Quote: Original post by Eelco
[...]On the constructive side: it would be beneficial given the general intelligence to have consumer organizations (publicly funded ones, ill throw you a bone!) scan standard contracts for loopholes. And the burden of proof for refusing treatment should be on the insurance company. They had better have a hard case for refusing payment, and if they dont, they might find themselves on the hook for murder.

That would be sensible reforms which i would wholly endorse. (insofar that is not already the case. i really cant tell from the kind of mindless agitprop being thrown around here)

That wouldn't help unless the consumer organization would also provide legal teams to a consumer with a dispute. Insurance megacorps can easily afford legal teams that could crush what a typical consumer can afford, which makes it a generally bad idea to contest actions individually. Even if the contract is entirely loophole-free, it is easy for a consumer to get screwed unless they can get some kind of mega-org on their side to fight the mega-corp.

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
"Wealth transfer" is one of the dumbest reactionary terms I've ever encountered.

Agreed. It's class warfare rhetoric obscuring the "wealth transfer" from the poor to the rich at the heart of the current economic crisis. It's part and parcel of a package of false claims, including the bromides "new taxes slow economic growth" and "tax cuts spur economic growth". Tax cuts merely make is easier for already wealthy people to gamble their increased disposable incomes in risky stock market speculations.

Hearing you rail against 'class warfare rethoric' never fails to crack me up.

Yeah, because the upper classes never wage war against the lower classes, except of course when they wage actual war against the lower classes of other countries... [razz] Would you like me to school you on the history of that? Let's start with Guatemala, where in 1954 the United Fruit Company responded to efforts by the democratically elected government of that country to seize unused lands by calling in the CIA to stage an invasion that lead to a coup. This interference on behalf of the wealthy shareholders of the United Fruit Company, which included then CIA director Allen Dulles, disrupted Guatemala throwing it into 4 decades of civil war that resulted in upwards of 200,000 deaths. Does that crack you up too?

“There’s class warfare, all right. But it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” -- Warren Buffett

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by WanMaster
I pay around $150 a month and have good health insurance.

And that coverage isn't through your employer?

I pay around $150 (AU) a month for private health insurance. When I go to the dentist, it's generally free (I go to the dentist a lot, and get several fillings per year. I don't know why my teeth are so crappy, but it sucks! anyway...). But in truth, that's actually better than most private health care in Australia (where you usually get 80% or so coverage for dental). If not for the insurance, I would have to pay around $2,000 per year on dental bills alone (do the math!)

I've also been to hospital for surgery and paid less than $1,500 in fees. This was for elective eye surgery in a private hospital with a specialist surgeon as well.

My insurance also covers things like remedial massage, glasses (I've never paid for a pair of glasses in my life!), and a few other things.

Now, as I said, my coverage is generally better than most private health in Australia (it used to be subsidized by my previous employer, but after I left that job, I was allowed to keep the cover).

The way insurance works is that the people who don't use it much pay for the people who use it all the time... but since I'm one of the people who use it all the time, I'm quite happy with the system :-)

Anyway, that's just my experience.

Health Insurance as a whole is poorly modeled and puts the companies goals at the exact opposite of the consumers. To deny you services is to make them richer, and it's a fundamental thing as ones health! We pay for other needed social services that make this country function yet skip on this most basic one.

It needs to be destroyed and rebuilt, where profit incentives are to make people healthy and remain healthy.

Quote: Original post by Extrarius

Quote: Original post by Eelco
[...]On the constructive side: it would be beneficial given the general intelligence to have consumer organizations (publicly funded ones, ill throw you a bone!) scan standard contracts for loopholes. And the burden of proof for refusing treatment should be on the insurance company. They had better have a hard case for refusing payment, and if they dont, they might find themselves on the hook for murder.

That would be sensible reforms which i would wholly endorse. (insofar that is not already the case. i really cant tell from the kind of mindless agitprop being thrown around here)

That wouldn't help unless the consumer organization would also provide legal teams to a consumer with a dispute. Insurance megacorps can easily afford legal teams that could crush what a typical consumer can afford, which makes it a generally bad idea to contest actions individually. Even if the contract is entirely loophole-free, it is easy for a consumer to get screwed unless they can get some kind of mega-org on their side to fight the mega-corp.

Putting the burden of proof on them removes the incentive towards obscurantism in contracts.

I realize that appealing in court is way too expensive: this seems to be a problem in many first world nations. Such civil disputes could be handled in a much more lightweight approach than with the entire circus that the legal system likes to perform. Having a functioning legal system, rather than one where claims under 100k are not worth pursuing anyway, seems crucial to a functioning society to me, regardless of healthcare.

Quote: Original post by necreia
Health Insurance as a whole is poorly modeled and puts the companies goals at the exact opposite of the consumers. To deny you services is to make them richer, and it's a fundamental thing as ones health! We pay for other needed social services that make this country function yet skip on this most basic one.

It needs to be destroyed and rebuilt, where profit incentives are to make people healthy and remain healthy.

My supermarket has a profit incentive. Food is quite fundamental. Ask mao and stalin.

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by necreia
Health Insurance as a whole is poorly modeled and puts the companies goals at the exact opposite of the consumers. To deny you services is to make them richer, and it's a fundamental thing as ones health! We pay for other needed social services that make this country function yet skip on this most basic one.

It needs to be destroyed and rebuilt, where profit incentives are to make people healthy and remain healthy.

My supermarket has a profit incentive. Food is quite fundamental. Ask mao and stalin.

I know psychologically you have to be contrarian to everything everyone else is going to say in this thread, but its getting a bit ridiculous. Comparing an industry centered on goods that are both consumable and perishable, which requires they be sold in a timely manner so as not to become losses, to a service based industry? You yourself used the phrase "Im comparing apples with apples:" earlier in this discussion.

And further, there are so many players in the food-industry that I can barely begin to list them all here (farmers, farmers markets, chain-grocers, specialty food retailers, wholesalers, fishermen, etc. etc., all of whom have an impact on the final price of goods), but with insurance there are only a handful of major players.

^^ I'm glad someone said it.


Throwing out supermarkets was probably the most ridiculous argument yet.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Putting the burden of proof on them removes the incentive towards obscurantism in contracts.

Uhhh.... as it stands, the contract IS where the burden of proof is determined. Feel free to elaborate.