Whew, I have health insurance for 2014 !!!!

[Finz]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
So, not to disagree that plans should be sold across state lines, because I think that could be a great idea. Just wanted to hear a response to the criticism that, if that's all we did, insurance companies would all move to the least-regulated state and their plans would race to the bottom. What would stop that from happening?


The only way is to remove the expensive lobbyists who pound their agenda into our legislators.

Carefully crafted law that was created to help consumers would be a revelation, we haven't seen any 'ground up' work in decades. Everything is 'top down'...


I believe the real culprit behind increased medical costs be it insurance, services, pharmaceuticals,... Are the trial attorneys.

Our health insurance cost is a function of the medical malpractice insurance costs incurred by the doctors as well as the Product Liability coverage carried by the pharmaceutical companies

Tort reform? Improbable as that would be akin to canibalism for our legislators to enact anything against their own

 

[TrevorS]

Its interesting that in this thread the following groups have been blamed for the healthcare issues:

Lobbyists
Legislators
Doctors
Hospitals and their administrators
Insurance Companies
Attorneys
Pharmaceutical companies
Patients (overusing or suing)

In other words everyone.

I hope you realize that what they all have in common is that they are all pursuing their individual self interests. We legislate to try and control this but its a never ending battle between interest groups.

Healthcare just does not lend itself to being a for profit industry. There is no need for theory, the facts speak for themselves. Double costs, worse outcomes, crazy use of pharmaceuticals.

Don't get me wrong. I love free markets. But healthcare is becoming a competitive drag and standard of living issue and we're going to have to look at how other countries do it soon.

 

[Barkleymut]

^^ I'm not interested in how other countries do it. Our country is unique in a lot of ways. The main problem I have with the new laws is that it is essentially going to push people like the OP to quit his job so he can receive a subsidy. This house of cards will continue for a while as the Fed just continues to print money. But someday a light breeze will come along and everything is going to be gone.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Barkleymut
The main problem I have with the new laws is that it is essentially going to push people like the OP to quit his job so he can receive a subsidy.

I don't think the OP is so bad at math that he'd give up a job to get a subsidy.

In fact, I dare say that anyone who is that stupid was probably going to be fired soon anyway, especially in this competitive job market...

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I don't think the OP is so bad at math that he'd give up a job to get a subsidy.

In fact, I dare say that anyone who is that stupid was probably going to be fired soon anyway, especially in this competitive job market...


I don't follow. The OP said he was going to pay $30k per year in premiums. If I'm understanding how mine the cost is around a third of that (not self-employed). Once you factor in the future uncertainty of the OP's income, future uncertainty of the economy, and future uncertainty of what insurance will cost, I'd look hard at that cost too: I'd want to make much much more than the $20k difference if I was self employed.

 

[d00df00d]

What Barkleymut said was "quit his job so he can receive a subsidy." Typically this wording implies leaving a job entirely in order to receive government support.

If Barkleymut meant "seek employment with a company that gives health benefits rather than being self-employed," then replace my response with the following: turning away from self employment for the sake of health benefits has been a fact of life for the vast majority of Americans since LONG before the ACA, so... welcome to business as usual.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
What Barkleymut said was "quit his job so he can receive a subsidy." Typically this wording implies leaving a job entirely in order to receive government support.

If Barkleymut meant "seek employment with a company that gives health benefits rather than being self-employed," then replace my response with the following: turning away from self employment for the sake of health benefits has been a fact of life for the vast majority of Americans since LONG before the ACA, so... welcome to business as usual.


Fair enough; on the same wavelength here.

 

[Finz]

Originally Posted By: TrevorS
But healthcare is becoming a competitive drag and standard of living issue and we're going to have to look at how other countries do it soon.


Be careful what you wish for...

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Barkleymut
The main problem I have with the new laws is that it is essentially going to push people like the OP to quit his job so he can receive a subsidy.

I don't think the OP is so bad at math that he'd give up a job to get a subsidy.


No way I'd quit my job for any form of government subsidy. Plus, while I'm not "well off", I have been saving money for 30+ years. So, I'm not likely to go broke any time soon, even if unemployed. And, mechanics are nearly always able to make a living.

 

[TrevorS]

Originally Posted By: Finz
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
But healthcare is becoming a competitive drag and standard of living issue and we're going to have to look at how other countries do it soon.


Be careful what you wish for...


What? Better healthcare outcomes at lower cost, a proven reality for all other developed countries?

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: TrevorS
What? Better healthcare outcomes at lower cost, a proven reality for all other developed countries?


But we have roaming communist medical death squads deciding who lives and who must die for the sake of the kollective. Do you not watch Fox News?!

 

[demarpaint]

I just saw on the news last night that hospitals like Sloan Kettering won't be accepting these so called Obama Care plans. So basically one of the very best cancer care hospitals in the nation will expect you to pay out of pocket if you have Obama care and need treatment from them. Not good for people with cancer that's for sure!

The enrollment numbers for Obama care are horrible, what did they expect? January 1 should be very interesting to all of us who had good insurance that had our plans canceled as a result of this.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I just saw on the news last night that hospitals like Sloan Kettering won't be accepting these so called Obama Care plans. So basically one of the very best cancer care hospitals in the nation will expect you to pay out of pocket if you have Obama care and need treatment from them. Not good for people with cancer that's for sure!

You say that like the old plans would have gotten them into those hospitals with no trouble.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I just saw on the news last night that hospitals like Sloan Kettering won't be accepting these so called Obama Care plans. So basically one of the very best cancer care hospitals in the nation will expect you to pay out of pocket if you have Obama care and need treatment from them. Not good for people with cancer that's for sure!

You say that like the old plans would have gotten them into those hospitals with no trouble.


Mine would have, with no problem at all.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: uc50ic4more
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
What? Better healthcare outcomes at lower cost, a proven reality for all other developed countries?


But we have roaming communist medical death squads deciding who lives and who must die for the sake of the kollective. Do you not watch Fox News?!


LMAO!!!!

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Mine would have, with no problem at all.

YOUR plans would have. Some other new ones wouldn't. Does that sound like a valid comparison to you?

Look, I get that you don't like the ACA. Most of us don't. I feel like that shouldn't make us buy into every bit of alarmism uncritically.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Mine would have, with no problem at all.

YOUR plans would have. Some other new ones wouldn't. Does that sound like a valid comparison to you?

Look, I get that you don't like the ACA. Most of us don't. I feel like that shouldn't make us buy into every bit of alarmism uncritically.


I made a comment about what I heard on the news, that I thought I'd share, it also applied to me and my insurance. At the end of the day I care about myself and how ACA effects me and my family. God forbid I need Sloan Kettering after 1/1 it will not be available to me under my new insurance plan. Alarmism that's your opinion, you're entitled to it, for me it's a reality.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
.... turning away from self employment for the sake of health benefits has been a fact of life for the vast majority of Americans since LONG before the ACA, so... welcome to business as usual.


What a lame excuse.

The fact is that health insurance has been readily available and reasonably priced on the open market right up to the passage of the legislation that stands to eliminate it for millions of Americans.

Policies that affect people should be made on actual facts - not disinformation, propaganda, or lies.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I just saw on the news last night that hospitals like Sloan Kettering won't be accepting these so called Obama Care plans. So basically one of the very best cancer care hospitals in the nation will expect you to pay out of pocket if you have Obama care and need treatment from them. Not good for people with cancer that's for sure!

The enrollment numbers for Obama care are horrible, what did they expect? January 1 should be very interesting to all of us who had good insurance that had our plans canceled as a result of this.


Wait till the young find out how they are being fleeced to pay for it. I have a 27 year old friend with a small biz with 7 employees. His personal insurance went from 4500 dollars to 11,200 dollars. And his deductible is HUGE!

It will basically force him to eliminate a few employees.

So another small biz lays off more people. This bill is simply stinky, the facts don't match any of the spoken rhetoric, and major research hospitals are being left out of the loop entirely. Then there's the issue of payment schedules. These are being heavily revised downward, which will likely force more doctors to either sell out to the big hospital/conglomerates or go out of business entirely.

There's a lot more bad news coming...

 

[javacontour]

But apparently we are expected to buy into Uncle Sam Knows Best uncritically.

Mark my words. Things will be even more expensive and those "evil for profit" pharmacutical and other medical companies will make even more money now that there is a law that forces the pie to be bigger.

Want to bring down the cost of healthcare? Make insurance only for catastrophic events. Annual care, maintenance meds, etc would be paid for by the patient.

If folks had to pay directly for their day to day care, instead of expecting that insurance pay for every little thing, costs will go down.

The current systems are about spending OPM. All the ACA did was create more OPM for folks to try to get out of the system.

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Mine would have, with no problem at all.

YOUR plans would have. Some other new ones wouldn't. Does that sound like a valid comparison to you?

Look, I get that you don't like the ACA. Most of us don't. I feel like that shouldn't make us buy into every bit of alarmism uncritically.