(10-11-2016 07:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Lot of whining in this thread. Especially of the form "I want my artificially low premium/deductible products back! These correctly priced products make it so I can't take a second vacation this year!"

You're a certifiable...

There was nothing artificially low, nor was there anything incorrectly priced. Good grief you'll buy anything your government overlords tell you to buy.

I/we had essentially the SAME policy, same Doctors, same product, same Company from 1994-5 until 2009, I think it was. Comprehensive, very good coverage for all of us, some paid a little more if kiddies were on the horizon, others of us didn't have to carry all the additional riders. zerO would call what I mcarried all that time a "Cadillac" plan, cause I guess it was unfair to others that they didn't have as nice a plan as I PAID for. Oh, and NO complaints.

Now? Garbage. Garbage coverage, high premiums, high deductibles (some are through the roof if they still smoke, have medical problems or whatever) and more stupid-asss bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo than should EVER be necessary.

And FTR, when you own the place and run it day-to day, you rarely take even a single true vacation. My last one was in 2112. So pfffffffttttt on your class-envy bullshite.

(10-11-2016 07:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Lot of whining in this thread. Especially of the form "I want my artificially low premium/deductible products back! These correctly priced products make it so I can't take a second vacation this year!"

I work 50 hours a week so i can afford the 2 grand it would cost to go the ER if my infant son wakes up in the middle of the night unable to breathe. Not complaining at all as i wouldn't trade them for the world, but that is my reality

(10-11-2016 07:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Obamacare has problems. It doesn't make it a bad program or a bad idea. Or that the flaws with Obamacare are completely the fault of the Democrats.

LMFAO

Yes, it was all those Republican amendments that they had to work around that are the problem... lol

I WILL say this, and of course nobody on board with 'single payer' has an answer(or really a thought) about it...

The primary driver of cost savings in the ACA is bundled payments, where a 'group' is paid to provide a community with 'all the care they need' for a fixed price... call it the Sizzler healthcare plan...

The problem is that such plans aren't portable across state lines because few medical licenses cross state lines.... so the whole 'sell across state lines' is a red herring because that only works in a FFS model, which the ACA is not. Certainly no/few 'affordable' plans are or will be.

Tom's concern about mergers ignores all this... and explains why there is BCBS Texas and NC and almost every other state.

WHich is precisely why people who know so little about healthcare need to stop acting like they know anything about it.

Cancel the ACA. Expand Medicare to the poor and uninsurable (PECs) uncap policies... let Medicaid cover Medicare copays and deductibles for whomever they choose to cover (the poor to some limit or description)

Won't happen because dems would claim this 'tax' that they argued was a penalty will suddenly become a 'tax' again if Republicans fixed it.

(10-11-2016 07:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Lot of whining in this thread. Especially of the form "I want my artificially low premium/deductible products back! These correctly priced products make it so I can't take a second vacation this year!"

Wow. You really are a troll.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(10-11-2016 07:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Lot of whining in this thread. Especially of the form "I want my artificially low premium/deductible products back! These correctly priced products make it so I can't take a second vacation this year!"

Source you claim.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using CSNbbs mobile app

(10-11-2016 01:42 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  EagleX,

If unregulated, private insurance companies would simply refuse to cover people who are too risky - or offer products that are unaffordable or moot (the person would have to have so much money, that he/she could just pay the direct costs of the health care).

So now you have X% of the population with no health insurance. So then what happens when they need health care? Either: the emergency rooms end up absorbing the costs, since the person can't pay, or they refuse to provide health care and the person dies on the street.

If you accept that those are not reasonable alternatives, then you must agree all people need to be covered by health insurance.

the only people that died in the streets were the hundreds, if not thousands, of people that died out of coverage after Obama cancelled 10 million american's health insurance. the only way to get them into the crappy, third world exchanges was to cancel their existing policy and force them into third world coverage. unfortunately, not all of them made it.

the individual mandate killed an untold number of americans. there is much blood on ReBamaLosi's hands.

but the law couldn't live without paying customers in the exchanges, so sacrifices had to be made. people had to die so that the law, which is obama's legislative legacy, could live. it really is that simple.

The plan you have never exists next year.

(10-11-2016 01:42 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  EagleX,

If unregulated, private insurance companies would simply refuse to cover people who are too risky - or offer products that are unaffordable or moot (the person would have to have so much money, that he/she could just pay the direct costs of the health care).

So now you have X% of the population with no health insurance. So then what happens when they need health care? Either: the emergency rooms end up absorbing the costs, since the person can't pay, or they refuse to provide health care and the person dies on the street.

If you accept that those are not reasonable alternatives, then you must agree all people need to be covered by health insurance.

My hospitals are in an area where we had about 60% uninsured... and we're now 15% uninsured.

Our ER visits are actually up, not down... despite also almost doubling capacity at our clinics, and our reimbursement is down about 15%, despite the insurance.

I'm going from memory, but as I recall, Obamacare was supposed to help get 30mm people insurance... yet we still have around 20mm without insurance... just swapping Peter for Paul

(10-11-2016 07:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 07:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Lot of whining in this thread. Especially of the form "I want my artificially low premium/deductible products back! These correctly priced products make it so I can't take a second vacation this year!"

This may be the most tone deaf post here.

There is a growing group of Americans whose insurance premiums are approaching or surpassing their mortgage payments.

A young healthy person paying $5,000/yr for $300 in healthcare isn't 'correctly priced'.

Exactly whom was subsidizing the previous plans

(10-11-2016 01:38 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I predict the continued collapse of Obamacare will garner more and more media publicity leading up to Hillary Clinton’s inaugural address, which will of course prominently feature single-payer healthcare as a national priority on the order of defeating Nazis.

Exactly.

(10-11-2016 07:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 07:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Lot of whining in this thread. Especially of the form "I want my artificially low premium/deductible products back! These correctly priced products make it so I can't take a second vacation this year!"

This may be the most tone deaf post here.

There is a growing group of Americans whose insurance premiums are approaching or surpassing their mortgage payments.

What we need to understand and get a grasp on is the total outlay being spent on our health insurance including what our employer pays. For my wife and I? That total outlay is $1560 per year....18,720 per year. My house payment is $875. Anyone that thinks this is reasonable...is full of schit.

Unmitigated dumpster fire.

(10-11-2016 01:42 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  EagleX,
If unregulated, private insurance companies would simply refuse to cover people who are too risky - or offer products that are unaffordable or moot (the person would have to have so much money, that he/she could just pay the direct costs of the health care).
So now you have X% of the population with no health insurance. So then what happens when they need health care? Either: the emergency rooms end up absorbing the costs, since the person can't pay, or they refuse to provide health care and the person dies on the street.
If you accept that those are not reasonable alternatives, then you must agree all people need to be covered by health insurance.

One, I don't agree that you have correctly defined the alternatives. But two, even if you have, then Obamacare does not provide the solution that you prescribe.

The approach where people truly die in the streets is single-payer or single-provider, which cuts costs by dealing with those people who need expensive treatments by simply not providing the treatment, or providing it in insufficient numbers to meet demand. You're very sick, take a number, go home, and die.

As for the notion that those systems get better "outcomes," a couple of points are germane. One, what they do better than our system is keep well people well. Statistically, over a large population, giving everyone a tetanus shot does more for overall health care than treating a few severely ill people, and costs less. Two, what they do worse than our system is treating sick people. Taking a number and going home to die doesn't do much for the severely ill person. But it does get him/her out of the system when he/she dies, so statistically it's not a bad "outcome" for the system.

Bismarck systems can treat well people like a single-payer/single-provider system and sick people like our system, or at least our old system. That's why it is the best approach.

(10-12-2016 05:53 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 07:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 07:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Lot of whining in this thread. Especially of the form "I want my artificially low premium/deductible products back! These correctly priced products make it so I can't take a second vacation this year!"

This may be the most tone deaf post here.

There is a growing group of Americans whose insurance premiums are approaching or surpassing their mortgage payments.

What we need to understand and get a grasp on is the total outlay being spent on our health insurance including what our employer pays. For my wife and I? That total outlay is $1560 per year....18,720 per year. My house payment is $875. Anyone that thinks this is reasonable...is full of schit.

Yup I pay ~$420 every 2 weeks. Nearly $11000 a year. That's about what I pay for my mortgage. Every year too.

It's a decent plan 30 buck copay
$1000 deductible 2000 out of pocket max per person

But Those statements weren't supposed to be sent out until after the elections were over. Way to go Putin !

(10-12-2016 07:09 AM)Dragonlair2.0 Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 05:53 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 07:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 07:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Lot of whining in this thread. Especially of the form "I want my artificially low premium/deductible products back! These correctly priced products make it so I can't take a second vacation this year!"

This may be the most tone deaf post here.

There is a growing group of Americans whose insurance premiums are approaching or surpassing their mortgage payments.

What we need to understand and get a grasp on is the total outlay being spent on our health insurance including what our employer pays. For my wife and I? That total outlay is $1560 per year....18,720 per year. My house payment is $875. Anyone that thinks this is reasonable...is full of schit.

Yup I pay ~$420 every 2 weeks. Nearly $11000 a year. That's about what I pay for my mortgage. Every year too.

It's a decent plan 30 buck copay
$1000 deductible 2000 out of pocket max per person

That $11,000 would pay for a week at Disney World for a family of four. So Mpls is right.

(10-11-2016 01:55 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-11-2016 01:48 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  and can't afford individual health insurance,

The rub is, he used to have affordable health insurance.

Wealth transfer in full effect.

(10-11-2016 01:42 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If unregulated, private insurance companies would simply refuse to cover people who are too risky - or offer products that are unaffordable or moot (the person would have to have so much money, that he/she could just pay the direct costs of the health care).
So now you have X% of the population with no health insurance. So then what happens when they need health care? Either: the emergency rooms end up absorbing the costs, since the person can't pay, or they refuse to provide health care and the person dies on the street.
If you accept that those are not reasonable alternatives, then you must agree all people need to be covered by health insurance.

of course you ignore that we still have X% without health insurance... it's lower, but only marginally so.

So you just correctly argued that insurance is math, and now you ignore your own comment and argue that it isn't and is instead simple greed.

The truth is that YOU need $1000 in healthcare and someone else needs $5,000 in healthcare and someone else needs $50,000 in healthcare.

Between you, you need $56,000 in healthcare. Obamacare bills you all $19,000. That's honestly not 'fair' to any of you. (yes I know I'm being obvious and not realistic)... providing a subsidy to one of you based on income... but which one? If it's the 50k guy, then the government is only providing 1/3 of the subsidy. The other two are providing the rest of the subsidy. If it's the 1k guy and it's not a full subsidy, then it's not really a subsidy either... since you're paying more than you're taking out.

All insurance companies did was exactly what is being done now. They priced the product to where the public would buy it. The difference is, insurers had to be more competitive because they had to sell it. The government doesn't have to sell it.

The guy who needs 50,000 in care can't afford it... So let the government subsidize HIM through taxes... Most European countries add serious sin taxes to accomplish this.... and not through making the others pay for his care while lying to them about how the system is better for them also.

As you said, it's math... So everyone else can go right back to where they were.... and the government can subsidize the high users... and the poor. Let them all have Medicare. Simple math


Put the taxes on the wealthy, not the healthy. I'm not saying I favor this... I'm saying this is what true Democrats SHOULD favor over taxing the young and healthy.

Personally, I'd tax 'sin'. Drug users, drinkers, smokers, thrill seekers would all pay higher copays/deductibles than those who try and live healthy. Legalize MJ and tax it. Tax alcohol and cigs. Tax sky diving, moto-x and charge higher copays for 'hey bubba, watch this'.

200 #31,

- It may have to be replaced, with a better policy
- I'm not up to speed on what the purported pros/cons are of the interstate thing. On face alone, it doesn't seem like there's any reason not to allow competition across states.
- We already have HSA's. I'm confused how allowing HSA money to be spent on health insurance plans helps the situation. Wouldn't the money that went into the HSA just go into paying the premium instead??
- Is this supposed to mean making it so bad doctors can never get sued for malpractice? No.
- No one is uninsurable. It's just a matter of if the price point balances the risk factors in the actuary's equations is reasonably affordable, or not. But I'm not opposed to the idea of making a single federal public insurance option for all of the higher risk pools across the country.


swagger #32,

Then maybe all those young healthy bucks, trying to bypass the system, should have to pay much higher penalties -- and that money put directly back into the system?


200 #34,

Yes, that's how health insurance works. What would be the point of buying a product that then requires you to pay 100% of the actual costs for the care???


Hambone #35,

I'm 100% for using government authority to negotiate the prices of health care services and products down. That is done in other countries, successfully.

But now you're running up against the lobbies for health care providers, pharma, and medical devices. Ouch!


muffin #36,

Or you could argue that it's actually "people who had artificially low priced plans, now have right priced plans".


swagger #41,

Sure. You can get a Barclay's credit card here, after all. I guess I see no reason to prohibit it. But you're probably running afoul of the health insurance lobby.


creb #45,

But where does the money come from to pay the medical costs for that high-risk 10%??? Taxes. So either way, you're gonna pay for it. It's just a matter of: what's the most efficient way??


JMU #53,

Are you saying that if we allowed emergency rooms to deny service to those who couldn't pay, they would in fact not die in the streets?


solo #55,

I'm curious what you mean by that? Are you saying that your individual health insurance product doesn't cover much of the (elective?) costs associated with child birth at a hospital? Did you do any "nonstandard" birthing options, like water birth, or a home birth?


JMU #59,

It is unfortunate that some doctors filed fraudulent claims in the past. If there weren't so many cheats, we wouldn't have to put restrictions in place.


HoD #60/solo #62/hood #64/200 #65,

You're right, and I was wrong. It was wrong of me to post that. I've deleted that post. And I apologize to you all and anyone else who took offense.


JMU #61,

There's nothing certifiable about the fact that when more high-risk folks are assimilated into the risk pool, the prices that balance the risk must go up. All of the products that you had previously, could be offered -- just at a much higher price. And since everyone is price sensitive, in order to offer a product people actually would buy they had to cut back.


EagleX #66,

If that's true, then obviously it is unacceptable.


Hambone #68,

Perhaps the people now covered feel it's appropriate to take themselves to the ER, more often? I'm just guessing.


Owl #72,

I don't believe that would happen. And I don't think it's acceptable.

Never heard of the Bismarck model, thanks for the tip! I think this is a pretty good webpage for everyone here to read! http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resourc...models.php


Hambone #77,

Of course it's not "fair", in the most simple sense. But that sense requires hind-sight.

As the guy only needing $5k in health care, you're getting something for that extra $14k: risk management. That's what insurance is. You don't have to worry about what happens if you suddenly, unexpectedly do need $50k in care.


For your proposal to supplement the system by making the risk-takers pay more: seems perfectly fair to me. But doesn't insurance already do that? They make high-risk pay more. If you're saying it would be law to include all those other factors, then I'm pretty sure I'd agree that it would be fair.

Alright, I think I'm caught up. Enough for today!

(10-11-2016 02:12 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Insurance is 100% math. Complex formulas weigh risk to determine insurability and rate. Excessive government interference in the form of Obamacare have wrecked the system and lead to teh drastic increases in premiums. Insurance companies are not the bogey men the left make them out to be.

There are others here that are far more qualified than I am to make propositions, but in very general terms, start with the following:

1. Repeal Obamacare
2. Allow competition across state lines
3. Create tax or savings incentives rather than penalties to encourage the young and healthy to participate in the health insurance market.
4. Tort reform
5. Create a high-risk public option for those that fall into the uninsurable category

(10-12-2016 12:46 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  200 #31,

- It may have to be replaced, with a better policy

Obamacare isn't a policy. It's a law that has failed miserably. Basic understanding of the topic is necessary to have a serious discussion. Obamacare destroyed America's health insurance industry.

(10-12-2016 12:46 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  - I'm not up to speed on what the purported pros/cons are of the interstate thing. On face alone, it doesn't seem like there's any reason not to allow competition across states.

Someone else here addressed the reasoning behind it. It's time to explore options to allow and encourage competition across state lines.

(10-12-2016 12:46 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  - We already have HSA's. I'm confused how allowing HSA money to be spent on health insurance plans helps the situation. Wouldn't the money that went into the HSA just go into paying the premium instead??

I wasn't speaking about HSA's. I was talking about the exact opposite of the tax/penalty that Obamacare imposes.

(10-12-2016 12:46 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  - Is this supposed to mean making it so bad doctors can never get sued for malpractice? No.

Why must you deal with absolutes? Did I ever say "make it where doctors can't be sued for malpractice"? No. Be reasonable.

(10-12-2016 12:46 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  - No one is uninsurable. It's just a matter of if the price point balances the risk factors in the actuary's equations is reasonably affordable, or not. But I'm not opposed to the idea of making a single federal public insurance option for all of the higher risk pools across the country.

There are absolutely uninsurable people. I worked in insurance, I understand the math and dealt with underwriters and actuaries daily. You cannot insure a guaranteed loss - especially at the scale that Obamacare essentially mandates, and expect the company to remain solvent.

(10-11-2016 02:15 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Everyone does not agree.

Obamacare created a guarantee loss for insurance companies. An individual with a known condition that will require hundreds of thousands of dollars in care each year must now be covered and will pay in fractions of pennies on the dollar for care. Private insurance failed when the government created a situation where it had no other option but to fail.

(10-12-2016 12:46 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  200 #34,

Yes, that's how health insurance works. What would be the point of buying a product that then requires you to pay 100% of the actual costs for the care???

Did you not see where I said "fractions of pennies on the dollar"? Obamacare forces companies to cover the unisurable at rates that will lead to insolvency.