Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

People Lose Their Employer-Sponsored Insurance Constantly

peoplespolicyproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 246 posts

Re: People Lose Their Employer-Sponsored Insurance Constantly

#171

Post by ebg13 »

alexmingoia wrote: post #169
helen___keller wrote: post #37

The point of health insurance is to pay into a risk pool as a collective so that the small percentage of people who end up needing the largest percentage of health care, nobody dies or goes into monumental debt. This can be done via taxes but insurance is a private market solution which should in theory make it more efficient for the sake of maximizing profit. So then if it's supposedly more efficient, why do I waste…

Ask your employer to pay your benefits amount in salary. That way you don’t need to change insurance when changing jobs.

I've always heard that your benefits amount at a large organization is almost certainly not enough to pay for the same benefits as an individual, because companies get group rates that you can't get.

Re: People Lose Their Employer-Sponsored Insurance Constantly

#172

Post by Scoundreller »

ddingus wrote: post #168
Scoundreller wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s what an advanced directive is for. We just need to extend it beyond CPR/no CPR and heroic measures vs no heroic measures, etc. Kinda how like insurance companies negotiate prices for everything in advance of you showing up. Let users watch a series of videos and choose what kind of risk and benefit they tolerate/want and how much they’re willing to spend. It’s morbid, but we do such assessments constantly. Do…

Seriously? The difference in your "every day" scenarios is recoverability. Your actual health put at risk means you die, unrecoverably. Then there is always people not being able to spend. So they just die? A poll on that policy would be instructive.

The every day scenarios can result in permanent effects. Not everyone going through a stop sign is in a protective cage.

Obviously the advanced directive solution is largely irrelevant in a 100% coverage/public system. The insurer then makes those decisions for you. But for as long as you have a system with uninsured, there’s value in having decisions made in advance as a “just in case”.

Re: People Lose Their Employer-Sponsored Insurance Constantly

#173

Post by ThrustVectoring »

henrikschroder wrote: post #154
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I could cap my downside risk from medical events through insurance, I would do that instead. And this is not a replacement for insurance, since many medical providers will refuse to provide non-emergency care if they didn't expect that they could bill my insurance for services rendered. But, unfortunately, it's currently impossible to set a maximum price you could wind up owing due to receiving medical care. Any p…

> But, unfortunately, it's currently impossible to set a maximum price you could wind up owing due to receiving medical care. Of course, because demand for healthcare is infinite, so you could wind up costing the insurance company an infinite amount of money. And if their expenses are uncapped, they're not going to cap how much you can pay them. And if they cap their expenses on your behalf, it's not really insurance…

I misspoke a little: it's impossible to set a maximum price that the 95th percentile household can afford. A single medical event can bankrupt households but not the state of California.

Re: People Lose Their Employer-Sponsored Insurance Constantly

#174

Post by nybble41 »

clairity wrote: post #111
davidw wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Italy has a thriving market based private health care industry. You can call in and get prices and everything. Just that it's in addition to the single payer system, which means the private one is cheap because the competition is 'free'. As a % of GDP, Italy spends a lot less than the US in health care, and people live long and productive lives. I mention Italy because 1) I lived there and 2) it's not some perfectly…

i'm keen on the idea that such a model of a government entity (or two) in competition with an open market would provide the most favorable outcome, because a truly free and fair market (one where competition leads to efficiency and low prices) seems mythically distant at this point. government entities can get subsumed by politics and bureaucracy, while private markets can get distorted by poor regulations and anti-c…

> a government entity (or two) in competition with an open market

Meaningful competition cannot exist between tax-funded and voluntarily-funded service providers. Anyone who chooses the private provider ends up paying for both. The only way to ensure a level playing field is for the "government" entity to be limited to essentially a co-op, receiving no government funding or special influence and adhering to all the same rules which apply to private providers, in which case it might as well not be a government entity in the first place. Even then there is an obvious conflict of interest since the organization that makes and enforces the rules is also backing one of the competitors.

Re: People Lose Their Employer-Sponsored Insurance Constantly

#175

Post by bitcoinmoney »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #155
ppseafield wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't describe that strategy as great. Having a desired effect, sure, but the tradeoffs are pretty nasty. And doesn't it create potential situations where you require a lawyer? And what if the laws in Texas change, what then? Wouldn't it be easier instead for healthcare billing not to contain so many gotchas?

>And doesn't it create potential situations where you require a lawyer? Sure, but improving your BATNA helps your negotiations even if you don't need to exercise it. The bill gets handled with opening a dispute and sending a "give me documentation for an implied regulatory complaint" letter. If things devolve into a lawsuit or threat thereof, I tell them my financial situation and what they can expect from a lawsuit…

What’s special about Texas? And how can you put everything in retirement account?? 401k is 19k/year and IRA is 5k? What do you do with the rest of your money? Do you setup and LLC or trust? Can you elaborate?

Re: People Lose Their Employer-Sponsored Insurance Constantly

#176

Post by nybble41 »

helen___keller wrote: post #165
nybble41 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A more sound statement would be "I as a consumer am willing to pay dollars equal to twice my current premiums to get healthcare coverage while avoiding hassles while receiving routine healthcare" Ah, but are you willing to force everyone else pay twice as much so that you can get the health care you want? That's the real question. You said you were in favor of socialized healthcare, so I would guess the answer to t…

> generally receptive to increased taxation

Yes, that's the "making other people pay" part.

Re: People Lose Their Employer-Sponsored Insurance Constantly

#177

Post by 8note »

aantix wrote: post #40
dv_dt wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All other first world nations pay less. On average they pay less than half what the US pays. The fully socialized systems, like the UK, seem to trend lower in cost, as low as one third the cost of the US. But really, the takeaway should be you need universal healthcare with significant government cost controls on drugs and procedures, after that almost any arrangement of public/private administration works (but the c…

Without the U.S. subsidizing the drug research R&D, who pays for it? You could fill notebooks with worthy, approachable hypotheses for any number of diseases that could show promise if given the funding. But if everyone makes it law to cap prices - fewer scientists, labs, studies are performed. The money has to come from somewhere. I think countries take for granted the progress we've made. No progress is made withou…

Isn't the R&D money for scientists and labs coming from the US government?

business drug R&D follows the "which drug patents can we buy and Jack the prices up for extra profit?"

Re: People Lose Their Employer-Sponsored Insurance Constantly

#178

Post by helen___keller »

nybble41 wrote: post #176
helen___keller wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> generally receptive to increased taxation

Yes, that's the "making other people pay" part.

Right I guess you were being rhetorical then, I'm saying I'm okay with it

Re: People Lose Their Employer-Sponsored Insurance Constantly

#179

Post by lotsofpulp »

ebg13 wrote: post #171
alexmingoia wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask your employer to pay your benefits amount in salary. That way you don’t need to change insurance when changing jobs.

I've always heard that your benefits amount at a large organization is almost certainly not enough to pay for the same benefits as an individual, because companies get group rates that you can't get.

It’s also not taxed as a medical benefit. Also, companies have to maintain certain enrollment proportions to avoid non discrimination testing, and so allowing people to take cash in lieu wouldn’t work out for employer.

Re: People Lose Their Employer-Sponsored Insurance Constantly

#180

Post by ThrustVectoring »

bitcoinmoney wrote: post #175
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And doesn't it create potential situations where you require a lawyer? Sure, but improving your BATNA helps your negotiations even if you don't need to exercise it. The bill gets handled with opening a dispute and sending a "give me documentation for an implied regulatory complaint" letter. If things devolve into a lawsuit or threat thereof, I tell them my financial situation and what they can expect from a lawsuit…

What’s special about Texas? And how can you put everything in retirement account?? 401k is 19k/year and IRA is 5k? What do you do with the rest of your money? Do you setup and LLC or trust? Can you elaborate?

>What’s special about Texas?

Debt collection follows a combination of state and federal law, and Texas state law is unusually favorable to debtors. Specific important pieces:

1. Your primary residence is protected from forced sale to satisfy general creditors, up to 10 acres (urban) or 100 acres (rural).

2. Garnishment of wages is limited to certain special circumstances, such as nonpayment of taxes or child support.

3. IRAs have unlimited protection from creditors (other states have a cap).

>And how can you put everything in retirement account?? 401k is 19k/year and IRA is 5k? What do you do with the rest of your money?

Home equity is a very significant part of this. If you borrow $300k to buy a $400k home, the $100k you have tied up in your house is protected from creditors. If you have an extra $50k you want to save, you pay down your mortgage more aggressively and creditors can no longer come after it.

Oh, also, from reading into things, it looks like if you buy a 2 to 4 unit house, then even the non-owner-occupied units remain protected. So you can extend things somewhat that way by having a more expensive home that cashflows.

>Do you setup and LLC or trust?

LLCs are more for business-related liabilities, and trusts are weird and expensive enough that I haven't looked into them. Besides which, there's a perfectly reasonable alternative to a trust - annuity and insurance products. Both their value and payments to you are exempt from attachment and seizure in Texas, again with the exception of child support payments and "fraudulent transfers" made after incurring the debt. So essentially, if an insurance company is holding your money and giving it back to you in a structured way, creditors have a really hard time getting at it.

Post reply on HN