Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> You pay taxes, I pay an insurance premium.  Either way, you and I both 
> pay to get cured.

  Except that the tax is a certain % of your income while an insurance
is usually a fixed amount of money. To some people this fixed amount may
be very large compared to their income (which may be next to zero).
Paying taxes could be a much better way for them.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:40:32 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> You pay taxes, I pay an insurance premium.  Either way, you and I both
>> pay to get cured.
> 
>   Except that the tax is a certain % of your income while an insurance
> is usually a fixed amount of money. 

Depends on the program you enroll in.  There's also a deduction on my pay 
for Medicare, which is a percentage and IIRC also applies to those who 
can't afford insurance.

> To some people this fixed amount may
> be very large compared to their income (which may be next to zero).
> Paying taxes could be a much better way for them.

I don't entirely disagree - I think our system over here could definitely 
use some reform.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:
> Here is the US the cost for tax money is much lower because so many 
> things are not government run - health care, rescue and ambulance, tow 
> truck service, etc...

Tom, "the people" end up paying, whether its through taxes, or insurance 
hikes, or higher healthcare rates...

No matter what happens, "someone" has to pay, and that "someone" is 
usually you and I.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> If it's a collision between cars, then somebody (or multiple somebodies) 
> is at fault.

Note here that they're always called "collisions", and never "accidents" 
anymore.  The underlying assumption is that there is *always* someone at 
fault (even if the fault is only that they were stupid enough to be out 
driving in such bad conditions).

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Of course you can try to sue the 
> uninsured driver to get some money back, but for small amounts it 
> usually isn't worth it.

Not to mention, if they don't have insurance, it's usually because they 
don't have any money anyway.  Suing already bankrupt people isn't a 
great way to get your money...

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> If it's a collision between cars, then somebody (or multiple 
>> somebodies) is at fault.
> 
> Note here that they're always called "collisions", and never "accidents" 
> anymore. 

Yah. The TV here calls them "crashes". :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> So, yeah, somebody has to pay for it, so?  Life isn't "fair".  You catch 
>> a serious disease, you have to pay to get cured too.
> 
>   Not if you live in Canada, Cuba, Finland, or basically any western
> country which is not the US. ;)
> 

But at times your options are limited because you don't pay for it.

People come from Canada all of the time to get more options for treatment.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> If it's a collision between cars, then somebody (or multiple 
>> somebodies) is at fault.
> 
> Note here that they're always called "collisions", and never "accidents" 
> anymore.  The underlying assumption is that there is *always* someone at 
> fault (even if the fault is only that they were stupid enough to be out 
> driving in such bad conditions).
> 

I think that a lot of them need to be called "stupidities".

:-(

Post a reply to this message

>>   Not if you live in Canada, Cuba, Finland, or basically any western
>> country which is not the US. ;)
>>
>
> But at times your options are limited because you don't pay for it.

You mean to say that you pay for your medical care directly?  If you needed 
some complicated heart operation and the cost was $200k, you'd have to pay 
that sum yourself?  Or do you mean you pay an insurance company?  If you pay 
insurance, then I can't believe that the insurance company will let you 
choose how to treat your illness, otherwise everyone would be getting the 
most expensive treatment possible for tiny things and your premiums would be 
huge.  Or maybe you can, and that is why the US health system works so badly 
;-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>>>   Not if you live in Canada, Cuba, Finland, or basically any western
>>> country which is not the US. ;)
>>>
>>
>> But at times your options are limited because you don't pay for it.
> 
> You mean to say that you pay for your medical care directly?  If you 
> needed some complicated heart operation and the cost was $200k, you'd 
> have to pay that sum yourself?

Technically, you are responsible to pay for your own care.


   Or do you mean you pay an insurance
> company?

It depends on what kind of insurance you pay for.

Some insurance plans reimburse you directly (Traditional)
	I pay a $500 doctor bill myself.
	I submit the receipt to my insurance company.
	The insurance company comes up with a UCR of $300.
		UCR is Usual Customary Reasonable
		How they come up with this - who knows....
	The insurance covers only 80% of my bill.
	So I get sent a check for $240.
	I am out $260.
	The doctor gets $500

Some insurance plans contract directly with the doctor (PPO)
	I go see the doctor.
	The doctor submits the $500 bill directly to the insurance
	The insurance already negotiated with the doctor $300 UCR
	The insurance company tells the doctor that I have a $10 co-pay
		a portion I pay for each visit
	The insurance sends the doctor a check for $290.
	The doctor bills be for $10
	I pay the doctor $10
	Since the doctor has an agreement with the insurance company
		The doctor agrees to only accept the UCR
	I am out $10
	The doctor gets $300


If I have a PPO insurance plan like above, but see a doctor they do not 
contract with, it turns into something like the Traditional plan.  All 
based on the terms of the contract with the insurance company.

This very simplistic description of health insurance plans is from my 
own experience.


What's really sad is that doctors will inflate the initial charge (the 
$500) higher to be able to get a higher end payment from the insurance 
company.

   If you pay insurance, then I can't believe that the insurance
> company will let you choose how to treat your illness, otherwise 
> everyone would be getting the most expensive treatment possible for tiny 
> things and your premiums would be huge.

Insurance companies do have mechanisms that help keep costs under 
control.  They also raise rates based on usage as a whole.  In some 
places this is turning into a real crisis - I know where I work the 
premiums for insurance have gone up 30% in a single year.

Also, some places will not treat you unless you have a prescription from 
a doctor... ie, you might have a problem getting a baby ultrasound if a 
doctor does not call for it.  That's the choice for the place, and 
possibly a restriction for accepting insurance covered people.


   Or maybe you can, and that is
> why the US health system works so badly ;-)
> 

It has its problems, yes.  And some people leave the US to go to other 
countries to get different care.  Just as some people come to the US to 
get different care.


I know a specific example where a person with eye cancer came the the US 
to get treatment that would allow him to keep his eye.  His only option 
in Canada was to lose the eye.



The health system in the US is full of problems - insurance is just but 
one of them.

Other places have problems as well, they are just different.

;-)




Tom

Post a reply to this message