Started By
Message

re: Facts on Health Care

Posted on 3/26/17 at 8:11 pm to
Posted by bonhoeffer45
Member since Jul 2016
4367 posts
Posted on 3/26/17 at 8:11 pm to
Too many holes to even know where to begin.

I have never met someone that chose to get cancer, have a genetic heart condition, or get hit by a bus. The basic premise alone is problematic, which frames health care mostly as a choice and talks about problems mainly through that prism. Which very often it is not. You do not get to choose your genetics or when you become the victim of an accident. Get to chose that you were born in an area where a factory polluted the air and gave you health problems but the systems that be were unable to adequately deliver compensation to cover the costs.

Basically the guy wants to make illegal PPO/HMO's and force insurance to be nothing but indemnity where it is allowed to exist. While not allowing discrimination except for age and gender. Which would inevitably increase the "p" in his simplified calculation. Reading his policy pages he leaves a lot unclear and just says shite without explaining, like this will destroy employer insurance for good!

To more specific issues though:

Insurers are risk averse, one of the problems that led to Medicare, Medicaid, high risk government pools, and the ACA came about specifically because the private insurers refuse to insure high risk people. That is setting aside the piece constantly contradicts itself with saying one moment in supplemental pieces that insurers can't discriminate on risk factors and then encouraging it and setting up an entire market around it.

Just because a person's probability to get any one type of disease is low, the combined probability of any sort of catastrophe or health problem is much higher. Furthermore, for the vast majority of health issues, a person can not predict what he will or will not acquire. My father for instance, with no family history was driving to a clients house when his eye went nearly blind. Turns out he had Lattice Retinal Degeneration. He ended up driving himself to the ER. This has now led to multiple surgeries, specialty visits and on-going maintenance and treatment. Speaking of eyes, one of the leading causes of blindness the world over is iritis, a condition of eye pressure and the cause and predictability of getting it is almost still unknown. But millions will get it in this country.

The author cherry picks the entry level prices from a primary physician only business in Michigan. while ignoring the entire dynamic of how pricing in healthcare(or any market) works(and the fact the website markets their cheapest price and clouds the rest). Prices are largely dependent on local market dynamics and the monopoly power in an area. There is this under current that I guess by some magic, if we get rid of most insurance and government spending on healthcare and force all care providers to provide care at the same rates, with no downward control pressures like other countries, that magically rural Alaska will be able to charge the same price for care as one place in Michigan, or that all prices will look like that cherry picked price list.

The concept of membership offices for primary care itself is an intriguing one, and is actually a very old idea that started at the heart of insurance in this country when hospitals charged membership dues, but this is a concept built around primary care services. Your annual check-ups, physicals, bloodwork and basic tests. And the author very much abuses this data and runs with it. There are worthwhile ideas in what is a growing trend in healthcare with membership businesses, but there is a reckless use of this to get to his points. This is also a market that is popping up because most of these people have some other insurance and this serves as a supplement, even the website speaks to this.

Toward the end things really go off the rails. I am not sure how he does his math but he seems to just make up numbers of what his sunshine and unicorn rare disease(I.E. high-risk pools) insurance would cost. All while earlier rightfully acknowledging just how expensive high-risk pools are and have become.


This reads like when the left or the right offer up these faux reform ideas that fall apart when you actually have to fill in the numbers on things and get it analyzed by actual number crunchers I.E. Bernie and his Medicare for all and Republicans with the AHCA after promising everyone everything for 7 years.
This post was edited on 3/26/17 at 8:19 pm
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
57379 posts
Posted on 3/26/17 at 9:07 pm to
quote:

I have never met someone that chose to get cancer, have a genetic heart condition, or get hit by a bus.
How many have you met that chose be stuck with their bills?

quote:

Insurers are risk averse,
100% false. Insurers wouldn't exist if they avoided risk.

quote:

one of the problems that led to Medicare, Medicaid, high risk government pools, and the ACA came about specifically because the private insurers refuse to insure high risk people.
Medicare and Medicaid came about as a way to buy democrat votes. Nothing to do with insurability of people.

Insurers have never refused to cover high-risk people. They just priced it appropriately.

You insure damn near anything.

But if you're insuring something for $1,000,000 in value, as the risk of loss approaches 100% the premium is going to approach $1,000,000.

That is entirely appropriate and expended for insurance.

What one cannot do.. is "insure" NON-risk events. A person with PECs is not a risk. The "risk" for them is 100% certainty. So they would be properly priced at 1:1 with their expenditures.

quote:

Just because a person's probability to get any one type of disease is low, the combined probability of any sort of catastrophe or health problem is much higher.
Oh dear.

quote:

The author cherry picks


Posted by FearlessFreep
Baja Alabama
Member since Nov 2009
17328 posts
Posted on 3/28/17 at 10:01 am to
Thanks for your thoughtful, well-informed responses. A couple of points:
quote:

I have never met someone that chose to get cancer, have a genetic heart condition, or get hit by a bus. The basic premise alone is problematic, which frames health care mostly as a choice and talks about problems mainly through that prism. Which very often it is not. You do not get to choose your genetics or when you become the victim of an accident. Get to chose that you were born in an area where a factory polluted the air and gave you health problems but the systems that be were unable to adequately deliver compensation to cover the costs.
My takeaway from his post was not to treat EVERY medical condition as 'mostly a choice', but to differentiate between those pre-determined by genetics or birth environment and those that are directly caused (or at least exacerbated) by personal behaviors - in his example, Type II diabetics continuing to act against medical advice and make dietary and lifestyle choices that effectively counteract their treatments shouldn't be covered at the same cost as Type I diabetics who were born with the disease. And two of your examples (getting cancer and getting hit by a bus) are still low-probability events that are greatly influenced by individual behavior, i.e. choosing to smoke knowing the increased risk of lung cancer, or playing Pokemon Go during rush hour traffic in a major city.
quote:

The author cherry picks the entry level prices from a primary physician only business in Michigan. while ignoring the entire dynamic of how pricing in healthcare(or any market) works(and the fact the website markets their cheapest price and clouds the rest). Prices are largely dependent on local market dynamics and the monopoly power in an area. There is this under current that I guess by some magic, if we get rid of most insurance and government spending on healthcare and force all care providers to provide care at the same rates, with no downward control pressures like other countries, that magically rural Alaska will be able to charge the same price for care as one place in Michigan, or that all prices will look like that cherry picked price list.
The larger point the author makes is that most medical providers are not required to indicate their charges at all - unlike pretty much every other business in the US. And that while it's highly likely that the price for a particular service or medication will be significantly higher in Alaska than in Michigan, the objection is that the charge for the identical service or drug will vary widely at the SAME practice in each state, based entirely on who is providing payment. Subjecting health providers to the same consumer protection requirements as, say, auto mechanics, should be the cornerstone of any real healthcare reform proposal.
quote:

Just because a person's probability to get any one type of disease is low, the combined probability of any sort of catastrophe or health problem is much higher. Furthermore, for the vast majority of health issues, a person can not predict what he will or will not acquire.
I can confidently predict at least two things with 100 certainty: at some point, I will die (p=1.0). And as a male, I will never give birth (p=0.0). It would be just as ridiculous for a healthcare policy to insure me, as an individual, against either possibility. The US health care system as presently constituted seems to ignore both realities (how many trillions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on Medicare expenses for people who will die anyway, even with the treatments? And what percentage of my premium goes for birth control, pre-natal care, and labor and delivery coverage that I will never need?)

In the end, I imagine that the Feds will have to take over the entire high-risk pool side of the equation, at a great cost - perhaps creating a 'public option' for pre-existing conditions. However, opening the rest of the market up to legitimate competition, and allowing healthy individuals to seek lower priced options (like paying out of pocket for routine services, and covering low-priority events with inexpensive catastrophic coverage, similar to the old 'major medical' policies outlawed by the ACA) seems like the best way forward.

One final question - if you've spent any additional time on the author's site, you will note that he has been pointing out what he believes is an unsustainable rise in Federal outlays for healthcare for many years. If you haven't looked beyond the link in the OP, here's a nice collection of his previous posts on the subject.

My question is this: do you disagree with his assessment that failure to radically lower the percentage of Federal and state budgets devoted to healthcare (mostly Medicare/Medicaid) will ultimately result in economic and political collapse? And if so, what is the basis of your belief that we will somehow be able to outrun the math absent significant, politically unpopular changes?
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram