BF2S Forums Your Life, Your Choices

Like I keep saying, if you have to pay for your own insurance, its about the same as a tax increase to cover the cost anyway.  At least this way YOU are in control of it, not the govt.

Dface:  If you pay the same amount, what the hell difference does it make which scam it is going to?

Last edited by Red Forman (2009-08-21 09:39:09)

Red Forman wrote:

Like I keep saying, if you have to pay for your own insurance, its about the same as a tax increase to cover the cost anyway.  At least this way YOU are in control of it, not the govt.

imo American Government is just wayyyy to fucked up to be in charge of healthcare. NHS and marjiuana legalization may work elsewhere, but not in America, same with gun laws.

Cybargs wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

Like I keep saying, if you have to pay for your own insurance, its about the same as a tax increase to cover the cost anyway.  At least this way YOU are in control of it, not the govt.

imo American Government is just wayyyy to fucked up to be in charge of healthcare. NHS and marjiuana legalization may work elsewhere, but not in America, same with gun laws.

Ty wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ty wrote:

It's not. Not in terms of cost anyway. The difference is generally that with it being taxed people are more likely to get the healthcare they need when they need it.

There are also studies that show that when someone else is paying for it, people will use it far more than they need to, driving up costs. Alternatively, if they are paying for it themselves, they will be far more selective when it comes to price and quality of service, reducing costs.

What studies are these? Who determines how much use is "more than what is needed"?

Studies related to insurance-based reforms versus individual health savings accounts reforms.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ty wrote:

What studies are these? Who determines how much use is "more than what is needed"?

Studies related to insurance-based reforms versus individual health savings accounts reforms.

And yet...  we still pay more than anyone else per capita for healthcare.  The main reason why is because we are "selective" in not choosing to see doctors before ailments occur for preventive care, and as a result, we usually pay a lot more for things like surgeries for conditions that could have been prevented.

This selectivity is not a cost saver in any sense of the word when you look at the actual expenses involved.

Not true. We are far less selective, on the whole, than those who have to pay for it out of their own funds. The studies compared HSA-using people to standard insurance-using people. The former were found to be much more discriminating and much more apt to seek preventative care than the latter.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

And yet...  we still pay more than anyone else per capita for healthcare.  The main reason why is because we are "selective" in not choosing to see doctors before ailments occur for preventive care, and as a result, we usually pay a lot more for things like surgeries for conditions that could have been prevented.

This selectivity is not a cost saver in any sense of the word when you look at the actual expenses involved.

Not true. We are far less selective, on the whole, than those who have to pay for it out of their own funds. The studies compared HSA-using people to standard insurance-using people. The former were found to be much more discriminating and much more apt to seek preventative care than the latter.

So, are you saying that none of us should have insurance, so that we are more selective in how we use care?

No, I'm saying that we should provide our own insurance via HSAs.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

So, are you saying that none of us should have insurance, so that we are more selective in how we use care?

No, I'm saying that we should provide our own insurance via HSAs.

HSA's are a bad idea.

"Some consumer organizations, such as Consumers Union, and many medical organizations, such as the American Public Health Association, have rejected HSAs because, in their opinion, they benefit only healthy, younger people and make the health care system more expensive for everyone else. According to Stanford economist Victor Fuchs, 'The main effect of putting more of it on the consumer is to reduce the social redistributive element of insurance.'

"Critics contend that low-income people who are more likely to be uninsured, do not earn enough to benefit from the tax-breaks offered by HSAs. These tax breaks are too modest—when compared to the actual cost of insurance—to persuade significant numbers to buy this coverage.  There is also concern that the lower premiums of HSA-qualified high-deductible health plans might attract lower-income individuals who cannot afford to fund an HSA account, and may therefore forego necessary health care services under the high-deductible. One industry study matched HSA account holders to the neighborhood income ('neighborhood' was defined as their census tract from the 2000 Census) and found that 3% of account holders lived in 'low-income' neighborhoods (median incomes below $25,000 in 1999 dollars), 46% lived in lower-middle-income neighborhoods (median incomes between $25,000 and $50,000), 34% lived in middle-income neighborhoods (median incomes between $50,000 and $75,000), 12% lived in upper-income neighborhoods (median incomes between $75,000 and $100,000) and 5% lived in higher income neighborhoods (median incomes above $100,000).

"In testimony before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee's Subcommittee on Health in 2006, Commonwealth Fund Assistant Vice President Sara R. Collins, Ph.D., said that all evidence to date shows that health savings accounts and high-deductible health plans worsen, rather than improve, the U.S. health system's problems.

"HSAs are subject to market risk, as is any investment. While the potential upside from investment gains can be viewed as a benefit, the subsequent downside and possibility of capital loss may make the HSA a poor option for some."

So basically, that would be the fastest way to make the poor poorer.

And there are just as many studies and organizations that support HSAs as a rational alternative that lower consumer costs and increase consumer choice and competition in the market.

And I'm pretty sure I didn't say that it was either the only answer or a panacea, either.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And there are just as many studies and organizations that support HSAs as a rational alternative that lower consumer costs and increase consumer choice and competition in the market.

And I'm pretty sure I didn't say that it was either the only answer or a panacea, either.

The math doesn't add up though.  If you put forth a system where healthy people can separate themselves completely from the less healthy, then you're going to eventually end up with a lot of poor people unable to afford much care at all.

And if they can't afford to contribute to an HSA or their job won't contribute to an HSA, that's where other options come into play. But they still benefit from the market forces that HSAs put into action.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The math doesn't add up though.  If you put forth a system where healthy people can separate themselves completely from the less healthy, then you're going to eventually end up with a lot of poor people unable to afford much care at all.

And if they can't afford to contribute to an HSA or their job won't contribute to an HSA, that's where other options come into play. But they still benefit from the market forces that HSAs put into action.

I don't see how.  Elaborate.

HSAs drive competition and lower rates/higher service from the providers. How is that? The consumer has as much choice in where they go for health care as where they go for groceries. Those lower rates and increased service benefit everyone, not just those with HSAs. So when the ones who have insurance (instead of or in addition to HSAs) go to the doctor, they get lower rates and better service. Now, some providers may offer discounts for HSA holders because of the reduced overhead requirement (much like lower cash vs credit prices at the gas pump), but overall, the costs would be lower and the quality of service higher due to providers having to compete for discriminating consumers.

IG-Calibre wrote:

interesting article in the indo

Something strange has happened in America in the nine months since Barack Obama was elected. It has best been summarised by the comedian Bill Maher: "The Democrats have moved to the right, and the Republicans have moved to a mental hospital."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co … 73994.html

^^^^^^^^^^QFT


All I can say is wow talk about hitting the head on the nail.

Right now the lobbyists have paid big money to stop reform and the public option. I would bet that there is a corelation between the amount of money and how loud this debate will get. These people don't care about anyone but themselves. The don't care about truth or justice or the health of the American public. They will yell, cajoul, lie, spread misinformation and threaten until they get a no vote or in their minds it would even be better to get no vote at all.

Everyone in American that jumps on the disinformation bandwagon is a fool and if you are going against your own self interests to ensure you or your families future then you are stupid too.... might as well tie a bow around yourself because you just been bought and paid for. Ship of fools. If this push for reform fails, these crooks will be laughing their asses off at the stupidity of the American public.




Went to see the captain, strangest I could find,
Laid my proposition down, laid it on the line.
I wont slave for beggars pay, likewise gold and jewels,
But I would slave to learn the way to sink your ship of fools.

Ship of fools on a cruel sea, ship of fools sail away from me.
It was later than I thought when I first believed you,
Now I cannot share your laughter, ship of fools.
Grateful Dead - Ship of Fools

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I don't see how.  Elaborate.

HSAs drive competition and lower rates/higher service from the providers. How is that? The consumer has as much choice in where they go for health care as where they go for groceries. Those lower rates and increased service benefit everyone, not just those with HSAs. So when the ones who have insurance (instead of or in addition to HSAs) go to the doctor, they get lower rates and better service. Now, some providers may offer discounts for HSA holders because of the reduced overhead requirement (much like lower cash vs credit prices at the gas pump), but overall, the costs would be lower and the quality of service higher due to providers having to compete for discriminating consumers.

You're assuming there are no oligopolies in providing service.  Our healthcare market would retain these oligopolies under HSAs.

Competition isn't particularly beneficial to the consumer when you have only 5 major pharmaceutical companies and a worse doctor-to-patient ratio than most of Europe.

So again, HSAs would do nothing to change how some areas have a relatively limited number of health providers.  Prices for most of our medical services and drugs are artificially driven up by both patent laws and by the AMA limiting medical instruction more than in other countries.

You're assuming there are only a handful of medical providers in the US (oligopoly). There are thousands of providers--quite the opposite of an oligopolic situation.

Also, you're assuming that the only place we could buy pharmaceuticals is from the companies in the US. That is simply untrue. Foreign pharm companies also sell their products here...just like automobile manufacturers.

Your other two points just point to other opportunities for reform that are separate and distinct from transitioning to a single-payer system. How about let's fix those other things and see how that works before gutting the current system? That's like cutting out an organ that is threatened by cancer while leaving the cancerous tissue in the body.