Trump Continues to Lead After Debate

[SunsetBengal]

(08-10-2015, 07:25 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I have always wondered if we could drop all insurance except catastrophic.    Then just pay per use.

Then, the cost of catastrophic would go through the roof...

Oh, how this board is lacking banjaxed.  He is a pro in the risk mgt. field.  He explained all of it, in great detail, in a thread on the old boards.  Too bad that he is too busy competing in triathlon and raising a beautiful family, to have time for trivial things like message boards anymore.. :angry:

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-10-2015, 07:25 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I have always wondered if we could drop all insurance except catastrophic.    Then just pay per use.

I paid over $4000 to insure my daughter and I last year. 

I took one visit to the doctor (checkup) and my daughter took two (checkup and one sick visit).  Each visit cost me a $25 copay. 

So I shelled out $4075 for three routine doctor visits. 

If we got insurance companies out of the way, and say my doctor charged me $100 for each routine visit, plus call it $100 per month for a catastrophic plan for my daughter and I, that would be $1500 per year in costs compared to $4075. 

[SunsetBengal]

(08-10-2015, 07:41 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I paid over $4000 to insure my daughter and I last year. 

I took one visit to the doctor (checkup) and my daughter took two (checkup and one sick visit).  Each visit cost me a $25 copay. 

So I shelled out $4075 for three routine doctor visits. 

If we got insurance companies out of the way, and say my doctor charged me $100 for each routine visit, plus call it $100 per month for a catastrophic plan for my daughter and I, that would be $1500 per year in costs compared to $4075. 

You DO know that there are privately run healthcare networks that you could join, and opt out of traditional insurance, that are remarkably similar to that scenario you just described, right?

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-10-2015, 07:46 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: You DO know that there are privately run healthcare networks that you could join, and opt out of traditional insurance, that are remarkably similar to that scenario you just described, right?

That won't get me fined for not meeting ACA regulations?

[SunsetBengal]

(08-10-2015, 07:49 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: That won't get me fined for not meeting ACA regulations?

From what I understand, no.  However, you will need to research, as I am insured by the company that I work for.  I heard of these networks via media.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-10-2015, 07:55 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: From what I understand, no.  However, you will need to research, as I am insured by the company that I work for.  I heard of these networks via media.

The entire point of my proposal is to get the costs of premiums down by only insuring catastrophic things.  Someone opined that the rates on those plans would increase, which I'm not sure how or why.  If it's solely by the insurance companies wanting to make up the money....okay, I guess that makes sense, but that would also dissuade people from purchasing those plans.  Either way the free market would be dictating the prices in my scenario, and I can live with the results of that.

Further, if insurance companies were out of regular doctor offices, that would also create competition for business.  Right now nearly nobody can tell you what they're charged for at a doctor's visit, aside from a co-pay.  Hell, most doctor's don't even know.  The medical coding associated with it all is costly, and who do you think pays for that increased cost?

Get that garbage out of the way.  Increase competition between doctor's offices looking to increase the number of patients that they see, and watch the prices of routine visits go down. 

[SunsetBengal]

(08-10-2015, 08:02 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: The entire point of my proposal is to get the costs of premiums down by only insuring catastrophic things.  Someone opined that the rates on those plans would increase, which I'm not sure how or why.  If it's solely by the insurance companies wanting to make up the money....okay, I guess that makes sense, but that would also dissuade people from purchasing those plans.  Either way the free market would be dictating the prices in my scenario, and I can live with the results of that.

Further, if insurance companies were out of regular doctor offices, that would also create competition for business.  Right now nearly nobody can tell you what they're charged for at a doctor's visit, aside from a co-pay.  Hell, most doctor's don't even know.  The medical coding associated with it all is costly, and who do you think pays for that increased cost?

Get that garbage out of the way.  Increase competition between doctor's offices looking to increase the number of patients that they see, and watch the prices of routine visits go down. 

As I said earlier, if you only insure catastrophic things, then the cost of catastrophic insurance will then go through the roof..

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-10-2015, 08:22 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: As I said earlier, if you only insure catastrophic things, then the cost of catastrophic insurance will then go through the roof..

Care to back up your assumption with any sort of substance or explanation?

Call me cynical, but I tend to not accept that I'm wrong about something just because someone on the internet told me so.  

[SunsetBengal]

(08-10-2015, 08:25 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Care to back up your assumption with any sort of substance or explanation?

Call me cynical, but I tend to not accept that I'm wrong about something just because someone on the internet told me so.  

Listen, I'm not trying to get you all "uppity".  I simply said that if you eliminate other types of insurance, that catastrophic would go through the roof, in premium costs.  Does it really take much sense to understand that?  The insurance companies are in existence, they are going to get their money, somehow.  If people would cease to purchase all of their products but one, what do you think would happen to the cost of that lone, remaining product?

[StLucieBengal]

(08-10-2015, 07:41 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I paid over $4000 to insure my daughter and I last year. 

I took one visit to the doctor (checkup) and my daughter took two (checkup and one sick visit).  Each visit cost me a $25 copay. 

So I shelled out $4075 for three routine doctor visits. 

If we got insurance companies out of the way, and say my doctor charged me $100 for each routine visit, plus call it $100 per month for a catastrophic plan for my daughter and I, that would be $1500 per year in costs compared to $4075. 

I feel your pain. I have similar issues.

Before I was married with kids I was better off paying cash for myself. But I can't take that risk with two little ones and my wife .

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-10-2015, 08:48 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Listen, I'm not trying to get you all "uppity".  I simply said that if you eliminate other types of insurance, that catastrophic would go through the roof, in premium costs.  Does it really take much sense to understand that?  The insurance companies are in existence, they are going to get their money, somehow.  If people would cease to purchase all of their products but one, what do you think would happen to the cost of that lone, remaining product?

How much money do you think insurance companies would save when they're not shelling out a couple of hundred bucks every time someone goes in for a routine visit or for the doctor to prescribe some antibiotics?

You're only looking at one side of the equation (what they would lose in premiums) and ignoring the other (what they would save in payments). 

In my scenario, people would essentially be buying health insurance for the same reason they purchase life insurance...protecting against the catastrophic.  People buy insurance now largely for the "savings" that they believe they are getting on lower co-pays for visits and cheaper meds. 

Nobody is getting "uppidity" here either.  If I come across that way, I'd say it's because my posting style is pretty much the same as I am in real-life.  I'm a cut to the chase, no-nonsense type of guy. 

I'm not the type to get worked up on the internet.  

[SunsetBengal]

(08-10-2015, 09:35 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: How much money do you think insurance companies would save when they're not shelling out a couple of hundred bucks every time someone goes in for a routine visit or for the doctor to prescribe some antibiotics?

You're only looking at one side of the equation (what they would lose in premiums) and ignoring the other (what they would save in payments). 

In my scenario, people would essentially be buying health insurance for the same reason they purchase life insurance...protecting against the catastrophic.  People buy insurance now largely for the "savings" that they believe they are getting on lower co-pays for visits and cheaper meds. 

Nobody is getting "uppidity" here either.  If I come across that way, I'd say it's because my posting style is pretty much the same as I am in real-life.  I'm a cut to the chase, no-nonsense type of guy. 

I'm not the type to get worked up on the internet.  

My apologies.  I started out attempting to give you sincere answers, then got you confused with someone else.

The thing is, if you look for them, there ARE doctors who will do good service, for a very reasonable cash price.  I used to be self-employed, with no insurance coverage.  I was able to find a doctor with reduced rates for cash paying customers, with relative ease.

Where it usually caught up was with the cost of the prescriptions, unless it was something treated by a low cost generic.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-10-2015, 09:42 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: My apologies.  I started out attempting to give you sincere answers, then got you confused with someone else.

The thing is, if you look for them, there ARE doctors who will do good service, for a very reasonable cash price.  I used to be self-employed, with no insurance coverage.  I was able to find a doctor with reduced rates for cash paying customers, with relative ease.

Where it usually caught up was with the cost of the prescriptions, unless it was something treated by a low cost generic.

No apologies are necessary.  I enjoy the discussion of various topics with all sorts of people.  You can learn a lot, especially if you converse with people from different walks of life and political views...provided that you keep an open-mind. 

There was a doctor here locally (I'm in Fairfield) that operates out of West Chester that has a cash-only clinic.  There are also the clinics sprouting up in Kroger, CVS, and Walgreens that will accept cash. 

What I'm referring to is a way to not just cut the cost down for myself, but for the nation as a whole.  Insurance companies and Big Pharma are in BIG with government, and it's certainly not just on one side of the aisle. 

That of course makes it difficult if not impossible to solve these sorts of problems, but one can wish, right?  Like I said before, the GOP has zero ideas about how to fix HC (other than talking about buying insurance across state lines, that I hear them say a lot, for whatever reason) and the DNC as usual thinks the only solution is more government and more regulations. 

[fredtoast]

(08-10-2015, 08:02 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Get that garbage out of the way.  Increase competition between doctor's offices looking to increase the number of patients that they see, and watch the prices of routine visits go down. 

People can't shop for doctors based on price.  It just doesn't work.  People need to see the same doctor for a continuity of treatment.  Plus a person often does not even know whet services he needs until he sees a doctor.

Plus I don't know what you consider "catostrophic".  Even a minor illness or injury can costs thousands of dollars.

[fredtoast]

(08-10-2015, 10:01 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: What I'm referring to is a way to not just cut the cost down for myself, but for the nation as a whole.  Insurance companies and Big Pharma are in BIG with government, and it's certainly not just on one side of the aisle. 

The reason we do not have a government run health care system is the power of insurance companies.

When the health care problem was the main issue of the '08 elections most people favored a government option, but Obama ended up selling out to the insurance companies and producing the ACA.

[fredtoast]

(08-10-2015, 03:53 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Fred thinks its either all the regulation we have or none.   He has trouble with the concept of very limited regulation.

(08-10-2015, 06:16 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Yeah, it's not unusual to encounter those that would rather argue strawmen rather than actually responding to what's being said. 

I am glad to discuss specifics if I ever heard any.  But generally all I hear is "We have too much regulation" or "Socialism doesn't work" without any specifics about how much regulation is too much.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-11-2015, 02:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am glad to discuss specifics if I ever heard any.  But generally all I hear is "We have too much regulation" or "Socialism doesn't work" without any specifics about how much regulation is too much.

We can make a regulation thread and get specific. But I'm afraid some couldn't stay on topic.

Even you can admit we have a lot of regulation that's unnecessary.

[GMDino]

https://medium.com/@jhermann/who-said-it-donald-trump-or-frank-from-it-s-always-sunny-in-philadelphia-b150d02cc0f8

Quote:Who said it: Donald Trump or Frank Reynolds?

One is an inexplicably wealthy self-obsessed racist with the moral compass of a meth-addled 2-year-old, and the other is a character played by Danny DeVito.

1 "There’s nothing more threatening to a man than a woman who’s smart and attractive.”
2 “All the women flirted with me — consciously or unconsciously. That’s to be expected.”
3 “When was the last time you saw a Chevrolet in Tokyo?”
4 “Nobody’s eating anybody’s babies.”
5 “A certificate of live birth is not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination as a birth certificate.”
6 “Laziness is a trait in the blacks.”
7 “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”
8 “A woman in politics is like a donkey doing calculus.”
9 “Tiny children are not horses.”
10 “People are tired of these nice people.”
11 "That’s the bad Korea.”
12 “Free trade is terrible. Free trade can be wonderful if you have smart people. But we have stupid people.”
13 “The only kind of people I want counting my money are little short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”
14 "I’ll tell you, it’s big business. If there is one word to describe Atlantic City, it’s big business. Or two words: big business.”
15 “Two dudes getting married… That doesn’t seem very gay.”
16 “You know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”
17 "I got my Magnum condoms, I got my wad of 100s… I’m ready to plow.”
18 “It’s not your fault, sweetie. You’re just not pretty enough.”
19 “Well, somebody’s doing the raping! Who’s doing the raping? Who’s doing the raping?”
20 “Did you notice that baby was crying and I didn’t get angry? Not once. Did you notice that? That baby was driving me crazy.”
21 “In life you have to rely on the past, and that’s called history.”
22 “Sometimes your best investments are the ones you don’t make.”
23 “If life pushes you down, you’ve got to push back.”
24 “One of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace. Good people don’t go into government.”
25 “Part of the beauty of me is that I’m very rich.”
26 “It’s all about image and marketing. There are no bands out there with any musical ability.”
27 “I try to learn from the past, but I plan for the future by focusing exclusively on the present.”
28 “The point is that you can’t be too greedy.”
29 “Animals should be food, rugs, and trophies.”
30 “The 1990s sure aren’t like the 1980s.”
31 “I saw a report yesterday. There’s so much oil, all over the world, they don’t know where to dump it. And Saudi Arabia says, ‘Oh, there’s too much oil.’ Do you think they’re our friends? They’re not our friends.”
32 “I don’t know how many years I got left on this earth. I’m gonna get real weird with it.”

Roll over for answer:

Frank Reynolds: 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, 17, 18, 23, 26, 29, 32
Donald Trump: 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-11-2015, 02:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: People can't shop for doctors based on price.  It just doesn't work.  People need to see the same doctor for a continuity of treatment.  Plus a person often does not even know whet services he needs until he sees a doctor.

Plus I don't know what you consider "catostrophic".  Even a minor illness or injury can costs thousands of dollars.

Yes, I believe that everyone should have a regular doctor that they see at least once per year, but there's no way to regulate that, nor should they. 

Aside from that, in today's marketplace if someone that doesn't have insurance or a regular family doctor, it normally means a very expensive taxpayer-funded trip to the ER, or a trip to an urgent care that has limited hours and questionable reputations.

In my "scenario", everyone would have access to way more doctors with way more experience and the competition for the "sick visits" and the like would in fact drive the costs down. 

There is no competition now, because as I alluded to before, most doctors don't even know what they are charging an insurance company for a visit.  

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-11-2015, 02:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am glad to discuss specifics if I ever heard any.  But generally all I hear is "We have too much regulation" or "Socialism doesn't work" without any specifics about how much regulation is too much.

I believe that I've offered quite a few solutions that would work better than doing nothing, or whatever vague crap the idiots on both sides propose to "fix" the problems.