Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Question for Canadians (or those from other nations evolved to the point of universal health care)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-16-07 06:42 PM
Original message
Question for Canadians (or those from other nations evolved to the point of universal health care)
Edited on Thu Aug-16-07 06:46 PM by PeaceNikki
Another thread regarding an auto accident (or as my southern brethren would say "wreck") got me thinking about insurance - home, auto and obviously health.

I HATE insurance companies with a fiery burning passion beyond description. But, I know that insurance coverage is a disgustingly necessary evil. The point of mandatory liability for drivers was mentioned. Insurance is required by law and expensive - RIDICULOUSLY so in many cases.

But - why? I mean, the replacement of a vehicle and property, especially with with depreciation and stuff has a limit, a tangible figure. However, the medical coverage in the event of a major event can be catastrophic and darn near limitless. But, when a nation has universal coverage, those medical costs don't exist. So, are auto insurance rates lower as a result? I would think significantly. Is this the case? Is auto insurance much lower there?

Also, if we had a single payer, universal system - would the financial impact in revenue be not only on the Kaiser Permanente and BC/BS's but also on the State Farm and Allstate's? Are they also deathly opposed to/lobbying against a universal healthcare system?

On one hand, their payouts for medical bills would be eliminated, but the net $ that they bring in, invest and earn on before they pay out drops by potentially a ton. Right? Or not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bluerum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-16-07 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
1. And presumably, the same company that carries your auto ins. could also
carry my health ins.

So, if you hit me, your auto insurance pays my health care costs. The net result is they pay once (transfer cash from one set of books to another) and collect twice.

Sweet scam eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-16-07 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Plus all of the fucking premiums they take just to tell you to fuck off when you need them.
hate em
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-16-07 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. "So, are auto insurance rates lower as a result? "
Unless our crooked politicians do otherwise, it would *have* to be lower. The biggest cost of wrecks (I'm not southern, but that is usually the correct term... fewer and fewer wrecks could actually be termed "accidental" when people are road-raging)is the hospital, etc. costs. So, yes, you have that right. That has been mentioned in regard to HR676.

I don't know if the companies that are strictly auto insurance are working against single payer. That would be interesting to know.

Also, I hope DUers from other countries will log in and post about insurance there. Have you considered posting this in the "other countries" forum? Maybe it would get some attention to this post.

Thanks for bringing this up! :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-16-07 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I find myself being ANGRY that my state doesn't have
Edited on Thu Aug-16-07 06:59 PM by PeaceNikki
mandatory auto insurance liability laws, then ANGRY that I am thinking of LEGISLATING that we pay these FUCKERS. I hate it. I mean, would liability really be necessary if property were the only real issue? I don't know. Sure it'd be wise but the law? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-16-07 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. You bring up good points to consider.
Property... insurance usually protects you against others who DON"T have insurance. So, I don't know how that would work.

I'm with you.... I'd like to have about 20 years of insurance moratorium. Get rid of the blood-suckers, and see how it works, then start over.

But, pleeeez understand, I'm not one of them hippie radicals. :rofl:

:hippie:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-16-07 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. Difficult to say
It is possible for hospitals to get their costs paid for as part of an injury claim in the UK - see eg

Hospitals have for more than 70 years been able to recover the costs of treating those injured in road traffic accidents who have gone on to make a successful claim for personal injury compensation. A revised system of collection was introduced in April 1999 under the provisions of the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999 ("the 1999 Act") which centralised the recovery procedure making it more efficient and simpler to administer. In addition amounts recovered and paid direct to National Health Service (NHS) hospitals providing treatment increased from around £20m to £100m per year in Great Britain. In 2003-04, Scottish hospitals recovered just under £6m of charges through the road traffic scheme. The revised road traffic scheme is administered by the Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU), which is part of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), on behalf of Scottish Ministers, the Secretary of State for Health and Welsh Ministers.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations/health/rnhsc-01.asp


But since the hospitals aren't run for profit, the rates at which they charge may well be lower. The amount involved is not big - that £100 million is about $3.50 per person. A summary of the numbers of accidents involved, and the average charge, for 2001: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Policyandguidance/Organisationpolicy/Financeandplanning/Roadtrafficact1999/DH_4000509

I don't think it covers long term treatment, if those costs are anything to go by - just ER stuff. Auto insurance is lower in the UK, in my experience - but a lot of other factors may come in, such as personal compensation payments, the cost of the settlement and/or court system, and so on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spindoctor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-16-07 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
7. There is still the matter of liability
It's not just the medical costs that are covered in your insurance but how about, for example, loss of income? If someone can no longer perform his or her job after a car accident, then that won't be covered by health insurance.

I don't think the price of car insurance in the US is outrageous compared to European standards. A difference is that in the US you pay (considerably) more for a car that has a bigger chance to get stolen. I had never heard of that before. So depending on what car you drive you might even be cheaper of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-16-07 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. But medical costs must account for a huge chunk of payouts, no?
As someone mentioned upthread, perhaps the "system" could still go after a liable individual to recoup, but I think the cost would be far far less in that system.

You're absolutely right that there is still a big liability with lost wages and mental anguish and all the other stuff that makes lawyers drool. I have no idea what percentage of payouts for auto and home insurance claims is. I'm not in the industry and my amateur, arm-chair analysis thinks it could be a decent chunk?

It just got me thinking is all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spindoctor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-16-07 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. I'm no expert either
The minimum coverage is different from state to state. Insurance agents always advise you to take more than the minimum and that doesn't make a big difference in the monthly premium. Insuring a Ford Pickup however is considerably more expensive than a Chrysler minivan, even with the same people on the insurance.

My guess therefore is that insurance companies are more concerned about having to pay for a new car than for medical coverage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-16-07 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Thanks for your insight.
I am just sickened by the insurance companies lack of help when their customers need it most and dream of their demise. Jerks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monk06 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-16-07 07:56 PM
Response to Original message
8. Here is what Basic Government Auto Insurance covers in BC ....


Rates vary according to auto type, use, region.

http://icbc.bc.ca/insurance/insura_getsta_whacov.asp

Vehicles which are in high accident and theft risk
categories are charged more.

Rates are not listed on the site. You have to go
to an ICBC broker to get a personal quote. There
are over 150 rate categories to chose from.


http://icbc.bc.ca/insurance/insura_getsta_whacov.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-16-07 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Huh.. it mentions medical, but the limit per person is $150k. That MIGHT get you a band-aid in USA
Edited on Thu Aug-16-07 08:00 PM by PeaceNikki
hmmm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monk06 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-16-07 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. I couldn't find the 150 k limit you are talking about. There is a 200 k limit

for hit and run.

At any rate the "Autoplan Accident Benefits help you with your medical expenses, rehabilitation costs and wage loss if you are injured in a crash, or funeral costs and death benefits in case of death. It doesn't matter who was at fault for the crash." Notice there is no limit on the amount awarded under these circumstances and the coverage is quite comprehensive

Medical Care in BC is also provided by the Government through MSBC so the ICBC medical benefits are separate and cover medical extras like rehab, reconstructive surgery etc. There is no limit on these awards as far as I can see.

Also any claim can be appealed or litigated if a person is not happy with their ICBC claim award
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-16-07 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. I drilled in and found it here:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Monk06 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-17-07 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. From the looks of it 150 k might last several years worth of expenses....

If the injury results in permanent disability
liability coverage would take over. This may be
adequate or not.

FYI there are personal injury firms in BC that
specialize in suing ICBC. It is a lucrative
business which tells you that Government Auto
insurers are just as likely to duck out of paying
claims as private insurers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-16-07 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
11. It depends on the province
Some provinces have government auto insurance schemes, others do not.

My province, Ontario, doesn't. We use regular commercial insurance companies.

But when I lived in Manitoba (government insurance), I was astounded at the difference. Almost half price.

Right now, I think I'm paying about $1200/yr.

But you've got to factor in the exchange rate plus the fact that I live in a rural area and have a good rating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-16-07 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Hmmm - probably won't either save a ton for us or eliminate the need.
Sigh... I was hoping.

Thanks for your wise Canuckistanian input!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-16-07 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. No probs.
(Oh, I stole your Canadian patriot thingie)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-16-07 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
18. I gotta run for dinner but please read this link
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1942277&mesg_id=1946334

Here, I'll copy it:

Where someone sues as a result of an injury caused by someone else's negligence (e.g. the slip and fall in a retail business, or on my front porch), the provincial health insurance plan will generally be subrogated for any amount awarded for medical care. That is, OHIP (for example, the Ontario plan) will cover all the medical expenses, but will recover the costs from the insurance company (or uninsured defendant) as part of the damages award by the court, or settlement -- the medical expenses will be paid, but to the insurance plan, not the plaintiff, since the plaintiff had no expenses.

This means that the public, through the public health insurance plan, is not bearing the cost of individual or corporate negligence or wrong-doing. The defendant will pay the amount awarded by the court directly to the plan.

From the Ontario Health Insurance Act, for example:
http://www.canlii.org/on/laws/sta/h-6/20040503/whole.html#BK55

Subrogation

30. (1) Where, as the result of the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of another, an insured person suffers personal injuries for which he or she receives insured services under this Act, the Plan is subrogated to any right of the insured person to recover the cost incurred for past insured services and the cost that will probably be incurred for future insured services, and the General Manager may bring action in the name of the Plan or in the name of that person for the recovery of such costs.

Payment by Plan recoverable by insured

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the payment by the Plan for insured services shall not be construed to affect the right of the insured person to recover the amounts so paid in the same manner as if such amounts are paid or to be paid by the insured person.

<That is, the fact that the person hasn't had to pay out of pocket doesn't mean that s/he isn't entitled to sue for the expenses, they're just paid to the plan, instead of to the individual plaintiff, by the losing party.>

Cost of hospital services

(3) For the purposes of this section, the cost of insured services rendered to an insured person in or by a hospital or health facility shall be at the rate charged by the hospital or health facility to a person who is not an insured person.

<That is, the defendant doesn't get the benefit of the cheaper rates paid by the plan.>


>>>>> This applies to everything except car insurance claims, which I assume is because of no-fault car insurance, which I've never understood the workings of.

So I expect that there is an effect in terms of the kind of liability insurance that businesses have to carry -- the costs of medical treatment in a public-payer system are far lower than in a US-style system (and there is probably less incentive and opportunity to inflate them), and so damage awards would generally be lower for that reason alone. (As noted, Canadians are also less litigious than USAmericans in private matters, although more litigious in constitutional rights&freedoms matters, and damage awards are much more realistic overall.)

This makes public-payer health insurance a good thing for yet another reason: it lessens the economic burden of liability insurance and pay-outs on small businesses, in particular.

Some time ago, a poster here pointed out another economic advantage of public-payer health care that's entirely unrelated to health per se. People in the US with jobs that provide health coverage are extremely reluctant to change jobs and especially to start their own business, since this will mean losing their family's group insurance coverage and having to purchase much more expensive individual coverage.

Few people with families are likely to take that risk, and so the US health care system is in fact a brake on entrepreneurial initiative. It is also an impediment to employee mobility between employers (e.g. innovative new employers will have trouble hiring skilled employees away from other employers if they can't afford to match health insurance coverage or if they can't guarantee job security, which is the only source of health coverage security).

Of course, higher unemployment will make employees less able to get good health coverage, since employers will not have to compete to the same extent to attract and retain employees. Obviously, low-skilled employees will be in this situation all the time, since the pool of available low-skilled labour in the US is large and growing (while market hegemony by large employers in some sectors increases), and an employer like Wal-Mart will not have to offer health coverage at all in order to attract employees.

In Canada, all employers are on a level playing field when it comes to basic health coverage, and compete for employees by, among other things, offering salary and benefit packages that include shared-cost supplemental insurance to cover things other than the "medically necessary services" covered by the plans, e.g. eyeglasses, perscription drugs (which of course are not the major cost factor here that they are in the US), dental, long-term disability and life insurance. This is a usual benefit (either mandatory or opt-in) at any major employer (and keep in mind that we have more unionized workplaces, I think, and unions will bargain these benefits) and at most established employers with more than a handful of skilled employees.


______________________________

There's a ton of other generally useful stuff in that thread too.

It doesn't directly address your question -- but the main fact to remember, when considering the situation in Canada, is that the costs of health care, whether paid by the public insurer or otherwise, are enormously lower than in the US, the absence of insurer profit, insurer administrative expenses and provider administrative expenses being a significant factor.

I'm too tired to do the math to figure out whether vehicle insurance companies would oppose or support universal public payer healthcare ... ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
angrycarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-16-07 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
19. insurace is A tax when it is required by law
Where is our representation? Nearly everything that is worthwhile in life is insured by law. This money is given To men who care nothing for the greater good of society. Every time any lawful commerce is conducted it is insured in some way. Insurance premiums are included in the price of everything that gets sold. No one has the guts to really stand up to them they have the power to have laws made that demand you buy their product.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC