Health insurance premiums going up, thanks to new legislation

[birdog1960]

So what makes the government a better middle man than the insurance companies?

years of experience and relative success. remember the elderly saying "don't touch my medicare" while railing against govt run healthcare? in general, they're very happy with the program (not so much for private insurance customers)...and it runs efficiently compared to private insurers- administrative costs as a percentage of total costs are much lower than even the most efficient private insurers...no million dollar salaries or stockhholder dividends to pay, no profit to be made. the case study has already been done and it has worked while private insurance continues to fail and increase in cost while refusing care for huge swaths of the population including the sickest patients.

[Joe Miner]

years of experience and relative success. remember the elderly saying "don't touch my medicare" while railing against govt run healthcare? in general, they're very happy with the program (not so much for private insurance customers)...and it runs efficiently compared to private insurers- administrative costs as a percentage of total costs are much lower than even the most efficient private insurers...no million dollar salaries or stockhholder dividends to pay, no profit to be made. the case study has already been done and it has worked while private insurance continues to fail and increase in cost while refusing care for huge swaths of the population including the sickest patients.

 

[erynthered]

years of experience and relative success. remember the elderly saying "don't touch my medicare" while railing against govt run healthcare? in general, they're very happy with the program (not so much for private insurance customers)...and it runs efficiently compared to private insurers- administrative costs as a percentage of total costs are much lower than even the most efficient private insurers...no million dollar salaries or stockhholder dividends to pay, no profit to be made. the case study has already been done and it has worked while private insurance continues to fail and increase in cost while refusing care for huge swaths of the population including the sickest patients.

 

 

Link?

[Magox]

years of experience and relative success. remember the elderly saying "don't touch my medicare" while railing against govt run healthcare? in general, they're very happy with the program (not so much for private insurance customers)...and it runs efficiently compared to private insurers- administrative costs as a percentage of total costs are much lower than even the most efficient private insurers...no million dollar salaries or stockhholder dividends to pay, no profit to be made. the case study has already been done and it has worked while private insurance continues to fail and increase in cost while refusing care for huge swaths of the population including the sickest patients.

Birdog, the reason why the eldery like medicare is because it is an entitlement program. Who doesn't like free ****? That's not the problem, just like most libs they don't understand that entitlements come with a price.

 

You do know that many rural hospitals are about to go broke because of the low medicare reimbursement rates? You do know that many general practicioners are having a hard time giving quality care while trying to run a reasonably profitable center because of the low medicare reimbursement rates? You do know that a main reason that there are critical shortages of general practicioners is because of the low medicare reimbursement rates don't you? You do realize that Medicare is about to go broke if there aren't some major reforms put in place?

 

MEDICARE IS ABOUT TO GO BROKE!

 

So basically, everything you just said is moot point until you acknowledge these issues. Also the British system that you talk about, I guess you haven't heard of their budgetary problems lately? You are sort of like LYBOB, you have very snazzy liberal views that on the surface appear to make sense, but when you delve deep down into the nitty gritty your views are filled with many flaws.

 

Everything I mentioned up above is 100% true and you gloss over them or are oblivous to these issues and then you cite them as EXAMPLES of how we should move forward.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Magox

[BB27]

I agree. We need to eliminate that middle man and put someone in charge with a proven track record of delivering true cost and operating efficiencies.

 

Someone like the federal government.

 

 

[Alaska Darin]

the govt would've negotiated for you and it - single payer

Ask a serviceman how well their single payer health care works.

[....lybob]

Ask a serviceman how well their single payer health care works.

I have asked servicemen, some love it and think it's great and other hate it and think it sucks.

 

I not sure how this is different than private health care, I was in the hospital about two years ago and had both very competent and very incompetent care depending on the shift, doctor, lab, and so on.

 

I would like to add that VA probably needs funding increases and on the whole our appreciation for Vets tends to be shown more as lip service than in tangible action.

Edited September 22, 2010 by ....lybob

[birdog1960]

 

 

You do know that many rural hospitals are about to go broke because of the low medicare reimbursement rates? You do know that many general practicioners are having a hard time giving quality care while trying to run a reasonably profitable center because of the low medicare reimbursement rates? You do know that a main reason that there are critical shortages of general practicioners is because of the low medicare reimbursement rates don't you? You do realize that Medicare is about to go broke if there aren't some major reforms put in place?

 

 

i'm on staff at a small rural hospital, have served as chief of medicine and on the board there as well as founding and successfully running a multi specialty primary care clinic. i know the challenges well and we have been able to navigate the myriad problems successfully despite a very high percentage of medicare and medicaid patients. admittedly, it isn't easy.

 

i have plenty to say about primary care reimbursement but the new model promises more emphasis and better reimbursement for primary care thus offering incentive and hope for increasing the work force. primary care is clearly undervalued in the current system while specialty care is overvalued and overutilized. we have an extravagant system that bleeds wasted money on whiz bang diagnostic methods and treatments while ignoring the basics. of course major reform is needed as you say. this will have to involve lower utilization and the closing of some redundant, inefficient facilities including some rural hospitals and some urban hospitals. this will be painful and difficult but absolutely necessary and possible. it can only happen in a reasonable time frame by handing the majority payor (the govt) the reins.

Edited September 22, 2010 by birdog1960

[Doc]

i'm on staff at a small rural hospital, have served as chief of medicine and on the board there as well as founding and successfully running a multi specialty primary care clinic. i know the challenges well and we have been able to navigate the myriad problems successfully despite a very high percentage of medicare and medicaid patients. admittedly, it isn't easy.

 

i have plenty to say about primary care reimbursement but the new model promises more emphasis and better reimbursement for primary care thus offering incentive and hope for increasing the work force. primary care is clearly undervalued in the current system while specialty care is overvalued and overutilized. we have an extravagant system that bleeds wasted money on whiz bang diagnostic methods and treatments while ignoring the basics. of course major reform is needed as you say. this will have to involve lower utilization and the closing of some redundant, inefficient facilities including some rural hospitals and some urban hospitals. this will be painful and difficult but absolutely necessary and possible. it can only happen in a reasonable time frame by handing the majority payor (the govt) the reins.

The problem is with the people who are "promising" you things. I know you are hoping this time will be different, but I can assure it won't, birddog. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me a thousand times...

[birdog1960]

The problem is with the people who are "promising" you things. I know you are hoping this time will be different, but I can assure it won't, birddog. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me a thousand times...

agree to some extent but the ace in the hole for primary care is that the envisioned system can't work without it. if you accept that premise and the fact that there exists a dearth of primary care docs, you must conclude that the plan will have to make it a more appealing choice. yes, there are other temporizing patches but no efficient system works without a strong base.

[BB27]

Healthcare worse than critics thought

 

Wow.

 

What say you now supporters of this crap of a bill....

[erynthered]

Healthcare worse than critics thought

 

Wow.

 

What say you now supporters of this crap of a bill....

 

 

Wow is right!!

 

 

 

 

Yeah, but there's a case study that says it will work!!

<birddog>

[Doc]

agree to some extent but the ace in the hole for primary care is that the envisioned system can't work without it. if you accept that premise and the fact that there exists a dearth of primary care docs, you must conclude that the plan will have to make it a more appealing choice. yes, there are other temporizing patches but no efficient system works without a strong base.

The "plan" as I see it is to have APRN's and PA's overtake primary care. I mean, the whole "doctor of nursing" thing was the step towards that, so that they can confuse the public into thinking that they're seeing a "doctor" when it's a nurse. Hell I know of some PA's who go by "doctor."

Edited September 23, 2010 by Doc

[birdog1960]

Healthcare worse than critics thought

 

Wow.

 

What say you now supporters of this crap of a bill....

sorry. an op ed in a rag featuring cal thomas as a featured writer with no references to specific parts of the bill doesn't strike me as definitive or objective.

 

The "plan" as I see it is to have APRN's and PA's overtake primary care. I mean, the whole "doctor of nursing" thing was the step towards that, so that they can confuse the public into thinking that they're seeing a "doctor" when it's a nurse. Hell I know of some PA's who go by "doctor."

midlevels are even shunning primary care at this point being able to make 20% more in specialties and guess what?...because of this, there aren't enough trained in primary care to take up the slack. that and the fact that many refer everything more complicated than a cold (thus eliminating any savings) makes them a poor solution.

[Magox]

sorry. an op ed in a rag featuring cal thomas as a featured writer with no references to specific parts of the bill doesn't strike me as definitive or objective.

There are plenty of facts in those descriptions. The $600 Tax provision is a terrible one, there is no denying that.

 

Today in Florida, Health Insurers are not going to offer individual plans for children. They cited that many parents won't carry health insurance for their children until they get sick. Which is true BirdDog. You weren't here for it, but I predicted that this would happen. If you can't deny coverage, then what is the incentive of carrying health insurance until you get sick? It's just common sense.

 

No one argues that people shouldn't get denied coverage, it's HOW DO YOU DO THIS without raising everyone else's premiums. As I noted before, Liberals don't understand the unintended consequences of some of their decisions.

 

Recently, health insurers have sent out letters to their clients citing additional increases and they've attributed 15-20% of the increase because of the law. Why? Partially because of the reason I just mentioned to you, also because of the additional benefits such as the prescription benefit donut hole provision (which any rational thinking person realizes that if you add benefits then the cost goes up), also because of the 26 year old provision and etc.

 

There has been a dramatic increase of health insurance holders dropping their coverage. That is a fact, of course that is partially attributed to the economy and partially to the provision that doesn't allow health insurers to deny coverage which incentivizes people to drop their coverage. Do you understand how this impacts rates? Do you understand how this changes peoples incentive patterns? I don't believe you do Birdog, because if you did you would realize that this provision as well-intentioned as it may be, provides incentives to health insurance holders to drop their coverage which in turn reduces the amount of younger and healthier people in the risk pools, which in turn RAISES EVERYONE ELSES RATES.

 

The people who are going to get hammered the most because of this ABORTION of a BILL are younger healthier people who will end up subsidizing the costs of older people.

 

Also the MEdicare actuaries DID IN FACT SAY that the total cost of healthcare would go up because of the bill, that is a fact.

 

I understand economics BIrdog, you should of seen all the posts I have written on Healthcare on this board and I predicted ALL of these outcomes. I could go on and on, there will be many more side-effects to this bill, but the most important one will be the impact on our National debt.

[Doc]

There are plenty of facts in those descriptions. The $600 Tax provision is a terrible one, there is no denying that.

 

Today in Florida, Health Insurers are not going to offer individual plans for children. They cited that many parents won't carry health insurance for their children until they get sick. Which is true BirdDog. You weren't here for it, but I predicted that this would happen. If you can't deny coverage, then what is the incentive of carrying health insurance until you get sick? It's just common sense.

 

No one argues that people shouldn't get denied coverage, it's HOW DO YOU DO THIS without raising everyone else's premiums. As I noted before, Liberals don't understand the unintended consequences of some of their decisions.

 

Recently, health insurers have sent out letters to their clients citing additional increases and they've attributed 15-20% of the increase because of the law. Why? Partially because of the reason I just mentioned to you, also because of the additional benefits such as the prescription benefit donut hole provision (which any rational thinking person realizes that if you add benefits then the cost goes up), also because of the 26 year old provision and etc.

 

There has been a dramatic increase of health insurance holders dropping their coverage. That is a fact, of course that is partially attributed to the economy and partially to the provision that doesn't allow health insurers to deny coverage which incentivizes people to drop their coverage. Do you understand how this impacts rates? Do you understand how this changes peoples incentive patterns? I don't believe you do Birdog, because if you did you would realize that this provision as well-intentioned as it may be, provides incentives to health insurance holders to drop their coverage which in turn reduces the amount of younger and healthier people in the risk pools, which in turn RAISES EVERYONE ELSES RATES.

 

The people who are going to get hammered the most because of this ABORTION of a BILL are younger healthier people who will end up subsidizing the costs of older people.

 

Also the MEdicare actuaries DID IN FACT SAY that the total cost of healthcare would go up because of the bill, that is a fact.

 

I understand economics BIrdog, you should of seen all the posts I have written on Healthcare on this board and I predicted ALL of these outcomes. I could go on and on, there will be many more side-effects to this bill, but the most important one will be the impact on our National debt.

Healthy people won't buy health insurance. Why when a) they're healthy and b) they can buy it when they do get sick?

[Chef Jim]

Healthy people won't buy health insurance. Why when a) they're healthy and b) they can buy it when they do get sick?

 

And that is a major recipe for disaster.

[Magox]

Healthy people won't buy health insurance. Why when a) they're healthy and b) they can buy it when they do get sick?

Many will drop their coverage but obviously there will be some (which is many) that will buy insurance on the individual markets. Also, when you add the provision of the 26 year olds staying on their parents health insurance, those who dropped o out of their plans will end up raising the costs for everyone else, specially the parents who are paying for their children under 26.

 

So yes, there will be many that will be paying insurance and many that drop insurance. In other words, it's going to be a cluster !@#$ because of the massive distortions and disallocations that this law will cause.

[DC Tom]

I understand economics BIrdog, you should of seen all the posts I have written on Healthcare on this board and I predicted ALL of these outcomes. I could go on and on, there will be many more side-effects to this bill, but the most important one will be the impact on our National debt.

 

Hell, I predicted those outcomes, and my understanding of economics doesn't go much beyond college-level macro.

 

The laws of supply and demand aren't exactly subtle.

[kegtapr]

years of experience and relative success. remember the elderly saying "don't touch my medicare" while railing against govt run healthcare? in general, they're very happy with the program (not so much for private insurance customers)...and it runs efficiently compared to private insurers- administrative costs as a percentage of total costs are much lower than even the most efficient private insurers...no million dollar salaries or stockhholder dividends to pay, no profit to be made. the case study has already been done and it has worked while private insurance continues to fail and increase in cost while refusing care for huge swaths of the population including the sickest patients.

 

Oh yes, they're very happy with Medicare. So happy in fact, that millions have to enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan to cover many of their basic medical needs, because original Medicare doesn't cover enough for them. And who are these Medicare Advantage plans run by? Egats! It's private insurance companies. Ever look at the reimbursment rates that Medicare gives these private companies? They'd be shockingly high to you, and Medicare sets the rates.

 

Why are administrative costs as a percentage of total costs lower? Another shocking answer, because these are passed off to the private insurance company running the Medicare Advantage programs. Medicare can hide the $ amount in the reimbursment payment.