Talk:Health insurance

message: This article needs some more input from economists. It sounds like it's written by an arts student :)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psychobabble (talk • contribs) 10:09, 1 October 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for more input

message: Health insurance is one of the most controversial forms of insurance because of the conflict between the need for the insurance company to remain solvent versus the need of its customers to remain healthy, which many view as a basic human right. This conflict of interest is why state and federal regulation of health insurance companies is so important. Some say this conflict exists in a liberal healthcare system because of the unpredictability of how patients respond to medical treatment. But too many health insurance companies put the need for high profits before the lives of their customers.
Here is a hypothetical example of a situation that might confront an insurance company: 
Suppose a large number of customers of a particular insurance company contracted a rare disease and the hospital charged 10 million dollars a patient. The insurance company would be faced with the choice of either charging all its future customers astronomical contributions (thus losing customers and going out of business), paying all claims without complaint (thus going out of business) or fighting the customers in an attempt to deny the costly treatment (thus outraging patients and their families and forcing them into bankruptcy, and becoming a target for lawsuits and legislation).
Of course, the insurance company has voluntarily signed a valid, legal and binding contract, the insurance policy, and thus should pay all valid customer claims without question. 
Because health insurance companies are in the money business, not the health care business, they tend to be paranoid that their customers are out to take advantage of them. The companies fear that the customers will unfairly get some benefits they are not entitled to or engage in risky behavior that an otherwise sane person without health insurance would not engage in. For example, health insurance companies say there are faced with several unique  economic problems with private health insurance. Asymmetry of information about a persons health and behaviour is likely to lead to adverse selection and moral hazard. Health insurance companies say that,  in essence, those seeking health insurance are likely to be those with existing medical problems or high likelihood of future medical problems and those who take out insurance may engage in risky behaviour, such as smoking and excessive alcohol consumption, which they otherwise would not. If true, these problems may lead to 'good' insurance risks being priced out of the market or even insurance being uneconomical to provide.
However, most individuals who buy health insurance do so in order to ensure that their family will be able to  afford medical care if they need it, knowing that  without insurance, they probably will not be able to pay for expensive hospital care or life saving prescription drugs, which could threaten their financial or physical health. 
Insurance companies say that with publicly funded health insurance the good and the bad risks are all included in the coverage and the same moral hazard applies. 
Health insurance companies in the United States have steered their business model away from the concept of  "risk sharing," (offering policies to as many people as possible) to the concept of "risk avoidance." (refusing to offer policies to the sick, the elderly and those who might get sick) These companies emphasize that every risk must subsidize the unhealthy, and those that take care of their health have no opportunity to avoid this subsidization. But disease is no respecter of persons. Even a healthy individual who exercises and eats a perfect diet can fall victim to a life threatening microbe, an environmentally induced cancer, or suffer serious injury in an accident. That's why everyone, including healthy people, needs health insurance, and why individuals need a comprehensive health insurance plan that covers all contingencies.
Insurance companies say that, in general, if many sick people buy health insurance from a private health insurance company, but few healthy people buy it, the price of the insurance rises. However, in reality, few sick people are able to buy health insurance. Insurance companies also say, that, if many healthy people buy health insurance, but few sick people buy it, the price drops. In other words, the price drops if more money is going into the insurance, and less is being paid out. In reality, only healthy people are allowed to buy health insurance, but the price of insurance still rises by ten percent or more each year.  
Some people argue that most healthy people don't buy health insurance because they don't need it, so the price tends to stay high. But, 80-90% of Americans do buy or obtain health insurance, either through their employer or as individuals, because they realize that they cannot afford the high cost of hospital care, which can amount to as much as $10,000 a day.  Because of advanced medicine, people are living longer and longer, creating a larger group of senior citizens who require more pay outs than the young (a similar effect is seen in Social Security). This also increases the price of health insurance. Some factors that raise health insurance premium prices are: people who don't exercise, eating junk food, shortage of doctors in proportion to population size, excessive alcohol use, smoking, street drugs, obesity, the modern sedentary lifestyle, and the large number of semi-fraudulent health insurance companies exploiting small businesses and the self employed. The opposites of these (exercise, eating healthy food, less addictions, non-profit community based health insurance providers, etc.) lowers health insurance prices, because healthier lifestyles protect the body from disease, and with fewer diseases, fewer doctor bills must be paid by the health insurance companies. The savings are passed on to the customer, paid out in generous salaries to company executives, or retained as profits by the health insurance company. 
A person who buys health insurance must fill out a form that asks about the person's medical history, whether that person is a smoker, how much the person weighs, etc. The applicant can get discounts if he lives a healthy lifestyle. This incentive may encourage some people to live a healthier lifestyle. 
Unfortunately, this medical history is also used as a tool to deny coverage to many individuals with pre-existing conditions.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.55.161.153 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 26 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Private health insurance

message: Hi,I have made the changes to the article. What I ended up with is slightly different than what I submitted below. I welcome your input. I tried to maintain the core and format of the orginal article. I thought that the original article only gave the insurance industry point of view, so I retained that and added the health insurance reformers or consumers point of view. I didn't want to get too technical or statistically, is that a word?, since this is a general interest encyclopedia. 
I learned about the wik from an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution. April 17. 
I have created an account. Since I'm new, I'm not sure about procedures, so feel free to tell me if I mess up.
Jim—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.55.161.151 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 29 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: In addition to other changes, I removed the following paragraph from the article:
:Consumer advocates say that health insurance companies have adopted a business model of "risk avoidance" (refusing to offer policies to the sick, the elderly and those who might get sick) rather than the traditional insurance concept of "risk sharing" (offering policies to as many people as possible to mitigate individual risk, i.e., a Universal Pool). Insurance companies say that in Universal Pools, healthy policyholders must subsidize the unhealthy, and that those who take care of their health can pay lower premiums if they are given the opportunity to avoid this subsidization. Consumer advocates say that risk sharing or cross subsidies between classes of people like the sick and healthy and the young and elderly are what constitutes the very definition of health insurance. Consumer advocates say the young and healthy need to remember that one day they could well be older and sicker.
Just who says that "risk sharing" as opposed to "risk avoidance" is the traditional insurance concept? "Risk sharing" doesn't seem like something that people with different levels of risk would do voluntarily.
Generally, this article has way too much of a "point-counterpoint" style of writing. It also relies much too heavily on the term "consumer advocates". "Consumer advocate" is a title that could reasonably be claimed by almost anyone who is not actually in the industry, or their dependents and loved ones; something more precise would be good. Other changes, in addition to what's in my edit summaries:
*I took out "But consumer advocates say that only healthy people are allowed to buy health insurance, but the price of insurance still rises by ten percent or more almost every year." This is actually a different argument that doesn't follow from the preceding paragraph. Industry people and people familiar with economics argue that such-and-such makes the price higher or lower than it otherwise would be.
*I added a couple specifications where we are talking about developed countries specifically; some parts had something of a geographic bias.
*I took out a couple instances "unfortunately" or the like, for NPOV purposes.
- Nat Krause 10:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from article, etc.

message: Is there a place in this article to mention that as of 1998, 44.3 million Americans do not have health insurance?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adc718 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article, 85% of Americans have health insurance. So it's already there; 15% of 300 million is 45 million. Kafziel 15:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It is important to break down the 47+ million uninsured by the reason for lack of coverage to give perspective on this figure.  According to the US Census 20 million of the uninsured are college age childen and those making $75k+/year who choose not to take insurance.  11 million are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP but have failed to enroll. 10 million are not US citizens.  That leaves 10-15 million long term truly uninsured Americans.Aecooper (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: This whole article treats health isurance as if it is a choice between individually purchased health insurance and government-funded insurance.  However, the vast majority of health insurance in this country is employer-funded.  This is critical to the debate for several reasons:
1. The bigger the employer, the less underwriting goes into identifying bad risks among the employees.
2. Small business insurers (2-50 employees) are currently highly regulated by all 50 states.  These laws restrict how much insurers can charge due to unhealthy members.  All policies are guaranteed to be renewable, and the increases are restricted.
3. The ex-post moral hazard costs are higher, since the employee generally only pays 20% of the premiums, while the employer pays 80% of the premium.
4. The statement above is no longer true; employers choose how much they are willing to pay for an employee and their dependents.  In most cases, 50% is the minimum for employees and 0% for dependents.
5. Employees and Employers can write off their portion of premium (tax deductible) with the use of Section 125 of the IRS tax laws.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.86.94.77 (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Employer Based Insurance 

message: I removed a reference to the industrial revolution.  I don't think anyone say that the industrial revolution 'matured' during the late 20th century.  I hope no one objects.
Also, this sentance: 'This payment model continued until the start of the 21st century in some jurisdictions (like California), where all laws regulating health insurance actually referred to disability insurance.' is a little obscure.  Are we trying to say that the "disability" payment model still existed in california, or that the law still referenced disability rather than health insurance.  I would assume it's the latter, but as I don't live in Cali I don't know. 69.207.22.219 19:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History and evolution section

message: The linked Pinky Show at the bottom of the article mentions that the real historical reason for the divergence of the American system away from other industrialized countries was the incentive scheme devised by employers during the second world war as a way to attract scarce workers.  It's hard to really identify a cohort nation for comparison -- the best example seems to be Canada, since it didn't suffer invasion during the war.  Britain might be a close second.  Both of these nations' economies must have experienced the same difficulties of a constrained labour force during wartime, but neither evolved a significant private health insurance system.  Perhaps this is more of a political question, but I would be interested in references to material that discusses this history, sociology, and political science in more detail. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.119.92.25 (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History and Evolution Question

message: Hey,
When i looked up this article i was looking up information about health insurance in the united states. Almost all the information there was indeed about united states. Only then, lower in the article i noticed that there is a "main" article for  Health care in the United States. As such that means that the article is about USA, USA, and two lines about other countries.
I think in this article should be general information about health insurance, it's origins, and maybe a short comparison of differences between the countries (in Netherlands, where i am from, the basic (mandatory) health insurance covers all the costs of hospitals, GP, and all prescription medication, while in USA that's not the case). Right now the article is not very balanced.
It would be nice if someone could do it.. Otherwise i'll begin moving stuff around :)
Robert 19:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health insurance in the world or health insurance in the USA 

message: I am employed by a United States health insurance company, so I will not be editing the article, but if anyone has any questions I might be able to answer, I would be happy to contribute. Just ask. I do watch this page, so posting here should catch me. Slavlin 19:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason you should not edit this article provided you give citations and avoid POV and OR ... this article needs a lot of work ... it is very US centric. :) Abtract 23:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resources 

message: (start proposal for merge into Health care)
I suggest Health plan be merged with this article. If you read both articles, you can see that "Health plan" is but just another name for "Health care," and both entries hold virtually the same information. --I Are Scientists 21:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Against and I've changed the merger proposal on Health plan to point to Health insurance. I'll copy the discussion so far into Talk:Health insurance. Canuckle 19:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger of Health plan

message: In paragraph 1, I am confused by the statement "Governmental agencies may offer health plans, but generally are not insuring anything..."
As far as I'm aware, the insurance model is based on the following foundational concepts: 
*Any individual may experience significant costs if they get very sick or badly injured.
*In a large population, the number of people who will get very sick or badly injured during a given time period is relatively limited, compared with the number of people who will be healthy during that same time period.
*We can predict fairly reliably how many people in a large group will be (for example) struck by lightning.  We cannot reliably predict which individual in that group will be the one who is struck by lightning in three months.
*By pooling together money to help cover the costs for people who get sick or injured, the group as a whole can pay for expensive health care treatments, while each individual within the group pays relatively little.  This helps to protect each individual from having to pay sudden, largely unpredictable, and potentially very expensive health care bills.  
*Because anybody can become sick or injured at any time, everybody benefits, because they know that if they get sick or injured, the group as a whole will pay for them, just the same as anybody else. 
So, based on that understanding, even government-sponsored healthcare coverage is still insurance, albeit of an extremely specialized type.  It is still funded by people pooling their money together (in the form of taxes) in order to spread the cost of unexpected health expenses across the entire population, so that people can afford to get the health care treatment that they need.
Is there a more limited definition of insurance that people are using here? 
-- Kelsied 01:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  I've had a shot at clarifying this a bit.  See if y'all think it's generally on point.  I need to take a break & handle some stuff around the house, but I'll provide my references in a little while, never fear!  :)  Kelsied 23:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Government Insurance

message: So the article presently seems to indicate that moral hazard is a problem specific to privately-offered healthcare.  I'm a bit new to the particular arguments around moral hazard, being more on the employer-purchasing side as far as experience goes.  But looking at the argument logically, it seems like this is a problem that (rooted in human psychology as it is) would affect any insurance program, regardless of whether it is private or government-sponsored.  Can anyone help clarify this for me? Kelsied 21:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moral Hazard in Government-sponsored Healthcare

message: I also note that I think we are confusing "government-sponsored" with "mandatory participation" in some cases.  I'm still thinking about how to clarify that -- it's made more confusing by recent trends in the US, where they're starting to require people to have SOME health insurance, but not health insurance through a specific program.  So health coverage is mandatory, but health coverage in a specific plan (such as a European-model centralized government-sponsored plan) is not mandatory. Kelsied 21:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Government Insurance vs. Mandatory Participation

message: How have we written an entire section on US healthcare and neglected to include any mention of Medicare or Medicaid?  :)  What an oversight!  Kelsied 21:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Medicare

message: "In the late 19th century, "accident insurance" began to be available, which operated much like modern disability insurance.[1]. This payment model continued until the start of the 20th century in some jurisdictions (like California), where all laws regulating health insurance actually referred to disability insurance.[2] "
The citation for disability insurance continuing until the start of the 20th century looks like individual research.  Moreover, this seems to imply that disability is no longer available, which is false.  The whole history section is a bit light & could use some revisiting... Kelsied 22:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Disability & Health Insurance

message: I'm concerned about the assertion that private insurance is more common than government-sponsored insurance.  That is true only in the United States, which is one of the last remaining industrialized nations that doesn't offer government-sponsored health coverage.  As this is a general topic, we should be careful to reflect international trends, instead of being limited by what is common in the US.  Kelsied 00:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Afterthought: Even in the US, Government-sponsored health coverage is exceedingly common, particularly via the Medicare and Medicaid programs.  So I think the assertion that private insurance is "most" common is really very questionable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelsied (talk • contribs) 00:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your concern is related to the need to globalize the perspective of the entire article.  If so, then the lead needs a few additional sentences, after "Market-based health care systems such as that in the United States rely heavily on private and not-for-profit health insurance." We should attempt to summarize how the term applies in other countries, but this is very hard to generalize. For example, it's my understanding that in some countries, the term "insurance" is frequently used only to refer to private supplements to the public health care system, but the public system itself is not called insurance. If the usage of the term "insurance" is not universal, and I think it's not, then there should be a summary of the points of controversy in the lead.  Some use the term "social insurance" versus "actuarial insurance" -- see this article by Malcolm Gladwell. --Sfmammamia 23:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, that's useful to know; I hadn't previously heard that distinction explicitly made.  (I'll take a look at the article... sounds useful.) Is that something you feel up to addressing?  You sound like you've got a pretty good handle on the issue.  And yes, I agree the entire article could do with some work as far as globalizing it.  Unfortunately, I'd personally have to do some fairly serious from-scratch research, as I'm not as familiar with the international field as with trends in the US.  Comprehensive edits of that nature are consequently taking a bit of a back seat for me, while I work on the stuff I know more about... Eh, simply to say, feel free to keep me honest!  :) Kelsied 04:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For what it's worth, the actuarial profession in the U.S. tends to distinguish between "Social Insurance" and "Private" or "Commercial" insurance ("Social Insurance" is a universally recognized term - it's the use choice between the terms "private" and "commercial" that varies - though I have seen "Public" versus "non-Public," but that's usually been among policy wonks).  The U.S. Actuarial Standards Board has a separate standard of practice for Social Insurance .  It has a four-pronged definition of social insurance programs, defining them as programs that are: a) defined by statue; b) provides for explicit accountability of benefits and funding; c) funded by contributions (taxes or premiums) by or on behalf of participants; and d) are compulsory for a defined population, or is heavily enough subsidized that most eligible individuals choose to participate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.145.79.247 (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Frequency of Health Insurance Types: private vs. government-sponsored

message: There's nothing in Canada known formally as "medicare". That's a term borrowed from our American friends, and increasingly out of favour. We usually just say either "health insurance" or use the formal name, which is different in each province (Nova Scotia has "MSI", Quebec has "RAMQ", Ontario has "OHIP", etc.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.52.130 (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The official page on the Health Canada website appears to disagree with you. --Sfmammamia 00:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I made a slight wording change in this article, indicating that the name is informal. This is in keeping with other articles on Wikipedia that reference Canada's health care system. --Sfmammamia 22:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian "medicare" 

message: The references to Canadian care being totally "government run" are inaccurate.
Canada has a largely government funded health care system that is mostly delivered in a private manner. Doctors are not government employees, and thus they bill individual provincial public insurance programs for individual services. If the doctor treats non-residents, he bills the private insurance or individual directly if necessary.
The section on Canadian health care needs to be edited so that it does not have such inaccurate statements.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.219.3 (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing in this particular article that implies that Canadian health care is totally government run. The paragraph deals specifically with insurance, and to my knowledge it's quite neutral and accurate. If you see something specific in this article that you think is inaccurate, please feel free to point it out here or make a  bold edit. --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian care 

message: Every sentence in the "How it Works" section is labeled with a cite needed tag.  I'm removing them, as all of the statements are pretty patently obvious to anyone who works with health care insurance at the provider level.  I'm also making a couple of minor changes to the sentences. 216.201.119.71 (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Citation Tags

message: Why does "Health Expenditure" redirect here? I was looking for an article on expenditure by country and bizarrely got redirect here. 83.70.228.187 (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Insurance does not equal Expenditure

message: I know this is a hot-button issue, so I will tread carefully: The article says: "approximately 84% of Americans have health insurance."  The given citation (http://www.sensiblefinance.org/?page_id=46) doesn't actually say anything about health insurance coverage.  Perhaps this citation was actually intended: "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006." -- but that is a 78 page document and refers to "people" not Americans.  If I am not mistaken, "people" in the census include non-Americans.
Where specifically is the reference for this fundamental statistic?  Forgive me if I have just not read the citations correctly. HyperCapitalist (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Approximately 84% of Americans have health insurance" 

message: Could anything be said about NO "Liberty & justice for all" in America because: "Corporation executives often [always?} enjoy FREE medical services, for themselves & their families, from fulltime company medical departments.  This amounts to so much tax-free medicine, which is charged to the consumers in price & to general taxpayers.  High public officials often come in for such free medical services at various of the up-to-date governmental military hospitals... If he has no organization he can charge for the medical services, the rich man does have up to $20,000 of medical attention each year as a tax-free deduction...Most persons in the country never enjoy the services of a doctor until they are in extremus or a doctor must be called in to pronounce him [or his child] dead.  This is because they cannot afford a doctor.  The pleasant sounding medical deduction [for taxes] then, is of no service to the many persons without money to spare for doctors & medicine."  It shows insurance is the problem, not solution (idolatry--false way).   Stars4change (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Execs get free health care

message: The section on the US health care appears to be supporting a point of view: "The insurance industry represents a significant lobbying group in the United States" -- while that's true, it's not sourced and doesn't really belong in this part of the article (in my opinion of course).  Others??  Couldn't this be re-written to be more neutral?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The study assumed that anyone who declared bankruptcy and had medical bills over $1000 dollars had a "medical bankruptcy", and that's how they got 62%.  I deleted the sentence claiming that 62% of US bankruptcies were "medical" because the definition is so broad as to be meaningless.  Applying the same standard to bankruptcies in any country might well have yielded the same rate of "medical bankruptcies".  Two of the study's authors are founders of Physicians for a National Health Plan, and have published similarly inflated claims of "medical" bankruptcy before; for example, classifying bankruptcies due to gambling, drug addiction and alcoholism as "medical bankruptcies".
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_is_the_percentage_of_total_personal.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/02/a-little-more-about-medical-bankruptcy/35919/
http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/heriot200502110735.asp  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.40.178 (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Himmelfarb study 

message: The "Other factors affecting insurance prices" section refers to "broader-penis plans."  I assume this is an inappropriate disruption of the article, but I wasn't sure, nor could I find an easy way to report the article.  Either the original text needs to be returned or the term needs to be explained.
98.218.230.109 (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate Content? 

message: Is neither explained nor linked. It might be known only to a small percentage of readers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.122 (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ERISA

message: The cost of health care per capita is presented, but it would also be interesting to see what health insurance premiums are as a percentage of income. Also, is it possible to compared these numbers to the Australian health care income tax rate?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjgwiki (talk • contribs) 05:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  cost of health insurance premium as a percentage of income in the US v.s. other countries 

message: These have been a feature in the UK for years, since before the NHS actually. I am wondering if we should add a paragraph underneath the section mentioning bupa, axa etc RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Healthcare schemes in the UK 

message: Could we perhaps expand on the Rwanda section? The fact that we mention it is one of the few countries that has implemented a certain health care system, but don't explain how that system works, even briefly, is a bit confusing. We should add that in. Thoughts? Adamh4 (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rwanda 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Health insurance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090813144434/http://opa.ca.gov:80/english/about/consumer_information/?utm_campaign=Wikipedia&utm_medium=california&utm_source=wiki-healthinsurance to http://opa.ca.gov/english/about/consumer_information/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Health insurance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160106181338/http://www.phio.org.au/publications/publications/annual-reports.aspx to http://www.phio.org.au/publications/publications/annual-reports.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080214090847/http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=PG_876_E&cw_topic=876&cw_rel=AR_31_E to http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=PG_876_E&cw_topic=876&cw_rel=AR_31_E
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140601021121/http://www.finanztip.de/web/abc-der-krankenkassen/ to http://www.finanztip.de/web/abc-der-krankenkassen/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005141129/http://www.weforum.org/reports/human-capital-report to http://www.weforum.org/reports/human-capital-report
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090131160104/http://www.bupa.co.uk/heartbeat/html/not_covered.html to http://www.bupa.co.uk/heartbeat/html/not_covered.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227150902/http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/PDFnhssystreform2007/%24FILE/48751Surveynhsreform.pdf to http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/PDFnhssystreform2007/$FILE/48751Surveynhsreform.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://ca.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761576408_8/Health_Insurance.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.indiainfoline.com/article/research-articles/what-will-propel-growth-of-health-insurance-in-india-36295259_1.html , https://www.quora.com/How-is-Singapore-able-to-provide-free-medical-care-to-its-citizens-with-7-GST-whereas-India-is-unable-to-provide-it-with-28-GST and http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/5r0v3Ty7nNinEbcHk57DXN/The-changing-face-of-health-insurance-in-India.html . Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: When i search for health insurance fund , there are many different wikidata items about that, available on all kind of languages. But all that is in my opinion not necessary, because a health insurance fund , private or national or for children or adults or whatever, it is everywhere a fund, for providing healthcare.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just2correct (talk • contribs) 09:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  health insurance fund 

message: 1. Out-of-Network Provider: A health care provider that that has not contracted with the plan. If using an out-of-network provider, you may have to pay full cost of the benefits and services you get from that provider. Even for emergency services, providers not in your network may bill you for some additional costs associated.
Alanchan49 (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  CP 133 2019 Group 32 proposed edits  

message: 1. Group 32 improved the article by expanding on how emergency room billing works, how premiums are calculated based on specific factors and improving the phrasing for certain sentences. These edits would meet the Wikipedia's guidelines better if they cited what other things insurance companies can do and what formularies are as proposed in edit 2. Besides that missing citation, all the points proposed are included with verifiable cited secondary sources that are freely available. Joe.Li2019 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  CP 133 2019 Group 31 Feedback  

message: This is not the best history piece but it has some perspectives on the intent of insurance.
*https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-health-insurance-changed-from-protecting-patients-to-seeking-profit.html
Currently this wiki article has no history section, which is an omission.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: History 2019 perspective

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion