Zone1 Should a bill be passed ?

[beagle9]

Otherwise that safeguards medical plan policy holder's for whom have paid into a medical plan for years, and of course had done so through their employer offered healthcare plans, (but was unfortunately denied virtually almost all of the services offered due to the set up of that plan get money back ????

Should they not get some of the money back once terminate the plan or lose it due to circumstances out of their control like changing jobs etc) ???

One has to beg the question - should the client and/or employee be reimbursed of a percentage of their money paid into a plan, and this being based upon the denial of services throughout the history of the plan that was paid into once they leave it or due to inactivity while on the plan once leave it ??

Should healthy individuals all due to the inactivity of usage by such clients being covered in a plan, (once exiting the plan for good), be entitled to a percentage reimbursement based upon a formula worked out by the feds and healthcare industry that would be created for treating Americans fairly in such a thing as paying alot of money in, but then getting so little out of it ???

Debate !!! Thanks

 

[Greenbeard]

Health care expenses in any given year are concentrated in a relatively small slice of the population. That's why we use an insurance model for financing most health care in the first place. If everybody gets back what they paid in, it doesn't work.

 

[Darkwind]

My health insurance has never denied me any treatment since I've started paying for it through my employer.

 

[Concerned American]

Health care expenses in any given year are concentrated in a relatively small slice of the population. That's why we use an insurance model for financing most health care in the first place. If everybody gets back what they paid in, it doesn't work.

You beat me to it. Thanks, spot on.

 

[jwoodie]

Employer-sponsored health insurance is like term life insurance. There is no equity buildup. And like other insurance, it depends on most of the insured members not costing the plan as much as they are paying into it. A financial problem arises when not enough of these people are paying into the plan to cover the cost of providing services to the few who are receiving more than they are paying for. As a result, taxpayers are ultimately forced to make up the shortfall.

One alternative to this situation is a Health Savings Account (HSA), which allows individuals to put away money for future medical expenses. If this money is not used, it remains the property of those individuals. Perhaps this should be a mandated option for those not enrolled in a traditional health insurance plan?

 

[1srelluc]

My health insurance has never denied me any treatment since I've started paying for it through my employer.

Same here....Sounds like someone needs a better plan.

 

[beagle9]

Health care expenses in any given year are concentrated in a relatively small slice of the population. That's why we use an insurance model for financing most health care in the first place. If everybody gets back what they paid in, it doesn't work.

Not get back everything paid in, but rather to get back only a percentage that would be fair to the client as based upon the history of the activity found within the individuals usage of the plan or the denials found within the plan (out of network denials etc).

 

[beagle9]

My health insurance has never denied me any treatment since I've started paying for it through my employer.

Many claim denials are being found within the Healthcare model that I have, and others covered by this carrier are echoing the same experiences. It seems as if this set up is different than other set ups when it comes to allowances and benefits paid. Yes I probably should be Healthcare policy shopping instead of just going along with employer offered Healthcare policy carriers out of just convenience.

 

[beagle9]

Same here....Sounds like someone needs a better plan.

Is there truly such a thing as better plans these days ?
I remember back in the day when companies had different plans, and how it was bragged about by employee's of those companies upon how great their plans were.

 

[Dragonlady]

Otherwise that safeguards medical plan policy holder's for whom have paid into a medical plan for years, and of course had done so through their employer offered healthcare plans, (but was unfortunately denied virtually almost all of the services offered due to the set up of that plan get money back ????

Should they not get some of the money back once terminate the plan or lose it due to circumstances out of their control like changing jobs etc) ???

One has to beg the question - should the client and/or employee be reimbursed of a percentage of their money paid into a plan, and this being based upon the denial of services throughout the history of the plan that was paid into once they leave it or due to inactivity while on the plan once leave it ??

Should healthy individuals all due to the inactivity of usage by such clients being covered in a plan, (once exiting the plan for good), be entitled to a percentage reimbursement based upon a formula worked out by the feds and healthcare industry that would be created for treating Americans fairly in such a thing as paying alot of money in, but then getting so little out of it ???

Debate !!! Thanks

No. Do you get money back on your car insurance if you have no accidents?

Of course, if you had a single payer system, you wouldn't be paying insurance premiums at all.

 

[Darkwind]

Many claim denials are being found within the Healthcare model that I have, and others covered by this carrier are echoing the same experiences. It seems as if this set up is different than other set ups when it comes to allowances and benefits paid. Yes I probably should be Healthcare policy shopping instead of just going along with employer offered Healthcare policy carriers out of just convenience.

Truthfully, I've read and seen studies that there are more treatment denials from government-run health insurance.

 

[beagle9]

No. Do you get money back on your car insurance if you have no accidents?

Of course, if you had a single payer system, you wouldn't be paying insurance premiums at all.

Uhhh, yes I have gotten money back or rather discounted on my car insurance that offers all sorts of safe driving discounts and benefits, and if I were to change carrier's then a refund check has been recieved from the carrier because the complete time frame charged for wasn't finished out.

 

[dblack]

Truthfully, I've read and seen studies that there are more treatment denials from government-run health insurance.

Ultimately, it's the same math. And will probably be outsourced to the same companies anyway.

 

[beagle9]

Truthfully, I've read and seen studies that there are more treatment denials from government-run health insurance.

Never been on a government run model, but the private sector model seems to have gotten out of line when it comes to serving it's customer's/client's respectfully and properly.

 

[beagle9]

Ultimately, it's the same math. And will probably outsourced to the same companies anyway.

Same math in the formulas being used ?

 

[Dragonlady]

Truthfully, I've read and seen studies that there are more treatment denials from government-run health insurance.

I have never had any treatment denial in single payor healthcare and I don’t know of anyone who has.

There are no approvals of care in single payor healthcare. Doctors don’t have to get approval for treatment. You just go in and get treatment and go home.

 

[dblack]

Same math in the formulas being used ?

Maybe. But the point is they're trying to solve the same problem. One insurance company, run by the government, is still an insurance company, with limited resources, and infinite demand. Despite the pie-eyed claims that health care is a "right", we can't give everyone all the healthcare that they might want or need. People will be getting "denied" with government health insurance too. The only difference is that you can't say "no".

 

[beagle9]

Maybe. But the point is they're trying to solve the same problem. One insurance company, run by the government, is still an insurance company, with limited resources, and infinite demand. Despite the pie-eyed claims that health care is a "right", we can't give everyone all the healthcare that they might want or need. People will be getting "denied" with government health insurance too. The only difference is that you can't say "no".

Not to get away from the point in this query, but the main thing is are we getting the quality care and services paid for after we've paid big bucks into these Healthcare provider's who seem to not want to accept claims that are submitted by hospitals and doctor's offices upon service's rendered and then payment's due ????

 

[Darkwind]

I have never had any treatment denial in single payor healthcare and I don’t know of anyone who has.

There are no approvals of care in single payor healthcare. Doctors don’t have to get approval for treatment. You just go in and get treatment and go home.

You have to have some kind of curiosity to look outside the things that you dream to be true or wish to be true.

If you look for it, you'll find it. If you really want to know.

Given what the left have done to Trump and continue to do to Conservatives, I'd start a war over keeping their hands off My healthcare.

 

[Darkwind]

Never been on a government run model, but the private sector model seems to have gotten out of line when it comes to serving it's customer's/client's respectfully and properly.

I won't disagree, but giving over healthcare to the government is just Orwellian.