The temp gauge should be pointing to about 2 o'clock (according to the manual) but is actually down to about 4 o'clock. obviously the idea that the car is running too cold is ridiculous (unless Santa has taken up residence under the hood and is making it snow).
so what's up with the gauge saying she's cold? just a bad gauge?
My 96 Accord and my friend's 00 Accord, both temp gauge point to 4 o'clock. I believe this is normal for a Honda. My 01 corolla's temp gauge points to 3 o'clock.
For sure, Elle, plus the enormous cultural reticence to admit that the free market / rugged individualism isn't hacking this particular issue and that the govt might offer something worthwhile.
There's a term which I can't remember which theorizes that one problem with health care in the US stems from the insured consumer's insulation from the economic consequences of his health care choices. Sounds as though that's what you're talking about above?
Health services are not a true free market, because the consumer weighs in not at all on the pricing of the product.
OTOH, plop your typical middle class employee and his/her family down somewhere in Canada for a couple of years of experiencing their health care system, and s/he'll come away saying s/he doesn't want universal health care, because Canada won't give him/her and his/her family every conceivable snake oil product offered for a malady. The person will not believe s/he's getting the best care in Canada. "More is better" is a way of life in the U.S.
A cultural shift in attitude will be necessary, IMO. It will take a generation or two.
I don't know the term, but a former neighbor who was president of the local hospital at the time explained it pretty much that way, and it made a lot of sense. He said health care at any particular standard costs a certain amount to deliver. First in line is the gov't, which says you will deliver for the amount we pay you or you won't do business at all. Next in line are the large insurance carriers, like Blue Cross, which say you will deliver for what we pay or you will be left in the cold. The remainder of the cost is spread among the self-payers at many times the fair price, because the others just won't pay. A while ago I had to appeal an emergency room visit that had been denied... my cost was to be $1300 and BCBS eventually picked it up for $300. That left the $1000 shortfall to end up on somebody else's bill.
It shouldn't be such a goddarned maze. A few weeks ago a Harvard PhD, a multi-degreed engineer, and a doctor wrote the NY Times each wrote letters saying they couldn't figure out how to navigate the new Medicare drug benefit. Add my father, also multi-degreed, an engineer, from one of those high-falutin' schools who has mentioned twice in the last six weeks that he is struggling mightily with it, as well. If people as educated as this can't figure out how to get the benefit, what about the roughly 80% of adults in the U.S. who never even graduated from any college?
somebody else's
I have read that the uninsured are charged a higher fee (around 30%) because collecting from them is harder. It's revolting that different fees are charged for the same service, but there is, in part, a limited method to the madness.
Also, I hear health care services write off the shortfalls as losses.
I hate to dismiss it as "a lot of funny money is floating around," but the stories I'm reading in reputable publications sure make it seem like there's little order in the system. Bargaining over fees and haggling over what exactly was prescribed given by hospitals seems common. If one doesn't know the ins and outs, one is doomed, ISTM.
Throw in the NY Times piece recently on people with /good health insurance/ who were driven into bankruptcy because having to pay "only 10%" of a million dollars of medical services is still a lot of money.
which sounds pretty damn good. all our elected representatives get free health care off our dime, while a lot of people that pay taxes have no healthcare at all.
if the govt can negotiate for 300+ million people, they should get a better deal than my employer! and in that case, id give up my
*excellent* healthcare coverage for something mediocre if my employer wont have to deal with that burden.
or not. you likely didnt even receive $300 worth of service.
I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. It seems to me that hospitals will not generally haggle over costs with individuals without health insurance.
I guess that's incentive to at least have catastrophic health insurance. Even though one may be well below the (usually several thousand dollars) deductible for, say, a hospital visit, one is obtaining the discounted rates that one's insurance company has previously negotiated with the hospital.
So if one wants the discount, one is sort of forced into dealing with insurance companies. But then by being insured one is forced into subsidizing a lot of people who aren't careful with their health. Because of the way the insurance-health care system (monopoly? ponzi scheme?) is set up, there's little incentive for them to refuse unnecessary medical services. Hence doctors may prescribe away, lining their wallets and bringing income to hospitals, and promoting the "more is better" mentality while simultaneously claiming it's necessary because they'll be sued for malpractice if anything goes wrong. Meanwhile, the added cost is passed along to those who work to stay healthy and not abuse the insurance system.
I know buying insurance is about buying peace of mind. One should not expect to ever get back what one pays. Just seems that in the last 15 years or so, too many expect to get back from their premiums what they paid and then some, by excessive use of medical services that benefits them not at all.
Of course, with uninsured individuals in need of significant health care services, at some point Medicaid will kick in. But that also pushes up costs for everone else. Plus, by the time such people finally get to the hospital, a malady that might have been easily cured a year ago has exploded into a very expensive proposition.
Seems to me a Universal Health Care system would solve a lot of these problems. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would stop this persistent spiralling of costs that, as I suggest above, seems more and more like a Ponzi scheme every year.
the time i twisted my ankle i did everything by the book, (listed urgent care facility, paid my co-pay, etc.) bout a year later i got a bill from a doctor i NEVER saw that day, for treatment/services i NEVER received. only 2 people i saw were the receptionist, and a licensed vocational nurse.
went straight into the shredder and havent heard anything since.
the dealer version of that is the:
"you need to come back with a check because..."
1) the car was mica blue metallic, and we forgot metallic paint was extra
... but to a large extent, I /do/ agree with this part of your analogy. Indeed, from what I'm reading in reputable publications, the medical-insurance billing process is so complicated that mistakes are very common. IIRC, and ballpark, 30% or more of the time there is a significant billing error by health care/insurance services. Whether they're intentional, or just gross gross negligence is another matter.
I give the current, non-Medicare U.S. health care system 20 years or less. By which time I will be on Medicare. Still, if all Americans are paying less for health care (while some are paying a bit more in taxes), that will impact on inflation, etc.
Nice tip re garages, water heaters, and leaky car fuel tanks. Whoa! Glad you're still alive to post here! We need a top ten list of "Things NOT To Do While Repairing One's Honda," drawn from real life experiences.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.