Obamacare Premiums

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

41 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I agree but in almost all cases the private sector can do things better than the gov't. Getting the gov't out of health care is the first step in any approach with a chance to succeed. And as immigration grows, the number of people getting free health care will grow so that problem has to be solved as well.

If the gov't does insist on control of health care, why don't they just give everyone the same health care insurance Congress and gov't retirees have? I say that at the same time as I note I am a gov't retiree. My monthly rate actually went down this year.

You would have no argument from me on this if it happened.  From experience, I've come to believe that for profit healthcare (which private insurance is) puts an undue burden on the person needing help.  We have to jump through far too many hoops right now because my wife costs money to cover, especially her medications.  It's particularly bad after we hit out of pocket maximum's because the insurance companies start fighting, delaying, and flat denying services.

I, on the other hand, may use $20 worth of health benefits a year.  I'm healthy as an ox and never get sick beyond an occasional cold.  But I think for the long term betterment of the health care market and patients, we need a more formalized system.  Seeing what my wife has to go through and the battles we've fought with insurance has really changed my stance on this issue to embrace a single-payer system.

[Grumps 3,704]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Assuming you don't mind if I weigh in, the short answer is "yes".

One of the fundamental paradoxes we would rather deny is that we are apparently unwilling as a society to allow service providers to simply let the uninsured "die on the sidewalk" (so to speak).  

Such basic question of what sort of society we want must ultimately be addressed politically, but our politicians have no stomach for it, especially if it's going to piss off major campaign contributers.

 

I appreciate your answer. I agree that much of the problem is our unwillingness to address some of the most difficult situations: how much should be spent by the taxpayers to help someone who chooses to injure himself/herself? How much should be spent by the taxpayers to slow the growth of a terminal cancer in someone who is in very poor health and already has a short life span?

Part of controlling costs HAS to include cost-benefit evaluations. People don't like to put a dollar figure on human life--but it has a monetary value, it just hasn't been defined. Death does not mean that the healthcare system failed. It just means that a person's life ended. As we know, so far life has proved to be 100% fatal.

Politicians will NEVER openly have such discussions. Imagine what would happen if Trump said that human life has a monetary value! The HORROR!

[homersapien 11,367]

2 hours ago, Grumps said:

I appreciate your answer. I agree that much of the problem is our unwillingness to address some of the most difficult situations: how much should be spent by the taxpayers to help someone who chooses to injure himself/herself? How much should be spent by the taxpayers to slow the growth of a terminal cancer in someone who is in very poor health and already has a short life span?

Part of controlling costs HAS to include cost-benefit evaluations. People don't like to put a dollar figure on human life--but it has a monetary value, it just hasn't been defined. Death does not mean that the healthcare system failed. It just means that a person's life ended. As we know, so far life has proved to be 100% fatal.

Politicians will NEVER openly have such discussions. Imagine what would happen if Trump said that human life has a monetary value! The HORROR!

Oh they have such discussions, just not honest ones. (See "death panels".)

Is it better to have a pro-profit corporations make these decisions?

[Grumps 3,704]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Oh they have such discussions, just not honest ones. (See "death panels".)

Is it better to have a pro-profit corporations make these decisions?

"Death Panels" are a good thing.

Pro-profit corporation decisions would be better than politician decisions. What if pro-profit corporations were required to state up front would they would cover and were then forced to honor their agreement?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Thread kind of got off topic. I would like to here more of ya'lls experience with Obamacare to date rather than how to change/fix it.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

On 1/14/2018 at 10:06 AM, homersapien said:

Trump promised affordable health care insurance for all.

Still waiting.

If we're going to accuse PT and others of whataboutism, turnabout is fair play.  This doesn't answer the question of the original post, it just blame shifts to Trump not fulfilling a campaign promise (so far).  While that would be an interesting question itself, it's not pertinent to this thread.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

My premiums have gone up, but it's hard to tell how much of that was inevitable vs a direct result of the ACA.  My premiums were jumping significantly every year already.  It does seem the deductibles and such were suddenly higher though.

We are in a good situation right now, but for a few friends of mine with chronic and expensive health problems, the ACA has been an absolute lifeline.  They lived in mortal fear of a payment snafu or being one day late and the insurance company telling them their coverage was lapsed and cancelled and being unable to be insured anywhere else as a result.  Some were staring at lifetime limits coming in the not too distant future and just praying that something would change before then to make that problem go away.

[DKW 86 7,419]

6 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

My premiums have gone up, but it's hard to tell how much of that was inevitable vs a direct result of the ACA.  My premiums were jumping significantly every year already.  It does seem the deductibles and such were suddenly higher though.

We are in a good situation right now, but for a few friends of mine with chronic and expensive health problems, the ACA has been an absolute lifeline.  They lived in mortal fear of a payment snafu or being one day late and the insurance company telling them their coverage was lapsed and cancelled and being unable to be insured anywhere else as a result.  Some were staring at lifetime limits coming in the not too distant future and just praying that something would change before then to make that problem go away.

Same thing I saw. Too many people i dearly love had zilch or were one mistake away from losing it all. Some dads were permanently in their woefully bad jobs because they could not afford to leave due to insurance. Say what you will, that side of the ACA was a real blessing.  My own insurance...well 2011 was the year it all fell to pieces. There is a Before the ACA and an After the ACA.  Dramatic difference.

[homersapien 11,367]

22 hours ago, Grumps said:

"Death Panels" are a good thing.

Pro-profit corporation decisions would be better than politician decisions. What if pro-profit corporations were required to state up front would they would cover and were then forced to honor their agreement?

Please explain why corporations would exceed politician's motivation in doing what's best for the people.

I agree they could provide valuable data and consultation to that process, but I don't see how they can influence the decision making process in such a way to benefit anyone other than themselves.

[homersapien 11,367]

8 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

If we're going to accuse PT and others of whataboutism, turnabout is fair play.  This doesn't answer the question of the original post, it just blame shifts to Trump not fulfilling a campaign promise (so far).  While that would be an interesting question itself, it's not pertinent to this thread.

OK that's fair.

 

The ACA was a cobbled together response - designed by Republicans - to the problem.

My wife and I were uninsurable for many years after my COBRA expired. Thanks only to God,  nothing major happened - accident or otherwise - during that time.  Thanks to ACA, we were able to get insurance for the first time in years, but only a couple of years later we were eligible to enroll in Medicare.

Regardless of the negatives, the ACA was critical in changing the mindset of healthcare insurance in this country. 

Unfortunately - if not surprisingly - the ACA has become less sustainable/viable since Trump & friends are committed to demolish it altogether, with no viable plan to replace it.  Meanwhile, the problems the ACA was intended to address will still exist, only worse. 

 

 

[Grumps 3,704]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Please explain why corporations would exceed politician's motivation in doing what's best for the people.

I agree they could provide valuable data and consultation to that process, but I don't see how they can influence the decision making process in such a way to benefit anyone other than themselves.

I believe that in many situations, corporations who provide a quality product and good service will be more profitable in the long term than a company who offers a lower quality product and/or poor service. So the corporation, by looking out for the welfare of its customers, serves its own interest. Further, I believe that politicians have less motivation to serve their constituents than corporations do to serve their customers.

[4AUsince62 10]

On ‎1‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 1:17 PM, Brad_ATX said:

100% spot on in many ways.  There is no reason a piece of cotton gauze should cost $100 during a hospital stay.  And yes, I've seen this on a bill for my wife before.  It's disgusting.

There’s a lot of administrative and overhead cost associated with hospitals. There’s an article floating around out there about an ENT, IIRC, which worked in a hospital as well as his own clinic. A procedure he could do at his clinic for $5K was in the neighborhood of $25K at the hospital. I believe it also discussed larger corporations having a physician that would take care of employees and their family members to help with the high cost of health insurance. Naturally the clinic doesn’t have to deal with non-insured ER visits but it pointed more to the administrative cost; the ACA hasn’t helped with that.

[4AUsince62 10]

On ‎1‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 1:26 PM, Grumps said:

So do you think that reason that our government doesn't try to fix it is just because they are owned by the insurance companies and drug companies and hospitals and long-term care facilities? Or do you think it is for another reason?

Watch the documentary Burzynski for the answer.

[kd4au 1,145]

All I can tell you is there is nothing affordable about the ACA. My insurance will be $1693 a month starting this month for my wife and myself. I'm self employed  and it is all I can do to pay it every month. We looked into getting on Obama care and they told me I didn't make enough money to get Obama care. Now how is that affordable health care for all if you have to make X amount of dollars to qualify? What a joke I was paying $1430 a month last year when we look in to Obama care, but I didn't make enough money according to them to make my Obama care payments WTH . And what really makes me mad is there is only one provider that you can purchase health insurance from in Alabama and it is blue cross blue shield, why is this not consider a monopoly?  Hope I can hang on until I'm 65 and tell them to shove it. Rant over.

[homersapien 11,367]

On 1/18/2018 at 11:44 PM, Grumps said:

I believe that in many situations, corporations who provide a quality product and good service will be more profitable in the long term than a company who offers a lower quality product and/or poor service. So the corporation, by looking out for the welfare of its customers, serves its own interest.

Further, I believe that politicians have less motivation to serve their constituents than corporations do to serve their customers.

No, that's simply doing what is best to insure or maximize profitability - which is their mission - by definition.  Surviving in the marketplace on the basis of value does benefit your customers - at least for the short term.But that's just the positive side of the market economy coin.  There is a negative side as well.

The obvious question is: How and why would a corporation act regarding the long term interests of the people when it is not beneficial (profitable) for it to do so?    There are plenty of historical and current models that answer to that question.

Bottom line, the free market system does great things for innovation and efficiency, which is a natural, built-in aspect. However, there is virtually no natural market incentive for a company to act responsibly outside of any possible benefit of increasing sales or market value (prestige).   Just the opposite.

"Free" markets do not consider "external" costs, by definition.  Those fall on society.

I don't understand the logic of your last sentence.  We are talking systemic charactistics.

Politicians are elected directly by the people which would naturally lead them to be more responsive to those people than a corporation.  (A corporation is motivated to sell them stuff, not respond to their socio/economic problems.)

Now maybe the corporations have interjected themselves between politicians and the people, but that's an execution problem, not a conceptual one. It would also serve to validate my point.