Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Healthcare


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
148 replies to this topic

#25 I Mean He Was Found Guilty

I Mean He Was Found Guilty

    Jerry Richard$on and Gettledouche apologist

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 12,238
  • Reputation: 5,668
SUPPORTER

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

  • Joined: 14-September 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,824
  • Reputation: 29
HUDDLER

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.

  • Joined: 16-March 09
  • posts: 18,507
  • Reputation: 3,471
SUPPORTER

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

  • Joined: 10-January 11
  • posts: 17,950
  • Reputation: 9,689
SUPPORTER

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

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 6,318
  • Reputation: 1,184
SUPPORTER

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.

  • Joined: 16-March 09
  • posts: 18,507
  • Reputation: 3,471
SUPPORTER

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.



#31 PantherBrew

PantherBrew

    Educated White Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 6,318
  • Reputation: 1,184
SUPPORTER

Posted 03 October 2013 - 01:34 PM

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.

I dont know if this specifically answered the question you have but, I feel it gives a decent explanation of all the funding measures.  

 

http://www.washingto...-in-two-charts/



#32 bleys

bleys

    Simple and Plain

  • Joined: 28-November 08
  • posts: 15,612
  • Reputation: 1,639
SUPPORTER

Posted 03 October 2013 - 01:39 PM

I can tell Teeray knows what he's talking about. 

 

Just to add, young people do not cost near as much money in claims than those older people who have lived an unhealthy life and are paying the consequences.  Most every young person is healthy and only a percentage of older people suffer from careless living or hereditary health problems.  They are not even close to being balanced.  If young people are required to get insurance and there is no loop hole from one party undermining the other then the very nature of insurance law means the law of large numbers will outweigh pre-existing conditions.  Hospitals are responsible for lowering costs as a result.  It may take time to balance out but the idea itself is good.  Expecting both parties to work together to find the best solution may be the problem.

 

Oh, and also, 2018 might not look much better.  Every NC citizen can thank their General Assembly and Governor for opting to allow the Feds to run the exchange for it's people.  Good job voting them into office.

 

 

“The truth of the matter is, this is not ready for rollout,” said Chris Marie Farr, acting North Carolina director for Americans for Prosperity. “Only having two insurance carriers on the exchange – that’s a problem in itself. There are not enough choices and too many mandates.”

Adam Linker, a policy analyst with the N.C. Justice Center, said the limited competition is largely caused by North Carolina’s decision not to participate in the insurance marketplace and not to extend Medicaid.

States that have embraced the health law typically have a half-dozen or more insurers involved in their insurance marketplaces.

“When we get some competition, it’s going to be better,” said Pam Brennan, a Cary resident who has individual insurance through Blue Cross. “2015 will be a better year than 2014.”

 

http://www.newsobser...ew-federal.html

 

 

 

 

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?

 

you're employer is offering a benefit, which has become an entitlement to many people.  However that employer is not required by law to offer you anything, hence the benefit.  The problem you're employer is going to have will be all of the people with pre-existing conditions looking for healthcare that will drastically increase the premiums for that entire demographic.  That employer will then realize they have to give the employees more risk (higher premiums, deductibles, etc) to off-set those premiums. 

 

many employers would be smart to start an HRA and allow people to get their own coverage with money stipend to them.  Employees would benefit from this because they don't risk losing their insurance when a serious health risk develops and can no longer work for the company (NC is a right to work state), or pay 101% of that costly premium on cobra (the whole reason you have insurance are for these moments, not entirely for the sniffles that will not cripple you financially)..  That coverage is then portable from job to job and you never have to worry about rate increases due to those health problems after they occur (unless you have BCBS).  That's at least how it used to work.  Pre-existing conditions may not be denied, but I'm not sure if they are still rated up.

 

This is why BCBS "Blue Advantage" was/is (depending if the rules changed from before) so scary for those who actually have to use their coverage.

 

 



#33 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,865
  • Reputation: 2,555
SUPPORTER

Posted 03 October 2013 - 02:14 PM

If only there were other countries that had anything like this already in place we could look to to see what works and what doesn't and make sone basic assumptions from that data

#34 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • Joined: 16-March 09
  • posts: 18,507
  • Reputation: 3,471
SUPPORTER

Posted 03 October 2013 - 02:29 PM

Just to add, young people do not cost near as much money in claims than those older people who have lived an unhealthy life and are paying the consequences.  Most every young person is healthy and only a percentage of older people suffer from careless living or hereditary health problems.  They are not even close to being balanced.  If young people are required to get insurance and there is no loop hole from one party undermining the other then the very nature of insurance law means the law of large numbers will outweigh pre-existing conditions.  

 

You may be going down the same misconception line that many are. Or maybe not.

 

Young people have way fewer losses than older people is why young people pay less premium. The way insurance works is the company wants each risk pool to fund itself. So the losses in the male 18-25 group non-smoker should drive the premium. Insurance companies don't try to have young people subsidize other groups because it ruins competition (young people would simply flock to another company that isn't subsidizing while the old costly people would stay and enjoy lower rates.

 

So if a male in that group has an actuarial determined rate of say $100, you can't just pile on a bunch more males in that group and think you are making money. In fact the first thing you may have to do is raise the rate to $110 to cover the added expense of having more insureds.

 

Then if you want to subsidize an older group you have to raise the rate further to say $150. But that extra $40 of subsidy doesn't mean a whole lot to to a 55 year old smoker paying $1400 for health insurance. And it doesn't help subsidize the poor guy who can't afford it. So in reality you have to force you people to sign up at a rate of $400.

 

Add to that the fact that the ACA is going to limit insurance profits and you now have 2 groups who are incentivized to work the system. Young people don't want to pay $400 and insurance companies want their profits back. The insurance companies start pumping as much money into the republican party and the young kids cheat or just ignore it.

 

As someone who works in this industry, all I can say is that you can look at how this system is going to be set up and can tell it's set up for failure.



#35 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 20,323
  • Reputation: 5,872
HUDDLER

Posted 03 October 2013 - 02:47 PM

If only there were other countries that had anything like this already in place we could look to to see what works and what doesn't and make sone basic assumptions from that data

 

Only valid if you could find one as large as the US and with a population with similar demographics......one where nearly 50% of the people don't even pay Fed Income Taxes and such a high % already are on the gov't juice.

 

The countries where the programs are effective have low unemployment and an educated workforce.  Not even close to the US>



#36 Kitten Diver

Kitten Diver

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 14-September 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,824
  • Reputation: 29
HUDDLER

Posted 03 October 2013 - 02:49 PM

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:

 

No worries :) I have yet to find someone to answer it....so I guess  we'll all find out once that first check come for October!