(02-12-2016 10:56 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 10:54 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 10:28 PM)Smaug Wrote:  So, I was unemployed for two months last year. As such, I went 2 months without health insurance.

Sitting down to my taxes last weekend, I discovered everybody's favorite uncle dinged me $350 for not having health insurance.

This is the definition of kicking a man when he's down.

Good thing I'm working again so I can afford the penalty for being broke.

Even paying the $350, you basically saved $450-$650 by not paying for insurance.

Did I mention I didn't actually HAVE insurance?

My Obamacrap policy costs $500 per month. If I went without it for two months, I would save $1000. If the government fines me $350, I still save $650.

Also, if I broke my leg, here would be my out of pocket amounts:

1. I had insurance during those two months. I paid $1000 in deductibles for breaking my leg, plus another $1000 in premiums. My out of pocket is $2000.

2. I didnt have insurance for those two months. I paid $1000 for breaking my leg. My out of pocket is $1000.

Obamacrap is so bad, I actually save money by not having insurance.

So it sucks to both have it and not have it.

Helluva neat trick.

(02-12-2016 09:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 01:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The demand for healthcare is currently far greater than the supply of it... this is the primary reason why healthcare costs have risen.

Source?

I did find a couple articles citing increases in pay to hospital administrators as one of the causes of rising healthcare costs though.

Oh Jesus Christ.

I do this for a living.

99% of the cost of care for most people doesn't involve all of these exotic drugs or exotic care or hospitalizations. They involve a doctor's time and inexpensive or even over the counter medicines for check-ups... colds... flu... sprains and breaks. For every one of these exotic cases that people like to run out as the problem, there are perhaps thousands of the sorts of cases I'm talking about...

and the biggest challenge I face is docs are leaving private primary practice going for more lucrative specialization... so I have to keep paying up to try and hire or retain them.

This is the game being played in healthcare and people like you are buying in...

When you (one) want to talk about the problems, you talk about the relatively rare extreme cases.... and when you want to talk about solutions, you spread the costs across as wide a net as you possibly can to make it look like a small cost...

But the REALITY is that the biggest need in healthcare isn't increased pay for a small number of highly specialized people or the huge costs of these newer and more rare prescription drugs so new they're still under patent, but the things that get consumed by millions of people every single day.

If you're arguing that the rise in healthcare is the result of the fact that this latest and geatest drug that does things that previous drugs didn't do... THUS YOU ARE IGNORING THE INCREASE IN QUALITY OF CARE that this increase in cost buys.

Let me say it differently and see if you can follow...

If gas is $1 and the cost of gas goes to $2, then the cost of 'transportation' has doubled. If instead, someone develops a transporter that costs twice as much... and everybody switches to transporters.... The cost of 'transportation' hasn't doubled... because the 'definition' of transportation has changed. There is a VALUE difference (speed or other benefit) in addition to the PRICE difference.

If it costs $1mm to save someone that a year ago we would have simply let die and spent nothing because there was no known/reasonable cure... YOUR SIDE would argue that the cost of care for that person has gone up by $1mm... ignoring that the treatment didn't even exist before. This is ADDITIONAL care, not 'more expensive' care.

The cost of Tylenol and Hydrocodone and Prozac and Ritalin and the things that are prescribed thousands of times every day hasn't gone up (much) and has arguably (with Wal-mart and others $4 generic plans) gone down a lot. The cost of band aids and tongue depressers and offfice space etc etc hasn't changed that much.



And yes, my job exists ONLY because of the ACA. Without the ACA, they wouldn't need me. I've said this numerous times. I know you're somewhat joking/poking fun at me... and that's fine... but it's absolutely true.

Interesting, never knew your job only existed because of the ACA, so I'll thank Obama for that for you...lol.

But I was really only wondering if you had a source...or study that backed up the claim...that's all. I tried to find something with some detail, but none of them specifically cited what you claimed.

Sorry, but since I don't know you at all, where you work, or what exactly it is that you do...I have no way of knowing if your facts apply to everywhere or just your part of the country.

(02-12-2016 11:08 PM)Smaug Wrote:  So it sucks to both have it and not have it.

Helluva neat trick.

Yeah, I was talking to an uninsured patient about this problem last week. She has a kidney stone that needs treatment. I told her she could see about an obamacare plan, but she likely would still pay out of pocket since her deductible would be in the multiple thousand range.

(02-14-2016 12:19 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 11:08 PM)Smaug Wrote:  So it sucks to both have it and not have it.

Helluva neat trick.

Yeah, I was talking to an uninsured patient about this problem last week. She has a kidney stone that needs treatment. I told her she could see about an obamacare plan, but she likely would still pay out of pocket since her deductible would be in the multiple thousand range.

Right...and I've had insurance through my employer for 17+ years. I've always had a deductible in the multiple thousand dollar range.

(02-14-2016 12:19 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(02-12-2016 11:08 PM)Smaug Wrote:  So it sucks to both have it and not have it.

Helluva neat trick.

Yeah, I was talking to an uninsured patient about this problem last week. She has a kidney stone that needs treatment. I told her she could see about an obamacare plan, but she likely would still pay out of pocket since her deductible would be in the multiple thousand range.

Yea that's the frustrating part for me. My deductibles pre-obamacare were 1,300 individual and 2,500 family. Those have nearly doubled now.

(02-13-2016 05:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Interesting, never knew your job only existed because of the ACA, so I'll thank Obama for that for you...lol.

But I was really only wondering if you had a source...or study that backed up the claim...that's all. I tried to find something with some detail, but none of them specifically cited what you claimed.

Sorry, but since I don't know you at all, where you work, or what exactly it is that you do...I have no way of knowing if your facts apply to everywhere or just your part of the country.

That's fine.

I spent 25 years in Institutional Finance, mostly with Banks, Insurance Companies and Trust in Texas (traveling often to NY obviously). I'm now in healthcare administration in California. Yes, 'the job I have' exists only because of the ACA, because doctors USED to be able to care for patients and still generally manage their business, but now they spend increasing amounts of time not only managing their businesses, but complying with increasing regulatory issues. That's where I come in. No, the ACA doesn't fund my job. I'm like the tax attorney whose job it is to keep someone from having to pay taxes. My job is primarily to help them avoid ACA penalties... and they'd rather pay me to do that than to pay the fines.

Said only somewhat tongue in cheek (because you opened this door, even if you didn't do so in a mean-spirited way) If you want to thank the aca for adding to your cost of care (my salary) without increasing the care delivered to you (because I don't deliver healthcare) then that's ok. I'm happy for my job, and happy that I'm helping solve a problem... but I don't think I'd be 'without a job' were it not for the aca by any means. Said cheekily, but not with malice.

'Facts' like these rarely specifically apply universally, but the comments I made are true everywhere. Not in every situation, but everywhere. Medi-Cal covers Dexilant, but only after the older acid reducers fail... My private insurance does not, no matter what. Dexilant is $3 a pill while Prilosec is pennies. In your insurance and state, it may not be Dexilant but is perhaps Serouquel... or Humira... The bottom line is that the reason certain prescriptions cost more is because they are newer... and almost by definition, better than the ones they replace... and under patent. The cost of 'the same care' (in terms of prescriptions) you got 10 years ago has actually gone down, just like Lasik used to be $10,000 and now it's $1500 and Prozac used to be under patent and now there is a generic... but today, we have BETTER solutions for those same maladies.

That's like saying that a Tesla is 30 times more expensive than a Pinto, and ignoring the differences in speed and efficiency and comfort and safety etc etc etc. The ONLY part of that that is pertinent is that people have demanded things that work better/faster/longer... and the things that work better/faster/longer are more expensive. That's GENERALLY driven by demand.... not 'greed' of those who produce it.