wrote in message
...
On Jul 11, 7:33 pm, "Ed Huntress"

I think it should be against the law for hospitals to charge
different rates depending on whether you have insurance. This guy
with the $400,000 bill is getting ripped because he did not have
insurance.

Why? That would be price control, wouldn't it? That's the argument, and
the
hospitals and insurers have won on that point in court. They offer a
"volume
discount" to the insurance companies.

But it is not a volume business.

Yes it is. The volume is in bodies. They call them "lives" in the insurance
business. That's to distinguish those who pay (the living) from deadbeats
(the dead). It's really disconcerting to sit in a marketing meeting for a
major pharmaceutical company and listen to the terms with which they discuss
the lives of human beings.

The insurers deliver the bodies who can pay.

They are not
ordering a thousand identical hernia operations at a time.

But they are delivering a thousand paying customers at a time.


Of course, that works both ways. What they don't have to provide, they
often
don't. Their customers are in no position to judge what should be covered
and what should not, unless they're experts in medicine -- particularly in
knowing the statistical probabilities tied to risk factors.

So what are the risk factors for acupuncture?

Massages? Back Alignments?

Take it up with the actuaries. You're getting into pain now, which is the
trickiest legal swamp in the medical business.

That is what they do in New Zealand. Except they do not say they are
refusing to care for you. But a two year wait for a operation on a
brain tumor is the same thing.

'Sounds like a great system. Maybe theirs is broken, too. Maybe the job of
their interested parties is to make it look like they have good universal
healthcare.

And if you were poor enough, you'd have to self-insure.

Jez your insurance company paid less than $0.40 on the dollar. So
maybe it is your insurance company that broke their back.

The less than $0.40 on the dollar that insurers pay is on retail billing.
The $0.40 on the dollar that government pays on charity cases is based on
the insurers' rate -- in other words, just slightly more than 40% of
costs.

Then make sure you have good oversight and regulation -- something that
doctrinaire free-marketers tend to let go by the wayside these days.



Or that you have competition. Universal healthcare is a monopoly.

When you're lying on a gurney, there is no such thing as competition.


It's too late for a fix. Now they're just trying to keep the whole thing
from unraveling. The time for a fix was 25 years ago.


More like three or four years ago.

No, Dan. It happened when the managed-care business (HMOs, etc.) displaced
"traditional insurers" in large corporations. Look at the incentive
structure for an HMO: Deny coverage for as many procedures as possible, and
approve only the cheapest procedures and drugs that will keep you out of
court. That's how you serve your true constituency, which is your
shareholders.

If you spend a few years working in the business and see how it all works,
you quickly learn that competition is a joke, that cynicism reigns supreme,
and that the most valuable person in a pharmaceutical company is the one who
can extend a patent by dodging around the law. Our healthcare system is, as
I said, completely broken.

I don't think those three are nutty. Countries that have universal
healthcare have their problems too.

Of course, but they have better healthcare and live longer.

A friend of my wife's husband
needed an operation in New Zealand and was scheduled to have it done
in two years ( in Austrailia yet ). Fortunately it was reported in
the papers and some other poor ******* got bumped.

Take your anecdotes and stack them up against the reality of the
numbers.
Then you'll realize how silly the anecdotes sound in
comparison.


This was the husband of someone that I personally know. Her daughter
lives near you. Not an anecdote.

Dan, that's the definition of an anecdote. Anecdotes are the bane of
anyone
trying to evaluate policy alternatives. You never know how representative
they are of the big picture.

You call them anecdotes. I call them facts.

I'm not going to dignify that with a response, because I'm sure you know
what it means to judge policies that apply to millions of people by means of
two examples.

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...
On Jul 11, 7:33 pm, "Ed Huntress"

I think it should be against the law for hospitals to charge
different rates depending on whether you have insurance. This guy
with the $400,000 bill is getting ripped because he did not have
insurance.

Why? That would be price control, wouldn't it? That's the argument, and
the
hospitals and insurers have won on that point in court. They offer a
"volume
discount" to the insurance companies.

But it is not a volume business. They are not
ordering a thousand identical hernia operations at a time.






The insurance companies have "buyer power", (see Porter's Five Forces
model), individual consumers don't.

"Alan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:00:39 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

If you're fortunate to have good insurance, count yourself lucky. I had to
pay my own way for myself and for my son last year, at a rate of
$12,500/yr.
That's for a good, but not excellent level of insurance. A lot of people
can't afford it. That's part of the reason my rates were so high. And for
those who don't have insurance, their crisis care costs you and me a hell
of
a lot more than it would if we had universal care.

That amount is about 60% of my gross income, there is no way I
could afford that.

When I was working I had full hospital cover but when I retired in
'95 the cost would have been about 33% of my pension so I had to
discontinue most of it. I did keep what is called in Oz "
ancillaries benefits " - dental, ambulance transport ( minimum
callout $150 or so ), optical and a few other things, currently about
5% of gross income. I have to pay for doctor visits and get a
portion of the fee back from Medicare, otherwise I am a "public
patient" for hospital treatment.
A few years ago I had internal bleeding, went to Doc - immediate
referral to hospital, operation next day. Private room for recovery
for several days, then about 5 days in a 4 bed public ward until I was
kicked out. A few appointments for checkups and I have been fine
since. No cost to me, but I had been paying tax all my life for it
( and still am, but not much because of my low income ).
I have also had the lenses in my eyes replaced with plastic as I
was unsuitable for laser treatment. Consultations with the surgeon
were very expensive but I received about 60% refund from my ancillary
cover. Operations cost was no charge to me as an age pensioner. I
had to wait about 2 months for a time slot and was about 6th on the
list for that day. Now have perfect distance vision but have to wear
different strength glasses for reading, welding, woodwork, computer
screen, depending on distance. Anything under 2 metres needs glasses
to see clearly, without them objects are slighly blurred.

There is, in Western Oz, a waiting list for elective surgery, ie
non urgent, of about 6 months for public patients whereas people with
full hospital cover have a minimal wait.

Alan

How does one obtain full hospital cover, Alan? What does it cost?

--
Ed Huntress

On Jul 12, 8:21*am, "Ed Huntress"

Yes it is. The volume is in bodies. They call them "lives" in the insurance
business. That's to distinguish those who pay (the living) from deadbeats
(the dead). It's really disconcerting to sit in a marketing meeting for a
major pharmaceutical company and listen to the terms with which they discuss
the lives of human beings.

The insurers deliver the bodies who can pay.

They are not
ordering a thousand identical hernia operations at a time.

But they are delivering a thousand paying customers at a time.


But there is no economy of scale. All they are delivering is certain
payment. If I went to the hospital for a hernia operation and paid in
advance or provided a bond, the cost ought to be the same.


That is what they do in New Zealand. Except they do not say they are
refusing to care for you. But a two year wait for a operation on a
brain tumor is the same thing.

'Sounds like a great system. Maybe theirs is broken, too. Maybe the job of
their interested parties is to make it look like they have good universal
healthcare.

And if you were poor enough, you'd have to self-insure.

Or that you have competition. *Universal healthcare is a monopoly.

When you're lying on a gurney, there is no such thing as competition.

But there can be competion when one is selecting a healthcare
company. If there is universal government mandated healthcare there
is no competition.


It's too late for a fix. Now they're just trying to keep the whole thing
from unraveling. The time for a fix was 25 years ago.

More like three or four years ago.

No, Dan. It happened when the managed-care business (HMOs, etc.) displaced
"traditional insurers" in large corporations. Look at the incentive
structure for an HMO: Deny coverage for as many procedures as possible, and
approve only the cheapest procedures and drugs that will keep you out of
court. That's how you serve your true constituency, which is your
shareholders.

If you spend a few years working in the business and see how it all works,
you quickly learn that competition is a joke, that cynicism reigns supreme,
and that the most valuable person in a pharmaceutical company is the one who
can extend a patent by dodging around the law. Our healthcare system is, as
I said, completely broken.



I don't think those three are nutty. Countries that have universal
healthcare have their problems too.

Of course, but they have better healthcare and live longer.

A friend of my wife's husband
needed an operation in New Zealand and was scheduled to have it done
in two years ( in Austrailia yet ). Fortunately it was reported in
the papers and some other poor ******* got bumped.

Take your anecdotes and stack them up against the reality of the
numbers.
Then you'll realize how silly the anecdotes sound in
comparison.
This was the husband of someone that I personally know. Her daughter
lives near you. Not an anecdote.

Dan, that's the definition of an anecdote. Anecdotes are the bane of
anyone
trying to evaluate policy alternatives. You never know how representative
they are of the big picture.
You call them anecdotes. *I call *them facts.

I'm not going to dignify that with a response, because I'm sure you know
what it means to judge policies that apply to millions of people by means of
two examples.

You should respond. The fact is that healthcare is expensive. Going
to universal healthcare does not change that. In order to provide
universal healthcare at a reasonable cost, one ends up not providing
the real expensive care. Or it least rationing it so it does not cost
too much of the total cost.

I provide real evidence that that occurs, and you just want to not
respond. Stick your head in the sand, and not consider that
universal healthcare can not provide more for less. To keep cost in
check, some things have to be deleted.

Your ploy of not responding is a good debate tactic, but here I expect
better.


I might be able to support universal preventive healthcare. A set of
things as shots for shingles, screening for TB, that everyone gets
and that everyone able to pay pays a modest amount. Those that can
not pay are covered by the general taxes.

Dan
--
Ed Huntress

" wrote:

I think it should be against the law for hospitals to charge
different rates depending on whether you have insurance. This guy
with the $400,000 bill is getting ripped because he did not have
insurance.



I spent 8 months paying full retail aka cash on the barrel head. I never felt more fcuked
over than then. It is all a game. Power taking a discount be it the insurance companies
or government. Huge distortions in pricing due to the abuse of power.

I notice that where I get my healthcare there are signs that they will not accept new
medicade patients at this time. Has to be a reason, like not making a return on
investment.

Wes

In rec.crafts.metalworking on Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:05:58 -0400
Ed Huntress wrote:

How does one obtain full hospital cover, Alan? What does it cost?


Depends a lot on what you mean by "full".

Many funds have tried to eliminate out of pocket expenses but doctors
are wary of that as it usually means they get squeezed. Some funds have
arrangements with some hospitals so which hospital you choose can have
an effect on your out of pocket. Some doctors will agree on a fee with
the fund so that you pay a known amount above the govt reimbursement
and the fund pays that known amount. Some will charge above the govt set
fee *and* above the extra the fund is willing to pay leading to serious
sticker shock even for insured people.

Various states have different laws, and of course different costs.
So what someone pays in WA will be different to me in NSW.

With my health fund, a single person under 65 choosing top hospital
and top extras (dental, physio, optical, and so on) paying by direct
debit every 2 weeks and accepting to pay $500 excess (not each visit,
that's per calendar year) will pay $45 every 2 weeks. $59 with no excess.

A person over 70 not wanting to pay excess would pay $50 every 2 weeks.
No, I don't know why the difference... (I didn't check the 65-70
bracket)

What's covered and for how much depends on the fund and various other
things, you have to investigate.

On the whole, most people won't pay too much for a hospital vist, and
there is a bit of middle class welfare in that if you pay over $1500 of
eligible health costs in a year then you can get some of the extra back
on tax.


I note that my mother recently fell off her motorcycle and broke her
shoulder and damaged various other bits. She was treated in the public
hospital on govt benefits not her insurance and got excellent treatment
including several followup visits for physiotherapy for some months after
(she's still going) and it cost her nothing. (On the other hand I fell
off my bike a few years ago and while the free treatment was excellent
the followup was non-existent which caused me problems down the line.
Hospitals can be a lottery.)

If you want to see the various coverages, then try
http://www.iselect.com.au for a look at the different things
available[1]. Else go to www.google.com.au and enter "health funds"


ObMetal: Don't suppose anyone knows of someone who makes alloy
motorcycle tanks for less than the price of a small fighter jet?


Zebee

[1] warning - they will ask for address but they haven't sent me any spam,
email or dead tree.

Some vagaries of the system you need to know if you are looking at
prices. NSW is the most expensive state, I think SA is one of the
cheaper ones. There's a 30% govt rebate which citizens are eligible
for.

If you haven't had hospital cover since 2000 and you are over 30 then
the fund can (but might not) charge you a little more for each year you
have been without cover, else they have limits on age discrimination.
So questions about if you have had previous cover will have this in mind.

"Wes" wrote in message
...
" wrote:

I think it should be against the law for hospitals to charge
different rates depending on whether you have insurance. This guy
with the $400,000 bill is getting ripped because he did not have
insurance.



I spent 8 months paying full retail aka cash on the barrel head. I never
felt more fcuked
over than then. It is all a game. Power taking a discount be it the
insurance companies
or government. Huge distortions in pricing due to the abuse of power.

I notice that where I get my healthcare there are signs that they will not
accept new
medicade patients at this time. Has to be a reason, like not making a
return on
investment.

Medicaid is a state-by-state program, unlike Medicare, and the states are
bleeding the hell out of it right now. Some hospitals and other providers
just won't accept it until the rates are increased.

--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
...
On Jul 12, 8:21 am, "Ed Huntress"

Yes it is. The volume is in bodies. They call them "lives" in the
insurance
business. That's to distinguish those who pay (the living) from deadbeats
(the dead). It's really disconcerting to sit in a marketing meeting for a
major pharmaceutical company and listen to the terms with which they
discuss
the lives of human beings.

The insurers deliver the bodies who can pay.

They are not
ordering a thousand identical hernia operations at a time.

But they are delivering a thousand paying customers at a time.


But there is no economy of scale. All they are delivering is certain
payment. If I went to the hospital for a hernia operation and paid in
advance or provided a bond, the cost ought to be the same.

Philosophically, I feel the same way. It really ****es me off. But they have
the negotiating power, that's the way the market really works, and the
courts have determined they have a perfect right to do it. It stinks.


That is what they do in New Zealand. Except they do not say they are
refusing to care for you. But a two year wait for a operation on a
brain tumor is the same thing.

'Sounds like a great system. Maybe theirs is broken, too. Maybe the job
of
their interested parties is to make it look like they have good
universal
healthcare.

And if you were poor enough, you'd have to self-insure.

Or that you have competition. Universal healthcare is a monopoly.

When you're lying on a gurney, there is no such thing as competition.

But there can be competion when one is selecting a healthcare
company. If there is universal government mandated healthcare there
is no competition.

First off, there is little connection between what an insurance company
offers to individuals and the company's success in selling it. That's
because free-market theory depends on "perfect information," as the
economists put it, and the information that people have and understand about
health insurance is dismal. So it sells for other reasons -- mostly on the
basis of sales and marketing effort. There is little real competition in the
industry that has anything to do with services provided.

Secondly, you have to weigh the perverse incentives of private insurance
against the inefficiencies of single-payer healthcare. I've worked in the
healthcare industry, and I'll take single-payer.



It's too late for a fix. Now they're just trying to keep the whole thing
from unraveling. The time for a fix was 25 years ago.

More like three or four years ago.

No, Dan. It happened when the managed-care business (HMOs, etc.) displaced
"traditional insurers" in large corporations. Look at the incentive
structure for an HMO: Deny coverage for as many procedures as possible,
and
approve only the cheapest procedures and drugs that will keep you out of
court. That's how you serve your true constituency, which is your
shareholders.

If you spend a few years working in the business and see how it all works,
you quickly learn that competition is a joke, that cynicism reigns
supreme,
and that the most valuable person in a pharmaceutical company is the one
who
can extend a patent by dodging around the law. Our healthcare system is,
as
I said, completely broken.



I don't think those three are nutty. Countries that have universal
healthcare have their problems too.

Of course, but they have better healthcare and live longer.

A friend of my wife's husband
needed an operation in New Zealand and was scheduled to have it done
in two years ( in Austrailia yet ). Fortunately it was reported in
the papers and some other poor ******* got bumped.

Take your anecdotes and stack them up against the reality of the
numbers.
Then you'll realize how silly the anecdotes sound in
comparison.
This was the husband of someone that I personally know. Her daughter
lives near you. Not an anecdote.

Dan, that's the definition of an anecdote. Anecdotes are the bane of
anyone
trying to evaluate policy alternatives. You never know how
representative
they are of the big picture.
You call them anecdotes. I call them facts.

I'm not going to dignify that with a response, because I'm sure you know
what it means to judge policies that apply to millions of people by means
of
two examples.

You should respond.

All right, here's my response: You gave two examples. Are they
representative? How do you know?

End of response.

The fact is that healthcare is expensive. Going
to universal healthcare does not change that. In order to provide
universal healthcare at a reasonable cost, one ends up not providing
the real expensive care. Or it least rationing it so it does not cost
too much of the total cost.

That's all true. What you're describing is the crisis of American
healthcare. Our technical ability to provide it has now exceeded our ability
to pay for it -- at least, to pay for it as it's now being provided. We're
still living on a model that says we must provide the best care we can for
everyone. Only we can't. We haven't faced that fact yet, and the consequence
is a system that's cracking at the seems while it's bleeding us dry.

"Competition" largely does not exist in the US healthcare industry. Where it
does, it produces a perverse result. The competition is in sales, marketing
and finance, not in services and prices. This has been discussed in millions
of pages of analysis of the industry by insiders and outsiders. You can go
to the professional healthcare industry websites and read about it full
time, all the time, world without end, amen. After a few years of that,
you'll acquire a general sense of the problem.

The US pays a larger portion of our GDP than any other developed country for
healthcare. Yet, our life expectancy is low and the frequency with which we
provide emergency care is very high. That's a broken system. You may have an
idea about how to fix it, but most likely you do not. Neither do I. But one
thing I can tell you for sure, having immersed myself in it while I was
writing and editing for the industry: There is no chance in hell that the
present system of "competition" and market incentives is going to produce a
better result. All of the pieces necessary for laissez faire economics to
work in the healthcare industry are broken, twisted, or missing.

I provide real evidence that that occurs, and you just want to not
respond. Stick your head in the sand, and not consider that
universal healthcare can not provide more for less. To keep cost in
check, some things have to be deleted.

You provide two anecdotal examples of a situation that involves tens of
thousands or more, and you expect to be taken seriously. I can hardly
believe you'd even suggest such a thing.

Your ploy of not responding is a good debate tactic, but here I expect
better.

I'm not debating, Dan. With all due respect, I don't think you understand
the problem at all. You're interpreting random factoids through an
ideological filter. We could discuss this until hell freezes over and not
get anywhere.

We don't have to get anywhere. The forces at work are so huge and
overwhelming that no amount of ideological bantering is going to have the
slightest effect upon them. Either we'll get some political leaders to take
this bull by the horns and do something with it, or it's going to slam us up
against the wall, like the price of oil is doing right now. You can call
that a "market solution" if you want, but, in this case, the market pressure
is going to be felt in terms of nastier, more brutish existence for people
living at the fringes of what the healthcare system can provide, until we
can't stand it anymore.

One way or the other, it will happen. You can't stop it. The present model
of care can't deal with it. Competition doesn't solve it.

I might be able to support universal preventive healthcare. A set of
things as shots for shingles, screening for TB, that everyone gets
and that everyone able to pay pays a modest amount. Those that can
not pay are covered by the general taxes.

That would be an improvement, but not an adequate solution. It shows that
you recognize the most perverse of the consequences of our present system.
But there are many more.

--
Ed Huntress

On Jul 13, 6:18*am, "Ed Huntress"

Philosophically, I feel the same way. It really ****es me off. But they have
the negotiating power, that's the way the market really works, and the
courts have determined they have a perfect right to do it. It stinks.



Then we are in agreement here. It stinks.
Congress could pass a law that the courts would have to rule on. And
that might make it better. But I am not optimistic. I expect the
insurance companies lobby for the status quo.



That's
because free-market theory depends on "perfect information," as the
economists put it, and the information that people have and understand about
health insurance is dismal. So it sells for other reasons -- mostly on the
basis of sales and marketing effort.

Here I am optimistic. The internet is improving information flow.


Secondly, you have to weigh the perverse incentives of private insurance
against the inefficiencies of single-payer healthcare. I've worked in the
healthcare industry, and I'll take single-payer.







All right, here's my response: You gave two examples. Are they
representative? How do you know?

End of response.

My reasoning is much like the arguments on global warming. Logically
universal healthcare will ration expensive procedures in order to
control costs. So one looks for evidence that rationing has
occurred. And one finds the evidence.

I do not know if it is represenative, but logically it should be.
Just like I do not know that burning fosil fuels cause global warming,
but they could.

So I do not know that rationing of procedures
is representative of universal healthcare, but there is certainly a
good reason to believe that it is. And there is evidence that it
does.

That's all true. What you're describing is the crisis of American
healthcare. Our technical ability to provide it has now exceeded our ability
to pay for it -- at least, to pay for it as it's now being provided. We're
still living on a model that says we must provide the best care we can for
everyone. Only we can't. We haven't faced that fact yet, and the consequence
is a system that's cracking at the seems while it's bleeding us dry.

Are you saying that healthcare must be rationed?



The US pays a larger portion of our GDP than any other developed country for
healthcare. Yet, our life expectancy is low and the frequency with which we
provide emergency care is very high. That's a broken system. You may have an
idea about how to fix it, but most likely you do not. Neither do I. But one
thing I can tell you for sure, having immersed myself in it while I was
writing and editing for the industry: There is no chance in hell that the
present system of "competition" and market incentives is going to produce a
better result. All of the pieces necessary for laissez faire economics to
work in the healthcare industry are broken, twisted, or missing.

The one thing that our present system does is provide a place where
new techniques can be perfected. Whether this is enough justification
for keeping the system is debateable.

I'm not debating, Dan. With all due respect, I don't think you understand
the problem at all. You're interpreting random factoids through an
ideological filter. We could discuss this until hell freezes over and not
get anywhere.

We all have our ideological filters. And while I do not have your
background in the healthcare industry, it does not mean that I do not
understand the problem. I understand the problem. Just don't agree
on the cure.


I might be able to support universal preventive healthcare. *A set of
things as shots for shingles, screening for TB, that everyone gets
and *that everyone able to pay pays a modest amount. *Those that can
not pay are covered by the general taxes.

That would be an improvement, but not an adequate solution. It shows that
you recognize the most perverse of the consequences of our present system..
But there are many more.


One small step that works is better than a big change that does not
work.

I am not sure there is an adequate solution for all the problems.



--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 08:35:20 +1200, Jack wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:55:05 +1200, Jack wrote:


Gunner wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:38:50 +1200, Jack wrote:



"Libertarian legacy?
Ron Paul's campaign manager, 49, dies uninsured,
of pneumonia,leaving family $400,000 debt of medical
bills.
What a testament to the Libertarian creed, which
abhors the idea of universal health care."
mo

http://tinyurl.com/5davpe

-- Posted on news://freenews.netfront.net - Complaints to --



At least he didn't force his neighborhood, at gun point, to pay his
medical bills.

You really want to be one of the jack booted thugs forcing everyone
around you to cough up the dough for Your Kind... Comrade?
Gunner


ROFLMAO!
It seems they coughed for you, sometime back, or had you
conveniently forgotten?


So when you buy a house on time payments, or pay for a TV on
time...other people are being forced to pay for it instead of you?

In your tiny mind perhaps, however financial institutions exist to sell
money, the markup is called interest. Mind you, how would you ever know?
Chance would be a fine thing, if you were ever able to get time payments
with your financial record.

Does that mean I dont have to send in those pesky payments each month
on my medical bill?

Whoopieeeee!!!

You make monthly payments on a medical bill? Yeah, right!

Of course I do. My $27k bill is now down to about $17k there abouts.
Ill have to check.

Why are you surprised? You would have stiffed them?

Gunner


-- Posted on news://freenews.netfront.net - Complaints to --

"Zebee Johnstone" wrote in message
...
In rec.crafts.metalworking on Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:05:58 -0400
Ed Huntress wrote:

How does one obtain full hospital cover, Alan? What does it cost?


Depends a lot on what you mean by "full".

Many funds have tried to eliminate out of pocket expenses but doctors
are wary of that as it usually means they get squeezed. Some funds have
arrangements with some hospitals so which hospital you choose can have
an effect on your out of pocket. Some doctors will agree on a fee with
the fund so that you pay a known amount above the govt reimbursement
and the fund pays that known amount. Some will charge above the govt set
fee *and* above the extra the fund is willing to pay leading to serious
sticker shock even for insured people.

Various states have different laws, and of course different costs.
So what someone pays in WA will be different to me in NSW.

With my health fund, a single person under 65 choosing top hospital
and top extras (dental, physio, optical, and so on) paying by direct
debit every 2 weeks and accepting to pay $500 excess (not each visit,
that's per calendar year) will pay $45 every 2 weeks. $59 with no excess.

A person over 70 not wanting to pay excess would pay $50 every 2 weeks.
No, I don't know why the difference... (I didn't check the 65-70
bracket)

What's covered and for how much depends on the fund and various other
things, you have to investigate.

On the whole, most people won't pay too much for a hospital vist, and
there is a bit of middle class welfare in that if you pay over $1500 of
eligible health costs in a year then you can get some of the extra back
on tax.

That sounds like quite a bargain, whether your dollars are US or AUS. If we
had a combination system like that it probably would satisfy most people.

For comparison, I'm now covered by my wife's policy (she's a teacher in
public school) and I pay $260/month for coverage for my son and me. That's
*after* the school district pays around $1,000/month and my wife pays $140
for herself. It's good coverage and I'm not complaining about the rates. If
I were paying it all by myself, as I have in the past when I was
self-employed and my wife wasn't working, it would now cost me around
$1,300 - $1,500/month for the same coverage for all three of us. Those are
all US dollars.



I note that my mother recently fell off her motorcycle and broke her
shoulder and damaged various other bits. She was treated in the public
hospital on govt benefits not her insurance and got excellent treatment
including several followup visits for physiotherapy for some months after
(she's still going) and it cost her nothing. (On the other hand I fell
off my bike a few years ago and while the free treatment was excellent
the followup was non-existent which caused me problems down the line.
Hospitals can be a lottery.)

If you want to see the various coverages, then try
http://www.iselect.com.au for a look at the different things
available[1]. Else go to www.google.com.au and enter "health funds"


ObMetal: Don't suppose anyone knows of someone who makes alloy
motorcycle tanks for less than the price of a small fighter jet?


Zebee

[1] warning - they will ask for address but they haven't sent me any spam,
email or dead tree.

Some vagaries of the system you need to know if you are looking at
prices. NSW is the most expensive state, I think SA is one of the
cheaper ones. There's a 30% govt rebate which citizens are eligible
for.

If you haven't had hospital cover since 2000 and you are over 30 then
the fund can (but might not) charge you a little more for each year you
have been without cover, else they have limits on age discrimination.
So questions about if you have had previous cover will have this in mind.

Thanks, I'll pass on checking into it for now. It certainly is a complicated
system, but so is ours.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Medicaid is a state-by-state program, unlike Medicare, and the states are
bleeding the hell out of it right now. Some hospitals and other providers
just won't accept it until the rates are increased.

So Medicaid is a worse bottom feeding program than Medicare? Beware of a governernment
that promisses things but will not pay for it or puts proceedures in a funding queue.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

First off, there is little connection between what an insurance company
offers to individuals and the company's success in selling it. That's
because free-market theory depends on "perfect information," as the
economists put it, and the information that people have and understand about
health insurance is dismal. So it sells for other reasons -- mostly on the
basis of sales and marketing effort. There is little real competition in the
industry that has anything to do with services provided.


If my life depended on it (might) I could not tell you what my companies group plan
covers. I think they like us being in fear and uncertaintly of what is covered. Keeps
the claims down.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Medicaid is a state-by-state program, unlike Medicare, and the states are
bleeding the hell out of it right now. Some hospitals and other providers
just won't accept it until the rates are increased.

So Medicaid is a worse bottom feeding program than Medicare? Beware of a
governernment
that promisses things but will not pay for it or puts proceedures in a
funding queue.

So what are you going to do with the old people on Medicaid, who have run
out their 120 days on their Medicare supplemental, Wes? Stack 'em up for
firewood?

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

First off, there is little connection between what an insurance company
offers to individuals and the company's success in selling it. That's
because free-market theory depends on "perfect information," as the
economists put it, and the information that people have and understand
about
health insurance is dismal. So it sells for other reasons -- mostly on the
basis of sales and marketing effort. There is little real competition in
the
industry that has anything to do with services provided.


If my life depended on it (might) I could not tell you what my companies
group plan
covers. I think they like us being in fear and uncertaintly of what is
covered. Keeps
the claims down.

Give them a call and ask for the printed details of your coverage. See if
they tell you that you'll have to wait because it's "being reprinted," or
"being revised." Blue Cross/Blue Shield has done that to me three times in
three years regarding my mother's coverage. I *still* don't know what the
hell her insurance covers. And they don't publish it online.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:53:41 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


But there can be competion when one is selecting a healthcare
company. If there is universal government mandated healthcare there
is no competition.



There's plenty of competition. There's also a buyer with 50 million patient's
worth of drug purchases to negotiate. Ever wondered why drug prices are lower
in Europe and the UK than in the US?

There are also no shareholders taking a cut.

Yes there is an element of rationing, but where is the economic sense of
paying the same for drugs to keep a terminally ill cancer patient alive for
another ten weeks compared with replacing the hip of a 60 year old still in
employment?

I've been a diabetic since the age of seven and now, at 50, my heart is
letting me know that I'm not immortal. I'm bloody glad that I pay the same as
everyone else in the UK for health care!


Mark Rand
RTFM

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:42:57 -0700, Gunner
wrote:



Of course I do. My $27k bill is now down to about $17k there abouts.
Ill have to check.

Why are you surprised? You would have stiffed them?

Gunner



There's got to be an upside to the Fed reducing interest rates :-)


regards
Mark Rand
RTFM

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:53:41 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:


But there can be competion when one is selecting a healthcare
company. If there is universal government mandated healthcare there
is no competition.



There's plenty of competition. There's also a buyer with 50 million
patient's
worth of drug purchases to negotiate. Ever wondered why drug prices are
lower
in Europe and the UK than in the US?

There's nothing to wonder about. The US is the only developed country in the
world with no price controls on drugs. That drives our prices through the
roof. But it also means that the research centers for most of the world's
pharmaceuticals have moved here, bringing a lot of high paying jobs with
them.

A report to the EU the year before last showed that the US is the net
beneficiary. It's a marginal situation, but it is a tradeoff.


There are also no shareholders taking a cut.

Yes there is an element of rationing, but where is the economic sense of
paying the same for drugs to keep a terminally ill cancer patient alive
for
another ten weeks compared with replacing the hip of a 60 year old still
in
employment?

I've been a diabetic since the age of seven and now, at 50, my heart is
letting me know that I'm not immortal. I'm bloody glad that I pay the same
as
everyone else in the UK for health care!


Mark Rand
RTFM

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

So what are you going to do with the old people on Medicaid, who have run
out their 120 days on their Medicare supplemental, Wes? Stack 'em up for
firewood?

Isn't that what is happening? Just another fine government health care program.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

So what are you going to do with the old people on Medicaid, who have run
out their 120 days on their Medicare supplemental, Wes? Stack 'em up for
firewood?

Isn't that what is happening? Just another fine government health care
program.

Maybe in Florida. Not in NJ.

What's happening here is that Medicaid and the nursing homes/assisted living
centers are in a Mexican standoff. The government pretends to pay the
nursing homes, and the nursing homes pretend to provide service. d8-)

Actually, it's not that bad. But it's a hell of a squeeze. So far, nobody is
being pushed out in the streets.

--
Ed Huntress

In rec.crafts.metalworking on Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:13:44 -0400
Ed Huntress wrote:

Thanks, I'll pass on checking into it for now. It certainly is a complicated
system, but so is ours.

It is complicated but works most of the time.

Most people who have average sorts of money or less will do fairly OK
in the public system. Some will have a terrible time and they get
newspaper space. Most people who deal with it seem to do OK.

dental care, now that's a whole separate issue! It isn't covered in
the public system and even top private cover covers very little.
People on public benefits and pensions used to be able to get work
done at dental schools but no more.

Zebee

wrote in message
...
On Jul 13, 6:18 am, "Ed Huntress"

Philosophically, I feel the same way. It really ****es me off. But they
have
the negotiating power, that's the way the market really works, and the
courts have determined they have a perfect right to do it. It stinks.



Then we are in agreement here. It stinks.
Congress could pass a law that the courts would have to rule on. And
that might make it better. But I am not optimistic. I expect the
insurance companies lobby for the status quo.

As with most things having to do with markets and corporate behavior, just
analyze the incentives. Insurance companies are not the culprits in this
case. It's the hospitals and other providers who are charging the whalloping
big fees to uninsured individuals. They do it because it allows them to make
up a small percentage of the losses they incur from uninsured individuals
who *can't* pay, as is often the case.

Every once in a while they get a sucker -- Gunner is an example, because the
debt he's paying down is probably based on the individual, uninsured rate --
who will make up some of the losses they incurred from several others who
couldn't or wouldn't pay. The insurance companies won't let them get away
with this. The individual, though, is basically at their mercy.

That's
because free-market theory depends on "perfect information," as the
economists put it, and the information that people have and understand
about
health insurance is dismal. So it sells for other reasons -- mostly on the
basis of sales and marketing effort.

Here I am optimistic. The internet is improving information flow.

Whether that would be enough to overcome the perverse incentives faced by
private insurers (their primary incentive is to avoid serving their
customers while minimizing adverse publicity about it -- an upside-down
situation if there ever was one) is a big question. Better information would
be welcome but it's still up against a whole array of contrary market forces
at work in the healthcare business, particularly on the insurance side.


Secondly, you have to weigh the perverse incentives of private insurance
against the inefficiencies of single-payer healthcare. I've worked in the
healthcare industry, and I'll take single-payer.


All right, here's my response: You gave two examples. Are they
representative? How do you know?

End of response.


My reasoning is much like the arguments on global warming. Logically
universal healthcare will ration expensive procedures in order to
control costs. So one looks for evidence that rationing has
occurred. And one finds the evidence.

Aha. I see. Well, here's the bad news: Elective procedures are rationed
here, too, but it's by the insurance companies. They deny coverage.

I'm facing one of those right now, and it's been going on for two months
with little likelihood I'll win. Mark, who is another type I diabetic, will
appreciate this. My endocrinologist sees my A1C readings creeping up and has
prescribed an insulin pump. The trouble is, I've been taking good care of
myself with regular injections and testing and my A1C isn't high enough that
the insurance company will pay for it. They say I'm already under "adequate
control." That's another good example of perverse incentives that are at
work when you have private insurers: if I had been less diligent, I would
have less trouble getting the prescription fulfilled. It's all upside-down.

Don't kid yourself that we don't have a *lot* of rationing going on right
now. If you're lucky and haven't encountered it yourself, you may not see
it. But it's there. Some of it is doctors just not even bothering to
prescribe procedures because they know they won't be paid for. It's really a
sick, upside-down system.

I do not know if it is represenative, but logically it should be.
Just like I do not know that burning fosil fuels cause global warming,
but they could.

So I do not know that rationing of procedures
is representative of universal healthcare, but there is certainly a
good reason to believe that it is. And there is evidence that it
does.

But that's not evidence that it doesn't go on here. And I can provide plenty
of examples that it does.

That's all true. What you're describing is the crisis of American
healthcare. Our technical ability to provide it has now exceeded our
ability
to pay for it -- at least, to pay for it as it's now being provided. We're
still living on a model that says we must provide the best care we can for
everyone. Only we can't. We haven't faced that fact yet, and the
consequence
is a system that's cracking at the seems while it's bleeding us dry.


Are you saying that healthcare must be rationed?

First of all, it already is, and it has been for at least 30 years. An
example you may be aware of is MRIs. They're probably used less than half
the time they would be beneficial, because, as expensive as they are, the
insurance companies have very limiting and strict rules about when they can
be used. Another big example is dental procedures that insurers consider to
be "cosmetic." That seems to be most of them. I also could tell you about
some drugs I've worked on that can't get insurance approval for some complex
reasons, but which would benefit a lot of people if they were covered.

Here's a fairly simple one that you may have encountered, because it's a
common issue. People with breathing problems have for years been prescribed
albuterol as a "rescue" drug. It's saved a lot of lives. It's now a generic,
off-patent, and it's cheap. But it causes tachycardia (racing heart rate) in
many patients and a few of them, mostly older people, have heart attacks and
die from using albuterol. Not many, but a few.

There is another drug, an analog of albuterol, called Xopenex
(levelbuterol), that has somewhat less tendency to cause tachycardia, while
it's equal to albuterol in its positive bronchial effects. If it were used
universally it unquestionably would save a few lives every year. It costs
about the same as albuterol to make, or so I've been told. But it's under
patent, and it sells for something like 8 times as much as albuterol -- in
the US, at least, where there are no price controls. Insurance companies
make you go through hoops to get it; you need a cardiologist to say your
heart condition requires it.

That's another perverse result. The drug company has to recover its
development cost and make money while the sun shines (in other words, until
their patent runs out), so they charge an arm and a leg for it; insurance
companies don't want to pay for it and they use one particular study that
shows no benefit in outcomes as an excuse for not allowing it (there are
other studies that show the benefit, but they don't like to discuss those);
and patients need a referral to a cardio specialist just to get it paid for
by their pharma insurers. The outcome is that more people die than need to.

It's all about incentives, and what companies do to pursue the incentives
that benefit them. Serving patients -- their supposed customers -- is not
among their positive incentives. So you get a perverse result. You also get
a lot more rationing than you may realize.

I'm going to get off my soapbox now, but not before addressing the issue of
preventive care, which is the greatest perversity of all. Why do you suppose
insurers will not pay for preventive care, with a few exceptions? Because,
as you'd hear if you sat in meetings with managed-care insiders, the average
person changes insurance companies every 3-1/2 to 4 years. That reflects
job-changing, plus a few lifetime changes because of changing age status --
from dependent child, to student, to working adult, to retiree.

So, who benefits if an insurance company pays for preventive care? SOME
OTHER INSURANCE COMPANY. There's the biggest perversity in the system. You
won't hear much about it, except on rare occassions from some investigative
reporter. But it's common knowledge in the industry. That's why Mt. Sinai
can't get $2,000/patient for diabetes training and years of preventive
monitoring, but they can get $50,000 to amputate one of their feet.

That's the US healthcare system. There are plenty of examples where it
rations care, and the logic of the rationing is based on the stock value of
the companies involved. It's full of perverse incentives. Having multiple,
"competing" insurance companies often results in the opposite of what one
would desire and expect. Ain't it great?


The US pays a larger portion of our GDP than any other developed country
for
healthcare. Yet, our life expectancy is low and the frequency with which
we
provide emergency care is very high. That's a broken system. You may have
an
idea about how to fix it, but most likely you do not. Neither do I. But
one
thing I can tell you for sure, having immersed myself in it while I was
writing and editing for the industry: There is no chance in hell that the
present system of "competition" and market incentives is going to produce
a
better result. All of the pieces necessary for laissez faire economics to
work in the healthcare industry are broken, twisted, or missing.


The one thing that our present system does is provide a place where
new techniques can be perfected. Whether this is enough justification
for keeping the system is debateable.

True. We have very slick technology and we're the world's center for medical
and pharmaceutical research. How much it really benefits us is debatable.

I'm not debating, Dan. With all due respect, I don't think you understand
the problem at all. You're interpreting random factoids through an
ideological filter. We could discuss this until hell freezes over and not
get anywhere.

We all have our ideological filters. And while I do not have your
background in the healthcare industry, it does not mean that I do not
understand the problem. I understand the problem. Just don't agree
on the cure.

I believe the problem is more complex and more perverse than you realize.
Maybe not, but I do know that the more you know about the details, the more
you realize how cracked it all is.

I might be able to support universal preventive healthcare. A set of
things as shots for shingles, screening for TB, that everyone gets
and that everyone able to pay pays a modest amount. Those that can
not pay are covered by the general taxes.

That would be an improvement, but not an adequate solution. It shows that
you recognize the most perverse of the consequences of our present system.
But there are many more.

One small step that works is better than a big change that does not
work.

I am not sure there is an adequate solution for all the problems.

It seems likely that a comprehensive re-work of the system would produce a
much more beneficial result. Unfortunately, it requires extraordinary
understanding and political power to effect a revolutionary change. Believe
it or not, there are people with the knowledge who could do it. But I doubt
if there's anyone who could muster the political power to go up against the
forces that resist it. Regardless of what you may think of her, Hillary
Clinton tried -- and she got the wind knocked out of her by the financial
interests involved, who like the status quo. The money and resources they
have at their disposal would make Croesus blush. And they can muster an army
of conservatives who will carry the water, as easily as they did last time,
by buying a few tens of millions of dollars worth of TV commercials. That's
chump change to them.

--
Ed Huntress

"Zebee Johnstone" wrote in message
...
In rec.crafts.metalworking on Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:13:44 -0400
Ed Huntress wrote:

Thanks, I'll pass on checking into it for now. It certainly is a
complicated
system, but so is ours.

It is complicated but works most of the time.

Most people who have average sorts of money or less will do fairly OK
in the public system. Some will have a terrible time and they get
newspaper space. Most people who deal with it seem to do OK.

dental care, now that's a whole separate issue! It isn't covered in
the public system and even top private cover covers very little.
People on public benefits and pensions used to be able to get work
done at dental schools but no more.

Getting basic dental care insurance here isn't expensive, but getting more
than emergency care and basic cleaning and so on can be tricky. My wife knew
she was going to run up some big dental bills this year so I got coverage
from *two* insurance companies. One starts paying where the other leaves
off. It's not cheap, but it really covered my butt.

--
Ed Huntress

"Mark Dunning" wrote in message
...
Snip

--
Ed Huntress


They're all right wingers aren't they? That explains it. Forget about
the
facts, they make up their own to fit their preconceived beliefs. They're
the
modern version, although I hate to use that term to describe them, of
the
people who kept riding horses and said that those newfangled automobiles
would never catch on. We have a horrible heath care system that can only
go
---------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^
BUZZZZZZZZZZ

Nope- we have one of the best.
People from other countries covered under their national health care elect
to come here because their system won't help them.


broke at some point yet they can't accept that the national heath care
systems that every other industrial nation has is better. Oh well, in
about
ten years, if they are still alive, they will see for themselves that
national health care is far superior to our horse and buggy health care
system. They'll probably still be denying it though.

Hawke

Once again .......The crap coming from your keyboard is stunning in its
evidence of your narrow minded opinion.

Stand in line at sick call a few times, then tell us about how great that
works out.

Mark

Before giving your unqualified opinion about health care you should get some
facts first. Otherwise you come out sounding stupid. While you're at
learning about health care check into the people who you say are coming here
for medical procedures and see what they have in common. They are all rich.
No one comes to the US and hires a private doctor for a medical procedure
unless they have extreme wealth. First off, none of those people have any
health insurance to pay for their procedures so they are paying for them in
cash. The cost of any serious condition usually costs in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars in any American facility. So the folks you are talking
about are multi millionaires. That means what they do and what you and
everyone else does is very different.

We're talking about a health care system that provides the best care for
everyone. The one we have is not good and it gets worse every year and is
going to go into bankruptcy eventually. Other countries have already faced
this problem and all of them have found that our system won't work. We will
change too because everyone except a few very ignorant fools knows what's
really going on. A universal system is the only way to provide decent health
care for everyone. This is a fact. Anyone who doesn't know this or doesn't
believe it simply doesn't know what they are talking about. That's you.

Hawke

That sounds like quite a bargain, whether your dollars are US or AUS. If
we
had a combination system like that it probably would satisfy most people.

For comparison, I'm now covered by my wife's policy (she's a teacher in
public school) and I pay $260/month for coverage for my son and me. That's
*after* the school district pays around $1,000/month and my wife pays $140
for herself. It's good coverage and I'm not complaining about the rates.
If
I were paying it all by myself, as I have in the past when I was
self-employed and my wife wasn't working, it would now cost me around
$1,300 - $1,500/month for the same coverage for all three of us. Those are
all US dollars.


That's the way the game works. As a person gets older and tends to have more
health/medical problems the insurance companies start raising premiums. They
keep the price for your coverage on a continuous upward scale until everyone
but the very rich eventually gets to the point where they can't pay the
premiums. Then you lose your coverage and wind up having to depend on
charity. It's a great deal for the insurance providers. When you are young
and healthy, pay premiums without having medical problems, the company wants
you. When you either actually cost them money or get to where you might cost
them money they raise your premiums until you have to drop out of the
program. What a way to make money. You just eliminate the sick people and
keep the healthy ones. Now why would we want to change a system like that?

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

That sounds like quite a bargain, whether your dollars are US or AUS. If
we
had a combination system like that it probably would satisfy most people.

For comparison, I'm now covered by my wife's policy (she's a teacher in
public school) and I pay $260/month for coverage for my son and me.
That's
*after* the school district pays around $1,000/month and my wife pays
$140
for herself. It's good coverage and I'm not complaining about the rates.
If
I were paying it all by myself, as I have in the past when I was
self-employed and my wife wasn't working, it would now cost me around
$1,300 - $1,500/month for the same coverage for all three of us. Those
are
all US dollars.


That's the way the game works. As a person gets older and tends to have
more
health/medical problems the insurance companies start raising premiums.
They
keep the price for your coverage on a continuous upward scale until
everyone
but the very rich eventually gets to the point where they can't pay the
premiums.

Not in NJ. Premiums don't increase with age. Someone half my age would pay
the same amount.

--
Ed Huntress

" wrote:

Maybe if Congress is forced to have the same
universal healthcare and not allowed to have
private insurance.


That will happen the same day the accept term limits.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Medicaid is a state-by-state program, unlike Medicare, and the states are
bleeding the hell out of it right now. Some hospitals and other providers
just won't accept it until the rates are increased.

So Medicaid is a worse bottom feeding program than Medicare? Beware of a
governernment
that promisses things but will not pay for it or puts proceedures in a
funding queue.

Wes

If you had brains you would be very concerned that the government comes up
with a way to improve the social safety net for the years to come because
the statistics say you are going to need it very badly. You seem to think
that because you are able to pay your bills now that it'll always be that
way. I don't think so. Here is the statistic on how many Americans can
retire and live decently off their retirement savings; 2%. What that means
is that 98% of Americans after a lifetime of work cannot afford to retire on
what they put away for their retirement. Without the Social Security checks
and Medicare benefits they would be fiscally ruined. I'm not a gambler but
I'd be willing to make a very big bet you will not be in the 2% that will
have a big retirement package you can live well off of in your "golden
years". My guess is that you will be like everyone else and will not be able
to survive without the social safety net. You need to wake up to that fact
and find out the facts about how Americans fare in retirement. You'd think
differently if you knew of what you speak.

Hawke

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

That sounds like quite a bargain, whether your dollars are US or AUS.
If
we
had a combination system like that it probably would satisfy most
people.

For comparison, I'm now covered by my wife's policy (she's a teacher in
public school) and I pay $260/month for coverage for my son and me.
That's
*after* the school district pays around $1,000/month and my wife pays
$140
for herself. It's good coverage and I'm not complaining about the
rates.
If
I were paying it all by myself, as I have in the past when I was
self-employed and my wife wasn't working, it would now cost me around
$1,300 - $1,500/month for the same coverage for all three of us. Those
are
all US dollars.


That's the way the game works. As a person gets older and tends to have
more
health/medical problems the insurance companies start raising premiums.
They
keep the price for your coverage on a continuous upward scale until
everyone
but the very rich eventually gets to the point where they can't pay the
premiums.

Not in NJ. Premiums don't increase with age. Someone half my age would pay
the same amount.

--
Ed Huntress


That's weird. In California my experience with Physicians Mutual and Blue
Cross/Blue Shield was the opposite. Every year the premiums went up.
Eventually, they got so high I couldn't afford them any more. I know this is
happening to people all over the country. You must have a special program in
NJ to prevent this. Lucky you. With diabetes and your age most insurance
companies would not insure you at all if you tried to get coverage as a new
customer. They would just reject you or charge you like five thousand a
month. Like I said, the insurance companies habit is to say we don't want
any sick or old people in our plan. If the government doesn't prevent that
kind of thing the people are screwed. Which we are and will be until we get
a universal plan.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
. ..

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

That sounds like quite a bargain, whether your dollars are US or AUS.
If
we
had a combination system like that it probably would satisfy most
people.

For comparison, I'm now covered by my wife's policy (she's a teacher
in
public school) and I pay $260/month for coverage for my son and me.
That's
*after* the school district pays around $1,000/month and my wife pays
$140
for herself. It's good coverage and I'm not complaining about the
rates.
If
I were paying it all by myself, as I have in the past when I was
self-employed and my wife wasn't working, it would now cost me around
$1,300 - $1,500/month for the same coverage for all three of us. Those
are
all US dollars.


That's the way the game works. As a person gets older and tends to have
more
health/medical problems the insurance companies start raising premiums.
They
keep the price for your coverage on a continuous upward scale until
everyone
but the very rich eventually gets to the point where they can't pay the
premiums.

Not in NJ. Premiums don't increase with age. Someone half my age would
pay
the same amount.

--
Ed Huntress


That's weird. In California my experience with Physicians Mutual and Blue
Cross/Blue Shield was the opposite. Every year the premiums went up.
Eventually, they got so high I couldn't afford them any more. I know this
is
happening to people all over the country. You must have a special program
in
NJ to prevent this. Lucky you. With diabetes and your age most insurance
companies would not insure you at all if you tried to get coverage as a
new
customer. They would just reject you or charge you like five thousand a
month. Like I said, the insurance companies habit is to say we don't want
any sick or old people in our plan. If the government doesn't prevent that
kind of thing the people are screwed. Which we are and will be until we
get
a universal plan.

Hawke

The law did change here in NJ, maybe twice; I don't recall. For two years
after I was self-employed I couldn't get insurance at any price. I was in my
early 30s then. The law changed requiring insurance companies to sell me
insurance. At first it was outrageously expensive -- more than twice as much
as most people were paying. Then something else changed, and I now get the
same rates as everyone else.

So I was barefoot for two years, and it was nerve-wracking. Fortunately, I
didn't have any medical expenses except for regular visits to the doctor and
for pharmaceuticals. If I had encountered anything substantial, I would have
lost my house and been wiped out.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:45:13 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

The law did change here in NJ, maybe twice; I don't recall. For two years
after I was self-employed I couldn't get insurance at any price. I was in my
early 30s then. The law changed requiring insurance companies to sell me
insurance. At first it was outrageously expensive -- more than twice as much
as most people were paying. Then something else changed, and I now get the
same rates as everyone else.

Sounds similar to what we have here in Maine. The problem is that
insurers raised rates to cover the people they would have refused in
the past, and as rates went up young healthy folks dropped their
insurance pushing rates up more, and so on. The fact that Maine is a
small market hasn't helped, as some insurers have decided we aren't
worth the trouble, so there isn't as much as competition as there may
be in NJ.

--
Ned Simmons

"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:45:13 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

The law did change here in NJ, maybe twice; I don't recall. For two years
after I was self-employed I couldn't get insurance at any price. I was in
my
early 30s then. The law changed requiring insurance companies to sell me
insurance. At first it was outrageously expensive -- more than twice as
much
as most people were paying. Then something else changed, and I now get the
same rates as everyone else.

Sounds similar to what we have here in Maine. The problem is that
insurers raised rates to cover the people they would have refused in
the past, and as rates went up young healthy folks dropped their
insurance pushing rates up more, and so on.

Another example of how the present system sucks, IMO.

The fact that Maine is a
small market hasn't helped, as some insurers have decided we aren't
worth the trouble, so there isn't as much as competition as there may
be in NJ.

There were Mexican standoffs. The state threatened to throw out the
insurance companies that were making good money on home and life insurance
if they didn't comply.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:45:13 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

The law did change here in NJ, maybe twice; I don't recall. For two
years after I was self-employed I couldn't get insurance at any
price. I was in my
early 30s then. The law changed requiring insurance companies to
sell me insurance. At first it was outrageously expensive -- more
than twice as much
as most people were paying. Then something else changed, and I now
get the same rates as everyone else.

Sounds similar to what we have here in Maine. The problem is that
insurers raised rates to cover the people they would have refused in
the past, and as rates went up young healthy folks dropped their
insurance pushing rates up more, and so on.

Another example of how the present system sucks, IMO.

The fact that Maine is a
small market hasn't helped, as some insurers have decided we aren't
worth the trouble, so there isn't as much as competition as there may
be in NJ.

There were Mexican standoffs. The state threatened to throw out the
insurance companies that were making good money on home and life
insurance if they didn't comply.


Ed, it's my belief that if people had a lay translation of the insurance
companies view of their world on the one hand and the pharmaceutical and
health care industries on the other a number of things would happen.

The first would be to shut down the insurance industry completely.
The second would be sending hundreds of those working in those industry to
jail for fraud.
The third would either be an electoral upheaval or the mass lynching of
politicians, whichever came first.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:45:13 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

The law did change here in NJ, maybe twice; I don't recall. For two
years after I was self-employed I couldn't get insurance at any
price. I was in my
early 30s then. The law changed requiring insurance companies to
sell me insurance. At first it was outrageously expensive -- more
than twice as much
as most people were paying. Then something else changed, and I now
get the same rates as everyone else.

Sounds similar to what we have here in Maine. The problem is that
insurers raised rates to cover the people they would have refused in
the past, and as rates went up young healthy folks dropped their
insurance pushing rates up more, and so on.

Another example of how the present system sucks, IMO.

The fact that Maine is a
small market hasn't helped, as some insurers have decided we aren't
worth the trouble, so there isn't as much as competition as there may
be in NJ.

There were Mexican standoffs. The state threatened to throw out the
insurance companies that were making good money on home and life
insurance if they didn't comply.


Ed, it's my belief that if people had a lay translation of the insurance
companies view of their world on the one hand and the pharmaceutical and
health care industries on the other a number of things would happen.

The first would be to shut down the insurance industry completely.
The second would be sending hundreds of those working in those industry to
jail for fraud.
The third would either be an electoral upheaval or the mass lynching of
politicians, whichever came first.

Hmm. It's a little tough, but it sounds OK to me.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:45:13 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

The law did change here in NJ, maybe twice; I don't recall. For
two years after I was self-employed I couldn't get insurance at
any price. I was in my
early 30s then. The law changed requiring insurance companies to
sell me insurance. At first it was outrageously expensive -- more
than twice as much
as most people were paying. Then something else changed, and I now
get the same rates as everyone else.

Sounds similar to what we have here in Maine. The problem is that
insurers raised rates to cover the people they would have refused
in the past, and as rates went up young healthy folks dropped their
insurance pushing rates up more, and so on.

Another example of how the present system sucks, IMO.

The fact that Maine is a
small market hasn't helped, as some insurers have decided we aren't
worth the trouble, so there isn't as much as competition as there
may be in NJ.

There were Mexican standoffs. The state threatened to throw out the
insurance companies that were making good money on home and life
insurance if they didn't comply.


Ed, it's my belief that if people had a lay translation of the
insurance companies view of their world on the one hand and the
pharmaceutical and health care industries on the other a number of
things would happen.

The first would be to shut down the insurance industry completely.
The second would be sending hundreds of those working in those
industry to jail for fraud.
The third would either be an electoral upheaval or the mass lynching
of politicians, whichever came first.

Hmm. It's a little tough, but it sounds OK to me.

LOL,
I thought you'd be shocked and then I'd get to be shocked that you were
shocked again.
That's always amusing.

I had to drop an assembly of for welding in N. Hollywood today and went
through Pasadena on the return trip.
200 or more people lined up outside of their bank waiting in the hot sun is
really something to see. I was reminded of the S&L fiasco in the 80's and
driving by a place in New Mexico that had gone tits up.

Indy was founded by Angelo Mozilo you know. Countrywide spun it off.

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:33:47 -0400, the renowned "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Zebee Johnstone" wrote in message
...
In rec.crafts.metalworking on Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:13:44 -0400
Ed Huntress wrote:

Thanks, I'll pass on checking into it for now. It certainly is a
complicated
system, but so is ours.

It is complicated but works most of the time.

Most people who have average sorts of money or less will do fairly OK
in the public system. Some will have a terrible time and they get
newspaper space. Most people who deal with it seem to do OK.

dental care, now that's a whole separate issue! It isn't covered in
the public system and even top private cover covers very little.
People on public benefits and pensions used to be able to get work
done at dental schools but no more.

Getting basic dental care insurance here isn't expensive, but getting more
than emergency care and basic cleaning and so on can be tricky. My wife knew
she was going to run up some big dental bills this year so I got coverage
from *two* insurance companies. One starts paying where the other leaves
off. It's not cheap, but it really covered my butt.

Your dental insurance paid for your Filipina doctor?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
message ...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:45:13 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

The law did change here in NJ, maybe twice; I don't recall. For
two years after I was self-employed I couldn't get insurance at
any price. I was in my
early 30s then. The law changed requiring insurance companies to
sell me insurance. At first it was outrageously expensive -- more
than twice as much
as most people were paying. Then something else changed, and I now
get the same rates as everyone else.

Sounds similar to what we have here in Maine. The problem is that
insurers raised rates to cover the people they would have refused
in the past, and as rates went up young healthy folks dropped their
insurance pushing rates up more, and so on.

Another example of how the present system sucks, IMO.

The fact that Maine is a
small market hasn't helped, as some insurers have decided we aren't
worth the trouble, so there isn't as much as competition as there
may be in NJ.

There were Mexican standoffs. The state threatened to throw out the
insurance companies that were making good money on home and life
insurance if they didn't comply.


Ed, it's my belief that if people had a lay translation of the
insurance companies view of their world on the one hand and the
pharmaceutical and health care industries on the other a number of
things would happen.

The first would be to shut down the insurance industry completely.
The second would be sending hundreds of those working in those
industry to jail for fraud.
The third would either be an electoral upheaval or the mass lynching
of politicians, whichever came first.

Hmm. It's a little tough, but it sounds OK to me.

LOL,
I thought you'd be shocked and then I'd get to be shocked that you were
shocked again.
That's always amusing.

Well, you know I have a generally low regard for financial businesses,
including insurance. I don't like working with the people who are attracted
to those jobs (including some of my neighbors, who are otherwise good
people) and I don't like what the businesses have become, since they've
outrun their basic purpose in our economy.

And the pirates, of which there are many, probably do deserve some jail
time. Not that they're likely to face it in today's conservative,
ultra-permissive financial environment. The idea of what constitutes fraud
has almost been defined into nonexistence.


I had to drop an assembly of for welding in N. Hollywood today and went
through Pasadena on the return trip.
200 or more people lined up outside of their bank waiting in the hot sun
is
really something to see. I was reminded of the S&L fiasco in the 80's and
driving by a place in New Mexico that had gone tits up.

Jeez, it sounds like the bank runs in the early years of the Depression.


Indy was founded by Angelo Mozilo you know. Countrywide spun it off.

Yeah, I've read that. There's one of the pirates for you.

--
Ed Huntress

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:33:47 -0400, the renowned "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Zebee Johnstone" wrote in message
...
In rec.crafts.metalworking on Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:13:44 -0400
Ed Huntress wrote:

Thanks, I'll pass on checking into it for now. It certainly is a
complicated
system, but so is ours.

It is complicated but works most of the time.

Most people who have average sorts of money or less will do fairly OK
in the public system. Some will have a terrible time and they get
newspaper space. Most people who deal with it seem to do OK.

dental care, now that's a whole separate issue! It isn't covered in
the public system and even top private cover covers very little.
People on public benefits and pensions used to be able to get work
done at dental schools but no more.

Getting basic dental care insurance here isn't expensive, but getting more
than emergency care and basic cleaning and so on can be tricky. My wife
knew
she was going to run up some big dental bills this year so I got coverage
from *two* insurance companies. One starts paying where the other leaves
off. It's not cheap, but it really covered my butt.

Your dental insurance paid for your Filipina doctor?

Nope. She's on the basic health plan. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

The law did change here in NJ, maybe twice; I don't recall. For
two years after I was self-employed I couldn't get insurance at
any price. I was in my
early 30s then. The law changed requiring insurance companies to
sell me insurance. At first it was outrageously expensive -- more
than twice as much
as most people were paying. Then something else changed, and I now
get the same rates as everyone else.

Sounds similar to what we have here in Maine. The problem is that
insurers raised rates to cover the people they would have refused
in the past, and as rates went up young healthy folks dropped their
insurance pushing rates up more, and so on.

Another example of how the present system sucks, IMO.

The fact that Maine is a
small market hasn't helped, as some insurers have decided we aren't
worth the trouble, so there isn't as much as competition as there
may be in NJ.

There were Mexican standoffs. The state threatened to throw out the
insurance companies that were making good money on home and life
insurance if they didn't comply.


Ed, it's my belief that if people had a lay translation of the
insurance companies view of their world on the one hand and the
pharmaceutical and health care industries on the other a number of
things would happen.

The first would be to shut down the insurance industry completely.
The second would be sending hundreds of those working in those
industry to jail for fraud.
The third would either be an electoral upheaval or the mass lynching
of politicians, whichever came first.

Hmm. It's a little tough, but it sounds OK to me.

LOL,
I thought you'd be shocked and then I'd get to be shocked that you were
shocked again.
That's always amusing.

I had to drop an assembly of for welding in N. Hollywood today and went
through Pasadena on the return trip.
200 or more people lined up outside of their bank waiting in the hot sun
is
really something to see. I was reminded of the S&L fiasco in the 80's and
driving by a place in New Mexico that had gone tits up.

Indy was founded by Angelo Mozilo you know. Countrywide spun it off.


I didn't know that was another of Mozilos babies. That guy really has a
brown thumb when it comes to businesses. On the other hand when it comes to
raking in the cash personally he's a champ. Talk about someone that ought to
be behind bars.

Hawke