Meathead Posted March 27, 2017 Author Share Posted March 27, 2017 ok. then why not just make medicare the default for everybody? seems like its a baseline plan that ppl with means would think isnt enough, and then they could pay for better plans on top of that medicare would basically become the minimal essential benefits provider. then a shrunken insurance industry would offer the plans to augment that why wouldnt that work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 ok. then why not just make medicare the default for everybody? seems like its a baseline plan that ppl with means would think isnt enough, and then they could pay for better plans on top of that medicare would basically become the minimal essential benefits provider. then a shrunken insurance industry would offer the plans to augment that why wouldnt that work? It could work. But now you are asking for all Medical Providers to not have any choice in the reimbursement rates. They would all be mandated to accept a lower reimbursement rate, which eliminates any choice. Plus, now you are talking about subsidizing the entire US population, countries with a 10th of our population are having huge financial stresses partially due to their healthcare system, what do you think a country of fat asses of a population of over 350 Million would do to our budget? Bernie Sanders plan would cost $33 Trillion, which is essentially what you were discussing. You know how Bernie wants to tax the hell out of rich people, right? Even if you had it his way, which won't happen any time soon, he'd still be over $18 Trillion short over the next decade. It's not a realistic proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Just shopping for insurance, as my wife lost her job (actually, had a health crisis, and can no longer work), and I'm unemployed for another month. The cheapest plan I could find for our income bracket, based on what we've already made this year (i.e. assuming neither of us has any more income this year) was $900 a month with a $12,000 deductible. The penalty for not having insurance at all was $1300 a year. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Between premium and deductible, that's about 20% of income vs. about 2%? And that was supposed to encourage people to buy insurance? I knew the ACA was bad...I didn't know it was this bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 (edited) Just shopping for insurance, as my wife lost her job (actually, had a health crisis, and can no longer work), and I'm unemployed for another month. The cheapest plan I could find for our income bracket, based on what we've already made this year (i.e. assuming neither of us has any more income this year) was $900 a month with a $12,000 deductible. The penalty for not having insurance at all was $1300 a year. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Between premium and deductible, that's about 20% of income vs. about 2%? And that was supposed to encourage people to buy insurance? I knew the ACA was bad...I didn't know it was this bad. There are many criticisms that I have with the law, but the unfairness of the whole subsidy system and how premiums have dramatically increased in many regions is downright egregious. The media knows this is a problem but they don't highlight it. All responsible parties understands that this has to be reformed, the question is does politics allow it to be addressed effectively? Edited March 27, 2017 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Everyone would do themselves a favor by fully understanding risk pools. You can't parse things up - it doesn't work. In order for HC to work effectively the payment mechanism has to account everyone. What you are creating above is simply a new tax code full of loopholes, deductions, work arounds. Come on everyone - say this first when you talk about HC. Every other country worth talking about has a HC structure that delivers HC to all its people from cradle to grave for half the cost of what we pay to insure about 2/3 of our people with poorer results The US is an outlier by quantum proportions. Why do we set the bar so low - are we saying we cannot do as well as other counties? Sounds so simple when you ignore the healthcare delivery fundamentals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Just shopping for insurance, as my wife lost her job (actually, had a health crisis, and can no longer work), and I'm unemployed for another month. The cheapest plan I could find for our income bracket, based on what we've already made this year (i.e. assuming neither of us has any more income this year) was $900 a month with a $12,000 deductible. The penalty for not having insurance at all was $1300 a year. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Between premium and deductible, that's about 20% of income vs. about 2%? And that was supposed to encourage people to buy insurance? I knew the ACA was bad...I didn't know it was this bad. Sorry to hear man, hope the health crisis passes. No fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 (edited) lmao. boyst you are so freaking mental. its a riot¿voulez vous coucher avec moi, señor? Edited March 27, 2017 by Boyst62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 There are many criticisms that I have with the law, but the unfairness of the whole subsidy system and how premiums have dramatically increased in many regions is downright egregious. The media knows this is a problem but they don't highlight it. All responsible parties understands that this has to be reformed, the question is does politics allow it to be addressed effectively? It's the unrealism that stunned me. The penalty is a tenth the actual cost...and that was intended to encourage people to buy insurance? I knew it was a badly designed law. I didn't know it was that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 It's the unrealism that stunned me. The penalty is a tenth the actual cost...and that was intended to encourage people to buy insurance? I knew it was a badly designed law. I didn't know it was that bad. If you and your wife are pretty healthy, then maybe a short-term health plan would make sense. They don't cover most pre existing medical conditions, but generally have much larger networks than the ACA plans and they come in at a much lower price. Which makes sense because their risk pool is much healthier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Sorry to hear man, hope the health crisis passes. No fun Thank you. It was no fun at all. Last week was unbelievably not fun. Only good thing I can say about it is that no one died (which is a strangely regular and unfortunately common occurrence in my life, on the Thursday of the last full week of March.) If you and your wife are pretty healthy, then maybe a short-term health plan would make sense. They don't cover most pre existing medical conditions, but generally have much larger networks than the ACA plans and they come in at a much lower price. Which makes sense because their risk pool is much healthier. I am looking in to it. What sucks is that she was about to have an arthritic knee treated with hyaluronic acid shots...which is now on hold, because we certainly can't afford it, and most plans won't pay for the specific brand of shots she needs (oddly, the generics don't work for her, she needs a specific brand.) So she can barely walk, in addition to all the other **** that just happened. It has me thinking that one valuable suggestion for health coverage reform would be to provide Medicaid coverage with unemployment. COBRA's okay (not as pricey as the exchange plans), But when you're unemployed with no income, it's still unrealistic. (Note, too, for those who don't know: my unemployment right now was planned: I'm at the end of month 2 of a three-month sabbatical, and had saved up enough to cover that plus three more months, including health coverage. But that was contingent on my wife's income...her being unable to work now sends this plan sideways.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Every two weeks my employer pays $500, I kick in $200 (close round numbers). @ 26 pay periods a year, that's roughly 18k a year that is going to Blue Cross & Blue Shield (Federal program/family) Before Obamacare I was with Humana, I was up to over $300 every two weeks for the amount of deductible I was kicking in. w/Fed, employer picks up 60%, employee 40%... You do the math. That amount was creeping up all through the 1990s & 2000s before ACA. 20 years ago, for that same Humana coverage, I was kicking in around a $100 every two weeks. I am 49, been doing it since 22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Just shopping for insurance, as my wife lost her job (actually, had a health crisis, and can no longer work), and I'm unemployed for another month. The cheapest plan I could find for our income bracket, based on what we've already made this year (i.e. assuming neither of us has any more income this year) was $900 a month with a $12,000 deductible. The penalty for not having insurance at all was $1300 a year. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Between premium and deductible, that's about 20% of income vs. about 2%? And that was supposed to encourage people to buy insurance? I knew the ACA was bad...I didn't know it was this bad. That is horrendous. The ACA is a joke. That cost is no better ( maybe worse) than COBRA which almost nobody buys because its cost prohibitive. Obamacare solved nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 That is horrendous. The ACA is a joke. That cost is no better ( maybe worse) than COBRA which almost nobody buys because its cost prohibitive. Obamacare solved nothing. Basically with the ACA is that there were lots of winners and losers. Middle class was the big loser. The big winner was those making less than $24,000 a year, over the age of 40. And those with Pre existing conditions who couldn't get coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Sounds so simple when you ignore the healthcare delivery fundamentals. The fundamentals need to change, which means lobbyists will be kicking and screaming because there will be losers. Hannity keeps talking about a very ineteresting concept in Kansas. I think the gist of it is doctors banded together and will cover most all services except catastrophic . The cost to the consumer forcthis " coverage" is 50$ per month per adult and 10$ pm per child. Then the family buys a " catastophic" policy from an insurance company . This could be the wave of the future. Insurance industry would take a hit, but the country would be better off. The insurance companies are most of what's wrong with health care IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Tom, everybody gets sick, gals get knocked up, or whatever ills oneself... I think the object was to get people on the hook once that happened. To "encourage" people to buy insurance was always seen as ridiculous. You simply can't make things too punitive. Get them in for care, pay the chump change and get them on meat hook. I know, very effed up. Basically with the ACA is that there were lots of winners and losers. Middle class was the big loser. The big winner was those making less than $24,000 a year, over the age of 40. And those with Pre existing conditions who couldn't get coverage. Somebody has to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Somebody has to pay. Sure, but there is a better way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 (edited) Sure, but there is a better way. Is there really? Again, somebody will always squeal when they pay. Edited March 27, 2017 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Is there really? Again, somebody will always squeal when they pay. Of course there is, to believe this is as good as it gets is silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Of course there is, to believe this is as good as it gets is silly. And you will get blood out of stones that are making less than 24k and have pre-existing conditions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 Basically with the ACA is that there were lots of winners and losers. Middle class was the big loser. The big winner was those making less than $24,000 a year, over the age of 40. And those with Pre existing conditions who couldn't get coverage. It's a little difficult for me to complain about the ACA when my sister-in-law (as part of the under 24k/over 40 group) has health coverage for the first time in her life. It seems to be the only part of the ACA that came close to working as intended. Of course, she can't get care, because she's covered under Medicaid expansion and it's tough to find a provider (e.g. she needed to see a pulmonologist. There were TWO in the entire DC metro region that took Medicaid. Got an appointment with one, three months in the future...then that doctor moved out of the area. Access to COVERAGE does not equal access to CARE.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts