Anyone have a Christian Medshare policy?

[ultrarunner]

My sister in law is a podiatrist and she is much happier when she gave up the big office in the adjacent medical building next to the regional hospital.

She now has a small office in a very affluent community and shared receptionis services with several other independent providers.

Cutting her overhead, relocating to a affluent suburb and no longer processing insurance is her business model.

Many of her patients have insurance but the onus is on the patient to submit claims if desired.

10 years ago her practice partner moved to teaching and my sister in law found the responsibility of running the practice left little time to be a doctor.

Might not work for everyone but she has very loyal patients and word of mouth referrals…

 

[Torvy]

The reality of our healthcare is anything but a free market. If I need to see a doctor there is only one choice, my primary care physician. I recently went through my doctor retiring and it’s pretty hard to find a local doctor that is accepting of new patients.

When I need something more done I go where he refers me. Without his referral the specialist and testing places won’t even schedule me an appointment.

My doctor is employed by the nearest hospital system. If a hospital is involved that’s the one we go to.

The whole mess gets billed to my employer sponsored insurance, that I pay partial cost for, and I get billed any cost they don’t cover.

There are no practical alternatives to any part of the equation that I know of, and I have no idea what anything costs until the dust settles. I really don’t see any choice other than skipping medical care, which does not usually end well.

The fact that you choose to use employer subsidized health care is not the same thing as "there are no practical alternatives".

Employers began offering subsidized health care as a way to attract employees with lower cost than simply offering higher wages. It was a win-win. Employers would pay, roughly, 35% on each dollar and the employee would save 50% on every dollar. Over time, the cost of benefits (mostly health insurance) rose, so employers are paying 55% or more on every dollar of salary.

The funny thing about insurance is that it floods the market with demand with no corresponding increase in supply. That causes prices to increase. Single payer only makes it worse. There is zero competition and the quality of care is much worse.

For example. My daughter is an RN. She got married about 18 months ago and they went to Italy for their honeymoon. She got appendicitis and had to have surgery while she was there. Prior to that, she, like many young people, believed the BS about how great 'free' Healthcare would be. She saw first hand, from a professional viewpoint how much worse the care was in Europe. They were decades behind the US in terms of technology and patient care.

In short, the money has to come from somewhere. In most other countries, the policy makers decide what level of care you get and when you get it...but the rich can still get better private care, often by traveling to the US to get it. When US people travel, it is often because of regulatory issues rather than pure cost, but for some it is cost. When people come to the US for care, it is because of the lack of quality of care or options. I'm sorry, but I'll take our broken system over their broken system all day long.

 

[ultrarunner]

The fact that you choose to use employer subsidized health care is not the same thing as "there are no practical alternatives".

Employers began offering subsidized health care as a way to attract employees with lower cost than simply offering higher wages. It was a win-win. Employers would pay, roughly, 35% on each dollar and the employee would save 50% on every dollar. Over time, the cost of benefits (mostly health insurance) rose, so employers are paying 55% or more on every dollar of salary.

The funny thing about insurance is that it floods the market with demand with no corresponding increase in supply. That causes prices to increase. Single payer only makes it worse. There is zero competition and the quality of care is much worse.

For example. My daughter is an RN. She got married about 18 months ago and they went to Italy for their honeymoon. She got appendicitis and had to have surgery while she was there. Prior to that, she, like many young people, believed the BS about how great 'free' Healthcare would be. She saw first hand, from a professional viewpoint how much worse the care was in Europe. They were decades behind the US in terms of technology and patient care.

In short, the money has to come from somewhere. In most other countries, the policy makers decide what level of care you get and when you get it...but the rich can still get better private care, often by traveling to the US to get it. When US people travel, it is often because of regulatory issues rather than pure cost, but for some it is cost. When people come to the US for care, it is because of the lack of quality of care or options. I'm sorry, but I'll take our broken system over their broken system all day long.

Several close friends are doctors and nurses in Europe.

It is quite different.

Much is geared to young and productive years with cash payments to mothers for well baby programs.

Still country doctors living over their practice and having side gigs to pay the bills especially if starting out.

My friends there are amazed at the care available to elderly in USA… hip and joint replacements in advanced years, etc…

Cost Benefit factors into the big picture… plus it was common to cross boarders and cash pay for services simply not available to citizens either be eligibility or being able to cash pay.

In California we have Canadians that come to my facility for eye surgery… the reasons stated is very long wait times like 14 to 18 months for something here 2 weeks and being able to opt for specialty implants simply not possible even for cash pay in Canada.

For all its faults folks still travel to USA for care.

 

[shooterdon]

I came from Canada in 1995 to the USA. I know a bit about "free" health care.

You get what you pay for.

 

[gsganzer]

I came from Canada in 1995 to the USA. I know a bit about "free" health care.

You get what you pay for.

I'm not trying to be an antagonist, but now that you've been away from the Canadian system for nearly 3 decades, can you really say that with certainty?

But you bring up a point. Everyone (especially the current medical establishment) point out all the examples that have problems. What about all the countries where there system seems to work well? Sweden, Norway, Germany etc.

In one article I read, Canada is actually ranked #2 with the best public health system, with Sweden in the #1 spot.

The UK used to have a national health system that everyone hated. Now it's in the top 10 and the UK people I talk to say their system works well.

But with all these other countries as examples with various health systems, couldn't one be designed that works as good or better? Especially considering that we already pay 2x our GDP then even the closest country. What if we paid 50%- 75% more than the closest country, but had a system that had a stable and reasonable 0.8%/year increase, versus the nearly 8% annual increase we currently have?

 

[shooterdon]

I'm not trying to be an antagonist, but now that you've been away from the Canadian system for nearly 3 decades, can you really say that with certainty?

But you bring up a point. Everyone (especially the current medical establishment) point out all the examples that have problems. What about all the countries where there system seems to work well? Sweden, Norway, Germany etc.

In one article I read, Canada is actually ranked #2 with the best public health system, with Sweden in the #1 spot.

The UK used to have a national health system that everyone hated. Now it's in the top 10 and the UK people I talk to say their system works well.

But with all these other countries as examples with various health systems, couldn't one be designed that works as good or better? Especially considering that we already pay 2x our GDP then even the closest country. What if we paid 50%- 75% more than the closest country, but had a system that had a stable and reasonable 0.8%/year increase, versus the nearly 8% annual increase we currently have?

Yes…it is actually worse.

I still have family in Canada. My mom cannot get treatment because “she is too old”. More cost effective to let her die.

 

[gsganzer]

Yes…it is actually worse.

I still have family in Canada. My mom cannot get treatment because “she is too old”. More cost effective to let her die.

I'm not trying to be cold, but just wanted to point out an inconvenient truth about insurance. The balancing or rationing of funds is unfortunately, the nature of insurance. If you get in a car wreck, the insurance company can say it's cheaper to total your car, then to try to fix it. Because that's the most cost-effective use of the insurance companies' money that allows them to remain solvent so they can provide an umbrella for the other members of the collective. You're still free to spend your own money to fix your car or use your own funds to go find a doctor to get the treatment you want. There's a difference between insurance and healthcare. I know that all sounds crappy.

So maybe the answer is a basic health insurance system with supplementals that a person can purchase? I think some countries take that approach, but I don't know any details. Now you found another rabbit hole for me to dive down.

 

[dstig1]

I'm not trying to be an antagonist, but now that you've been away from the Canadian system for nearly 3 decades, can you really say that with certainty?


In one article I read, Canada is actually ranked #2 with the best public health system, with Sweden in the #1 spot.

The UK used to have a national health system that everyone hated. Now it's in the top 10 and the UK people I talk to say their system works well.

Ranked by who? Relative to what?

As Torvy adroitly explained, there is no free lunch. Just like how the US has been subsidizing defense for Europe since WWI, we are also subsidizing their healthcare by the prices we pay relative to what those governments will deign to allow those companies to charge for the privilege of selling their products to help people in the socialized medicine countries. They make their money here, then they are willing to sell elsewhere since it helps cover fixed costs a bit but they don't make money from selling for a pittance to those places. So once again, we cover for them. 'Twas ever thus been so...

 

[ultrarunner]

I'm not trying to be an antagonist, but now that you've been away from the Canadian system for nearly 3 decades, can you really say that with certainty?

But you bring up a point. Everyone (especially the current medical establishment) point out all the examples that have problems. What about all the countries where there system seems to work well? Sweden, Norway, Germany etc.

In one article I read, Canada is actually ranked #2 with the best public health system, with Sweden in the #1 spot.

The UK used to have a national health system that everyone hated. Now it's in the top 10 and the UK people I talk to say their system works well.

But with all these other countries as examples with various health systems, couldn't one be designed that works as good or better? Especially considering that we already pay 2x our GDP then even the closest country. What if we paid 50%- 75% more than the closest country, but had a system that had a stable and reasonable 0.8%/year increase, versus the nearly 8% annual increase we currently have?

My German friends would travel to Austria for not covered treatments just as my Austrian friends to Germany...

Mostly dental work... Dentists can bill for services to citizens from other countries and it's a work around ..

 

[ultrarunner]

I'm not trying to be cold, but just wanted to point out an inconvenient truth about insurance. The balancing or rationing of funds is unfortunately, the nature of insurance. If you get in a car wreck, the insurance company can say it's cheaper to total your car, then to try to fix it. Because that's the most cost-effective use of the insurance companies' money that allows them to remain solvent so they can provide an umbrella for the other members of the collective. You're still free to spend your own money to fix your car or use your own funds to go find a doctor to get the treatment you want. There's a difference between insurance and healthcare. I know that all sounds crappy.

So maybe the answer is a basic health insurance system with supplementals that a person can purchase? I think some countries take that approach, but I don't know any details. Now you found another rabbit hole for me to dive down.

That's the point .. often free to spend your money means having to leave the country because it's very much one size fits all...