Health Insurance Levy

johnnyskeleton

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I had insurance and dropped it, less than a year later I had to have surgery and the cost was so low that it made me regret ever having insurance (like it was less than 1 year premium). I'm also in my early 30s and I will certainly wait until I'm 34 to get insurance (which isn't that soon :mad: ).

Ive been wondering about that myself. The four areas of healh services in my view are:
1. Rouine GP/denIst visit;
2. Elective surgery;
3. Emergency room visit;
4. Serious illness.

Private health insurance does not cover 1-3 so you have to pay for these things yourself (with the state paying most of the emergency room cost). For serious illness you will get the same treatment but without the bells and whistles of a private room etc. If a private patient was prioritised for a transplant/chemo over a public one, there would be war. Plus, if you are in that position your primary concern is to get treated.

Are private maternity services covered by VHI? I can see how this could make financial sense.

Sheldons Brain

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ive been wondering about that myself. The four areas of healh services in my view are:
1. Rouine GP/denIst visit;
2. Elective surgery;
3. Emergency room visit;
4. Serious illness.

Private health insurance does not cover 1-3 so you have to pay for these things yourself (with the state paying most of the emergency room cost). For serious illness you will get the same treatment but without the bells and whistles of a private room etc. If a private patient was prioritised for a transplant/chemo over a public one, there would be war. Plus, if you are in that position your primary concern is to get treated.

Private health insurance can some types of elective surgery.
With serious illness it may get you diagnosed more quickly, no waiting for scans etc. This could be really important.

But the private insurance is most valuable for something that makes you very uncomfortable, but won't kill you, as there can be long long public waiting lists for these things.

Are private maternity services covered by VHI? I can see how this could make financial sense.

Policies have this, even if you are a man.

Geuze

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ive been wondering about that myself. The four areas of healh services in my view are:
1. Rouine GP/denIst visit;
2. Elective surgery;
3. Emergency room visit;
4. Serious illness.

Private health insurance does not cover 1-3 so you have to pay for these things yourself (with the state paying most of the emergency room cost). For serious illness you will get the same treatment but without the bells and whistles of a private room etc. If a private patient was prioritised for a transplant/chemo over a public one, there would be war. Plus, if you are in that position your primary concern is to get treated.

Private health insurance does cover no. 2, sure that's why most people buy it.

micosoft

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I thought the health system was funded from our taxes.

why should we need private health insurance

Our taxes aren't enough to cover the demand/speed of service many people insist on. If you've not seen the news you will see huge funding issues in our health service. TBH it exists in every public health service out there.

micosoft

annaP79 wrote: »

why then gov doesnt reduce tax to flat 15% or whatever , no prsi, no USC and let people take everything privately, at least then we would have money to do that, not to worry that better off would pay less, they can afford tax advisers who tell them how to avoid taxes already so at least average person could have more in her pocket at the end of the month

Can you let us know when you discover this fantasy country?
Even the Americans pay lots of different taxes - even more then we do - Federal and State tax for example.

Also most of these taxes go towards funding health and social welfare. Would you rather worry less about the number of taxes you pay but worry that if you were to lose your job/become permanently incapacitated that you would get nothing from the state.

Finally, honestly what's the difference between paying many taxes or paying many private companies for services (leaving aside the discussion on quality/efficiency). Sure I pay my Gas and Electricity together more so I don't have to deal with two suppliers then anything else. You solution does not make it any cheaper or simplar.

FreudianSlippers

micosoft wrote: »

Even the Americans pay lots of different taxes - even more then we do - Federal and State tax for example.

More in number, but less in percentage (for most).

micosoft

gaiscioch wrote: »

As somebody who will now have to take out health insurance, my outstanding query which no media report is answering is this:

As the government is penalising people who don't take out health insurance before 1 May, does this government policy essentially mean there will be a substantial increase in demand for health insurance and this will thus lead to an increase in the price of health insurance? Or, has this government included some safeguards to prevent profiteering by private health insurance companies (a profiteering which would not be possible but for this government's interference in the free market)?

Thank you in advance to anybody who will clarify this situation.

Firstly a correction - the Irish Health Insurance market is absolutely NOT a free market. It is heavily regulated and community rating is the intervention that is being fixed by this charge. This was a protection to prevent insurance companies raising their rates on subscribers who became sick (a bit like loading a car driver after an accident) - but obviously this is seen as unfair as nobody chooses to be sick as opposed to being a bad driver. In most open insurance markets like the US you would be massively penalised for taking out insurance in your thirties.

Secondly WRT profiteering you need to understand how the insurance market works. Very rarely would insurance companies seek to profit on the premiums they derive from the subscribers. Essentially premiums in, premiums out.

The first principle of insurance is that subscribers are pooling their risk equally. If they are not, then they need to pay a premium.
People in their twenties rarely get sick (and when they do it's typically an force trauma so end up in emergency treatment).
From thirties on they have children which is the first significant elective demand on their health care.
The situation gets ever worse as people get older after that.

Where do insurance companies make their money you ask? Well they invest the premia - usually in low risk investments, and make their profit from the return on investment. The reason insurance costs rose dramatically (if apparently counter-intuitively) during the recession was that the return on their investments collapsed. This meant not only were they not making a profit but they were making a loss which was eating into their reserves. Many insurance firms have large reserves in case an event goes against them (e.g. a hurricane). In that scenario they need enough reserves to respond.

As an aside most insurance companies because they are safe investments tend to be owned by Pension companies. Large chance the pension you have is funded by the profits you are slamming. I find it so odd people don't grasp the relationship between their pension and the performance of private sector companies.

I think charging a stepped series of rate increases as you get older is a fair way of doing it. Put it this way - basically instead of paying for health insurance when you can get away with it during your twenties, you are storing up a charge for later in your life. It's your decision what way you go but it's not unfair.

nice_guy80

Suddenly jobs that provide health insurance look very attractive. Mainly private sector management

Whereas most of those in public sector have to fund their own private healthcare.

I'm seriously considering not opting for the health insurance. I've never needed it up until now, I'm perfectly fit and healthy. I don't agree with this % penalty if I in the future decide to take out a policy.

Greyian

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I'm seriously considering not opting for the health insurance. I've never needed it up until now, I'm perfectly fit and healthy. I don't agree with this % penalty if I in the future decide to take out a policy.

So, you should just be able to take out insurance once you need it?
That would be great. Never pay for insurance, then get an illness that will cost €10,000s to treat, get insurance for ~€100/month, then cancel it once you're better. Who cares if all the insurance companies go bust as a result.

Sure, why don't we just require people to get car insurance after they have an accident?

FreudianSlippers

Greyian wrote: »

So, you should just be able to take out insurance once you need it?
That would be great. Never pay for insurance, then get an illness that will cost €10,000s to treat, get insurance for ~€100/month, then cancel it once you're better. Who cares if all the insurance companies go bust as a result.

Sure, why don't we just require people to get car insurance after they have an accident?

Was it Chris Rock that suggested we change the name to "in case **** happens"?

nice_guy80

Greyian wrote: »

So, you should just be able to take out insurance once you need it?
That would be great. Never pay for insurance, then get an illness that will cost €10,000s to treat, get insurance for ~€100/month, then cancel it once you're better. Who cares if all the insurance companies go bust as a result.

Sure, why don't we just require people to get car insurance after they have an accident?

it is not the same comparison
If I was to get cancer, the public health system will see me, and is quite successful too

If I was female and was pregnant, I could go the public health route to have my baby.

I believe in one health system for everyone.
Not a two tier system for those who can afford it or are lucky enough to have an employer footing the health insurance scheme.

Hopefully my earnings will be better in years to come and I will take out health insurance

Geraldo

Where do insurance companies make their money you ask? Well they invest the premia - usually in low risk investments, and make their profit from the return on investment. The reason insurance costs rose dramatically (if apparently counter-intuitively) during the recession was that the return on their investments collapsed. This meant not only were they not making a profit but they were making a loss which was eating into their reserves.


This isn't exactly true of health insurance, more in line with the GI business. The money is invested in short-term deposits that never provided much ROI. They did fall for sure but investment income would never have been a main source of income really. The real problem was the fact that lives on risk fell off a cliff and most of the people leaving the market tended to be young people who couldn't afford it any longer. Problem was that these people were also the healthiest and were propping up the whole market. That's the whole point of lifetime community rating. Get the young people back on cover by hook or by crook.

Geraldo

Geraldo wrote: »

Where do insurance companies make their money you ask? Well they invest the premia - usually in low risk investments, and make their profit from the return on investment. The reason insurance costs rose dramatically (if apparently counter-intuitively) during the recession was that the return on their investments collapsed. This meant not only were they not making a profit but they were making a loss which was eating into their reserves.


This isn't exactly true of health insurance, more in line with the GI business. The money is invested in short-term deposits that never provided much ROI. They did fall for sure but investment income would never have been a main source of income really. The real problem was the fact that lives on risk fell off a cliff and most of the people leaving the market tended to be young people who couldn't afford it any longer. Problem was that these people were also the healthiest and were propping up the whole market. That's the whole point of lifetime community rating. Get the young people back on cover by hook or by crook.

Quoting micosoft here btw

Head The Wall

Greyian wrote: »

So, you should just be able to take out insurance once you need it?
That would be great. Never pay for insurance, then get an illness that will cost €10,000s to treat, get insurance for ~€100/month, then cancel it once you're better. Who cares if all the insurance companies go bust as a result.

Sure, why don't we just require people to get car insurance after they have an accident?

No that's not how it works, when you start paying for health insurance where you can't claim anything and any known health conditions will not be covered so you can't just buy it when you need it.

Can you buy motor insurance after a crash? No

WicklowTiger

It's going to be interesting to see how our health services (public and private) cope with all of the new entrants into the private health insurance market in the coming months.

I've yet to hear any discussion on this topic. All of a sudden an extra what, 100,000 or 200,000 people have cover that they expect will let them "skip the queue". OK they're not all going to get sick at once, but you have to wonder.

nice_guy80

WicklowTiger wrote: »

It's going to be interesting to see how our health services (public and private) cope with all of the new entrants into the private health insurance market in the coming months.

I've yet to hear any discussion on this topic. All of a sudden an extra what, 100,000 or 200,000 people have cover that they expect will let them "skip the queue". OK they're not all going to get sick at once, but you have to wonder.

it will push up salaries for consultants as they all turn to private work over public work

Geuze

WicklowTiger wrote: »

It's going to be interesting to see how our health services (public and private) cope with all of the new entrants into the private health insurance market in the coming months.

I've yet to hear any discussion on this topic. All of a sudden an extra what, 100,000 or 200,000 people have cover that they expect will let them "skip the queue". OK they're not all going to get sick at once, but you have to wonder.

Note that thousands of people dropped cover during the Great Recession, so more signing up during 2015 may still mean less with insurance compared to 2007.

WicklowTiger

Geuze wrote: »

Note that thousands of people dropped cover during the Great Recession, so more signing up during 2015 may still mean less with insurance compared to 2007.

Maybe so but don't forget capacity in the system has also reduced in this time period

Dannyboy83

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Was it Chris Rock that suggested we change the name to "in case **** happens"?

I haven't been able to find the article since I read it on this forum a few years ago, but it documented the case of a woman who was diagnosed with cancer at the same time as an unrelated man.

It compared the treatment they received and the speed.
He was already finished a round of treatment, while she was still waiting to see a specialist.

It concluded she probably would have lived, (as he did), if she had not been hostage to the inadequacy of the public health system.

My partner think it's a waste and refuses to pay it, so I pay it on her behalf despite her objections.
While it does seem to be useless in many situations in Ireland, in the cases where it matters, it seems it's critical.

I would urge anyone considering abandoning their health insurance to read it (it someone can find it). It really was an eye opener for me.

Villa05

micosoft wrote:

Our taxes aren't enough to cover the demand/speed of service many people insist on. If you've not seen the news you will see huge funding issues in our health service. TBH it exists in every public health service out there.

Correction Our taxes are not enough to cover the waste in the health service. Per capita we have one of the best funded services in Europe even after the cuts. The problem is we are not getting value for money. Surprise surprise

ScottSF

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ive been wondering about that myself. The four areas of healh services in my view are:
1. Rouine GP/denIst visit;
2. Elective surgery;
3. Emergency room visit;
4. Serious illness.

Private health insurance does not cover 1-3 so you have to pay for these things yourself ... [clipped]

Private health insurance plans cover can cover #1 as well to be clear. Some hi-tech multinationals offer a comprehensive Vhi plan that partially covers GP visits (e.g. 10 times/year up to €40 per visit), consultant visits (varying limits), and dental care too.

Villa05

ScottSF wrote:

Private health insurance plans cover can cover #1 as well to be clear. Some hi-tech multinationals offer a comprehensive Vhi plan that partially covers GP visits (e.g. 10 times/year up to €40 per visit), consultant visits (varying limits), and dental care too.

Some multinationals are reviewing this as well to cut the level cover due to the inflation over the last 4 years Ironically some are medical device companies.

ScottSF

I'd be surprised if multinationals cut their health insurance plans. It is not a competitive move. If they want to convince people to move to Ireland from across the EU (as is one of the reasons for basing their European HQ in Ireland), the health care plan has to be competitive. The nationalized systems in many other countries is much better than here in Ireland as we all know. Plus in the US big employers often provide an even higher level of private health insurance coverage with lower out of pocket costs. I've met a few people that were very concerned about moving to Ireland because they had a family member with chronic health issues and they wanted to not just access to quality care but also low out of pocket costs.

Flem31

Very interesting development on Pat Kenny's show just now.
He had the head of Health Insurance Authority on and apparently to avoid this over 35 levy, you need to have the insurance policy in your own name.
For example, elderly couple have insurance for years with husband's name on the policy with wife down as dependant.
Husband dies suddenly and when wife looks for health cover, she is treated as a brand new customer as she never had insurance in her own name and will be hit with the levy.

Wonder what other landmines are in this policy

antoobrien

Head The Wall wrote: »

It's funny how with health insurance and risk equalisation they want to force the young to pay so there will be enough funds for old people's health insurance.

That's the way it always worked, the young subsidize healthcare for the old, this isn't changing that fact, however by levying older people (35 is older now?) it's shifting the burden of cost slightly away from the younger customers.

Head The Wall wrote: »

With motor insurance there's no risk equalisation so again the young get sh1t on again with excessive charges.

Actually not true, young motorists are considered a higher risk, so it costs more for a young person to ensure a car in Ireland than an older person.

Interestingly, this will supposedly disappear if/when Universal Healthcare Insurance comes in (though I'll believe that when I see it).

Noisin

I have had health insurance for most of my life, had a break of a year when I got sick of paying it.
I have it because I choose to have it, I choose to look up the best plan for me and I pay for it same as ya may pick car insurance, gym membership, or a holiday it's a personal choice. My husband doesn't have it but I'm in the process of looking at various plan that would suit and then going to sign up and pick one. He gave it up in 2011 when the recession hit him the most and didn't renew it as he lost his job. He has returned to college so stil hasn't work.
I suppose this new levy has definitely kick started me into looking up health insurance plans as personally I would prefer if he had it. Dannyboy83i would love to read that article. From someone who has seen 2 family members get cancer and be treated rapidly I believe it is essential to have some sort of insurance on your health that you can afford. Some people choose to go out and spend 100€ on a night out to me that's a waste of money. So for someone to say health insurance is a wasted money may not have first hand experience of the inadequate health system we have available to us in Ireland. I paid 295 for a private cat scan for my dad as vhi didn't cover it, we got the results that day that he had a tumour, I looked for the appointment in Galway clinic and got it in 2 days and I choose to have it done and pay for it. Once we got word and booked in with a consultant the rest of treatment was covered by the health insurance company. I know someone at work whose mother in law went public had a tumour in the same place has passed away since. It took weeks and weeks for the person to receive a cat scan and by the time they got results they were told it was unoperatable. It's a personally choice whether you take out health insurance same as it's a personal choice if you decide to go away on holidays. But it is good value for money if you require to use it. Having health insurance allows you to pick up the phone and choose which hospital you want to go with which consultant provided you have adequate cover. You don't have that control going public.

LostArt

Flem31 wrote: »

Very interesting development on Pat Kenny's show just now.
He had the head of Health Insurance Authority on and apparently to avoid this over 35 levy, you need to have the insurance policy in your own name.
For example, elderly couple have insurance for years with husband's name on the policy with wife down as dependant.
Husband dies suddenly and when wife looks for health cover, she is treated as a brand new customer as she never had insurance in her own name and will be hit with the levy.

Wonder what other landmines are in this policy

The information on Pat Kenny was incorrect. The HIA ceo f***** up there.

Head The Wall

antoobrien wrote: »

Actually not true, young motorists are considered a higher risk, so it costs more for a young person to ensure a car in Ireland than an older person.

Interestingly, this will supposedly disappear if/when Universal Healthcare Insurance comes in (though I'll believe that when I see it).

And an old person is considered a higher risk than a healthy young person so why isn't it balanced the other way around

Godge

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ive been wondering about that myself. The four areas of healh services in my view are:
1. Rouine GP/denIst visit;
2. Elective surgery;
3. Emergency room visit;
4. Serious illness.

Private health insurance does not cover 1-3 so you have to pay for these things yourself (with the state paying most of the emergency room cost). For serious illness you will get the same treatment but without the bells and whistles of a private room etc. If a private patient was prioritised for a transplant/chemo over a public one, there would be war. Plus, if you are in that position your primary concern is to get treated.

Are private maternity services covered by VHI? I can see how this could make financial sense.

Private health insurance also covers things like routine scans, X-rays, physiotherapy and psychiatric services.

Members of my family were told they would have to wait three months for a particular scan, off to the private clinic and it was done in days. Similarly, a four-week wait for public physiotherapy was eliminated by going private and claiming it back.

beauf

antoobrien wrote: »

That's the way it always worked, the young subsidize healthcare for the old, this isn't changing that fact, however by levying older people (35 is older now?) it's shifting the burden of cost slightly away from the younger customers....

How?

If people weren't willing, or couldn't afford it, before. They certainly are not going to be willing or be able to afford it now. If you were struggling before this, is now kicking you when you are well and truly down.

The only people who this might encourage IS the younger people. Anyone else its just putting it out of their reach.