What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[garbon]

Well, people would pay more attention to their bills and try to shop for better prices is usually the argument for that. I think it has a place, but only up to a limit per year. Once you get over a certain amount, shopping around loses it's appeal. Not much difference between a 50k bill and a 51k bill for the average person.

Why would medical practices be rushing to lower their prices - such that one could hunt around for a deal?

Beacause that is how markets work, of course.

The problem with dps idiocy has nothing to do with his observation that an actual free health care market would see reduced costs on a per-procedure basis.

I imagine a lot of the no healthcare crowd isn't the crowd that heads to the doctor when they've small ailments.

[DGuller]

Of course any kind of insurance increases overall costs.  That's called moral hazard.  People have less incentive to control the costs they incur because they don't pay them fully.  However, no matter how efficiently you control the costs, you're probably not going to be able to take a financial hit when you suffer a heart attack or your house burns down.

[grumbler]

The health care plan I have is ACA-compliant, and works like this:  I pay $2500/year into a tax-free HSA, and pay for my medical care out of that.  My employer pays another $3000 or so for a catastrophic health care plan that covers 85% of everything over $2500, 100% of everything once I am $2000 out of pocket in a year, and pays for a lot of preventive care as well; I don't pay for my two physical exams per year, though I pay the lab bills for any tests.

Anything I don't spend out of the HSA stays there, available for use in other years.  The only real downside is that I pay about $125 a year in administrative fees to the bank that runs the HSA.  That would be out-of-pocket if I maxed my HSA.

So, I do shop around a bit and get, for instance, my glasses online.  Generally, I don't spend out my HSA and so the catastrophic insurance remains just insurance.

[Berkut]

Of course any kind of insurance increases overall costs.  That's called moral hazard.  People have less incentive to control the costs they incur because they don't pay them fully.  However, no matter how efficiently you control the costs, you're probably not going to be able to take a financial hit when you suffer a heart attack or your house burns down.

Indeed.

The reason you can make an easy case, however, for why this becomes a government problem is this...

If your house burns down, and you don't have insurance, for the most part, you are fucked, and the rest of us mostly say "Yeah, you sure are fucked!".

But if you are like dps, and you insist that you don't need no stinking insurance, and you get in a car accident and need massive life saving surgery, we live in a society that refuses to say "No insurance? Too fucking bad, you dumbass..." and we save you anyway. The fact that you cannot, of course, afford a couple hundred thousand in medical expenses doesn't matter, because no matter what you say *before* the accident, *after* the accident we know you will be insisting that the rest of us foot the bill.

And we don't live in India, where we are willing to tolerate just letting people bleed out if they can't pay.

So this is a government issue, and no amount of praying at the idol of Ayn can change it. The question is not whether the state will provide health care, but how we can and will do it in a sustainable and affordable manner.

[Eddie Teach]

The health care plan I have

What does an immortal need with health care? 

[Berkut]

The health care plan I have is ACA-compliant, and works like this:  I pay $2500/year into a tax-free HSA, and pay for my medical care out of that.  My employer pays another $3000 or so for a catastrophic health care plan that covers 85% of everything over $2500, 100% of everything once I am $2000 out of pocket in a year, and pays for a lot of preventive care as well; I don't pay for my two physical exams per year, though I pay the lab bills for any tests.

Anything I don't spend out of the HSA stays there, available for use in other years.  The only real downside is that I pay about $125 a year in administrative fees to the bank that runs the HSA.  That would be out-of-pocket if I maxed my HSA.

So, I do shop around a bit and get, for instance, my glasses online.  Generally, I don't spend out my HSA and so the catastrophic insurance remains just insurance.

My plan at the bank I was working at was pretty similar.

Literally a week after starting, Jake passed out at school...twice in one day. There was concern that the first time he passed out he hit his head, perhaps meaning that he had some kind of head injury. There was also concern that he had pulmonary valve stenosis at birth, and an operation to fix it (I don't even want to hazard a guess what that costs for a two week old) so there was the possibility that his passing out was a result of an issue with his pulmonary valve.

So off he goes to Strong medical center, and is seen by an stroke specialist (very unlikely but possible), a couple neurologists (in case he had a head injury), and a bevy of cardiologists (to rule out issues with his heart).

Needless to say, we ran through our $3000 out of pocket max probably before he hit the ER table.

Of course, if I was a Real Man I would not need any of that silly insurance, and would just pay for that crap out of pocket.

Of course, if we were a Real Country, like India, I could not have afforded to cardiothoracic pediatric heart surgeon he needed to save his life back when he was two weeks old, so he just would have dies, and we would not have had the later expenses!

Now I am beginning to see how the "dps plan" can save healthcare costs!!!

(He was fine, btw. Dehydrated and worn out from two-a-day volleyball practices).

[jimmy olsen]

Speaking of insurance, can anyone recommend travel health insurance? I'll be in the US from the 14th -February 7th.

[Berkut]

Muslim?

[LaCroix]

got an election edition the art of the deal as a belated christmas gift. perfect for the office 

[DGuller]

Muslim?

Who, Tim?

[MadImmortalMan]

Well, people would pay more attention to their bills and try to shop for better prices is usually the argument for that. I think it has a place, but only up to a limit per year. Once you get over a certain amount, shopping around loses it's appeal. Not much difference between a 50k bill and a 51k bill for the average person.

So you would visit/call several ER's to shop around for the best price for treatment. All the while what...while your bleeding out.

Stupidest thing I ever heard.

Any ER visit that's even a little bit serious is going to cost more than anything like that would cap. It's totally out of the range of where people would be "shopping".

[grumbler]

Any ER visit that's even a little bit serious is going to cost more than anything like that would cap. It's totally out of the range of where people would be "shopping".

And, yet, those are the places where health care is costliest.  You're not going to cut healthcare costs by much by having people "shop" for the cheapest pharmacy.

[merithyn]

Even those of us with insurance can't afford medical care. I've got a $500 deductible, which is pretty low, but then it goes to an 80/20 split up to $3500. Each for Max and me. Not something we can easily afford if something goes catastrophically wrong.

I don't blame the ACA. I blame the combination of insurance and bloated medical costs. But I don't see the representatives doing anything about either of them anytime soon, unless they have to pay for it.

I'm sure no one's shocked that I'm all for a single payer system.

[jimmy olsen]

Muslim?

Methodist.

[frunk]

I think it would make sense to take non-life threatening medical activity that 40% or more of us do off of health insurance.  I don't think we gain much pooling that risk.  Yearly doctor visits don't need to be insured, serious health problems discovered at a visit should be.