Saffron: He's my husband. Mal: Well, who in the damn galaxy ain't?

'Trash'


Natter 75: More Than a Million Natters Served  

Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, butt kicking, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.


Gudanov - Jul 28, 2017 6:10:55 am PDT #14564 of 30002
Coding and Sleeping

Yeah. I'd really like to go with single-payer or at least allow Medicare/Medicaid buy-in. I think the benefits for entrepreneurs would be tremendous and it would give people more flexibility.

At the least I'd like to have a program where you could get Medicaid for a period of time after losing a job. (Maybe paying for it above a certain previous income and a limit on how often you can get it)


SuziQ - Jul 28, 2017 6:17:53 am PDT #14565 of 30002
Back tattoos of the mother is that you are absolutely right - Ame

I do think it's important to reiterate that most people have...employer-based insurance

It is still insanely expensive, with huge deductibles, and there is so much that still isn't covered.


Toddson - Jul 28, 2017 6:22:23 am PDT #14566 of 30002
Friends don't let friends read "Atlas Shrugged"

Thanks for the explanation Gud - you've laid it out very clearly.

One side effect is that the number of people declaring bankruptcy because of having to pay medical bills has plummeted. And one of the problems with pre-Obamacare insurance policies was that people would pay their premiums but when they went to use insurance discovered that it didn't really cover anything. It would be cheap, but useless.


meara - Jul 28, 2017 6:24:40 am PDT #14567 of 30002

I've long thought that Republicans ought to be all about getting healthcare without an employer, as that frees people up to be entrepreneurs and start businesses and all that jazz


Gudanov - Jul 28, 2017 6:29:53 am PDT #14568 of 30002
Coding and Sleeping

Of course, Congress isn't really doing anything about the basic problem that health-care is just too damn expensive.

Not too long ago I had a very painful abscess. I went to an urgent care clinic to treat it and they determined that it had to be lanced, but it was too deep for them to do and said I'd have to go to an ER. At this point I was in too much pain to start going to other urgent care clinics. At the ER a nurse practitioner did an ultrasound to locate the abscess and then lanced it. Took her maybe 40minutes. The total cost was $5,000 (after price adjustments for insurance) of which insurance covered about $3,000. That's insane.


Tom Scola - Jul 28, 2017 6:30:46 am PDT #14569 of 30002
hwæt

I've long thought that Republicans ought to be all about getting healthcare without an employer

No, the people who bankroll the Republican Party literally want people to be afraid for their lives if they lose their jobs.


Fiona - Jul 28, 2017 6:30:49 am PDT #14570 of 30002

At the least I'd like to have a program where you could get Medicaid for a period of time after losing a job.

I can just quote the German example. National health insurance takes a certain percentage (currently 15%) of earnings, and employers have to match this. Everyone can chose which insurance company they go to, though in practice there are minimal differences between the statutory health insurance providers. If you are self-employed your contribution is also assessed according to your earnings, adjusted for the fact that you're paying both halves.

Anyone can go private, but this has the usual advantages and disadvantages, i.e. greater benefits, but your premiums rise much more steeply as you age, and the companies can refuse to take you or cover some conditions - but only beforehand, not if they already insure you.

If you lose your job, social security kicks in and you automatically join government insurance ("Medicare", I guess), for as long as necessary, or the government pays for your statutory insurance, if you have it. This makes sense because you can't pay 15% of no earnings.

Children are insured free of charge via their parents. Spouses can also be insured.

It is illegal not to have health insurance. But if you can't pay for it, the state does.

It's not perfect - which health insurance system is? - but it's a pretty good system. Certainly I think it works better than the NHS, which because it is funded from general taxation is overly subject to political pressure.

Edited for typos.


Gudanov - Jul 28, 2017 6:33:59 am PDT #14571 of 30002
Coding and Sleeping

Thanks for that, Fiona! I've heard that Germany has a hybrid system, but I didn't know that actually meant.


Fiona - Jul 28, 2017 6:38:01 am PDT #14572 of 30002

Oh I forgot to say, if you're unemployed you pay a flat rate which is so low as to be virtually symbolic. A couple of hundred Euros a month, I think. And it isn't really you paying, it's the state and the insurance company picking up the slack.

I fear it will never catch on in the States.


Fiona - Jul 28, 2017 6:41:53 am PDT #14573 of 30002

Even this is being chipped away at, many treatments which used to be available no longer are, we have to pay more for prescriptions and so forth.

But, importantly, everything is free for children, and the extras we have are minimal. If both Mr. Fiona and I end up having expensive dental work done in the year, we may pay up to 500 Euros on top of our premiums. Otherwise we'll be hard-pushed to hit 100 Euros.