What's new
By:

Obamacare to increase premiums by 304 percent???

Joe Bagadonuts said:
Someone needs to completely blow up the system and start over.
Click to expand...

To do that we would need to come together, and both sides are farther apart then ever before in our lifetime. I guess we'll truly have to hit rock bottom before we
realize that we are all in this together.
 
One of the things that has bothered me for a long time about our health insurance system is how it is tied to employment.

Insurance companies should offer the same menu of plans at the same cost to everyone. It should not make a difference whether you work for Starbucks, GM, the local school system, a small mom and pop company, are self employed or whatever. Everyone should have access to the same set of plans at the same price regardless of where they work. If your employer then wants to offer a cash benefit to offset the cost, that's the way it should be done. I wish companies would move to something like this type of model for their employee health insurance benefit.
 
Revolution 9 said:
To do that we would need to come together, and both sides are farther apart then ever before in our lifetime. I guess we'll truly have to hit rock bottom before we
realize that we are all in this together.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the odds of a managed reconstruction are very slim. Instead of purposefully blowing up the system, we are going to see it completely collapse before being rebuilt, which is far far worse.
 
Stoked said:
Poor portrayal of all the opposition. Some are actively being hurt by this law. Both in their job and in disposable income.

As for the whole not knowing what the law is. Isn't that part of the problem. No one, including the people that voted for it, knows what it does.
Click to expand...

Someone's always going to be hurt by a decision made for the betterment of the country. The question ends up is the hurt worth it?

I really, legitimately, and admittedly not understanding 100% of it, don't see how it can be all that much worse than what we're dealing with now.
 
b_line said:
So I haven't worked hard? And who ever said they had to get the healthcare on the exchange? You are welcome to stick with your current provider. Mine will still offer the same great price to me if I stay.

How is that salt to your wound? If you don't qualify for the subsidy, then you can obviously afford the coverage. I say that because I can afford the coverage, and I make a fair amount of money. I am by no means rich, but far from poverty stricken.
Click to expand...

Do you have cable? Internet? A cell phone? Do you eat out at all every month? Go to movies? Have you gone on a vacation in the last three years? Shop for NEW clothes and not at DI?

Then guess what? YOU CAN AFFORD COVERAGE TO. So, why do I have to subsidize your eating out, your cable tv, your cell phone, your internet? Why is that MY problem?

So I get screwed because you decided going to movies, eating out, going on vacations, having internet and cell phones is more important than health coverage?

You just don't get it do you.
 
moevillini said:
One of the things that has bothered me for a long time about our health insurance system is how it is tied to employment.

Insurance companies should offer the same menu of plans at the same cost to everyone. It should not make a difference whether you work for Starbucks, GM, the local school system, a small mom and pop company, are self employed or whatever. Everyone should have access to the same set of plans at the same price regardless of where they work. If your employer then wants to offer a cash benefit to offset the cost, that's the way it should be done. I wish companies would move to something like this type of model for their employee health insurance benefit.
Click to expand...

This is where a quasi-union situation "helps" the employees. See insurance companies would be happy to offer plans to everyone individually, at 10x the cost, since they have everyone in a ringer (near-monopoly) everyone has to pay whatever price they set, same problem with medical care itself, by the way, not much competition when you are looking for a surgeon skilled in neurosurgery or whatever. But with corporations, they swing a big stick and can force the few insurance groups out there to compete with each other since the company represents such a large block of individuals. They can force the insurance companies to put together group plans that cost less for the individual at least at the outset. See here is where it gets seriously complicated. How does the insurance company offer a lower price to compete for the corporate dollar? They try to contract with certain doctors who are willing to accept set rates for certain procedures, or types of procedures, so the insurance company pays them less when there is a claim. But doctors can only cut so low before they can't cover overhead and a staff and insurance of their own (malpractice is a huge cost).

I have a friend in Phx who is an independent family practitioner, and he has told me he is trying to restructure. See it is very uncommon to be independent anymore. Nowadays the "family doctor" is more often than not on the payroll of, you guessed it, an insurance company. So my friend is seriously feeling the pinch. He doesn't want to be constrained by what the insurance companies would tell him do if he were working for them directly, but they force him to take much lower payments than if he were simply salaried to them, if he wants to accept their insurance. So now he is trying to figure out a way to stay independent, but it is a losing battle. He told me his true income has dropped by almost 40% over the past decade, after paying all costs of his own, while his office is taking in more money than ever. And the care he can give is worse, as it is tainted by what the insurance companies are willing to pay for.

It is as broken a system as there ever was really. We have the very best medical care in the world, but accessibility is terrible and the care could be even better than it already is if we could find a way to balance out the money side of the equation.
 
Revolution 9 said:
To do that we would need to come together, and both sides are farther apart then ever before in our lifetime. I guess we'll truly have to hit rock bottom before we
realize that we are all in this together.
Click to expand...

Here is the correct answer. We are too worried about "getting ours" and taking care of ourselves that we aren't in this together. BOTH parties would rather have the system fail to prove how "right" they are then to come together and try to find a solution that actually works.

When has our country been most successful the last 30 years? When Reagan and Clinton were in office, and Congress was ruled by a different party than the President...AND BOTH SIDES WORKED TOGETHER.

Amazing.
 
moevillini said:
One of the things that has bothered me for a long time about our health insurance system is how it is tied to employment.

Insurance companies should offer the same menu of plans at the same cost to everyone. It should not make a difference whether you work for Starbucks, GM, the local school system, a small mom and pop company, are self employed or whatever. Everyone should have access to the same set of plans at the same price regardless of where they work. If your employer then wants to offer a cash benefit to offset the cost, that's the way it should be done. I wish companies would move to something like this type of model for their employee health insurance benefit.
Click to expand...

This is a GREAT idea. Why does a self employed person have to pay $1200 a month for a family of four and a govt employee only has to pay $50? Why do Congressmen get theirs for free (especially when you consider that their salaries put them in the top 5% of income earners in the country)?
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
Not only has my insurance gone up a huge amount since Obamacare passed, but my coverage has decreased dramatically.
Click to expand...

What does the trend have to do with Obamacare though? Nothing.


NUMBERICA said:
It's immoral for the richest nation on earth to also be the only 1st world nation on earth that doesn't consider the health of it's citizens as a duty..
Click to expand...

What a bunch of utter bull ****. Do you understand motivation at all? People are clearly against giving the farm away and creating a bunch of bums. NOBODY is against caring for the needy. Our system already does that for ****s sake. Everything from do not refuse service to the state socialized health insurance requirements to charitable contributions to Medicare and Medicaid (you know, that huge *** line item in the federal budget) to state programs shows this. Saying we don't value health of our family, neighbors and countrymen is ****ing retarded and delusional.

50 shades beyond retarded and delusional.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Unfortunately the odds of a managed reconstruction are very slim. Instead of purposefully blowing up the system, we are going to see it completely collapse before being rebuilt, which is far far worse.
Click to expand...

This goes back to my original post, in that the Insurance companies are the real puppet masters here. They have gamed the system, and they are the only ones who profit (literally) off all of this.
 
LogGrad98 said:
This is where a quasi-union situation "helps" the employees. See insurance companies would be happy to offer plans to everyone individually, at 10x the cost, since they have everyone in a ringer (near-monopoly) everyone has to pay whatever price they set, same problem with medical care itself, by the way, not much competition when you are looking for a surgeon skilled in neurosurgery or whatever. But with corporations, they swing a big stick and can force the few insurance groups out there to compete with each other since the company represents such a large block of individuals. They can force the insurance companies to put together group plans that cost less for the individual at least at the outset. See here is where it gets seriously complicated. How does the insurance company offer a lower price to compete for the corporate dollar? They try to contract with certain doctors who are willing to accept set rates for certain procedures, or types of procedures, so the insurance company pays them less when there is a claim. But doctors can only cut so low before they can't cover overhead and a staff and insurance of their own (malpractice is a huge cost).

I have a friend in Phx who is an independent family practitioner, and he has told me he is trying to restructure. See it is very uncommon to be independent anymore. Nowadays the "family doctor" is more often than not on the payroll of, you guessed it, an insurance company. So my friend is seriously feeling the pinch. He doesn't want to be constrained by what the insurance companies would tell him do if he were working for them directly, but they force him to take much lower payments than if he were simply salaried to them, if he wants to accept their insurance. So now he is trying to figure out a way to stay independent, but it is a losing battle. He told me his true income has dropped by almost 40% over the past decade, after paying all costs of his own, while his office is taking in more money than ever. And the care he can give is worse, as it is tainted by what the insurance companies are willing to pay for.

It is as broken a system as there ever was really. We have the very best medical care in the world, but accessibility is terrible and the care could be even better than it already is if we could find a way to balance out the money side of the equation.
Click to expand...

Again, it is because the insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws. They can set the price and there is nothing anyone can do about it. For example, in Washington State last year, Delta Dental found out that they were covering a dental crown at $650 and Select Health was covering the same crown at $500. So what did Delta do? The raised their premiums and then told Dentists that they would only pay $550 for a crown. A clear violation of anti-trust laws, but insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws.

Dentists all over Washington State sent in letters to Delta Dental letting them know they would no longer be providers for Delta Dental. What happened to them? They got letters from the Washington Dental Association telling them that it was illegal for them to do so, as it violated anti-trust laws.

So, in the end, what happened? Delta raised the costs to consumers, lowered the amount of money they paid out to Providers and profits went through the roof.

This is the system the insurance companies have bought themselves through politicians.
 
About ten years ago I did not have dental coverage and there was not enough room for one of my wisdom teeth. I needed to get my tooth pulled. If I were insured I would have just scheduled an appointment with the closest dentist in my network and gotten it done. Since I was going to be paying for the extraction out of pocket I called each office and asked what they would charge. The first dentist I called wanted almost three hundred dollars but within just a few phone calls I was able to find someone who was willing to pull the same tooth for $175. That is a(roughly)33% savings. If we want to reduce costs we need patients that are willing to shop around for what they need and forgo that which they don't.
 
green said:
This goes back to my original post, in that the Insurance companies are the real puppet masters here. They have gamed the system, and they are the only ones who profit (literally) off all of this.
Click to expand...

Health insurance is like a utility at this point: mature, highly competitive, and reliant on consumption growth to squeeze profit out of a low margin industry. Their angle is about bringing more onto their roles, and covering more stuff as prices get passed along.

green said:
Again, it is because the insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws. They can set the price and there is nothing anyone can do about it. For example, in Washington State last year, Delta Dental found out that they were covering a dental crown at $650 and Select Health was covering the same crown at $500. So what did Delta do? The raised their premiums and then told Dentists that they would only pay $550 for a crown. A clear violation of anti-trust laws, but insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws.

Dentists all over Washington State sent in letters to Delta Dental letting them know they would no longer be providers for Delta Dental. What happened to them? They got letters from the Washington Dental Association telling them that it was illegal for them to do so, as it violated anti-trust laws.

So, in the end, what happened? Delta raised the costs to consumers, lowered the amount of money they paid out to Providers and profits went through the roof.

This is the system the insurance companies have bought themselves through politicians.
Click to expand...

So what's the solution? Having the federal govt. knock the hard working doctors and dentists down instead (Obama voter preference)? Do nothing as deep rooted problems keep on keepin on (conservative voter preference)? I don't know how we solve these things with or without government. Although bitching about "rich" family practitioners making $165,000/year after a 12+ year college investment and a minimum of $1,000,000 investment seems the worst starting point to me.

In the end, I think the real problem is people wanting to live 90 years AND retiring at 62. The "problem" isn't about poor people not being able to afford health care (because penicillin is pretty damn cheap), it's about middle class wanting someone else to pay $3,000,000 of their h.c. costs while they sip margaritas in Florida.

Get rid of the early retirement for the rich on the backs of the hard working poor and suddenly this is a non-issue.
 
Franklin has raised the most poignant argument thus far.

Boomers are the most self centered generation this country will probably ever see. You all were given one of the best educations in the world but the one you provide for your children and grand children doesn't even break the top 20. You got the voting age lowered for yourselves. War was bad when you were in your twenties but you couldn't wait to get into Iraq. When you were making money and paying taxes you consistently cried out for a government that would spend money it didn't have and you would never accept a tax increase. Now you are getting older you have spent all your money on cocaine and invested the rest in ridiculous get rich quick schemes(pyramid,flipping the same house back and fourth to one another, that African prince who sent you that e-mail). I guess it is about time America balanced her books right after all how are you going to retire with free health insurance if you don't raise taxes on your children. Look in the mirror boomer that person you see in there is going to hell.
 
b_line said:
Didn't say that. You sure are saying a lot of things for me.

All I said was that 300% inflation of healthcare costs are greatly exaggerated. My experience was that my premium went down.

As I said before, I don't understand the companies that layoff employees to save money on healthcare costs. I do not know what the specifics are in the aca as far as companies providing coverage, or why it would be so expensive. I was speaking to my personal experience. That is all.
Click to expand...
Do you work for a large company or a small company? If it's a small company my guess is that your company rating is improving for some reason (maybe some employee families had very high costs in the past but they decreased in recent years and so did the costs. The other reason you think your costs are decreasing is obviously the subsidies. You are a fool if you think that is equivalent to a price decrease. You should be thanking those of us who are paying for your subsidy.

And the fact that you can't understand why a company would make moves to avoid paying healthcare costs for employees shows that you have no clue about the decisions that business owners are faced with.
 
It's nice living in a country with 30 million people tbh
 
franklin said:
Health insurance is like a utility at this point: mature, highly competitive, and reliant on consumption growth to squeeze profit out of a low margin industry. Their angle is about bringing more onto their roles, and covering more stuff as prices get passed along.



So what's the solution? Having the federal govt. knock the hard working doctors and dentists down instead (Obama voter preference)? Do nothing as deep rooted problems keep on keepin on (conservative voter preference)? I don't know how we solve these things with or without government. Although bitching about "rich" family practitioners making $165,000/year after a 12+ year college investment and a minimum of $1,000,000 investment seems the worst starting point to me.

In the end, I think the real problem is people wanting to live 90 years AND retiring at 62. The "problem" isn't about poor people not being able to afford health care (because penicillin is pretty damn cheap), it's about middle class wanting someone else to pay $3,000,000 of their h.c. costs while they sip margaritas in Florida.

Get rid of the early retirement for the rich on the backs of the hard working poor and suddenly this is a non-issue.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you said above. One thing is to take away the exempt status of insurance companies from anti-trust laws. There is so much price fixing going through insurance companies right now. Another is to make things even more transparent. Let's see where each politician gets his money from. And if that means that you lose some of your money because they are playing both sides...then so be it.

BUT, at the end of the day, the last two paragraphs is what is going to save/kill us. IF we can decide we want to work together for something greater, we can do great things. IF we continue down this path of "I'll get mine" then we are screwed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top