Slashing personal healthcare costs

Thanks for the tip. Being a proponent of reducing costs (spending and taxes) and then investing those dollars, I keep an eye out for anything that gets the job done for less.

By the way, I found a package of Twinline (75 in a bag) for $2 at Walmart.

Government getting bigger and bolder and ever more invasive. No smoking in public places like Santa Monica even with buses and cars choking everyone (compare a cigarette to a exhaust tailpipe?), even with nauseating regulation destroying everyone's peace of mind and destroying small businesses, light bulbs regulated, ethanol enforcement driving the price of bread up, HOA's dictating what kind of potted plants you can have, cities throwing people in jail for growing vegetables in their yards ... government mandating what the heck you can and can't do, buy, or have. Bah.

Tell your politicians you've had enough government for a while, thank you, and watch the price of medical come down. In the meantime, let your doctors know you pay cash or check, and see if they don't offer you a discount of 30% over the ridiculously elaborate "insurance" plans that are no guarantee of payment to begin with!

I agree. I have questioned my dentists anytime they have asked for more than one x-ray a year. I think this is a helpful excerpt:

-- If a patient is at low risk for dental problems, never has new cavities, eats a healthy diet and practices excellent oral hygiene - brushing and flossing daily - he or she may need X-rays only once every two to three years, said Dr. Dara Cunnion, a pediatric dentist at the Boston University School of Dental Medicine.

But you should be assertive in talking to your dentist about X-rays, and how often you really need them, said Frank Masse, a retired MIT nuclear physicist who now runs a consulting service for hospitals and medical clinics. Masse said he allows his dentist to take X-rays "only if there is a real need," adding that "it's been many, many years since I had a whole-mouth exam."

Just being able to get medical insurance is a big help. National plans and a public option would make it easier for people to move to where there are jobs, but it would require federal oversight of the plans instead of the current state oversight.

I had a nephew get a stent after a severe blockage. He didn't have insurance, but the medical providers lowered his bill. (I wouldn't count on that happening for those that have considerable savings or income.)

It's impossible to compare medical insurance rates in general, so it's a matter of getting bids probably through an insurance agent. I think a high co-pay might be better than a high deductible because the insurance company will negotiate lower charges for all charges instead of just major medical costs.

One can save by not smoking, exercising, and having a good diet.

Get the flu vaccine every year and treat any chronic condition like diabetes or hypertension.

-- Ron

Dental ripoffs are a real problem indeed, but I wonder if regular X- rays are not important in detecting oral cancer in its early stages as much as finding out anything about the teeth.

Uh, "Just say 'no'." My xrays are every 2 years, but if you wish, you are the customer, and can just tell them you're there for a cleaning. The risk is whether a tiny hole that can be easily drilled and filled before getting worse, turns into, well, something worse.

There are other problems that can come up besides cavities and gum problems. Teeth sometimes just "give up the ghost" for no visible reason. That can lead to needing a root canal, or even developing an abcess. Getting an abcess fixed is much less desirable than getting multiple xrays over the years. Been there - done that.

But the co-pay model is starting to be demolished - see the article how a committee has ruled 6 sex-related issues must be tended to with zero co-pay, and how you will pay for it in mandatory annual fees even if you don't indulge in such risk factors or biologically cannot. The committee was not to look at the cost of this - only whether zero co- pay gives any better results:

I wonder if there will be any escape of this forced collectivization of coverage for increasingly irresponsible and wasteful medcare. With zero co-pay the hypochondriacs zoom up the cost. Then if you even change a health plan, you face not being grandfathered for a pre- existing condition and zooming your rates. Very different options are available from state to state, but some of the nationwide web quoters give suspicious numbers (eg. try having them quote your present plan).

But collectivized (socialized) medical systems are said to "ration" to deal with overdemand of non-efficacious services.

Some seem to want to eliminate waste via socialized medicine. Then ill- informed critics jump on them for promoting real efficiency, incorrectly and pejoratively labeling their goals as "rationing."

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act* (passed in 2010) says denying someone coverage for a pre-existing condition or charging a different premium for said condition is illegal.

*Many know this as "ObamaCare."

But collectivized (socialized) medical systems are said to "ration" to deal with overdemand of non-efficacious services.

Some seem to want to eliminate waste via socialized medicine. Then ill- informed critics jump on them for promoting real efficiency, incorrectly and pejoratively labeling their goals as "rationing."

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act* (passed in 2010) says denying someone coverage for a pre-existing condition or charging a different premium for said condition is illegal.

*Many know this as "ObamaCare."

I won't debate philosophy, but note the qualifications of a fellow "ill-informed critic"

has been writing about his experiences as a UK doctor (for theunderpriviledged) for decades. I've followed hundreds of his weeklySpectator articles illustrating the inherent dysfunction theirsocialized medicine created for him. He writes critical books aboutit too, as well as British Medical Journal articles and US thinktankwriteups.

Thanks! That is an interesting feature which will inflate typical costs but prevent a catch 22 for people forced into coverage but not able to pay a jacked up special premium. In searching for when this takes effect (2014) I found a very interesting summary of the act's timeline

. It for instance will ban high-deductible ways of making your planaffordable - whatever happened to the freedom for citizens tonegotiate their own contracts with service providers?. The writeupdoes say the act is, and has always been, disliked by majority ofpolled citizens (sez Obama was elected on a no-mandatory health careplatform) so maybe some alterations before 2014. But I did find a loophole I am starting to like - a qualifying 501(c) (3) cost-sharing religious ministry. You don't send them insurance premiums; they just tell you which member is sick and you send your monthly contribution directly to the patient. Only a few qualified ones exist (all Christian, with long track records) and no more will be approved. It has a further advantage of not being regulated by state insurance boards, which in my case jacks up the needless coverage almost as much as 2014 fed requirements anyway. Any opinions?

There is also a mandate loophole for native Americans (any open enrollment into less popular non casino owning tribes?) and the Amish (Mennonites too?). The Amish loophole seems to lock you out of social security system as well, but that could be a big advantage for young folks who haven't yet thrown away money into SS contributions. The point of seeking a loophole is for those finding the 2014 mandates too expensive, wasteful, or even violating the very foundation principles of their country.

[We're heading towards the edges of topicality here]

re: panel's recommendation that healthcare reform include provision of birth-control with zero copayments

I think from an economic perspective you have to look carefully at unintended consequences and cost escalation. Your use of the word "hypochondriacs" here - in context of talking about birth control - suggests that all medical treatments have the same consequences and costs. But birth control is (a) very cheap and (b) not something abused by hypochondriacs and (c) likely to create vast other savings (ie. unintended pregnancies are very much more expensive). This is entirely unlike, say, if the healthcare reform provided zero-copayment provisions for MRIs.

While it doesn't quite match what we're talking about here directly, I do highly recommend a quick read of Tyler Cowen's recent (very short) book, The Great Stagnation. He talks for a good while about the failure of pricing signals and one of the three things he puts on display regarding this, of course, is healthcare. When there is no pricing signal, things get overused. But in our country, with our system of third-party payers for most healthcare, the signals are long since gone and - at least as importantly - we are not getting better outcomes for all that spending. WHen there are viable pricing signals, people do slow down spending when they are no longer getting value for their money. When someone else pays, whether they get value or not, they keep spending.

But he also makes it very clear that different kinds of spending add (or don't add) value in different ways. Which brings me back to my earlier point - overspending on way too many, say, heart stents - and I guarantee you that regardless of ObamaCare, we were and will be spending buckets of money on that since most of them are paid for by Medicare anyway - makes little economic sense. While spending more on preventing unwanted pregnancies does get us a huge return on that investment. And the costs of those unwanted pregnancies, very much like the costs of healthcare for the elderly, do not all fall on the private sector - they fall very much through to the government programs. Middle class people with private healthcare are rather less likely to have those unwanted pregnancies than are people who are already getting government benefits - and even more telling, once they have those unwanted pregnancies they are more likely to run up further government costs since we provide a social safety net for the sake of those kids.

Anyway, this has all been a very long-winded way to say that I strongly suspect that the "return on investment" to all of us, particularly the taxpayers, from providing zero-copay birth control is likely to be quite high.

Don't believe everything you read in Wikipedia. Thumper

======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT: Please remember to trim quotes.