Health Insurance Warning!

[JLCrab]

1. BUPA / Thailand is a 'Provident Association" and (from their website): With no shareholders, we invest our profits to provide more and better healthcare.

2. The (British born) American comedian Bob Hope said: A bank is a place that will lend you money if you can prove that you don't need it. The best time to buy insurance is roughly the same: Buy it when you don't need it.

[NeverSure]

Ideally a government insurance would be best as they are not out to make a profit. However governments agencies are not the most cost effective or efficient.

My masters studies in health economics cares to differ.

Governments insurance is generally best a pooling all community risk, lowering 'premiums' for all as you have both good risk (ie the young) and the not so good risk (the old) all under the same insurance umbrella.

The government as the 'purchaser' of both health products (ie Doctors and their services) as well as pharmaceuticals means the government can use its extraordinary size and negotiation power to bring down prices of both of these.

Add in reduced admin costs and you generally have a leaner and more cost effective system where health costs are a lower % of GDP for those countries which have government insurance. (this also ignores the forgone costs of having people uninsured, getting sick and thus being a drag on economic productivity).

Unfortunately for you Americans, some idiot will throw in the word 'socialism' which for some reason scares the bejezus out of you, despite the fact that in most of the western world 'socialist' doctors still drive BMW's and Mercedes to work, live in the best suburbs in the biggest houses, send their kids to the best private school and have a weekender down the coast when they aren't on their foreign holidays.

ney, they tend to forget there is no such thing as a 'free market' when it comes to health care. On the demand side you don't choose to consume health care (ie no one chooses to get sick) and on the supply side it isn't as if you have an unlimited supply of doctors to choose from who will bid down the cost of their services to get customers.

Your model is socialism. It's the very definition of it. There also needs to be a presumption that the government can actually afford it, long term.

Somebody has to pay for it. The taxes in countries with nationalized health care are scandalous. If they could do all of this without having such a high cost of living due to taxes, and actually provide health care that people were happy with (Are Canadians, Brits and Aussies pleased with their health care?) then it would be good. The problem is that there isn't a bottomless pit of money.

What happens when the enlightened Western countries go broke? Oh, the US is just as guilty, only it's other types of entitlements, aiding anyone and everyone.

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher. (paraphrased.)

[lopburi3]

One post with no text removed - as there is a specific insurance forum this will be moved there.

[stevenl]

Ideally a government insurance would be best as they are not out to make a profit. However governments agencies are not the most cost effective or efficient.

My masters studies in health economics cares to differ.

Governments insurance is generally best a pooling all community risk, lowering 'premiums' for all as you have both good risk (ie the young) and the not so good risk (the old) all under the same insurance umbrella.

The government as the 'purchaser' of both health products (ie Doctors and their services) as well as pharmaceuticals means the government can use its extraordinary size and negotiation power to bring down prices of both of these.

Add in reduced admin costs and you generally have a leaner and more cost effective system where health costs are a lower % of GDP for those countries which have government insurance. (this also ignores the forgone costs of having people uninsured, getting sick and thus being a drag on economic productivity).

Unfortunately for you Americans, some idiot will throw in the word 'socialism' which for some reason scares the bejezus out of you, despite the fact that in most of the western world 'socialist' doctors still drive BMW's and Mercedes to work, live in the best suburbs in the biggest houses, send their kids to the best private school and have a weekender down the coast when they aren't on their foreign holidays.

ney, they tend to forget there is no such thing as a 'free market' when it comes to health care. On the demand side you don't choose to consume health care (ie no one chooses to get sick) and on the supply side it isn't as if you have an unlimited supply of doctors to choose from who will bid down the cost of their services to get customers.

Your model is socialism. It's the very definition of it. There also needs to be a presumption that the government can actually afford it, long term.

Somebody has to pay for it. The taxes in countries with nationalized health care are scandalous. If they could do all of this without having such a high cost of living due to taxes, and actually provide health care that people were happy with (Are Canadians, Brits and Aussies pleased with their health care?) then it would be good. The problem is that there isn't a bottomless pit of money.

What happens when the enlightened Western countries go broke? Oh, the US is just as guilty, only it's other types of entitlements, aiding anyone and everyone.

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher. (paraphrased.)

'Social' and Socialism' are not the same.

He already predicted you'd come up and call him a socialist, so he must really know what he is talking about since this post is over 2 years old.

[watcharacters]

With BUPA Thailand if you join before age 61 you are guaranteed renewal for life if premiums are maintained (as documented in Benefits Package) ... a few years ago I applied to four different US based health care insurers with international policies and I was declined coverage by all four.

.

The Bupa website offers a policy quote up until the age of 65.

[jm91]

from post #13 -- On the demand side you don't choose to consume health care (ie no one chooses to get sick) What the medical community will say is that, due to the litigious nature of the USA and malpractice suits that are settled regardless of the merits of the case, and the resulting high-cost of medical malpractice insurance, many tests and procedures that may be marginally necessary are performed so that no one -- particularly lawyers -- can claim that there was any malfeasance... This is what the mdical community points to as a large component of the high cost of health care in the USA.

...which may (or may not) be true but kinda distracts from getting doctors themselves to control costs, which when you think about it, is the main issue.When you think about it, doctors are Monopolists. Monopolists charge prices that would otherwise be found in a 'free market'.

Sorry, but your reply is loaded with misinformation, disinformation and propaganda.Independent doctors are no more a monopoly than any other profession. Medical school is no more a barrier to entry than a state PE license to be a Professional Engineer, or a state contracting license to be an electrician, plumber, general contractor or any other skilled trade. Calling doctors monopololists is sheer nonsense.There are more than 100 doctors of every possible profession within a 10 mile radius of where I live. They are no more a monopoly than any other professional or skilled trade person in the same radius.On the other hand, government-run healthcare is a monopology. If the government mandates that patients must see a government doctor or that no doctor may practice medicine unless they do so as part the government program, well that is a monopoly. It is no different than what the government and unions like the NEA have done to the public education system in places like the US.The malpractice points that the other poster makes are quite valid. I have a close relative who is a retired pediatrician, who treated tens of thousands of patients over a 40-year career with nary a threat of malpractice. Yet in his final years, his annual malpractice premium was hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is just wrong, and that is a big part of the problem.The biggest parts of the problem are primarily two-fold. The first is self-preventative care. Many people have crappy diets, do not exercise, and do very little to maintain the physical and mental health of their bodies.The second is the misconception that health insurance should be some all-encompassing coverage for every last little scratch, hiccup and wet fart. Any reputable insurance business has historically always been based on major or catastrophic coverage. People don't get insurance for tuneups and oil changes for their car. So why should they get insurance for an annual checkup or diagnosis and treatment of a minor illness?Government mandated "health insurance" that is required to cover every last little malady, isn't insurance at all. At best, it is "crony capitalism" between corrupt government agencies and corrupt businesses. At worst, it is just plain welfare, government theft of one individual's property to hand out to another individual for the sole purpose of seeking political favor.Cutting through all the other stuff, you make a closing statement that the AMA is essentially a doctor's union. This is pure steer manure. First of all, most reputable doctors have been running far and fast away from AMA membership for decades. Wikipedia claims that fewer than 20% of US doctors are AMA members. And why are reputable doctors running far and fast from the AMA? Because the AMA has been thoroughly corrupted by those who desire a government monopoly over healthcare.

God there is so many errors in your posts...go back to your Hayek books.. He was in favor of national healthcare....right wing wing nuts have his ideas all wrong...oh you conservative....libertarians...so I'll in formed.