• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How satisfied are you with your health insurance provider?

How satisfied are you with your current health insurance provider?


  • Total voters
    54
Mhm. I think any chances to the current health insurance system in America should be done in small increments. The problems mentioned above didn't occur overnight, and as much as I'd like to see efforts to address them taken as soon as possible, I'm sure how succesful attempting to solve them al in one swoop would be. If pre-existing conditions were included in most healthcare plans, if there were stricter rules regarding when companies can refuse to fund necessary treatment, and if steps were taken to help the poor receive affordable coverage through either a public option or an existing insurer; I think at this point, we could call that a victory.

To be honest our insurance policies are quite comprehensive and cover a lot of things you wouldn't think they would.

That's the problem though, it's costs money to do all those things and many of them aren't cheap in the first place.
It's a clash of wants and not wanting to pay for it.
 
To be honest our insurance policies are quite comprehensive and cover a lot of things you wouldn't think they would.

That's the problem though, it's costs money to do all those things and many of them aren't cheap in the first place.
It's a clash of wants and not wanting to pay for it.

I think the problems go alot further than that. There are some real issues with our health insurance companies, and I think addressing those should be a first step.

I agree with Anima on the incremental approach. By doing too much at once, we will create new problems that need to be solved.
 
I think the problems go alot further than that. There are some real issues with our health insurance companies, and I think addressing those should be a first step.

I agree with Anima on the incremental approach. By doing too much at once, we will create new problems that need to be solved.

My problem with insurance companies is they don't function and are not modeled like any other insurance product on the market.
The prices will rise anyway no matter what you do unless you realign health insurance back to an insurance product.

The other major approach for me would be doctors quotas, state mandates and scope of practice laws. They all need to be abolished or reduced.
 
To be honest our insurance policies are quite comprehensive and cover a lot of things you wouldn't think they would.

That's the problem though, it's costs money to do all those things and many of them aren't cheap in the first place.
It's a clash of wants and not wanting to pay for it.

Mhm, I'm sure that many health insurance policies are fairly comprehensive, but many either ask one to pay a greatly increased premium to have pre-existing conditions covered, or they simply won't cover them. It's quite possible to have great insurance but be completely out of luck if one's previously in remission cancer returns, or if one suffers, for example, gangrene or other diabetic eye disease that likley won't be covered because the cause pre-exists ones current policy.

As for the cost angle, imagine what could be saved on health insurance if some of the beaurucracy could be cut out. If the money currently spent on paying medical review staff to find criteria to deny coverage for procedures, to deny coverage period, could be diverted back to actually providing care. If the money spent treating the uninsured in the Emergency Room could somehow be diverted to helping provide cost-effective insurance that would allow them to access the preventitive care and early intervention that would prevent them ending up there in the first place. I think the above could all do a great deal to reduce unnecessary costs in the US's health care system.
 
Last edited:
Mhm, I'm sure that many health insurance policies are fairly comprehensive, but many either ask one to pay a greatly increased premium to have pre-existing conditions covered, or they simply won't cover them. It's quite possible to have great insurance but be completely out of luck if one's previously in remission cancer returns, or if one suffers, for example, gangrene or other diabetic eye disease that likley won't be covered because the cause pre-exists ones current policy.

As for the cost angle, imagine what could be saved on health insurance if some of the beaurucracy could be cut out. If the money currently spent on paying medical review staff to find criteria to deny coverage for procedures, to deny coverage period, could be diverted back to actually providing care. If the money spent treating the uninsured in the Emergency Room could somehow be diverted to helping provide cost-effective insurance that would allow them to access the preventitive care and early intervention that would prevent them ending up there in the first place. I think the above could all do a great deal to reduce unnecessary costs in the US's health care system.

I agree with what you say but not in the manner you'd probably want it implemented.

Health insurance companies should get out of the business of providing preventative medicine and stick with surgical and emergency situations.
Regular preventative should be on the individual and their wallet.

If that were the case, insurance rates would be tiny compared to what they are now.
 
My provider has a wide network of physicians, many covered services, a great RX plan, very little deductible, and very low office co pays.

I'm quite fortunate as my employer also pays all of my premium. IBC doesn't even offer this specific program to companies anymore. We are locked in on it for as long as we choose to keep it.
 
Very satisfied. I choose my practitioners, have very fast access and on the two occasions I have needed hospitalisation, I chose the hospital, was in quickly and received top rate care. I am thouroughy satisfied with my day to day heath surveillance from my general practitioner, who actively screens and keeps me up to date and can quickly refer me to an appropriate specialist if need be. I'm treated in a system which consistently tops WHO league tables.

My provider? The French public system. No commercial bias - the moment "profit" is involved you can forget about altruistic health care professionals and facilities with your interests at heart as opposed to their bank balances. I happen to work in it too, and it's excellent. I also have direct experience of the British NHS, not quite as good as not as well funded, however the current lies you are being fed about that system from your media are exactly that - untruths. Socialized medicine works very well without excluding people who can't pay. The United Statesian system is over costly for poor outcomes and at the exclusion of many - all in the name of profit. The sign of a barbaric society.
 
Very satisfied. I choose my practitioners, have very fast access and on the two occasions I have needed hospitalisation, I chose the hospital, was in quickly and received top rate care. I am thouroughy satisfied with my day to day heath surveillance from my general practitioner, who actively screens and keeps me up to date and can quickly refer me to an appropriate specialist if need be. I'm treated in a system which consistently tops WHO league tables.

My provider? The French public system. No commercial bias - the moment "profit" is involved you can forget about altruistic health care professionals and facilities with your interests at heart as opposed to their bank balances. I happen to work in it too, and it's excellent. I also have direct experience of the British NHS, not quite as good as not as well funded, however the current lies you are being fed about that system from your media are exactly that - untruths. Socialized medicine works very well without excluding people who can't pay. The United Statesian system is over costly for poor outcomes and at the exclusion of many - all in the name of profit. The sign of a barbaric society.
We're barbarians now that we don't have socialized medicine? Nice.

No wonder people think the French are assholes ...
 
We're barbarians now that we don't have socialized medicine? Nice.

No wonder people think the French are assholes ...

I said your society was barbaric, not United Statesian individuals. I am commenting on your system, whereas your insult shows you are a xenophobe. I am not even French, I just happen to live here. You jump to conclusions too readily. Do try harder.
 
Very satisfied. I choose my practitioners, have very fast access and on the two occasions I have needed hospitalisation, I chose the hospital, was in quickly and received top rate care. I am thouroughy satisfied with my day to day heath surveillance from my general practitioner, who actively screens and keeps me up to date and can quickly refer me to an appropriate specialist if need be. I'm treated in a system which consistently tops WHO league tables.

My provider? The French public system. No commercial bias - the moment "profit" is involved you can forget about altruistic health care professionals and facilities with your interests at heart as opposed to their bank balances. I happen to work in it too, and it's excellent. I also have direct experience of the British NHS, not quite as good as not as well funded, however the current lies you are being fed about that system from your media are exactly that - untruths. Socialized medicine works very well without excluding people who can't pay. The United Statesian system is over costly for poor outcomes and at the exclusion of many - all in the name of profit. The sign of a barbaric society.

I was actually going to thank your post, until you decided to be a complete dick in the last sentence.
 
I said your society was barbaric, not United Statesian individuals. I am commenting on your system, whereas your insult shows you are a xenophobe. I am not even French, I just happen to live here. You jump to conclusions too readily. Do try harder.
Yeah, I'm a xenophobe. Run with that one, spanky.
 
The United Statesian system is over costly for poor outcomes and at the exclusion of many - all in the name of profit. The sign of a barbaric society.

Really? Because I see a penchant to taking to the streets in protest to avoid an honest day's work to be a sign of a barbaric society. :shrug:
 
In free countries we have a right to strike. Check out French pruductivity rates before you comment.
 
It doesn't matter how many times you bring up charity either. It doesn't change the fact that people show up at emergency rooms without insurance, and the emergency rooms are legally obligated to give them life saving treatment. That is the reality you are unwilling to accept because it would result in, God Forbid, you for once in your life on here having to say, well yeah, that's true.
Your continued restatement of your position does nothing to support it, or cournter the argument against it. That's reality.

Well see that is the problem, the law disagrees with you there. The law states that if I am dropped in front of you bleeding to death, I have a right to your assistance if you have the ability to give it, and if you ignore that right, you can and will be prosecuted
No... this is a privilege you have, because the law gives it to you.
Take the law away, and you no longer enjoy that privilege.
Thus, it is a pirvilege, not a right.

Thus, the difference between rights and privileges, and how -your- position doesnt touch upon the reality of the situation.
 
http://crr.bc.edu/images/stories/Briefs/ib_21.pdf?phpMyAdmin=43ac483c4de9t51d9eb41


I was just checking out a report from the Center of Retirement Research at Boston University.

I was specifically checking it to see if America's habbits (especially obesiety) have an effect on the life exspectancy (of the elderly in this report) instead of our healthcare system.

However... when it was comparing many factors to see if they statistically could predict the life exspectancy of the elderly.

Interestingly, it said that obesiety was "not statisticaly significant" in that developed nations with higher obesiety rates didn't really have different life exspectancy for the elderly with everything else kept constant. However, that can be because the current elderly were less likely to be obese when they were younger as people today.


But if anything, the GDP per capita of the lower 40 percentile of income earners seems to a very important statistic. America simply has less wealth for the poorer individuals, so it is harder for them to get a higher standard of living, which reduces life exspectancy.


People should check this out, even if it relates to factors effecting the elderly, instead of everyone.
 
America's most troubling issue will not be the increased cost burden of the uninsured, but the increased cost of dealing with obesity. People can freak out about insurance, higher taxes, etc..., but unless we have a serious revision in our personal health decisions, no "health system" will be able to afford the costs.

Spillover via preexisting conditions is a problem. Tobacco use is a problem. Wealth gaps that lead to under insured/un insured is a problem. But nothing can trump the singing fat lady. I was just in Paris, and was utterly amazed when i returned to O'Hare airport; there were more obese people in the lines at McDonald's than i had seen in my entire trip (10 days).
 
I was actually going to thank your post, until you decided to be a complete dick in the last sentence.

Being a 'complete dick' is a great description of the liberal mindset. They fancy themselves as the smart set, yet then casually spit out inanities such as the U.S. is a 'barbaric' society and that profit motive destroys health care.

I suppose that in the civilized French and British socialized systems there is no accounting done, no financial books kept, no regard for the euro whatsoever.

:rofl
 
Being a 'complete dick' is a great description of the liberal mindset. They fancy themselves as the smart set, yet then casually spit out inanities such as the U.S. is a 'barbaric' society and that profit motive destroys health care.

So, if it's not the profit motive that's made our health care system impossible for lower-income/unemployed/underemployed people to afford, what is it?

Before you answer, consider this:

To give a clearer picture of which healthcare firms are earning the most, Newman has compiled some data from Capital IQ, a division of Standard & Poor’s, showing net profit margins over the past 12 months for a number of well-known companies.

“The following list includes the three largest firms in each of five different sectors: biotechnology, drug manufacturers, healthcare plans, healthcare services, and medical equipment. Some of these numbers are sure to be off-putting to Americans who are making sacrifices to pay for healthcare or can't afford it at all.”

• Amgen (biotechnology): Profit margin, 30.6 percent
• Gilead Sciences (biotechnology): 37.6 percent
• Celgene Corp. (biotechnology): 11.9 percent
• Johnson & Johnson (drug manufacturer): 20.8 percent
• Pfizer (drug manufacturer): 16.3 percent
• GlaxoSmithKline (drug manufacturer): 17.4 percent
• Unitedhealth Group (healthcare plans): 4.1 percent
• WellPoint (healthcare plans): 4 percent
• Aetna (healthcare plans): 3.9 percent
• MedcoHealth Solutions (healthcare services): 2.1 percent
• Express Scripts (healthcare services): 3.7 percent
• Quest Diagnostics (healthcare services): 8.7 percent
• Medtronic (medical equipment): 14.9 percent
• Baxter International (medical equipment): 17.5 percent
• Covidien (medical equipment): 12.3 percent

Sources: Morningstar; Capital IQ . --The Century Foundation
 
So, if it's not the profit motive that's made our health care system impossible for lower-income/unemployed/underemployed people to afford, what is it?

Before you answer, consider this:

I would argue that the litigious nature of our society with malpractice claims drives up cost more than anything else.
 
I would argue that the litigious nature of our society with malpractice claims drives up cost more than anything else.
As well as the pervasive nature of the third-party payer system, that insulates the consumer from the true costs of the goods and services he receives.
 
In March Blue Cross charged me $433 for my monthly $5,000 deductible PPO w/co-pays for drugs and office visits and each doctor's office still had to fight for approval of prescribed services.

In April as a 65-yr-old I rec'd my first ever government assistance via Medicare and now I wonder how anyone can oppose "medicare for all" as the answer to US health insurance reform? How does one become so selfish and dispassionate object to free health care for everyone?
 
How does one become so selfish and dispassionate object to free health care for everyone?
It's free! Nobody will ever have to pay for anything! Doctors, hospitals and clinics will just be donating their services! Woo hoo!

:doh
 
In April as a 65-yr-old I rec'd my first ever government assistance via Medicare and now I wonder how anyone can oppose "medicare for all" as the answer to US health insurance reform? How does one become so selfish and dispassionate object to free health care for everyone?
Aside form the obvious fact that its not "free'...

Its quite simple -- the opposition to public health care programs stems from the tenets that:

-People are responsible for themselves;
-You have a right to be compensated for the good and services you provide;
-Having a right to health care does not equate to the right to having others provid eyou the means to exercise your right to health care.

Which of those tenets do you disagree with, and why?
 
Back
Top Bottom