2013 will be tougher (Reuters)

[joeydb]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89O0LH20121025

Particularly interesting was this line:

"Average health care premiums are forecast to jump by 6.3 percent in 2013, according to Aon Hewitt"

So much for the "Affordable" in the formal name of ObamaCare: The "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"

Also found out that the government lowered the allowable balance able to be saved in a HSA (Healthcare Savings Account). This was stressed by our benefits department as coming from the government, not the company.

Gee, thanks - so I'm now not allowed to save as much for the purpose of paying health care costs, and must rely more on insurance. So much for the "Protection" part of the PPACA title cited above.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89O0LH20121025

Particularly interesting was this line:

"Average health care premiums are forecast to jump by 6.3 percent in 2013, according to Aon Hewitt"

So much for the "Affordable" in the formal name of ObamaCare: The "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"

Also found out that the government lowered the allowable balance able to be saved in a HSA (Healthcare Savings Account). This was stressed by our benefits department as coming from the government, not the company.

Gee, thanks - so I'm now not allowed to save as much for the purpose of paying health care costs, and must rely more on insurance. So much for the "Protection" part of the PPACA title cited above.

My insurance also went up before the Affordable Care Act. What about insurance companies kicking you off insurance when you get sick causing you to lose everything you have do you not like?? I know you don't like government getting into your business, unless they are getting into your business for something that you stand for..

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

My insurance also went up before the Affordable Care Act. What about insurance companies kicking you off insurance when you get sick causing you to lose everything you have do you not like?? I know you don't like government getting into your business, unless they are getting into your business for something that you stand for..

Never said that improvements couldn't be made. But that 2200+ page bill and all the bureaucrats it will put in between you and your doctor is not the answer.

And the proponents of the bill really wanted (and still want) "single payer" - socialized medicine.

The closer you make insurance to a true market based entity the better. Things like savings accounts help with that as the patient does care what the service costs and that supresses price.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Never said that improvements couldn't be made. But that 2200+ page bill and all the bureaucrats it will put in between you and your doctor is not the answer.

And the proponents of the bill really wanted (and still want) "single payer" - socialized medicine.

The closer you make insurance to a true market based entity the better. Things like savings accounts help with that as the patient does care what the service costs and that supresses price.

Don't we have that now with healthcare providers Caremark, United Health etc?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

Don't we have that now with healthcare providers Caremark, United Health etc?

Not familiar with their internal business practices, but I'd say no, since the main reason that the costs climb so much is the absorbtion of the costs from those who do not pay. There is a reason that an aspirin costs $20 in the hospital: you're paying for all the deadbeats that didn't pay their bill, whether through an insurance company or individually. Every business needs to make a profit or it will fold, including the health care business.

When was the last time you heard of someone financing, after the fact, the costs that their insurance (if they had it) didn't pick up? If it gets lumped into the loss column for the hospital as uncollected revenue, you, me and every other future patient gets soaked for that bill.

So in that way, no, it is not a market like others. Certainly, no one should be turned away, regardless of ability to pay (immediately) but most of us can pay something over the long term. At least those financing a Cadillac Escalade over 5 years can. If you can buy a luxury car or go get more tattoos or buy Armani suits, you can pay for health care too. Note that those few anecdotal examples are not likely to all be done by the same person - not stereotyping here- but we all have wants and needs, and the wants seem to command more of our spending than the needs.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Not familiar with their internal business practices, but I'd say no, since the main reason that the costs climb so much is the absorbtion of the costs from those who do not pay. There is a reason that an aspirin costs $20 in the hospital: you're paying for all the deadbeats that didn't pay their bill, whether through an insurance company or individually. Every business needs to make a profit or it will fold, including the health care business.

When was the last time you heard of someone financing, after the fact, the costs that their insurance (if they had it) didn't pick up? If it gets lumped into the loss column for the hospital as uncollected revenue, you, me and every other future patient gets soaked for that bill.

So in that way, no, it is not a market like others. Certainly, no one should be turned away, regardless of ability to pay (immediately) but most of us can pay something over the long term. At least those financing a Cadillac Escalade over 5 years can. If you can buy a luxury car or go get more tattoos or buy Armani suits, you can pay for health care too. Note that those few anecdotal examples are not likely to all be done by the same person - not stereotyping here- but we all have wants and needs, and the wants seem to command more of our spending than the needs.

This was a nice touch.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Not familiar with their internal business practices, but I'd say no, since the main reason that the costs climb so much is the absorbtion of the costs from those who do not pay. There is a reason that an aspirin costs $20 in the hospital: you're paying for all the deadbeats that didn't pay their bill, whether through an insurance company or individually. Every business needs to make a profit or it will fold, including the health care business.

When was the last time you heard of someone financing, after the fact, the costs that their insurance (if they had it) didn't pick up? If it gets lumped into the loss column for the hospital as uncollected revenue, you, me and every other future patient gets soaked for that bill.

So in that way, no, it is not a market like others. Certainly, no one should be turned away, regardless of ability to pay (immediately) but most of us can pay something over the long term. At least those financing a Cadillac Escalade over 5 years can. If you can buy a luxury car or go get more tattoos or buy Armani suits, you can pay for health care too. Note that those few anecdotal examples are not likely to all be done by the same person - not stereotyping here- but we all have wants and needs, and the wants seem to command more of our spending than the needs.

So what part of FORCING people to buy healthcare insurance do you not like? Oh the government involvment in you having the choice not to have insurance and fuk everyone else over... And fyi don't say "not stereotyping here" when you are doing exactly that. Saying I'm not doing something doesn't get you a pass when you do it. Deny all you like but the sterotyping was Crystal clear to me.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by joeydb

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...89O0LH20121025

Particularly interesting was this line:

"Average health care premiums are forecast to jump by 6.3 percent in 2013, according to Aon Hewitt"

So much for the "Affordable" in the formal name of ObamaCare: The "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act"

Also found out that the government lowered the allowable balance able to be saved in a HSA (Healthcare Savings Account). This was stressed by our benefits department as coming from the government, not the company.

Gee, thanks - so I'm now not allowed to save as much for the purpose of paying health care costs, and must rely more on insurance. So much for the "Protection" part of the PPACA title cited above.

not only did my health care plan go to a complete **** plan when obamacare passed... but i got my benefits package for 2013 and it is a 16% increase in premium.

yay obamacare.. i'm sure i few will tell me its my health care provider just screwing me. Well the only reason the health care provider made the changes it did was because of Obamacare.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by jms62

Don't we have that now with healthcare providers Caremark, United Health etc?

united health is my provider. they suck.

well i take that back

prior to obamacare they did not suck, and gave me real good insurance options.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

So what part of FORCING people to buy healthcare insurance do you not like? Oh the government involvment in you having the choice not to have insurance and fuk everyone else over... And fyi don't say "not stereotyping here" when you are doing exactly that. Saying I'm not doing something doesn't get you a pass when you do it. Deny all you like but the sterotyping was Crystal clear to me.

Bullsh*t. Don't tell me I am stereotyping when I was not - simply looking for expenses that can be considered luxuries.

Government mandates do not lower costs - they never did.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Bullsh*t. Don't tell me I am stereotyping when I was not - simply looking for expenses that can be considered luxuries.

Government mandates do not lower costs - they never did.

Ok St. Joesph of Derby Trail. If you say you are not sterotyping than you must not be.. Then there should be no need to say "I'm not trying to sterotype here" as it is clear to all.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Never said that improvements couldn't be made. But that 2200+ page bill and all the bureaucrats it will put in between you and your doctor is not the answer.

And the proponents of the bill really wanted (and still want) "single payer" - socialized medicine.
The closer you make insurance to a true market based entity the better. Things like savings accounts help with that as the patient does care what the service costs and that supresses price.

sure do. and have a good reason why-well, several.

the current health care system sucks. insurers are for-profit entities. so, altho they provide a necessary service, they also must watch the bottom line scrupulously. this is what causes people to be dropped, or coverages to be denied, etc.
so, what did obamacare do? well, it forces one hell of a lot more people to buy it. they had to have a way to force people (mostly the young and healthy) to buy something, in order to help pay the way for those old and unhealthy, and those with the conditions that health insurers will now have to pay for.
why would single payer be better? it immediately takes away any need whatsoever to turn a profit. there would be no shareholders to keep happy. no stocks, etc. i'd imagine that the tax imposed to pay for this wouldn't cost more than what those of us currently paying premiums are already paying. however, the huge monstrosity known of ppaca will end up costing a hell of a lot more than what's been budgeted-quick, those who support ppaca, name one program that has come in at or under projected cost in the federal govt EVER?

you say single payer is socialized-medicine has actually been socialized for decades. those with insurance have always had far higher medical bills than what services really cost, so as to cover the written off bills that indigents can't pay.



and yes, hsa's have dropped. you also have more limits on what you can spend that money on, much otc meds are no longer allowed. i'd imagine the fed was losing too much tax dollars to keep that amount, and those items included.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by jms62

Ok St. Joesph of Derby Trail. If you say you are not sterotyping than you must not be.. Then there should be no need to say "I'm not trying to sterotype here" as it is clear to all.

Escalade, no doubt...tattoos, perhaps...Armani? Who is he stereotyping? Me?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

sure do. and have a good reason why-well, several.

the current health care system sucks. insurers are for-profit entities. so, altho they provide a necessary service, they also must watch the bottom line scrupulously. this is what causes people to be dropped, or coverages to be denied, etc.
so, what did obamacare do? well, it forces one hell of a lot more people to buy it. they had to have a way to force people (mostly the young and healthy) to buy something, in order to help pay the way for those old and unhealthy, and those with the conditions that health insurers will now have to pay for.
why would single payer be better? it immediately takes away any need whatsoever to turn a profit. there would be no shareholders to keep happy. no stocks, etc. i'd imagine that the tax imposed to pay for this wouldn't cost more than what those of us currently paying premiums are already paying. however, the huge monstrosity known of ppaca will end up costing a hell of a lot more than what's been budgeted-quick, those who support ppaca, name one program that has come in at or under projected cost in the federal govt EVER?

you say single payer is socialized-medicine has actually been socialized for decades. those with insurance have always had far higher medical bills than what services really cost, so as to cover the written off bills that indigents can't pay.



and yes, hsa's have dropped. you also have more limits on what you can spend that money on, much otc meds are no longer allowed. i'd imagine the fed was losing too much tax dollars to keep that amount, and those items included.

So how much innovation in medicine do you now expect when there is less profit to be made? Profit is not a dirty word - it is essential for growth and progress in ALL businesses.

And, what business is a monopoly or has mandated compliance that continues to get better? Nothing. It's time to grow up and realize that people do things to make profit, and the more profit they can make, the more they will improve their products and services in pursuit of even more profit. That is the way it will always be. Supply and demand are the physics of the economic realm - as real and consistent as gravity or electromagnetism.

Without profit, there will be less doctors and less medical facilities. And the best and brightest will no longer choose the increased education requirements of medicine. So you'll have less doctors, longer lines, and higher mortality due to both the decrease of the quality in medical care and the conveniently unmeasured metric of those "dying on line".

No thanks. With Romney's election, the promised 50 state exemption from ObamaCare and the subsequent repeal, we will be rid of this nightmare, and then pass some reforms that actually make sense. I suspect that the ban on pre-existing conditions for insurability will still be in force, as well as allowing people to shop for insurance in other states (thus smashing the fiefdoms where people are getting screwed).

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Escalade, no doubt...tattoos, perhaps...Armani? Who is he stereotyping? Me?

I actually was trying to round it out - figuring that their might not be much overlap between the markets for tattoos and Armani suits, but who knows? Should I have said pocket watches and Rolexes? What would have been better? The point, as I already said, was that some people view their luxuries as worthy of paying for over time but not their medical care.

That's it.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I actually was trying to round it out - figuring that their might not be much overlap between the markets for tattoos and Armani suits, but who knows? Should I have said pocket watches and Rolexes? What would have been better? The point, as I already said, was that some people view their luxuries as worthy of paying for over time but not their medical care.

That's it.

I have lots of tattoos and generally wear Armani, Valentino or Versace for suits. I would never buy an Escalade though. But my wife works for a hospital so we have good health insurance...otherwise I probably would forgo having it to be honest.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

So how much innovation in medicine do you now expect when there is less profit to be made? Profit is not a dirty word - it is essential for growth and progress in ALL businesses.

And, what business is a monopoly or has mandated compliance that continues to get better? Nothing. It's time to grow up and realize that people do things to make profit, and the more profit they can make, the more they will improve their products and services in pursuit of even more profit. That is the way it will always be. Supply and demand are the physics of the economic realm - as real and consistent as gravity or electromagnetism.

Without profit, there will be less doctors and less medical facilities. And the best and brightest will no longer choose the increased education requirements of medicine. So you'll have less doctors, longer lines, and higher mortality due to both the decrease of the quality in medical care and the conveniently unmeasured metric of those "dying on line".

No thanks. With Romney's election, the promised 50 state exemption from ObamaCare and the subsequent repeal, we will be rid of this nightmare, and then pass some reforms that actually make sense. I suspect that the ban on pre-existing conditions for insurability will still be in force, as well as allowing people to shop for insurance in other states (thus smashing the fiefdoms where people are getting screwed).

i doubt that insurance providers are the ones driving research. i was discussing profitability only insofar as insurance companies are concerned.
you might want to re-read what i posted, i didn't say anything about doctors or hospitals and turning profit.

[Danzig]

well, hot dog. it's open enrollment at my place of employment, as well as tony's. i started working here just over a year ago, and didn't look into their bennies last year, since we were covered thru his job.
same insurer (united healthcare), but has several plans to choose from (his company has just one) and a lot lower cost to me. sweet.


anyone in open enrollment-if your spouse has insurance provided, take a look at both plans. or you might need to stay on yours, and him/her go on their own. quite often employers will pay a good portion of the employees expense, but it varies what they pay towards the rest of the family's premiums.
i also would recommend getting with your hr folks-there's no reason why some of these companies can't get more 'bang for their buck' with their insurance provider. my husband works for a large company, they should have tiers to choose from just like my employer.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

well, hot dog. it's open enrollment at my place of employment, as well as tony's. i started working here just over a year ago, and didn't look into their bennies last year, since we were covered thru his job.
same insurer (united healthcare), but has several plans to choose from (his company has just one) and a lot lower cost to me. sweet.


anyone in open enrollment-if your spouse has insurance provided, take a look at both plans. or you might need to stay on yours, and him/her go on their own. quite often employers will pay a good portion of the employees expense, but it varies what they pay towards the rest of the family's premiums.
i also would recommend getting with your hr folks-there's no reason why some of these companies can't get more 'bang for their buck' with their insurance provider. my husband works for a large company, they should have tiers to choose from just like my employer.

also with united healthcare.

prior to obamacare, they gave us the muliple plans to choose from, and they ARE good plans.

now we are like your husbands company.

apparently the low deductible plans that you can pick from (but not him) are considered cadillac plans, which apparently is great for the insured and terrible for the company.

i guess my company decided the tax for cadillac plans outweighs offering their employers the best insurance plans. which considering we have thousands of employees.. it makes sense.

thanks again, obamacare.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Never said that improvements couldn't be made. But that 2200+ page bill and all the bureaucrats it will put in between you and your doctor is not the answer.

There are no bureaucrats put between you and your doctor, Joey. Zero additional bureaucrats. Just the same as always. Except your insurance company can't abuse you.

And the proponents of the bill really wanted (and still want) "single payer" - socialized medicine.

Absolutely single payer, but that's not "socialized medicine". Medicare for everyone would insure every person in the US and decrease our healthcare costs by 1/2. That would be awesome.

Right now, Medicare is extremely efficient, very low-cost (half the cost) with better outcomes, than our comparable private insurance companies.

There is a difference between government run hospitals and group insurance from the government, Joey = two different things. We'll never have National Health Care ("socialized" as you fearfully call it)

The closer you make insurance to a true market based entity the better.

No. The US is the only true "market based" insurance (private insurance), and it is a disaster, and the most expensive in the world, with exceedingly poor outcomes for the dollar.