominates, sugar laden soda pops, microwave dinners, smoking, rampant drug abuse, alcohol abuse, people breeding like rabbits.
I'm sorry, but responsibly individuals should not be bilked by the government for any of it.
People would probably be a lot better health wise if they actually paid and suffered the consequences for those decisions. Instead of me supporting people who make 400% more than the poverty line who are on medicare/medicaid in this state. Otherwise, these jokers will continue to think that I somehow owe them money to pay for their disgusting life styles.
Similar threads
