Health Insurance Processing Center: Fill & Download for Free

There is a big difference between the US healthcare system and the US healthcare FINANCING system. Most people seem to forget this.When it comes to healthcare, the US has either the best in the world or near the top. People come from all over the world to have treatment here. When I was a defense lawyer at the International Criminal Tribunal, one of our judges, a former chief justice of Pakistan, told me he came to Houston for his bypass surgery. Not Korea, Not Singapore, not the EU. He came to the United States and my hometown for world class heart surgery.And, you can get treatment quickly in the US. I just had a cataract removed from one eye and my doctor wanted to do the other eye two weeks later. In some countries, there are long waits for such “elective” surgery. And, the care I got was incredible.But the healthcare financing system sucks. It is based on employer provided health insurance and the costs are out of control. A couple of years ago, Time magazine published a long article (I think a full issue) on health care financing. It was nuts.I have a personal example. A couple of years ago, my doctor sent me to a lab to draw blood and perform some tests. There was a screwup and for some reason my insurance company didn’t pay. I kept getting bills for $1,700 for the blood tests and I kept sending them to the insurance company and nothing happened. Finally, after I sent them a truly nasty letter on my firm’s letterhead and used the magic phrase unfair claim settlement, the insurance company paid up: about $300.So,, as an uninsured person I was billed about five times what the insurance company finally paid.Our current medical care financing system also ends up costing policy holders big bucks for “out of network” care or it limits where we get our medical care. If you have health insurance and go to an in-network hospital’s emergency room, the ER bill will be covered but if the ER doctor is not in your network, you’re going to get a surprise bill for his/her services.In Houston, a large number of insurance carriers don’t have the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in network. That means if you have cancer and want to go to the best cancer treatment and research center in the world, your insurance company might not pay.If you want to get rich, become the top administrator for a non-profit hospital. Seven-figure salaries are quite common and eight figure salaries not unheard of.I hate to use France as an example of something working right, but they have a single payer health care system. By almost every metric, infant mortality, life expectancy, death rates, France does better than the US. And, France spends about half as much as a percentage of gross national product on medical care as the United States. It is the same in a lot of other EU countries.EU countries don’t all have single payer insurance. The Netherlands requires all employers to provide specified private medical insurance for all employees who make a specified minimum salary. Those who make less get government subsidized insurance. In Switzerland, health insurance companies have to offer minimal policies meeting specified benefits at a no profit premium. The insurance companies make their money on add-ons. So much more for a private hospital room, that kind of thing. And if you’re planning on visiting Switzerland you either have to show proof of insurance or you buy a short term policy before immigration lets you into the country.I have never seen an insurance company with a headquarters in a condemned 19th century building. Top executives at health insurance companies make huge salaries. They spend zillions on overhead including everything from claims processing to marketing. All of that money comes from the premiums paid by employers and employees.The Defense Department has a health insurance program for military reservists who have retired but who are younger than 60, the age when they start getting pensions and full retirement benefits. By definition, all of the retired reservists in the program are 37–59 years old. No government money is spent on the program, called Tricare Retired Reserve. Google it.Great coverage for a family is about $900 per month, including prescription drug coverage. A similar private insurance policy through an Obamacare exchange probably runs $1,500 per month up. Why is that? I don’t know.When I turned 60 and got full military retirement benefits, my health insurance costs for my wife and myself went from about $800 per month (our share, not including her employer’s share) to $300 per year each. Admittedly, my Tricare insurance from the Defense Department was heavily subsidized by the government but it is an employee benefit for the uniformed military which is part of our compensation package. It is one of the reasons people serve 20 years in uniform.Medical coverage for the poor and lots of self-employed and employees of small business is terrible. I am in a profession with a fairly large number of sole practicioners. Most of them either have no health insurance or really terrible insurance . I know one lawyer, a single woman, who celebrated like hell when she turned 65 and got Medicare. It was the first health insurance she had had in years.I know another single woman lawyer who got cancer. She had really bad insurance coverage. She’s made a full recovery but the money she saved for decades for retirement is gone.The leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States is medical bills. And, when those debts are discharged, who pays the health care provider? They just ramp up their fees to cover the loss and all of us share the cost through higher health insurance premiums.We are hearing a debate about the cost of Medicare for all. The costs would be trillions of dollars per year if it is adopted. But no one considers the money that could be saved in insurance premiums paid for employer based insurance and the overhead costs to employers for administering health insurance plans. No one I have seen has run the numbers but I suspect that the money saved in premiums would go a long way to pay for Medicare for all.So, the bottom line is US health care is great for those who can pay for it. But our system of paying is fragmented, wasteful and inefficient. We can and should do better.

Question being answered: “How do Democrats plan to fund “Medicare-for All?” The average U.S household already pays 24% in taxes, so increasing the tax rate probably wouldn’t be very popular.”To answer the first part of the question: taxes. A Medicare-for-All program would have to be funded through a tax increase, likely heavier on corporations and the very wealthy (who just received a stupidly huge tax decrease and continue to reap the benefits of the lion’s share of loopholes). Democrats in charge might also shift spending to cover a Medicare-for-All program, perhaps taking a percentage or two off of military spending or something else that they don’t prioritize as much. They would also eliminate Medicaid since everyone would be covered under Medicare. That would lower costs and increase efficiency by combining the systems.And for the follow up statement: yes, tax increases are generally unpopular. However, there are a few important points to consider:Most people will pay less in extra taxes than they currently do for premiums (much less premiums plus co-pays), perhaps even significantly less. If this information is presented clearly and properly with quick and easy facts, it could do an excellent job of selling the idea. Unfortunately, Democrats have consistently shown themselves to be poor at messaging while Republicans, who rely far more on feelings than facts these days, have demonstrated excellent storytelling, which is exactly why they’ve managed to make so many Americans terrified of universal healthcare despite the readily available information that shows how effective and cheap it usually is (and we have the advantage of being late adopters, which means we can look at everyone else’s systems and figure out what would work best for us).Convenience. With Medicare-for-All, you’d no longer have deal with medical bills. You’d no longer have to hunt down providers that take your insurance. You’d no longer have to spend time and effort deciphering the nuances of long and confusing insurance plans. And you wouldn’t have to deal with lengthy back-and-forth claims processes. Medical treatment would be faster and far less stressful with a universal system.Freedom. Many people try to prop up our current system as having more freedom since you can shop for your health plan. But insurance isn’t the main product you’re looking for, healthcare is; insurance is just the financial backing…it’s the lesser of the two products. Would you rather have more freedom to choose your healthcare providers (which you’d get with a universal system) or to choose which of the dozens of nearly-identical insurance plans you think screws you over least? Because the latter is not only frustrating and confusing, it also places limits on the more important product.Confidence. Right now, unless you are obscenely rich, you can be financially ruined by a disease or major injury…even if you have insurance. Medical costs are a big source of bankruptcies in the US and people are frequently turning to crowdfunding sites to help pay medical costs. It’s absolutely disgusting that some people are forced to seek out medical patrons. And you’d better hope that your story is really compelling and well-presented because for every person that does get crowdfunded, there are at least ten more that do not. With Medicare-for-All, you never have to worry that an accident or illness will ruin you. And when people are confident that a health concern won’t force them to sell their house or something, they’re going to be happier, more productive, and might not have to put as much emergency money aside (which means more economic activity).Some more freedom. Another consequence of the financial uncertainty of healthcare in the US is that people will stick with employment that they might not be happy with just to make sure they have insurance. Someone who might want to start their own business or try to get a start in music or art or even just quit so they can search for a different job might not do so out of fear of losing insurance. Workers stuck in jobs just for the insurance will be less happy and less productive, which lowers economic activity. With Medicare-for-All, you’ll have the freedom to be entrepreneurial (even if you aren’t rich!) and to take more professional risks because you won’t have to worry about healthcare costs knocking you down.Companies would no longer have to cover healthcare costs for their employees. At least not directly. As with individuals, taxes would rise for companies but it still might end up being cheaper for them to pay the extra taxes over covering a chunk of their employees’ healthcare costs. This means more corporate profits and, hopefully, the companies would share this boon through increased pay (because, as it turns out, trickle-up economics does work).Less frustration. Health insurance right now is completely incentivized to make your costs as high as possible, to make the claims process as difficult as possible, and to deny as many claims as they can. That’s because, as private companies, they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders (and to the make sure their executives can buy the biggest boats!), which means that they have to make as much money as they can while spending as little as they can. And because healthcare isn’t something you can really walk away from if you need it, they have you over a barrel. The government, on the other hand, is incentivized to have happy, healthy citizens since such citizens are more productive, pay more taxes, and are more likely to support the current party/politicians (unless you choose the strategy of trying to scare your constituents into voting for you, which is a different and far sketchier game).Lower costs. Administrative overhead, which supports the dense and complex network of insurance and plans (plus the power of the pharmaceutical industry), has kept US healthcare costs enormously high compared to our peers. By switching to the government as the single payer in the market, the current mess of bureaucratic red tape (because, despite the stereotypes, private industry has plenty of red tape too…sometimes more) would be cut. The government could negotiate in bulk for insurance and medicine and use its purchasing power to demand things like pricing for services and streamlined claims processing (since few claims would be denied or held up).Preventative Health. With costs to the consumer zeroing out at the point of service, people would be more likely to visit a doctor for checkups…and for anything of concern instead of waiting for conditions to become emergencies. And since waiting for a condition to get worse raises the cost of care substantially, our system would see some cost reductions just from its greater availability. Not to mention that people would be healthier and happier in general…and happy healthy people are more productive and economically active.Pre-Existing Conditions. For some reason, there’s still debate about this and Republicans seem to be doing their best to get rid of pre-existing condition protections so that health insurers can reclaim profits that they’re going to lose because the stupid stupid tax cut removed the penalty for not having health insurance. And remember, the list of pre-existing conditions that insurers use to jack up your costs is very long…it might include something you’ve had that you might not think is a pre-existing condition. With Medicare-for-All, protections for pre-existing conditions would be moot since everyone would receive care no matter what.Private Insurance. Additional insurance would likely be available. So if you wanted access to private hospitals or facilities for faster treatment or additional amenities, you would likely have that option.You’ll Get to Keep Your Doctor. Really, this time. Unless your doctor went to a practice that only took private insurance (which would lose them a lot of patients), Medicare-for-All, being universal, would ensure that you could keep your current doctor.So yes, your taxes will go up…but overall, you’ll have more money in your pocket, you won’t have to worry about financial ruin, you’ll have more freedom to choose your healthcare providers (and even your career), you won’t have to deal with annoying claims processes, and you won’t have to put nearly as much time into deciphering complex health plans.So…what’s the catch? There are a few downsides:Your taxes will go up but, again, you’re going to still have more money in your pocket.Medicare-for-All would force some people who aren’t paying for health insurance to pay for it. However, the people who aren’t paying for health insurance right now either can’t afford it, which Medicare-for-All would fix…or they don’t think they need health insurance, in which case they’re gambling with public money since we end up having to pay for them anyways if they do get into an accident or have a major illness.The health insurance and administrative sectors are currently bloated. By streamlining the processes and moving to a single payer system, there would be job losses. Profits in the healthcare industry would also take a hit. That’s not great…but a lot of the money being poured into that industry is unnecessary (since it’s paying for inefficiency to boost profits) and is therefore preventing economic activity elsewhere. And if the government switched to the system slowly and thoughtfully enough, attrition might be sufficient to remove positions no longer needed in the industry.If you think that big government of any kind is a Bad Thing just because, then this whole thing is probably terrifying. But most of the arguments against big government programs are sort of reversed in healthcare. It’s more efficient and cost-effective to have the government doing this. And it should go to show that campaigning against big government based solely on the idea that big government is bad is a mistake…a dangerous mistake. Government should be doing what it needs to do as efficiently as possible and with accountability.Doctor numbers and pay would be affected. There is currently a doctor shortage in the US and this would have to be remedied since Medicare-for-All would see more patients using the system more often, especially for preventative and early care. The government might also have to step in to help with the astronomically high costs of medical education and to help with loans…particularly if medical salaries saw reductions.Wait Times…one common criticism of universal healthcare is wait times. There are plenty of anecdotes but not a lot of consistent, reliable data behind this…and there are anecdotes in the opposite direction, where people in Canada or the UK received rapid service while people in the US had to wait. A universal system will make you wait if your condition isn’t as severe…but you will get treated and get high quality care, and will get it rapidly if you need it.EDIT: I saw some answers throwing around numbers that left out some important context so I wanted to put some numbers here to show how we can pay for this:The estimated cost for Medicare-for-All is $3.2 trillion.We currently spend around $705.9 billion on Medicare, $581.9 billion on Medicaid (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services), and $71.5 billion on VA medical care (estimated using the most recent VA budget proposal, which is 6.5% higher than last year’s budget: https://www.va.gov/budget/docs/summary/fy2019VAbudgetInBrief.pdf). That is a total of $1.36 trillion already spent on public healthcare.There are 245 million Americans on private insurance (Health insurance coverage in the United States - Wikipedia) paying around $3500 per year for health insurance coverage (which doesn’t include co-pays, deductibles, and such) (Here's how much the average American spends on health care, FAQ - How Much Does it Cost to Provide Health Insurance to Employees?). That’s $857.5 billion spent privately on coverage only (again, not including co-pays, deductibles, and such).However, the average American actually spent around $10,000 per year on healthcare (because of co-pays and deductibles…see the above sources), which bumps that $857.5 billion to $2.45 trillion in private healthcare spending.So if we did nothing else but move our current public and private spending to Medicare-for-All (say, by taxing each individual that pays health insurance the exact same amount that they pay now), we’d end up with $3.81 trillion in Medicare-for-All, which is $610 billion more than we’d need. So we can clearly afford this.The above scenario just swaps current costs into taxes. Instead, we would probably increase taxes (by very little in the lower tax brackets and by more in the higher tax brackets…and by some amount for corporations (hopefully also progressive for company size)) such that most individuals would be paying far less in extra taxes than they currently do in healthcare costs. Corporations, which already pay a big chunk of healthcare costs for their employees, would pay…maybe more than they do now, maybe less, maybe the same? The very wealthy would definitely pay more…but only on the top slices of their income.And as I alluded to in the main part of my answer, universal coverage comes with economic benefits (happy, healthy people) that would offset some of the cost.EDIT 2: added current VA medical spending to the total of current public medical expenditures and changed my rounding of the trillion amounts to two decimal places so that I’m not showing $100 billion swings…

For people who have high quality health insurance, like myself, we are glad we have it, but we are disturbed about several things.First, we wish it wasn't so annoying and nitpicky. We look at all the paperwork, claims, referrals, pre-approvals, approvals, denials, networks, co-pays, deductables, etc., and say to ourselves, “How does all of this add value for anyone but the insurance company?”Second, we well-insured have a nagging sense of guilt about the people who don't have good health insurance, or who don't have any at all. It's a moral quandary: I work really hard at my job, so I believe I have earned this insurance. Okay, but that other guy works even harder than me, but his employer doesn't offer health insurance benefits to their employees, so he just goes without. When I have an illness or injury that makes me unable to work, I seek treatment, my insurance covers it, I get better, and I'm back in the saddle. When something happens to that other guy, its a roll of the dice. Maybe he gets better, maybe he goes bankrupt, maybe he's disabled, or maybe he even dies. When I have a tooth break, my insurance pays for an implant, so even late-ish in life, I still have a nice, professional smile. My teeth look better now than when I was thirty, seriously. When that other guy has a tooth break, he just loses the tooth. Late in his life he looks pretty rough when he smiles.Third, we know that the USA spends 2.5 times as much on healthcare as any other industrialized nation, and only achieves mediocre outcomes. I.e., as a nation we are being ripped off. At some level, we are aware of that fact, but we cannot bring ourselves to face the facts and really deal with it.For people who don't have good health insurance, there is a whole lot more to not like about our medical “system”. First, it's mostly out of reach. When they can get healthcare, the process is much more complex and the outcome is not as good. Being uninsured is a serious health risk. Many doctors will not even accept uninsured patients, because it is a risk to them. You have to be sicker to qualify for free health care, and you have to look much harder and go further to find it. There are programs and centers, but navigation is difficult. The uninsured often end up in emergency rooms, waiting all day to be seen.On a personal note, some years ago, my wife and I ended up being uninsured for a couple of months due to job changes and enrollment windows not lining up. I told my doctor we were uninsured, and he said not to worry because he'd give us the cash rate, which was only half of the insured rate. I.e., had we been insured, the bottom line would have been twice as much as our cash payment. Think about it.