Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register
  • We just completed a significant update, but we still have some fixes and adjustments to make, so please bear with us for the time being. Cheers!

Public vs. Private institution discussion

bkp_duke

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2016
5,011
15,978
San Diego, CA
?????? Yeah...... because they're not COVERED by Medicare/Medicaid....

EVERY WORKER ~150M pays into Medicare/Medicaid... only ~70M are covered.

I have several employees that are of Medicare age, but they chose to stay on the company insurance because their coverage was better, and their "gap insurance (you should google this, b/c Medicare coverage stinks)" was more than any premium they would have to pay.


I stand by my fundamental difference with you: good private insurance kicks the [email protected]#$ out of Gov insurance any day, and it can be done at reasonable price (same or better than Medicare).
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: neroden

nwdiver

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2013
7,551
9,636
United States
I stand by my fundamental difference with you: good private insurance kicks the [email protected]#$ out of Gov insurance any day, and it can be done at reasonable price (same or better than Medicare).

The reasonable price has never materialized....

Never disagreed private is better... just like a Tesla is WAY better than a LEAF... but not everyone can afford a Tesla :(

My private health insurance in NM was $600/mo... that's absurd. Teachers make $2k/mo... should they pay ~25% of their income on the off-chance they get sick?
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden

bkp_duke

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2016
5,011
15,978
San Diego, CA
We spend more on healthcare per capita than any other nation and achieve worse results. It's how the system is funded that's the biggest problem not the level of funding. Any country you move to is going to have universal health care unless you intend on relocating to a capitalist paradise like Somalia.

No, it's NOT how the system is funded. It's because the 3rd party payer system is NOT a free market. That is the underlying efficiency: there is ZERO cost transparency in healthcare.

I pose this question:
If you need an MRI, and have private insurance, go to 5 different hospitals and MRI centers and try to "price shop". It's not possible. The FIRST and ONLY question they will ask you is "what is your insurance?" There is minimal competition built into the system, and therefore minimal incentive to make it more efficient.

If you made pricing transparent, then I guarantee you that there would be competition. How you do that? I'm not sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jbcarioca

bkp_duke

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2016
5,011
15,978
San Diego, CA
Never disagreed there... just like a Tesla is WAY better than a LEAF... but not everyone can afford a Tesla :(

My private health insurance in NM was $600/mo... that's absurd. Teachers make $2k/mo... should they pay ~25% of their income on the off-chance they get sick?

Then you didn't have someone that negotiated well for your "group" plan. I pay far less than that, and I cover all my employees in multiple states. It's possible, but you have to know how to navigate the system (and competition among insurance co's is critical - if there is only ONE insurance company, you are screwed).
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: neroden

nwdiver

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2013
7,551
9,636
United States
Then you didn't have someone that negotiated well for your "group" plan. I pay far less than that, and I cover all my employees in multiple states. It's possible, but you have to know how to navigate the system (and competition among insurance co's is critical - if there is only ONE insurance company, you are screwed).

Sorry... I'm gonna have to believe my own 'lying eyes' I've shopped around. The low cost insurance I've found costs ~$80/mo but has a $5k deductible and a $100k lifetime cap... be better off paying out of pocket. Know of a better plan? Post a link.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden

bkp_duke

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2016
5,011
15,978
San Diego, CA
Sorry... I'm gonna have to believe my own 'lying eyes' I've shopped around. The low cost insurance I've found costs ~$80/mo but has a $5k deductible and a $100k lifetime cap... be better off paying out of pocket. Know of a better plan? Post a link.

You miss my point. You can shop around till the cows come home, but if there is only ONE insurance company servicing your area, they can set the rates as they see fit.

My employees have a $250 deductible for their BCBS plan, and I pay less than $400 per person per month for that (and I cover that premium, not the employees). When we didn't have Unum in the area to compete, the costs were twice that per employee.

Econ 101, competition breeds price efficiency.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: neroden

nwdiver

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2013
7,551
9,636
United States
$400 per person per month for that

That's still ridiculous....

If competition drives down healthcare costs why does the country with the most competition in healthcare have the highest costs?

0006_health-care-oecd-full.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden

deonb

Active Member
Mar 4, 2013
4,057
4,208
Redmond, WA
That's still ridiculous....

If competition drives down healthcare costs why does the country with the most competition in healthcare have the highest costs?

Part of that is we pay for the rest of the world's research.

For the record: I'm all for single payer - would even like progressive taxation for healthcare. BUT we still have to deal with the fact that we pay for the world's research. So it will always be more expensive here, no matter what.

Oh well, it's still in my interest that the people I export my own products to are, you know, not dead.
 

nwdiver

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2013
7,551
9,636
United States

cpa

Active Member
May 17, 2014
3,020
3,740
Central Valley
Let's get a little clarity on Medicare and Medicaid (MediCal in California):

Medicare premiums are funded in two ways: Part A (hospital inpatient) is paid through payroll withholding of 1.45% of your gross pay. The employer matches that contribution. Self-employed sorts pay the combined rate of 2.9% on their net self-employment earnings. There is no annual cap. Retirees have a paid-up Part A health insurance policy when they quit working and have attained age 65. Of course if they continue to work, they continue to make those premium strokes.

Part B is outpatient services. Those premiums start at age 65, and they are paid monthly, either through direct payments or as a deduction from your monthly Social Security check. Then there is gap insurance and prescription drug insurance. Those premiums are additional.

Medicaid is not health insurance per se. It is welfare, plain and simple. The indigent and working poor must meet income guidelines and become eligible for Medicaid. The payments to medical providers come from tax dollars under agreements between the fifty states and the federal government. While the states administer the eligibility and claims, much of the money comes from Washington. No one makes a premium payment for Medicaid.
 

cpa

Active Member
May 17, 2014
3,020
3,740
Central Valley
I am going to spitball here. There is more to our health care system in the USA than is being addressed here. I am old enough to remember how things were before the Great Society Program that established Medicare and Medicaid. Doctor visits and prescription drugs were generally affordable for most people. My pediatrician visits were $7.50 in 1963 in Los Angeles. An injection was another buck. (After my dad died four years ago we looked through some of his budget records from the early 60s, and these were listed.)

Medicare came along, and suddenly intermediaries were processing claims that were paid from government funds. It took decades for the government and intermediaries to figure out how much to pay for each type of service. Part A inpatient was reimbursed under a cost reporting method, where all overhead was stepped down to the various revenue centers for hospitals. I won't even mention how the physical therapists gouged the system--lawfully by exploiting loopholes.

As the years passed, the medical industry standardized treatment and diagnosis codes that were available to insurance companies. The rates of reimbursement by Medicare were published and well-known. Is it any surprise that many payments allowed by the insurance companies are nearly identical to what is allowable by Medicare? Compare EOBs for the same physician for the same treatment for the same diagnosis and you will be amazed!

Advances in technology. Decades ago, there were no MRIs, no CRTs, no Lasik surgery--the list goes on and on. This equipment and the labor needed to operate it are expensive. People live longer thereby incurring more health care needs as they age.

Finally, there is a huge supply-and-demand issue. Our population has exploded, while the number of medical providers has not kept pace. I wonder if we had five times the number of qualified medical providers if our costs of health care and insurance premiums would be the same as they are, or if they would be less.

This area is quite complex--certainly beyond me.
 

neroden

Model S Owner and Frustrated Tesla Fan
Apr 25, 2011
14,676
62,627
Ithaca, NY, USA
I guarantee you that if the Gov becomes the payer, they will want to become the provider as well. It's a natural evolutionary step for "cost cutting".

And Medicare is NOT cheaper than private insurance.
Yes, Medicare is cheaper. This isn't in dispute among anyone who has looked at the statistics.

There's far more private insurance fraud than Medicare fraud, too.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

Would you like to know why privately funded health care doesn't work? Look up Kenneth Arrow's 1963 paper, "Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Health Care". It's definitive.

Why did health care "function" without insurance companies or government support in the "old days"? Well, embarassingly, it's because there was not much health care. Doctors didn't know how to do much and were bad at most of what they did. This was true in spades in the 19th century but remained true for decades after. The rule of thumb in my dad's era (the 1930s!!!) was -- if you got sick, stay away from hospitals! Hospitals were places where people died. If health care doesn't actually work at all, you might as well leave it private...
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: bkp_duke

neroden

Model S Owner and Frustrated Tesla Fan
Apr 25, 2011
14,676
62,627
Ithaca, NY, USA
I'd argue that email has had more to do with the downfall of the USPS than their retirement plan. Times change; the primary function of the post office is effectively obsolete.
Amazon disagrees. Package delivery has boomed recently. And there are a lot of places UPS and FedEx won't deliver. So Amazon is paying the USPS to deliver MORE often...


Many Conservatives I've spoken to don't mind a government institution that has mostly outlived its usefulness because it's existence is written in the Constitution. ~200 years ago healthcare was more likely to kill you than heal you.
This is why it wasn't a public service. This was still true 100 years ago actually.

It's a safe bet that if the founders thought 'post offices and post roads' were critical enough to be written into the constitution they would have thought the same of modern healthcare.
"Promote the general welfare". Yep.
 

neroden

Model S Owner and Frustrated Tesla Fan
Apr 25, 2011
14,676
62,627
Ithaca, NY, USA
The problem here is that the law REQUIRES the USPS to be profitable, or at least strive to run itself in such a manner. It is more of a GSE (Government Sponsored Entity) than an actual branch of the government.

Ironically, it's all those piss-poor pension plans on the USPS books that keeps it from being profitable. If the USPS had transitioned to a 401k-based system 20 years ago like private businesses did, we would actually have LOWER postal rates, better service, and a profitable postal system.

Uh, again you've been listening to porkie-pies. Remember: when Republican politicians speak, they are lying.

The Republicans in Congress required the USPS to prefund their pension plan 60 years in the future for employees who aren't even born yet. This is a bizarre, irrational requirement which was done specifically to hamstring the USPS.

There's nothing wrong with the PROFITABLE pension plan that removing the idiotic 60-year-ahead funding plan wouldn't fix.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: bkp_duke

neroden

Model S Owner and Frustrated Tesla Fan
Apr 25, 2011
14,676
62,627
Ithaca, NY, USA
No, it's NOT how the system is funded. It's because the 3rd party payer system is NOT a free market. That is the underlying efficiency: there is ZERO cost transparency in healthcare.

I pose this question:
If you need an MRI, and have private insurance, go to 5 different hospitals and MRI centers and try to "price shop". It's not possible. The FIRST and ONLY question they will ask you is "what is your insurance?" There is minimal competition built into the system, and therefore minimal incentive to make it more efficient.

If you made pricing transparent, then I guarantee you that there would be competition. How you do that? I'm not sure.

National Health Service (like in the UK) does the trick. Single-payer (like in Canada) does the trick. Pretty much nothing else does, and yes, everything else has been tried.
 

neroden

Model S Owner and Frustrated Tesla Fan
Apr 25, 2011
14,676
62,627
Ithaca, NY, USA
If single-payer is so great, then why did the Swiss hate it so much they rejected it soundly?

Switzerland rejects single-payer in landslide, keeps its version of Obamacare
Because Switzerland has a system where profitable health insurance companies have their profits confiscated and transferred to unprofitable health insurance companies. Plus they're all required to offer identical policies. So they get a very low fixed government-specified rate of return, and compete on "concierge service" quality.

It works OK, though it's much more expensive than single-payer due to the vast unnecessary paperwork overhead. In terms of the financial profile for the companies, it already is single-payer, with competition only over how obsequeious the receptionists are.

Do you think there is a chance in HELL of passing that here in the US? Because I don't think there's a chance in hell of passing a policy which routinely confiscates excess profits from every insurance company which made money and gives them to those which lost money.
 
Last edited:

neroden

Model S Owner and Frustrated Tesla Fan
Apr 25, 2011
14,676
62,627
Ithaca, NY, USA
Finally, there is a huge supply-and-demand issue. Our population has exploded, while the number of medical providers has not kept pace. I wonder if we had five times the number of qualified medical providers if our costs of health care and insurance premiums would be the same as they are, or if they would be less.

Med school is too expensive in the US, and student loans create a problem.

Almost all foreign countries subsidize any competent (i.e. able to get admitted) person going to med school. We don't. It's another problem.
 

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top