Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: TechMan on October 07, 2010, 06:41:01 PM
-
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip)
Summary: McDonald's and 29 other corporations get exemptions won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit for low-cost health insurance plans. DHHS says it granted the exemptions so that the companies wouldn't drop the low-cost health insurance plans. The state of Massachusetts received a waiver as well for 5,000 18-26 year olds that cannot get coverage from their work. This is part of the Massachusetts universal coverage program. Waivers are valid for 1 year. The largest waiver was for 351,000 people in the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, which is a New York union covering city teachers.
Comments: Buuuuuuut what about covering EVERYBODY!?!?!?! ;/
-
I've just received a letter from my company. The letter says that in order for the company to protect the benefits it provides employees/retirees, the Blue Care Network plan for retirees (me) is hereby discontinued and we'll will be enrolled in a special BlueCross BlueShield plan created just for retirees. 600 dollar deductible, (0 now) 6000 co pay (0 now) and 80/20 (full coverage now) for the rest of the claim. It won't cover some things we get now. So it's a crappy plan in place of a reasonable one. They haven't told us the cost yet, but since it includes only retirees, our rates will probably double. We pay 256.00 a month now.
I'm so pissed I could chew nails. FFFFFFFFFing Democrats! [ar15] [ar15]
-
Overall we got off not quite as bad as expected.
Roughly 12% increase in all three plans offered, and about 15-20% increase in deductibles. Really screwed with the most attractive plan though. Came with a company paid HRA account which effectively made the deductible a hundred dollars more, but due to the high deductible (about twice as much) the premium was significantly less. Nice thing with our HRA was it got used up first and paid directly to the doctor, not reimbursement. Was great when you go to the doctor once maybe twice a year. This year they jacked up the deductible and lowered the HRA, made it basically worthless compared to the next plan up which is the same coverage level with no HRA, a lower deductible, and slightly higher premium.
-
What a crock! The only silver lining in this is my MCD stocks went up.
-
Grampster,
Probably not quite as bad as you've written. The 80/20 after the deductible is not for rest of the clai, but only up to the $6000 out of pocket limit. 100% coverage thereafter.
Still a significant decrease in coverage.
-
I've just received a letter from my company. The letter says that in order for the company to protect the benefits it provides employees/retirees, the Blue Care Network plan for retirees (me) is hereby discontinued and we'll will be enrolled in a special BlueCross BlueShield plan created just for retirees. 600 dollar deductible, (0 now) 6000 co pay (0 now) and 80/20 (full coverage now) for the rest of the claim. It won't cover some things we get now. So it's a crappy plan in place of a reasonable one. They haven't told us the cost yet, but since it includes only retirees, our rates will probably double. We pay 256.00 a month now.
I'm so pissed I could chew nails. FFFFFFFFFing Democrats! [ar15] [ar15]
This is one of the few things I agree with that the Health Care plan SHOULD do. Make the cost of health care be at least PARTIALLY born by the insured.
Health Care should not be "free." As you can see, it becomes insanely expensive and accountability for the fee schedules moves to 2nd/3rd/4th parties when the actual consumer and the actual health care provider are BOTH removed from the demand for payment and the rendering of payment processes.
All that happens, is the 2nd/3rd/4th parties take a slice as they continue to spiral the costs out of control.
Same thing happened with the real estate market. People started taking extra mortgages out when the home values artificially inflated, and buying second homes or upgrading to larger homes. The realtor costs and closing fees were "hidden" in the refinancing structures and inflated home values.
Result? The realtors and mortgage broker institutions walked away with all the fees involved, the cost of the realtor/broker fees was bundled into the artificially inflated loan, the borrower took a ding on their credit during a repo, and the bank took it on the chin.
The realtors and mortgage brokers are equivalent to the 2nd/3rd/4th parties that are gnawing on health care right now.
Watch for the same thing to happen to college education, soon. There's no accountability in the lending process, and a LOT of the mortgage broker institutions are re-gearing to the education market (i.e. the flash ads on your hotmail/yahoo mail login, telling you "Obama wants single moms to go back to school!"). In 5-10 years, we'll be hearing about a rash of education loan defaults. Sallie Mae will be the next Fannie Mae / Freddy Mac. Stafford loans will be the next equivalent to FHA bailouts.
If health care is ever truly reformed to a functional system, several things will happen:
-A lot of IT people will be laid off (pre-authorizing appointment insurance is the latest "cool thing" for medical offices to do... the software interfaces from your Dr's office to a central broker house are very expensive...but so is having a patient show up with false insurance paperwork)
-A lot of medical billers will be laid off (how many radio ads and web banners have you seen for "work at home! Do medical billing in your spare time! Set your own hours!"?)
-The patient will pay (at least part) of the fees for the visit up-front. Not a co-pay, but they will know the actual cost for the service rendered and make a conscious decision to consume or not.
-The patient will then NOT consume medicine when the cause is trivial, reducing the demand in the marketplace since insurance creates false demand (it doesn't cost me anything except my time, so I might as well check it out "just in case.")
-
I've just received a letter from my company. The letter says that in order for the company to protect the benefits it provides employees/retirees, the Blue Care Network plan for retirees (me) is hereby discontinued and we'll will be enrolled in a special BlueCross BlueShield plan created just for retirees. 600 dollar deductible, (0 now) 6000 co pay (0 now) and 80/20 (full coverage now) for the rest of the claim. It won't cover some things we get now. So it's a crappy plan in place of a reasonable one. They haven't told us the cost yet, but since it includes only retirees, our rates will probably double. We pay 256.00 a month now.
I'm so pissed I could chew nails. FFFFFFFFFing Democrats! [ar15] [ar15]
You honestly believe the Democrats are the cause of rising heath care costs???
How do we all explain the consistent skyrocketing through multiple administrations and congressional power-changes over the last 30 years?
I get private cover with medical, dental, alternative (accupuncture & massage) and vision for about $60 a month. This in addition to my tax payment of 1.5% for medicare (I'd have to pay 2.5 if I didn't get private insurance.)
Somehow, I don't think the insurance companies have an interest in keeping costs down in America. It's not like they do better when you get more service at a lower price - it seems to be the opposite. If you get fewer services with higher premiums, the insurance company makes more money. That might explain the prices a little more sensibly than political changes.
-
Somehow, I don't think the insurance companies have an interest in keeping costs down in America. It's not like they do better when you get more service at a lower price - it seems to be the opposite. If you get fewer services with higher premiums, the insurance company makes more money. That might explain the prices a little more sensibly than political changes.
Very true. There is no competition in a capitalist society like ours, so there's no motivation for one company to try to acquire another company's customers with lower prices.
-
You honestly believe the Democrats are the cause of rising heath care costs???
How do we all explain the consistent skyrocketing through multiple administrations and congressional power-changes over the last 30 years?
I get private cover with medical, dental, alternative (accupuncture & massage) and vision for about $60 a month. This in addition to my tax payment of 1.5% for medicare (I'd have to pay 2.5 if I didn't get private insurance.)
Somehow, I don't think the insurance companies have an interest in keeping costs down in America. It's not like they do better when you get more service at a lower price - it seems to be the opposite. If you get fewer services with higher premiums, the insurance company makes more money. That might explain the prices a little more sensibly than political changes.
GOVERNMENT is the PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad:
And not just the demonrats, but the repukeagains, and not only the FEDERAL govt. (but mainly them).
Insurance companies run at about a 3% profit rate for one; they're a huge industry.
But, government regulations, usually requiring certain types of coverages (these usually happen in state governments but some federal mandates have occured) have greatly driven up prices. Years ago you could select what you wanted covered and had a lot of buying options. Now, while selections are still there there are a lot of mandates. These drive up prices. You want to have prostrate cancer covered? OK, here's a rider. Now it's mandated so the price is INCLUDED. I mean, it's great .... but not for the women who want coverage.
EVERYONE pays.
And it's going to get worse. Want pre-existing conditions covered? Fine. Obama has waved his magic wand so now it's gonna be covered.
AND PAID FOR. You're gonna be doing the paying ---in more ways than one.
Used to be, you were pegged in a certain age/sex/race group and deemed to have 1 chance in X,XXX,XXX chance of getting a particular disease .... actuarial tables are examined and you are charged based upon risk.
It's "pre-existing??" Hey, that's no "RISK" --- that is a CERTAINTY!
Think THAT ain't gonna cost you???
Think AGAIN!!!!
In fact, it is not really unreasonable to expect companies to be going out of business ---- I mean, our esteemed messiah is whining about how hard he's gonna stomp companies that "unreasonably" raise prices. So they're gonna go belly-up sooner or later.
Unless they can get a better business plan laid out, and it's gonna take a megasupercomputer to work that out given the uncertainty Mr. Hopy-Changy has injected into the system
The end result.....
SINGLE PAYER!!
And then for those who are afflicted with a terminal illness .... won't it be wonderful to have to wait those six months to see a specialist because the old doctors have retired or fled the system .... and no one wants to become a doctor anymore.....
Have fun.
:-*
-
Very true. There is no competition in a capitalist society like ours, so there's no motivation for one company to try to acquire another company's customers with lower prices.
There certainly is not very much competition in that market, but it's true that competition operates against price gouging generally. It's demonstrably failed to reduce prices in health insurance, and is part of a system that costs more money per service delivered than even socialist models.
It is also undeniable that the more the insurer takes in, and the less it gives out, the more money it makes. That is why insurers fight both doctors and consumers over the bills. Combine that with a relative lack of competition (dealing with anything medical requires enormous amounts of capital), and you get soaring prices without a corresponding increase in service.
-
Tommy,
I live with Government funded, socialist medicine right now. My private insurance (which saves me a percent on income tax) and my private doctor visits come at prices that are not even close to what I had to pay in America for coverage that wasn't nearly as good.
If Government is the cause of high prices in medicine, how come the prices in socialist systems are so much lower?
-
If Government is the cause of high prices in medicine, how come the prices in socialist systems are so much lower?
You're either paying for it by other means (taxes on goods) or somone else who pays more in taxes is paying for your unpaid share.
The laws of economics have not been repealed. You don't get more for less. Despit what some in the US congress may say, Cuba does not have better health care than the US, although everyone is covered, so everyone is equally as miserable.
Why do I even bother arguing with De Selby, though? I could hit myself in the head with a hammer and accomplish more.
-
You're either paying for it by other means (taxes on goods) or somone else who pays more in taxes is paying for your unpaid share.
The laws of economics have not been repealed. You don't get more for less. Despit what some in the US congress may say, Cuba does not have better health care than the US, although everyone is covered, so everyone is equally as miserable.
Why do I even bother arguing with De Selby, though? I could hit myself in the head with a hammer and accomplish more.
Well, the numbers are available for total per capita expenditure on health care, and for services delivered.
It is sometimes true that you pay more for less - for example, I would have to pay about five times as much for an Omega watch here at a local jeweller over what I'd pay in Los Angeles. That's for the same watch.
Now it's true that Cuba doesn't have better health care, but we need not look at third world countries for a model. England, most of Europe, Australia, and Canada all have comparable medical systems and those systems cost far, far less money per person, in total.
How is that possible, if Government makes health care more expensive?
-
Bang.
Ouch.
Bang.
Ouch.
Bang.
Ouch.
Ahhhhhh.
-
How is that possible, if Government makes health care more expensive?
Then why does McDonald's need a waiver? :facepalm:
-
government started the downward spiral.(that's quality and value) they have no desire to end it, all they want is total control over who is receiving what care. if your up close you can smell it, but in order to see it you have to back up and do some reading about the start of the medicare train. =|
-
Well, the numbers are available for total per capita expenditure on health care, and for services delivered.
It is sometimes true that you pay more for less - for example, I would have to pay about five times as much for an Omega watch here at a local jeweller over what I'd pay in Los Angeles. That's for the same watch.
Now it's true that Cuba doesn't have better health care, but we need not look at third world countries for a model. England, most of Europe, Australia, and Canada all have comparable medical systems and those systems cost far, far less money per person, in total.
How is that possible, if Government makes health care more expensive?
By balancing the budgets on the backs of the patients.
My parents lived in Scotland for three years so PLEASE don't tell me how GREAT socialistic health care is. My parents knew people who waited for YEARS to get surgery and had to live with painful conditions that long.
My mother has glaucoma. You know how they tested her for it? never mind you would not believe me and I won't even try.
The ambulances where my parents lived were panel trucks with cots in the rear. No paramedics, no heart monitors, heart resuscitators .... nothing.
Oh, wait. That's not right.
They had 1 bandaid. :angel:
Health care there is rationed, THAT'S how they do it. And as stated, the taxes are much higher.
Anyone REALLY think you can regulate health insurers cover "pre-existing" conditions and it ISN'T going to cost
TANSTAAFL
There
Ain't
No
Such
Thing
As
A
Free
Lunch
Look at all the other government programs and how they've gone bazillions over budget and underperformed, then get back to me when you think we can have government mandated / controlled healthcare and it not go down that very same road.
Don't prattle to me about how some country like Indonesia or Switzerland does it and creates free wonderdrugs and cures virulent cancers with magic wands. I don't care.
We are not them.
The history of government efficiency is there is you're smart enough to learn from it.
If not then be prepared to doom yourself by repeating it's mistakes.
As I said .... have fun. :-* :-* :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
I'm sorry, Tom, but it takes a much bigger font than that to impress me.
-
I'm sorry, Tom, but it takes a much bigger font than that to impress me.
Really?
-
This is a family forum. We don't compare fonts here.
-
GG control mouse-wheel-up. =D
-
I am 53, have severe back and knee issues on top of Arthritis, Degenerative Disk Disease and Degenerative Joint Disease, can't function because of the constant pain which makes me unemployable. ALL I have is the Veterans Administration for my health care and I am having to fight for my Social Security because my health issues don't match their little check boxes exactly. I am in deep fear for my future. I see a lot of pain and suffering then death before me right now. How is that for a future at just barely over 50 years of age?
-
I am 53, have severe back and knee issues on top of Arthritis, Degenerative Disk Disease and Degenerative Joint Disease, can't function because of the constant pain which makes me unemployable. ALL I have is the Veterans Administration for my health care and I am having to fight for my Social Security because my health issues don't match their little check boxes exactly. I am in deep fear for my future. I see a lot of pain and suffering then death before me right now. How is that for a future at just barely over 50 years of age?
This is one of the reasons they socialized medicine here in Australia - along with trade unionism. The trade unions wanted something that wouldn't go bankrupt, and the voting population here won't countenance the sick and the old going without care because they can't afford it.
Tommy, I live in socialized medicine right now. As far as available statistics show, the level of care here is equivalent to America. There are some specific areas where America does better, and some where it does worse. On the whole, measures of outcomes do not demonstrate that health care is any worse in Australia.
There is one measure that's much different, which is cost: Australia spent about $4900 per person in FY 08 on health expense. That's the total amount of GDP given to the system - Government, private, etc. The United States spent about $7400. When you consider that the outcomes aren't demonstrably better, you have to wonder what exactly we're getting for the extra $2500.
There's always lots of dismissing, "it's the Government!", etc in these threads, but I've yet to see someone post numbers that rate the US healthcare system as, overall anything but more expensive than competitors.
-
There's always lots of dismissing, "it's the Government!", etc in these threads, but I've yet to see someone post numbers that rate the US healthcare system as, overall anything but more expensive than competitors.
1. American free-market medicine subsidizes pharmaceutical development that the rest of the world doesn't pay for. When a new medicine takes 10 years to research, test, produce and bring to market and the rest of the world wants to pay only $10 a bottle for it, it isn't economically feasible. That's part of why our health care in the States is more expensive than abroad: artificial caps on the cost of prescription drugs. If the US ever went to a similar system then there would be NO place to recoup the costs of prescription drug development and medicine would effectively come to a screeching halt.
Australia, Canada, Mexico, Britain, and the EU have price controls on medicine. That doesn't leave a lot of western markets to charge a price that actually recoups the cost of R&D.
2. Our health care system is more expensive because it is FASTER.
-
I have witnessed socialized health care. My back pain is its own socialized health care horror story.
-
I have witnessed socialized health care. My back pain is its own socialized health care horror story.
As have I, in the guise of the US Military. Ohh, the blood-curdling stories I could tell, to include one where I nearly had to drag an officer in my unit off some worthless MD who was plying fast & loose with the officer's son's surgery.
Health care never cost me so much as when it was "free."
-
I have witnessed socialized health care. My back pain is its own socialized health care horror story.
Oh so have I. More than most have.
Pointless effing nonsense these thread degenerate into. Claims of panel vans for ambulances, I'm sorry, maybe that was the case some time ago, but what's the point of that comparision? When I called an ambulance for my dad three years ago they were there inside ten minutes. Modern, equipped ambulance.
You want to know what happened on my recent stay in hospital? You wouldn't believe it. It was absolutely fine. Palatable food, ensuite room.
One thing I've learned in these threads is that the US healthcare system is not as bad as certain people/outlets would have you believe. Despite my participation in these threads though, they still degenerate into 'OMG, socialised EVILLL!!!1'
-
In 2009 when I was making $70k+ a year and had good insurance, I paid out over $10k out of my pockets NOT counting the cost of my insurance which was substantial.
-
This is one of the reasons they socialized medicine here in Australia - along with trade unionism. The trade unions wanted something that wouldn't go bankrupt, and the voting population here won't countenance the sick and the old going without care because they can't afford it.
Tommy, I live in socialized medicine right now. As far as available statistics show, the level of care here is equivalent to America. There are some specific areas where America does better, and some where it does worse. On the whole, measures of outcomes do not demonstrate that health care is any worse in Australia.
De Selby, if you're happy with what you have down under, then good for you and God bless you. What I am trying to say is that this just IS NOT GOING TO WORK HERE. I am nearing retirement age and have been watching our control-freak nimrods in Washington stuff one program after another down our throats for decades. Social Security was supposed to be wonderful when it was passed; it's now almnost bankrupt. The "trust fund" set up for it has been ROBBED by politicians decades ago. It's a multi-generational Ponzi Scheme and it is going to collapse. I don't know when; the politicians can jigger numbers around and raise the retirement age, and also the tax numbers on higher income earners and things like that to press the years of failur back, but only so far. We have social welfare programs piled on top of each other, welfare cheats and all sorts of "moochers" living off the sweat of others, especially in some big cities, but also elsewhere.
Our government is huge, intrusive, grotesquely inefficient and corrupt. The Aussies might be wonderful people and the government composed of stellar patriots and geniuses. Maybe .... I don't know.
I am trying to say one more big government program here WON'T WORK.
Why do I say that?
Because it CAN'T work.
Albert Einstein once said, "the definition of insanity is when you keep trying the same thing over and over and expect different results." We've tried big govt. programs since F.D.R.'s day. All we get is more incompetence, more corruption, more government intrusion.
There is no provision in the Constitution of the United States of America that allows for the government to force anyone to buy anything, let alone health care insurance. Not only are our politicians ignoring the founding legal documents of America (like THIS is new!!!!!) they are trying to get us to believe that people who aren't buying insurance ---maybe because it's too expensive for them now????? --- will somehow be able to after government decree.
You tell me how THAT works??????
Americans have a lot of illusions. Especially, it seems, the Americans that are living now. We seem to think the government is -- and should be -- everything to everyone. It can't. We are so far in debt now it's going to take a generation to pay it off if we scrimp and more than that if we keep pretending the government can afford everything we want.
The level of care in Australia might be equivelent to what we have in America. But the care in Canada is not, and the care available in Great Britain is not. My parents lived in Great Britain and experienced their health care joke .... and enough Canadians have reported on what they've found out in their own system .... and come down to America for our treatment .... to know what is available there.
If you're happy down under, stay there. Maybe miracles happen in places that experience summer during our winter and where sharks lurk amongst the reefs surrounding the land .... I don't know. I know I don't believe in miracles ....and I know our own government is completly incapable of producing miracles.
Have fun .... down under ..... :-*
-
Tommy, the thing about stories is that everyone has them - do you honestly believe no one waits for care in America? There's a reason the emergency room wait is always hours upon hours; for 40 million people or so, that's about the only way they're going to get substantial care of any kind if they need it.
These discussions never use numbers - it's always "won't work in America!" "cost cost cost!", when every relevant statistic says the opposite.
Of course, there are very specific types of cancer that are dealt with better in the US. But that isn't exactly a game-changer, considering that at some specific treatments the US falls behind. For twice the cost of a socialist system, you'd expect significantly better results.
-
Tommy, the thing about stories is that everyone has them - do you honestly believe no one waits for care in America? There's a reason the emergency room wait is always hours upon hours; for 40 million people or so, that's about the only way they're going to get substantial care of any kind if they need it.
These discussions never use numbers - it's always "won't work in America!" "cost cost cost!", when every relevant statistic says the opposite.
Of course, there are very specific types of cancer that are dealt with better in the US. But that isn't exactly a game-changer, considering that at some specific treatments the US falls behind. For twice the cost of a socialist system, you'd expect significantly better results.
Deselby, please enjoy your stories.
And please GET MY POINT.
Our government is not competant enough to properly oversee a socialized medical system.
Please get this, if nothing else.
I have had to take family members to the hospital. And I've never had to wait very long. Oh wait, that's another story.
Hey, I got an idea. Why don't you come over here and run our wonderful new socialized medical system!!
And please tell me all about "statistics." Figures may not lie by liars do figure, as they say.
-
And please tell me all about "statistics." Figures may not lie by liars do figure, as they say.
Sure - here's the report I've quoted before: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf (http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf)
I've seen no reports posted that refute these numbers - only references to specific types of cancer treatments and premature baby treatments that rate slightly better in the US than they do in other countries. As this report notes, there isn't any clear advantage overall to receiving care in the US.
Some quotes:
However, research comparing the quality of care has not found the United States to be superior overall. Nor does the U.S. population have substantially better access to health care resources, even putting aside the issue of the uninsured. Although the United States does not have long wait times for non-emergency surgeries, unlike some OECD countries, Americans found it more difficult to make same-day doctor’s appointments when sick and had the most difficulty getting care on nights and weekends. They were also most likely to delay or forgo treatment because of cost.
-
Do you know why the United States spends so much on health care?
Government is one reason. Lawyers and law suits are another.
Yet another growing reason is the influx of illegal aliens over the past few decades. These people all go to hospitals and under our system, receive free care. Due to this many hospitals in the southwest are on the verge of bankruptcy.
The solution is not socialized healthcare. The British system has degraded much under their system. Ours is already beginning to.
Especially insurance. Insurance providers are already dropping policies for children because they simply won't be able to afford Obamacare.
A great deal of the reason why health insurance is so damned expensive is because the government(s) has mandated certain types of coverage and determined that they cannot sell across state lines.
I guess it just stuns me that people think that a problem caused, in very large part, by government can be cured by .... YET MORE GOVERNMENT. ???
De Selby, as I said elsewhere, enjoy your self where you are. Another "academic study" is not going to convince me that the martinet morons in our government are anywhere near as capable of administering a system in America that is as wondrous as what you have in upside-down land.
-
You're still peddling that faulty CRS study, SS?
I thought we put that to rest last year.
=|