• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

This is whats wrong with health insurance companies

The_Chameleon

Grandmaster
The answer in my opinion rests on the shoulders of the voting public. They need to come together to push for an end to laws that facilitate oligopolies and cronyism and the installment of checks and balances to prevent it from coming back. It should be illegal for example for members of regulating boards to hold securities in the companies they regulate or to go to and from those companies virtually at will. The entire American political and legal system is Swiss cheese, stinky and full of holes. If the public can't unilaterally decide to use their remaining democratic power to plug those holes, they eventually won't have that power and will be too beat down to even care.



- Cham
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
Just a little off topic from what's been said, but lets look at what happened here:
She had a heart attack, went into a coma, stopped breathing and the doctors brought her back and she is well.

When she got home she:
Got a bill for $250K.
Her insurance paid $150K of that.
The hospital reduced the balance by 1/2 to $50K.

I mean really. She lives in an incredible country that has 2 hospitals 3 blocks apart. The closest hospital was able to miraculously save her and it only cost her about a year's salary. She also lives in this great country that has laws that force hospitals to accept payment plans and force credit scoring agencies to not count medical debt against your credit score.

I've been burdened with medical debt that has set me back years. But damn really, she got an incredible deal and I don't get what's to complain about? Being brought back to life for $50K instead of $2K is like winning the lottery and being upset that you didn't double-up your ticket. And this is assuming that the 2nd hospital would have been as competent or she would have gotten there in time. She could have a $2K bill and be dead.
 

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
She could also have went to the other hospital been saved and had a $2,000 bill and be less stressed. The stress of trying to pay that bill could cause another heart attack.

Her insurance company eventually agreed to pay. Wonder what she went through just to get that to happen and after already having a heart attack.

How do we know its just a years salary to her?
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
I've already covered this in the other thread...but free markets are the answer. As you mention, government run systems suck because they have huge wait times because the lovable political types siphon most of the funding for themselves (and no this won't stop which is why government should be smaller and not larger). Crony capitalism (large oligopolies backed by corrupt politicians) is not the answer either. This screws consumers and keeps costs high and only certain companies in power.

Actual free markets are the answer. The problem is liberal hacks claimed the free market system had failed with respect to the healthcare system. The lie is we didn't have a free market system to begin with. Over the last century, overreaching government regulations and corrupt bureaucrats stopped the free market from working. So you ended up with only a few large insurance companies, who held onto their power by lobbying to stop thing like letting people buy insurance over state lines, and stopping new companies from entering market. We need some regulation to be sure but it needs to make sure that free markets are allowed to operate not regulate them to death to drive up costs. In true free markets, companies with the best products/services at the best prices win. Companies that produce and treat their customers well will make the most money because they will grow their customer base. This drives down costs and drives value up. It's basic economics.
This goes back to Gruber's comment about the majority of the American people's ignorance of economics. I see it on a daily basis.
------
She could also have went to the other hospital been saved and had a $2,000 bill and be less stressed. The stress of trying to pay that bill could cause another heart attack.

Her insurance company eventually agreed to pay. Wonder what she went through just to get that to happen and after already having a heart attack.

How do we know its just a years salary to her?
He said a years salary because it's the average. I couldn't have said it better than MIT, she is incredibly lucky.
------
And to add you can pay the hospital $50/month if that's all you can afford, interest free. Not bad for having your life saved.
------
The answer in my opinion rests on the shoulders of the voting public. They need to come together to push for an end to laws that facilitate oligopolies and cronyism and the installment of checks and balances to prevent it from coming back. It should be illegal for example for members of regulating boards to hold securities in the companies they regulate or to go to and from those companies virtually at will. The entire American political and legal system is Swiss cheese, stinky and full of holes. If the public can't unilaterally decide to use their remaining democratic power to plug those holes, they eventually won't have that power and will be too beat down to even care.



- Cham
This is all very nice sounding but lacks in substance and is nothing more than hyperbole.
 
Last edited:

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
I'm sure many Americans feel lucky when it comes to medical bills. Lucky they can file bankruptcy.

Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year—making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings, and outpacing bankruptcies due to credit-card bills or unpaid mortgages, according to new data. And even having health insurance doesn't buffer consumers against financial hardship.

Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies: Study
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
First off I have no idea how accurate that study is but 1) I would take those problems and have access to healthcare than have to wait in line so long I die, but 2) We've had Obamacare for a couple of years now, I thought this was supposed to be a thing of the past? What do you mean "deductibles so high they can't be paid"? I though those days were over? So we COULDN'T keep our healthcare plan if we LIKED our healthcare plan? Did millions of Americans just choose higher deductibles at the same price just for the fun of it?
 

The_Chameleon

Grandmaster
In true free markets, the companies that offer the best products and services at the lowest prices win the right to swallow up the competition, then charge as much as they want for minimal service and cheap garbage in order to maximize profits and minimize threats to their bottom line. That's the true free market, in all it's unregulated glory. So what to do about it? Any meaningful attempt to regulate the market will be labeled as "overreaching" by the private sector.


- Cham
 
Last edited:

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
In true free markets, the companies that offer the best products and services at the lowest prices win the right to swallow up the competition, then charge as much as they want for minimal service and cheap garbage in order to maximize profits and minimize threats to their bottom line. That's the true free market, in all it's unregulated glory. So what to do about it? Any meaningful attempt to regulate the market will be labeled as "overreaching" by the private sector.


- Cham
Sorry, this is factually incorrect. They then don't magically change into a firm charging what they want (because that isn't free market) and suddenly make cheap garbage (that isn't free market either because someone can come along and make it better). You really have no idea what you're talking about. It's also incorrect to label objections to certain restrictions as "overreaching" or meaningful. In other words, your conclusion that an objection to SOME restrictions means an objection to ALL restrictions is logically fallacious.

Edit: out of curiosity, what are you using to post in here?
 
Last edited:
Top