Single Payer Universal Health Care



Wes Groleau <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Jonathan Smith wrote:
> > The system works well BECAUSE it is NOT single payer. In
> > the US, the poor are not excluded. The unemployed are
> > not excluded either - there is COBRA.
>
> COBRA ?!? Yes, when I was laid off, I was offered the
> chance to maintain substantially the same coverage for
> about thirteen hundred dollars a month.

OK - so in another thread it was $1000, now its $1300.

Liar.

> What an offer! For a little bit less than the income I
> _no_longer_have_ I can keep a plan that pays 80% of my
> medical bills. And I get to keep it for eighteen months.
> (Meaning that IF I had been able to afford it, it would be
> ending two months from now.)

If you want to make an argument, use real information - dont
do a Denise and make stuff up as you go along.

js
 
Jonathan Smith wrote:
>
> Not if I can help it. I'll share risk and that is about as
> far as it goes.
>
> Depends on the pool, then, doesn't it. I'm all for
> discounts for clean living - and penalties for not so
> clean living.

Since you picked nits on "single payer", I'll pick nits on
"insurance". In insurance, the insuror buys the risk.
Lloyd's insures a ship and keeps the entire premium if the
ship does not sink, loses big if it does.

Virtually all health plans are pools for prepaid health
care, not insurance. The plan makes money from
administration of the plan, not from assuming any risk.

When Medicare began paying HMOs a regional average premium
for 'are beneficiaries, the first game played was to skim
the low experience patients, leaving the high experience
patients in Part A. Selective enrollment.

The national health schemes create a single pool, and the
premium is the average cost of care for the 280 million pool
members. Half over-pay, half under-pay. That's considered
fair because it is assumed that as you age you will migrate
from the over-payers to the under-payers.

Your proposal, for competitive free market plans, would give
rise to small pools offering very low premiums for fitness
buffs, and pricing older diabetics out of the market.

Is the choice then to force unemployed sick folks to pay
enormous premiums with funds they don't have, or let them go
without coverage?

Or do you not see selective enrollment as a problem?

> Major Medical part A - employer mandated.

Is it your idea that employers will pay for coverage for all
citizens, or just employed citizens?

If all, to whom would the funds go and how would they be
distributed to the plans?
 
"Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> mike gray <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<3b3tc.71647$hH.1286087@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > Jonathan Smith wrote:
> >
> > > You want me to buy your health care insurance for you?
> > > No, I don't think so.
> >
> > Actually, that would be very kind and generous of you.
>
> Not if I can help it. I'll share risk and that is about as
> far as it goes.
>
> > > I would support incentives for you to pyurchase
> > > insurance, I would support a group buying pool
> > > arrangement for self employeds, and I would support
> > > minimalist coverage (catastrophic inpatient, for
> > > example).
> >
> > But even in a pool (which any insurance is) the young,
> > healthy, clean living Democrats that work as personal
> > trainers will transfer their income to old, rum-
> > swilling, diabetic, genetically inferior Republicans
> > that work as roofers.
>
> Depends on the pool, then, doesn't it. I'm all for
> discounts for clean living - and penalties for not so
> clean living.
>

Clean living? No one lives clean according to current
fads. Everyone is PRE-something. You cannot get a grant
for current diseases anymore, so the system now calls
everyone PRE-diabetic, PRE-hypertensive and so forth and
so on. Next we will not have life, only PRE-death.
 
mike gray <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Jonathan Smith wrote:
> >
> > Not if I can help it. I'll share risk and that is about
> > as far as it goes.
> >
> > Depends on the pool, then, doesn't it. I'm all for
> > discounts for clean living - and penalties for not so
> > clean living.
>
> Since you picked nits on "single payer", I'll pick nits on
> "insurance". In insurance, the insuror buys the risk.

The insurer is paid to assume the individuals
financial risk.

> Lloyd's insures a ship and keeps the entire premium if the
> ship does not sink, loses big if it does.

Lloyds insures hundreds of ships of which, statistically,
one or more will sink. It loses when the number of sinking
ships exceeds the amount of premium collected. Lloyds makes
money on the float, not on the premiums.

> Virtually all health plans are pools for prepaid health
> care, not insurance.

Blue Cross - the classic inpatient indemnity program - is an
insurance program.

> The plan makes money from administration of the plan, not
> from assuming any risk.

Huh? Insurers spread the individual risk across a large
pool. They are at risk if their actuaries are wrong. They
are like the house in Vegas, not the guy playing blackjack.
Insurers don't play to beat the odds - they calculate the
odds and price accordingly with a margin and get to play
the float.

> When Medicare began paying HMOs a regional average premium
> for 'are beneficiaries, the first game played was to skim
> the low experience patients, leaving the high experience
> patients in Part A. Selective enrollment.

Cherry picking is something we all do. When New York Strips
are on sale at Kroger, I go there and buy them even though I
don't usually shop there. You?

Medicare is a classic example of what should NOT be done
with health care.

> The national health schemes create a single pool, and the
> premium is the average cost of care for the 280 million
> pool members. Half over-pay, half under-pay. That's
> considered fair because it is assumed that as you age you
> will migrate from the over-payers to the under-payers.

Not when they are tax-based funded. The rich over pay and
the poor under pay irrespective of age.

> Your proposal, for competitive free market plans,
> would give rise to small pools offering very low
> premiums for fitness buffs, and pricing older
> diabetics out of the market.

Not if they are employer based. How do you think 163 million
are insured today?

> Is the choice then to force unemployed sick folks to pay
> enormous premiums with funds they don't have, or let them
> go without coverage?

Because they didn't start out as unemployed sick folks. They
start out as employed well folks. They became sick - and
that's why they bought insurance - because if they became
sick they would be protected from financial risk. That's why
premiums were paid. In every pool there will be a group of
healthies, a group of sicks, and a group that is becoming
sick or getting healthy.

> Or do you not see selective enrollment as a problem?

No - I don't. Imagine GM with 80,000 employees plus another
100,000 dependents. Some of those folks will have diabetes,
some will not. Some will get diabetes, others will get islet
cell transplants and no longer have diabetes.

> > Major Medical part A - employer mandated.
>
> Is it your idea that employers will pay for coverage for
> all citizens, or just employed citizens?

Employees and their dependents plus retirees.

> If all, to whom would the funds go and how would they be
> distributed to the plans?

Funds go to plans. It works just fine today. The only
difference is
- employers don't have the option and employees must
be covered.

The gap is in the unemployed - but that is an issue that can
be managed JUST like unemployment insurance. Use a payroll
tax to fund it and a third party to manage it.

There is no need to reconstruct the entire
medical/financial system to ensure health converage to the
folks currently not covered.

js
 
Jonathan Smith wrote:
> OK - so in another thread it was $1000, now its $1300.
>
> Liar.

Mack said his was $1500. I said mine was over $1000.

Do you get a kick out of arguing with liars? Or do you just
enjoy using the word?

--
Wes Groleau

He that is good for making excuses, is seldom good for
anything else. -- Benjamin Franklin
 
"Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in
message >
> > COBRA ?!? Yes, when I was laid off, I was offered the
> > chance to maintain substantially the same coverage for
> > about thirteen hundred dollars a month.
>

My wife's is $359.00 a month with Conneticut and it includes
everything.

> Liar.
>
> > What an offer! For a little bit less than the income I
> > _no_longer_have_ I can keep a plan that pays 80% of my
> > medical bills. And I get to keep it for eighteen months.
> > (Meaning that IF I had been able to afford it, it would
> > be ending two months from now.)
>
> If you want to make an argument, use real information -
> dont do a Denise and make stuff up as you go along.
>
> js
 
"Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Wes Groleau <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Jonathan Smith wrote:
> > > The system works well BECAUSE it is NOT single payer.
> > > In the US, the poor are not excluded. The unemployed
> > > are not excluded either - there is COBRA.
> >
> > COBRA ?!? Yes, when I was laid off, I was offered the
> > chance to maintain substantially the same coverage for
> > about thirteen hundred dollars a month.
>
> OK - so in another thread it was $1000, now its $1300.
>
> Liar.
>
> > What an offer! For a little bit less than the income I
> > _no_longer_have_ I can keep a plan that pays 80% of my
> > medical bills. And I get to keep it for eighteen months.
> > (Meaning that IF I had been able to afford it, it would
> > be ending two months from now.)
>
> If you want to make an argument, use real information -
> dont do a Denise and make stuff up as you go along.
>
> js

It does not matter if it $1,000 more or less. The amount
per person in the USA is about $5,000 a year.
 
"mike gray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jonathan Smith wrote:
> >
> > Not if I can help it. I'll share risk and that is about
> > as far as it goes.
> >
> > Depends on the pool, then, doesn't it. I'm all for
> > discounts for clean living - and penalties for not so
> > clean living.
>
> Since you picked nits on "single payer", I'll pick nits on
> "insurance". In insurance, the insuror buys the risk.
> Lloyd's insures a ship and keeps the entire premium if the
> ship does not sink, loses big if it does.
>
> Virtually all health plans are pools for prepaid health
> care, not insurance. The plan makes money from
> administration of the plan, not from assuming any risk.

This is a very stupid comment. Private plans do
everything possible to shed risk. Then, after loading up
on people they think risk free, they wait a few years
until some claims come in. Then they offer everyone with
no claims a NEW policy and leave all those with claims in
the old, and raise their rates until they have to drop
out. That kind of behavior shows extreme risk aversion.

Don't you think it time to start posting something
closer to truth?
 
Wes Groleau <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Jonathan Smith wrote:
> > OK - so in another thread it was $1000, now its $1300.
> >
> > Liar.
>
> Mack said his was $1500. I said mine was over $1000.
>
> Do you get a kick out of arguing with liars?

You post it and I'll point it out.

> Or do you just enjoy using the word?

If the shoe fits.

js
 
On 27 May 2004 06:38:31 -0700, [email protected] (Jonathan
Smith) wrote:

>Wes Groleau <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> Jonathan Smith wrote:
>> > The system works well BECAUSE it is NOT single payer.
>> > In the US, the poor are not excluded. The unemployed
>> > are not excluded either - there is COBRA.
>>
>> COBRA ?!? Yes, when I was laid off, I was offered the
>> chance to maintain substantially the same coverage for
>> about thirteen hundred dollars a month.
>
>OK - so in another thread it was $1000, now its $1300.
>
>Liar.
Worse, COBRA doesn't apply small employee groups, I don't
remember what the cutoff is, but it is bigger than most
small businesses. If you work for GE, you can get COBRA
Coverage, if you work for the gas station around the corner,
you cannot.
 
Jonathan Smith wrote:

> The insurer is paid to assume the individuals
> financial risk.

That's almost right.

> Lloyds insures hundreds of ships of which, statistically,
> one or more will sink. It loses when the number of sinking
> ships exceeds the amount of premium collected. Lloyds
> makes money on the float, not on the premiums.

No. Lloyd's forms a syndicate for each individual policy.
When the ship sinks, the syndicate pays.

> Blue Cross - the classic inpatient indemnity program - is
> an insurance program.

No. None of the assets of Blue Cross are at risk. By
charter. Blue cross uses actuarial estimates of payouts,
and sets its premiums to cover those payouts, plus
administration. Blue Cross does buy insurance, however, to
cover excess payments from, eg, a flu epidemic. Lloyds
forms syndicates to purchase that risk. Ditto virtually all
health plans.

> Huh? Insurers spread the individual risk across a
> large pool.

No. Insurors buy the risk of specific individual events, the
risk that the WTC will fall down, or yer house will burn
down, or you'll wreck yer car. It is common for small
individual events to be insured with a common contract, but
every contract specifies a specific limit for a specific
eventuality.

Health plans spread the variance in individual experience
across the actuarial projections. There is no limit on a
health plan's exposure to an individual contract.

They
> are at risk if their actuaries are wrong. They are like
> the house in Vegas, not the guy playing blackjack.
> Insurers don't play to beat the odds - they calculate the
> odds and price accordingly with a margin and get to play
> the float.

Insurors calculate the odds of a specific, predetermined
payout. Health plans calculate the payout, and divide that
amount by the number of participants.

>> When Medicare began paying HMOs a regional average
>> premium for 'are beneficiaries, the first game played was
>> to skim the low experience patients, leaving the high
>> experience patients in Part A. Selective enrollment.

> Cherry picking is something we all do. When New York
> Strips are on sale at Kroger, I go there and buy them even
> though I don't usually shop there. You?

Not a very good analogy.

> Medicare is a classic example of what should NOT be done
> with health care.

Yer the one promoting Part A for all. Is that not Medicare?

>> The national health schemes create a single pool, and the
>> premium is the average cost of care for the 280 million
>> pool members. Half over-pay, half under-pay. That's
>> considered fair because it is assumed that as you age you
>> will migrate from the over-payers to the under-payers.
>
> Not when they are tax-based funded. The rich over pay and
> the poor under pay irrespective of age.

Yer the one promoting taking the cost from employers. Is
that not a tax?

>> Your proposal, for competitive free market plans, would
>> give rise to small pools offering very low premiums for
>> fitness buffs, and pricing older diabetics out of the
>> market.
>
> Not if they are employer based. How do you think 163
> million are insured today?

And what does "employer-based" mean?

>> Is the choice then to force unemployed sick folks to pay
>> enormous premiums with funds they don't have, or let them
>> go without coverage?
>
> Because they didn't start out as unemployed sick folks.
> They start out as employed well folks. They became sick -
> and that's why they bought insurance - because if they
> became sick they would be protected from financial risk.
> That's why premiums were paid. In every pool there will be
> a group of healthies, a group of sicks, and a group that
> is becoming sick or getting healthy.
>
>> Or do you not see selective enrollment as a problem?
>
> No - I don't. Imagine GM with 80,000 employees plus
> another 100,000 dependents. Some of those folks will have
> diabetes, some will not. Some will get diabetes, others
> will get islet cell transplants and no longer have
> diabetes.

Imagine Joes Lawn Service with 3 employees plus another 5
dependents. All their assets combined couldn't get them an
appointment with a transplant surgeon.
>
>> > Major Medical part A - employer mandated.
>>
>> Is it your idea that employers will pay for coverage for
>> all citizens, or just employed citizens?
>
> Employees and their dependents plus retirees.

But that's already largely the case. Send the rest to
the ovens?

>> If all, to whom would the funds go and how would they be
>> distributed to the plans?
>
> Funds go to plans. It works just fine today. The only
> difference is
> - employers don't have the option and employees must be
> covered.
>
> The gap is in the unemployed - but that is an issue that
> can be managed JUST like unemployment insurance. Use a
> payroll tax to fund it and a third party to manage it.

Tax???? Gov't?????
>
> There is no need to reconstruct the entire
> medical/financial system to ensure health converage to the
> folks currently not covered.

But all yer talking about IS the folks currently covered.
 
Alan Mackenzie <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Jonathan Smith <[email protected]> wrote on 26 May
> 2004 07:07:02 -0700:
> > Alan Mackenzie <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> Jonathan Smith <[email protected]> wrote on 25
> >> May 2004
> >> 13:26:16 -0700:
> >> > Alan Mackenzie <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> >> Jonathan Smith <[email protected]> wrote on
> >> >> 24 May 2004
> >> >> 19:24:20 -0700:
> >> >> > [email protected] wrote in message news:<iessc.-
> >> >> > [email protected]>...
> >> >> >> In alt.cancer.support Evelyn Ruut <mama-
> >> >> >> [email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >> > Make a single payer universal health care
> >> >> >> > system and all the prices will go down.
>
> >> >> >> There is NO free lunch. Name a 'single payer'
> >> >> >> system that doesn't have shortages and long
> >> >> >> delays for complex treatments such as surgery,
> >> >> >> etc.
>
> >> >> > I'd even be impressed if she could name one where
> >> >> > there isn't a waiting list for simple things like
> >> >> > diagnostic xrays and specialist referrals.
>
> >> >> Funny, that. Last Monday (8 days ago), I fell off my
> >> >> bike and landed heavily on my ribs. Last Tuesday, on
> >> >> waking up, the pain was still significantly above
> >> >> what wasn't worrying, so I visited my Doc. He said,
> >> >> better get those ribs (and left-hand middle finger)
> >> >> X-rayed. I was back in that Doc's surgery little
> >> >> more than an hour later, carrying an enveloppe with
> >> >> the requisite X-rays. Luckily, nothing was broken.
>
> >> What does "single payer system" mean?
>
> > One payer - typically the central government - for all
> > medical services.
>
> OK.
>
> >> > It is a employer mandated insurance system funded by
> >> > employer contributions through a system of private
> >> > (quasi-private) insurance carriers (Krankenkasse) and
> >> > delivered through a primarily private delivery system
> >> > on a fee for service or local budget (depending on
> >> > provider type) basis.
>
> >> >> health insurance through the "Krankenkassen" is
> >> >> compulsory for people earning less that a fairly
> >> >> high threshold (around 4,000 Euros/month). The
> >> >> premium paid depends only on one's income, and is
> >> >> around 14% of salary (with a maximum corresponding
> >> >> to that ~4,000 Euro threshold), half of it being
> >> >> paid by the employer.
>
> >> > It is an employment tax - on the employer. The 7%
> >> > metric is one of convenience for accounting. There is
> >> > an upper limit - the most you will pay is 250 Euro
> >> > per month. If your earnings are under 1000 Euro or so
> >> > a month, you get a subsidy.
>
> It's a tax on both parties.

It's a payroll tax, in that you are correct. From the level
of the employee, it has a cap which makes it a lot less
progressive and the cap is such that even at the highest
incomes, the cost is reasonable. I define reasonable as a
cost not to exceed the actual value of the benefit to the
individual.

For the corporation, it is a percentage of payroll and as
such is similarly non-progressive to the extent that
companies hire people across income ranges. The cost to the
firm are independent of the income or profits of the firm.

> >> >> The unemployed and poor are not excluded. This
> >> >> system works very well, despite the recognised
> >> >> inefficiencies and, to some extent, corruption.
>
> >> > The system works well BECAUSE it is NOT single payer.
> >> > In the US, the poor are not excluded. The unemployed
> >> > are not excluded either - there is COBRA.
>
> >> Who is/would be the "single payer" in the US?
>
> > There is a system of care financing provided to the
> > elderly called Medicare. Tis is the closest model of
> > single payer in the US.
>
> What I don't see is why it makes an enormous
> difference whether there is a single payer, or several
> parallel payers.

With several (or in your case potentially hundreds) patients
and firms have choices. It requires the insurer to be
responsive. It also gives providers choices allowing them to
maintain some freedom and flexibility regarding their
working conditions and income.

> Surely the principles governing the collecting of
> contributions and providing the services is more important
> than whether there's a single government agency, or 20
> funds in parallel (much as in Germany at the moment).

No - the principles of competition and choice are more
important than giving a select body of legislatures a huge
amount of money to play with.

> >> >> High earners may stay in the normal Krankenkassen
> >> >> insurance scheme, or they may opt for private
> >> >> insurance, or even decide to pay for treatment as
> >> >> they need it. Having opted out of the Krankenkassen,
> >> >> they may not later rejoin them, since the
> >> >> Krankenkassen operate on the basis of people
> >> >> "overpaying" when young and healthy and "being
> >> >> subsidised" later in life when no longer so healthy.
>
> >> > No, that is not exactly true.
>
> >> How not? Apart from people opting out, it is entirely
> >> true.
>
> > The premiums paid are based on income and age at
> > enrollment. It is not a medical savings account.
>
> No. If we're still talking about Germany, the
> contributions are dependent only on current income. It's
> much more like a tax than an insurance. The unemployed
> paid nothing, (or very close to nothing, I'm not sure).
> Thus young healthy people typically pay in their 14% (half
> from employer, half from themselves), yet don't use
> medical services at all (except, possibly, for their
> children). 40 years later, they'll be using masses of
> these services, yet be paying in very little in
> contributions. It works out, sort of, in the long run.

You are right - I was, incorrectly, referring to the opt out
population which you already excluded. My apologies.

> >> > However, the equilibrator is, once you go private,
> >> > your annual premium is determined by the age cohort
> >> > premium for the age at which you entered the system.
> >> > In other words, as long as there is continuity of
> >> > coverage there's no change in premium (other than for
> >> > inflation).
>
> >> >> The system has recently been "reformed" (worsened, I
> >> >> would say) in that patients now have to pay a 10
> >> >> Euro charge per quarter on visiting a doc., and have
> >> >> to pay fairly hefty prescription charges (10% of the
> >> >> cost, min. 5 Euros, max 10 Euros, but never more
> >> >> that the retail cost itself). Sadly, the government
> >> >> didn't have the resolve to tackle the inefficiencies
> >> >> and corruption in the various medical and insurance
> >> >> systems. Maybe that will come.
>
> >> > In Germany you have one of the more functional and
> >> > equitable systems of health care financing. You also
> >> > have some of the best quality care and excellent
> >> > access. You also have the same set of problems that
> >> > other systems face - you are spending a lot of money
> >> > for this and the amount you spend keeps going up.
>
> >> Very true.
>
> > And it isn't a single payer system.
>
> Again, what difference would it make if it were? The
> Krankenkassen are very tightly regulated on how they take
> contributions and what they must pay out.

American insurers are tightly regulated as well. The point
remains - there are more than one and they must compete with
each other for business.

> They're much more like government agencies than insurance
> companies. What difference do you think it would make to
> Germany if there were only one Krankenkasse?

You would have a single payer and patients and providers
would not have a choice. The UK NHS would no longer have a
place to send their overflow patients. The accessibility and
quality of care you currently receie would decline. The
amount of money spent would go up. Providers would drop out
of the system and lines would form.

> >> >> I would not swap this system for anything the USA
> >> >> currently offers, and would be very wary of moving
> >> >> there, even were I completely healthy.
>
> >> > The system you describe IS the system that 163
> >> > million Americans have.
>
> >> Is it not the case that leaving a job in the USA
> >> typically imperils one's medical insurance?
>
> > Not necessarily. In fact, it is quite rare though
> > politically it is a big to do. There is a system of
> > COBRA which provides for health care insurance
> > continuation for 18 months. Most people who switch jobs
> > do so in a much shorter period. As long as you keep up
> > with the premiums you are fully covered. Once you start
> > in your new position, you become eligible for the plan
> > there and there is a smooth transition.
>
> Hmmm. Only for 18 months? So somebody who loses his job,
> say because of injury,

No - in the case of injury, most have disability insurance,
both long and short term.

> is up sheet crick

That would be **** creek

> after 18 months? How much are COBRA contributions,
> compared with the money the injured person receives from
> the public social fund?

Short term disability is usually 70% or more of salary while
long term generally is 60%.

> >> > Private insurance with premiums funded by
> >> > contributions from employees and their employers
> >> > with comprehensive cover, nominal cost sharing, and
> >> > excellent access and outcomes.
>
> >> The essence of the system in Germany is that it is
> >> comprehensive, encompassing everybody. Also that what
> >> one pays is dependent only on one's means, not on one's
> >> health.
>
> > The positive part of the German system is not the
> > funding - however, what is good is that the top end
> > earners pay more, but not proportionately more. With a
> > cap of 3500 Euro or so of income liable to the 7% tax,
> > the costs are reasonable. In the absence of the cap, it
> > would be a draconian redistribution of wealth.
>
> Draconian? Or Utopian? ;-)

Draconian.

> >> The population of the USA is a good deal higher than
> >> 163 million, isn't it?
>
> > Yes - 40 million are elderly and are covered under
> > Medicare. Another 40 million or so have public sector
> > insurances - VA, DoD, or Medicaid. And the last 40
> > million have no health care INSURANCE. That makes 283
> > million Americans.
>
> OK, thanks!

Face it - you are fortunate in Germany to have a system
that allows universality in coverage and choice in
selecting coverage.

We, in the US, are likewise fortunate that most have
coverage and choice in coverage. What is lacking in the US
is the unversality of it and that is best solved by giving
access to the current structure, not by changing the entire
structure.

js
 
"Wes Groleau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jonathan Smith wrote:
> > OK - so in another thread it was $1000, now its $1300.
> >
> > Liar.
>
> Mack said his was $1500. I said mine was over $1000.
>
> Do you get a kick out of arguing with liars? Or do you
> just enjoy using the word?
>
>
If you post a FAct they don't like, they just call you a
liar. It is a substitute for problem solving. It is like
Pat Paulson used to say, "We all know that solutions are
not the answers to problems."
 
"Brooks Gregory" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message >
> > > COBRA ?!? Yes, when I was laid off, I was offered the
> > > chance to maintain substantially the same coverage for
> > > about thirteen hundred dollars a month.
> >
>
> My wife's is $359.00 a month with Conneticut and it
> includes everything.
>
>

For a family it would be ? The true cost is about $5,000
per person per year in the USA. And that is too low for
the boys who want to keep their earnings up.
 
George Conklin wrote:

>> Virtually all health plans are pools for prepaid health
>> care, not insurance. The plan makes money from
>> administration of the plan, not from assuming any risk.
>
> This is a very stupid comment. Private plans do
> everything possible to shed risk. Then, after loading
> up on people they think risk free, they wait a few
> years until some claims come in. Then they offer
> everyone with no claims a NEW policy and leave all
> those with claims in the old, and raise their rates
> until they have to drop out. That kind of behavior
> shows extreme risk aversion.
>
> Don't you think it time to start posting something
> closer to truth?

Let's make a deal. I'm just gonna ignore all yer posts. You
can ignore mine.
 
"matt weber" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 27 May 2004 06:38:31 -0700, [email protected]
> (Jonathan Smith) wrote:
>
> >Wes Groleau <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >> Jonathan Smith wrote:
> >> > The system works well BECAUSE it is NOT single payer.
> >> > In the US, the poor are not excluded. The unemployed
> >> > are not excluded either -
there
> >> > is COBRA.
> >>
> >> COBRA ?!? Yes, when I was laid off, I was offered the
> >> chance to maintain substantially the same coverage for
> >> about thirteen hundred dollars a month.
> >
> >OK - so in another thread it was $1000, now its $1300.
> >
> >Liar.
> Worse, COBRA doesn't apply small employee groups, I don't
> remember what the cutoff is, but it is bigger than most
> small businesses. If you work for GE, you can get COBRA
> Coverage, if you work for the gas station around the
> corner, you cannot.
>

COBRA does not allow enough time -- 18 months in
most cases.
 
"mike gray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Health plans spread the variance in individual experience
> across the actuarial projections. There is no limit on a
> health plan's exposure to an individual contract.
>

More incorrect information. Health plans have a very
specifc LIFETIME limit expressed in $$$$$$. If you get
seriously burned, for example, the average health plan
is quickly exhausted. You end up a pauper.
 
"mike gray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George Conklin wrote:
>
> >> Virtually all health plans are pools for prepaid health
> >> care, not insurance. The plan makes money from
> >> administration of the plan, not from assuming any risk.
> >
> > This is a very stupid comment. Private plans do
> > everything possible
to
> > shed risk. Then, after loading up on people they think
> > risk free, they
wait
> > a few years until some claims come in. Then they offer
> > everyone with no claims a NEW policy and leave all those
> > with claims in the old, and
raise
> > their rates until they have to drop out. That kind of
> > behavior shows extreme risk aversion.
> >
> > Don't you think it time to start posting something
> > closer to truth?
>
> Let's make a deal. I'm just gonna ignore all yer posts.
> You can ignore
mine.
>

So you can keep posting incorrect information? Insurance
companies show extreme risk aversion. That is why
private health insurance cannot deal with the nation's
health problems. They get rid of problems.
 
"mike gray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> George Conklin wrote:
>
> >> Virtually all health plans are pools for prepaid health
> >> care, not insurance. The plan makes money from
> >> administration of the plan, not from assuming any risk.
> >
> > This is a very stupid comment. Private plans do
> > everything possible
to
> > shed risk. Then, after loading up on people they think
> > risk free, they
wait
> > a few years until some claims come in. Then they offer
> > everyone with no claims a NEW policy and leave all those
> > with claims in the old, and
raise
> > their rates until they have to drop out. That kind of
> > behavior shows extreme risk aversion.
> >
> > Don't you think it time to start posting something
> > closer to truth?
>
> Let's make a deal. I'm just gonna ignore all yer posts.
> You can ignore
mine.

I've been ignoring his garbage for a week or so now, and it
makes this group more enjoyable. I encourage to you and all
others here to flat out ignore him.
 
"Skeptic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ukQtc.7126$js4.4424@attbi_s51...
>
> "mike gray" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:j2ztc.80190$hH.1486354@bgtnsc04-
> news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > George Conklin wrote:
> >
> > >> Virtually all health plans are pools for prepaid
> > >> health care, not insurance. The plan makes money from
> > >> administration of the plan, not from assuming any
> > >> risk.
> > >
> > > This is a very stupid comment. Private plans do
> > > everything
possible
> to
> > > shed risk. Then, after loading up on people they think
> > > risk free,
they
> wait
> > > a few years until some claims come in. Then they offer
> > > everyone with
no
> > > claims a NEW policy and leave all those with claims in
> > > the old, and
> raise
> > > their rates until they have to drop out. That kind of
> > > behavior shows extreme risk aversion.
> > >
> > > Don't you think it time to start posting something
> > > closer to truth?
> >
> > Let's make a deal. I'm just gonna ignore all yer posts.
> > You can ignore
> mine.
>
> I've been ignoring his garbage for a week or so now, and
> it makes this
group
> more enjoyable. I encourage to you and all others here to
> flat out ignore him.
>
>

Private plans shed risk, and ignoring the truth is not
going to change the FActs.