Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Healthcare


  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#16 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,010 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:18 AM

The simple logic of Obamacare is someone has to pay for those that WON'T pay.

That is simply not true. As a matter of fact, this is less true because of Obamacare.

Some people are paying more so that people who weren't allowed any medical insurance because of medical conditions can now get it and insurance companies actually have to pay claims instead of default denying them. Not because of poor people getting insurance.

#17 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,010 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:21 AM

Dude, you can't be serious. That is DEFINATELY NOT the case. I know for a FACT. See my rates posted. And that's with NO claims the past 2 years !!!


Are you getting insurance through the exchanges that started Tuesday?

#18 Firefox

Firefox

    This Board Rocks

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 732 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:27 AM

That is dimply not true. As a matter of fact, this is less true because of Obamacare.

Some people are paying more so that people who weren't allowed any medical insurance because of medical conditions can now get it and insurance companies actually have to pay claims instead of default denying them. Not because of poor people getting insurance.

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid.  :nurse:



#19 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,529 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:28 AM

won't pay, Firefox, or can't pay?

 

If someone won't pay, they are forced to or receive a penalty under Obamacare.

 

edit: or a tax ;)



#20 Firefox

Firefox

    This Board Rocks

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 732 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:28 AM

Are you getting insurance through the exchanges that started Tuesday?

Hell no !!!!

 

Hundreds MORE dollars, higher deductibles, and worse coverage?  No Thanks.



#21 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,010 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:30 AM

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid. :nurse:

It is the truth. Poor people have always been allowed to get insurance. They just couldn't afford it.

Poor people are now being subsidized by the government. It won't change the premiums.

Your taxes will be paying for them which some people may have a problem with, but premiums will have nothing to do with poor people.

Providing insurance for people whom are already sick will impact premiums however.

#22 Firefox

Firefox

    This Board Rocks

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 732 posts

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:31 AM

won't pay, Firefox, or can't pay?

 

If someone won't pay, they are forced to or receive a penalty under Obamacare.

 

edit: or a tax ;)

The "Tax Penalty"  is FAR LESS than what the insurance cost.  So like I said ... Those that WON'T pay.



#23 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 17,101 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 02 October 2013 - 08:37 AM

My employer has us on a new high deductible plan ($3,000) effective 10/1. Just for the heck of it I went to the exchange site last night and shopped the different packages.  Even with my new (painful) high deductible plan I'm much better off than the gov't plan. The best I could do for my family was 75% higher premium and a $10,000/$20,000 deductible.   

 

That's pretty good.  The high deductible plan at our office is $6000 for a family.
 



#24 Zaximus

Zaximus

    I'm Brett Jensen

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,931 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 03 October 2013 - 11:29 AM

I don't understand why everyone is so against paying a bit more so people can get healthcare?  I've brought this up many times and no one can argue it, but I have to pay taxes for other peoples' kids (I don't have any yet) to go to school, as do many others, but no one is complaining about that or throwing a hissy fit?  In fact, we pay for a lot of things like this, most of which are FAR LESS important than healthcare.    I feel the reason is because of repub vs democrat nonsense, as usual.   If it wasn't used a political ploy by the right it wouldn't be hated as much.  Things like this are for the greater good, much like education taxes, road taxes, defense funding, etc, we were just late to the game without providing healthcare.  Reason?  The big money that hospitals and insurance companies make.    Now they can't deny preexisting, put a dollar amount on benefits, etc.  Also now hospitals can't justify charging $50 for an aspirin and things like this, why?  Because their excuse for these insane charges were because it made up for the people they had to help WITHOUT coverage, but when everyone has coverage (or is paying a "fine" to go into it) how can hospitals now justify this?  They can't.  This is how in the long run, it should be cheaper.  

 

We just need people to stop fighting and try to make it better.  Healthcare shouldn't be a tool used to get what a party wants.  It's 2013.  It should be offered.



#25 I Mean He Was Found Guilty

I Mean He Was Found Guilty

    ayy lmao

  • ALL-PRO
  • 10,137 posts
  • LocationChapel Hill

Posted 03 October 2013 - 11:41 AM

It is the truth. Poor people have always been allowed to get insurance. They just couldn't afford it.

Poor people are now being subsidized by the government. It won't change the premiums.

Your taxes will be paying for them which some people may have a problem with, but premiums will have nothing to do with poor people.

Providing insurance for people whom are already sick will impact premiums however.

 

healthcare costs right now have the costs associated with uninsured people using the ER and negotiating the bill down/stiffing the hospital altogether built in to them.  

 

everyone is paying for these "lazy losers who won't pay for insurance" many among us so despise right this second.  you don't even have to appeal to some kind of altruism or try to sell a sob story.



#26 Kitten Diver

Kitten Diver

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,824 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 11:43 AM

Dont care about the politics just want a straight answer. I have looked all over the web and ask people at my workplace. no one could answer me. I could probably find the answer but a rough estimate will suffice.

 

If I have BCBS through my company. I pay 70 a month for a pretty good plan (Id guess based on past plans it would cost me 200 a month for a similar individual plan..28/M/never had any conditions or issues). The rest is covered by my company.

 

How much increase can I expect on my premium(rough percentage)?. Is my company forced to cover the increase or can they pass it on to employees if they choose?



#27 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,551 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 12:01 PM

The new act

1) Removes preexisting condition restrictions

2) Removes lifetime maximums

3) Subsidizes low income buyers

4) Caps out of pocket maximum at $6350

5) Restricts rating variables to age, location, and smoker

6) Expands Medicare 

7) Sets a maximum premium on unhealthy people

8) restricts rate increases

9) Assume healthcare trends will be benign

 

The ACA does a great job of expanding coverage. However when you try to quantify what the real impact of the cost will be and how it will be paid for, you get a lot of ers and ums and talk about tanning bed tax as well as a promise of some tough choices that will have to me made etc. There are a thousand contradictory reports on the actual effects. One says rates will go down, the next says quadruple. And they are all cherry picking data to serve the D or R agenda.

 

Politicians are great at kicking the can down the road when it comes to actually paying for stuff.

 

The fact is you can't do all the coverage expansions above and have the money magically come from outerspace. The cost of insurance is going to go up and has the potential to skyrocket in the next decade adding potentially trillions to our already dangerous deficit. And eventually income tax rates will go up across the board to pay for it.

 

Morally it is great that we don't want people to not have health insurance. But don't kid yourself that this will not be a potentially devastating act in the long run.



#28 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,010 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 12:14 PM

Dont care aboust the politics just want a straight answer. I have looked all over the web and ask people at my workplace. no one could answer me. I could probably find the answer but a rough estimate will suffice.

If I have BCBS through my company. I pay 70 a month for a pretty good plan (Id guess based on past plans it would cost me 200 a month for a similar individual plan..28/M/never had any conditions or issues). The rest is covered by my company.

How much increase can I expect on my premium(rough percentage)?. Is my company forced to cover the increase or can they pass it on to employees if they choose?

BCBS could raise their premiums or the company could raise your contribution.

But they shouldn't except for a normal annual increase. You are likely already in a group plan so your age shouldn't have any bearing on what you pay.

For people who get insurance through larger companies or work for the government, the exchanges are just trying to duplicate what insurance companies have been doing for years with those entities. They are just going it on a much larger scale with the general public.

In large companies like that, in most cases, of you are 65 years old or 25 years old it doesn't matter. Everyone pays the same rate for whatever plan they choose.

But 65 year old employees will statistically have more claims than 25 year olds so the rate has to be enough to cover the insurance companies payouts to providers (and be profitable) for both age groups so the premium for everyone is calculated thusly.

Also people buying in bulk will often get discounts in order to obtain the mass customers.

The exchanges are trying to allow individuals to do the same. Large number of people buying into the same plan at a pretty much fixed rate. They are also lumping multiple providers into the exchange to create competition for business, which theoretically should help keep rates down.

But that is a long winded response that I am not sure even answered your question :lol:

#29 PantherBrew

PantherBrew

    Educated White Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 6,056 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 12:16 PM

The new act

1) Removes preexisting condition restrictions

2) Removes lifetime maximums

3) Subsidizes low income buyers

4) Caps out of pocket maximum at $6350

5) Restricts rating variables to age, location, and smoker

6) Expands Medicare 

7) Sets a maximum premium on unhealthy people

8) restricts rate increases

9) Assume healthcare trends will be benign

 

The ACA does a great job of expanding coverage. However when you try to quantify what the real impact of the cost will be and how it will be paid for, you get a lot of ers and ums and talk about tanning bed tax as well as a promise of some tough choices that will have to me made etc. There are a thousand contradictory reports on the actual effects. One says rates will go down, the next says quadruple. And they are all cherry picking data to serve the D or R agenda.

 

Politicians are great at kicking the can down the road when it comes to actually paying for stuff.

 

The fact is you can't do all the coverage expansions above and have the money magically come from outerspace. The cost of insurance is going to go up and has the potential to skyrocket in the next decade adding potentially trillions to our already dangerous deficit. And eventually income tax rates will go up across the board to pay for it.

 

Morally it is great that we don't want people to not have health insurance. But don't kid yourself that this will not be a potentially devastating act in the long run.

 

 

I believe the idea is that the money is coming from younger people who up until now, have risked not having insurance because they never go to the doctor.  So now that these people HAVE to get insurance or pay the fine, there will be a bigger pool of money to pay for people who don't have the means to afford it.  

Also, these same young people who didnt have insurance because they thought they were healthy enough to do without it will now have insurance for when something does happen.  I.e emergency room or surprise cancers.  



#30 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,551 posts

Posted 03 October 2013 - 01:09 PM

I believe the idea is that the money is coming from younger people who up until now, have risked not having insurance because they never go to the doctor.  So now that these people HAVE to get insurance or pay the fine, there will be a bigger pool of money to pay for people who don't have the means to afford it.  

Also, these same young people who didnt have insurance because they thought they were healthy enough to do without it will now have insurance for when something does happen.  I.e emergency room or surprise cancers.  

 

Raising rates on young people is one part of the funding. Much of it comes from taxes.

 

However adding a new young insured only helps a little. Young people have medical claims too and create more expenses. So a large part of a young person's premium goes toward their own loss pool plus the added expense of having more insureds. It's only the excess over what they would pay today that subsidizes others.

 

Again the funding and cost are only explained in very vague terms.

 

Show me a chart of the increase in costs of healthcare in say 2018 over today and how much of that will be subsidized by an increase in younger insureds. It doesn't exist because nobody has a clue or they don't want to try to explain it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com