Subtle things that the new healthcare reform cost us.

[Modelworks]

The very reason insurance exists is for catastrophic costs. You could argue that part of the problem is that routine care has started to be included, which is driving up costs, but I personally think preventative medicine is helping lower costs over the long term.

The other side of that is that if consumers are able to pay more because they have insurance companies to cover the bills then health care corporations can also charge more. Consider if there was no insurance industry, and all health cost was funded by only what people can pay. Do you think things would cost as much as they do now ? The same items off the same assembly line cost more for the patient in the hospital than they do for the guy that buys them off the shelf at a local store because it is 'health related' that is a red flag for 'we can charge more'

Look at a time line of health care cost and creation of the insurance industry and adoption of insurance and you notice a correlation. Every time new insurance plans were invented to cover more people or more services, those services increased prices.

 

[Carmen813]

Smart individuals would realize these statistics and buy additional coverage. I have a separate cancer coverage policy, which costs about $26/month, and will cover all treatment in the event I get cancer, and also includes many additional benefits to help cover bills, hotel stays for my family, specialized treatments, loss of income, etc. Basically, as morbid as it sounds, I will almost make money if I get cancer. Also, every 20 years, my premiums are returned to me as a lump-sum.

Anybody can buy a policy like this. If somebody wants to gamble with fate and doesn't realize what their current policy does/doesn't cover, then they are the only ones to blame.

Also, please tell me, with cancer rates increasing so significantly in the last few decades, how do people expect costs to remain the same/go down? Everyone complains that costs are going up up up, but they choose to blame the insurance companies making very slim profit percentages, rather than the fact that people are getting sicker and sicker.

It has little to do with intelligence. Most people know very little about cancer, other than it is "bad." Do you run around worrying and knowing all the statistics about Rhabdomyosarcoma? Of course not, and that holds true for most of the population. In fact if you did take the time and effort to learn about every potential catastrophic disease out there we would probably diagnose you with a mental illness.

It's unlikely that rising cancer rates are because people are getting sicker. We have much better detection and screening technology than we had in decades past, and many more cancers are survivable. We simply know more about cancer than we did even 30 years ago.

Cancer used to be an automatic death sentence, and that isn't the case anymore. Cancer survivors are a new and rising population of U.S. citizens, the result of advances we have made in medicine. This holds true for many illnesses that were previously "death sentences." If we are going to go through the effort of treating these illnesses, then as a society we also need to adapt to meet the changing needs of these survivors.

 

[theeedude]

These changes directly cost us because we have to budget for the worst case scenarios.

If you can't afford insurance yet don't qualify for the free government aid, then you are spending foolishly.

Insurance has been far out-pacing rate of inflation for a decade while GOP turned a blind eye to people's suffering and did nothing.

 

[Carmen813]

The other side of that is that if consumers are able to pay more because they have insurance companies to cover the bills then health care corporations can also charge more. Consider if there was no insurance industry, and all health cost was funded by only what people can pay. Do you think things would cost as much as they do now ? The same items off the same assembly line cost more for the patient in the hospital than they do for the guy that buys them off the shelf at a local store because it is 'health related' that is a red flag for 'we can charge more'

Look at a time line of health care cost and creation of the insurance industry and adoption of insurance and you notice a correlation. Every time new insurance plans were invented to cover more people or more services, those services increased prices.

I don't doubt that some services or treatments would drop in price without insurance. However, we've already got 30+ million people out there without insurance...certainly seems like that would be a huge market for providers to tap into if they didn't want to deal with insurance. However, those people by the by do not have access to health care, which pretty much mutes your point.

HMOs were created as a way for individuals to pool resources to address spiraling costs. You can just look at our history, HMOs are a relatively new creation (I think 1970s or so). Assuming that if we just turned back the clock everything would be hunky dory is oversimplifying. Costs have gone up for a multitude of reasons, some of which have little to do with actually delivering services to patients.

 

[her209]

What are you looking for exactly? Law on top heavy companies or other...it's not a simple linkable thing.

For one, start with the $3500 max contribution.

 

[Carmen813]

These changes directly cost us because we have to budget for the worst case scenarios.

If you can't afford insurance yet don't qualify for the free government aid, then you are spending foolishly.

Always entertaining watching privilege speak. Are you even aware of what the cutoff is for public assistance in a 2 family home? It's around $1800 gross income. Most of the people who are making that type of income work in jobs that do not offer health insurance benefits. Try finding a comprehensive plan that will cover everything two cancer survivors need. Cheapest one I found was $540 a month, and that had a very strict prescription drug limitation.

 

[her209]

The other side of that is that if consumers are able to pay more because they have insurance companies to cover the bills then health care corporations can also charge more. Consider if there was no insurance industry, and all health cost was funded by only what people can pay. Do you think things would cost as much as they do now ? The same items off the same assembly line cost more for the patient in the hospital than they do for the guy that buys them off the shelf at a local store because it is 'health related' that is a red flag for 'we can charge more'

Look at a time line of health care cost and creation of the insurance industry and adoption of insurance and you notice a correlation. Every time new insurance plans were invented to cover more people or more services, those services increased prices.

Would it really drop though? If the health care industry moved towards one where patients pay the tab and not the insurance industry, how much savings would be eaten up by non-payers thereby raising the prices for everyone else and dealing with bill collections for outstanding bills?

 

[Modelworks]

However, those people by the by do not have access to health care, which pretty much mutes your point.

No it doesn't. Why would any company lessen profits if they didn't have to ? If the company is profitable they are not going to risk losing those current profits because they 'might' gain more profit by catering to those who can pay less. Car prices are not going to be lowered because people can't get loans, they will cater to those who can until there are not enough people that can get loans . Only then would prices drop.

HMOs were created as a way for individuals to pool resources to address spiraling costs. You can just look at our history, HMOs are a relatively new creation (I think 1970s or so). Assuming that if we just turned back the clock everything would be hunky dory is oversimplifying.

You can't go back but you also cannot provide everyone with the means to pay for a product without controlling the conditions of the product. Companies in the late 1800's used the same model to pay employees as what the health care reform wants to use . In the late 1800's you would work for a company that would pay you in paper money but it was like monopoly money, the money could only be spent at the company stores. One thing feeds the other in a circular fashion and the people keeping it going suffer. Companies then would charge the workers rent, food, clothes, and control the prices just enough that workers could afford what they needed but nothing more. That is the same way our system has become. Pay insurance to afford health care and health care will keep the cost at what the insurance will pay. If people can pay more then health care will increase and because people cannot afford it without insurance they have to pay insurance.

Unless the system changes so that there is transparency on profits and how they are derived it will never be fixed.

 

[RightIsWrong]

For one, start with the $3500 max contribution.

I've been wondering about this one since I put about $5k in mine this year.

 

[Modelworks]

Would it really drop though? If the health care industry moved towards one where patients pay the tab and not the insurance industry, how much savings would be eaten up by non-payers thereby raising the prices for everyone else and dealing with bill collections for outstanding bills?

Moving to a system like that now really can't be done, it is too late, the damage is done. Compare it to food, something else that people need to survive. Stores don't profit 500% off food because the public could not pay for it and so the business would not work.
People that cannot afford food are able to get assistance. Those that get assistance are a much smaller percentage than those that pay cash so the prices remain slightly above cost. Health care was the same way. When few had insurance , health cost remained lower because the majority could not pay more. Once the insured became the majority they became the main factor in determining cost.

What we have with health care now is an industry where the store above is selling at high profits but if you cannot pay you can get an in store credit card to cover the cost.

 

[alkemyst]

Why do you get to pick and choose what are considered crimes that actually count when you are attempting to denigrate an entire subsection of the population?

But I'll play along and appease you just the same.

Here's a common definition of the term robbery:



Would you say that the United States as a whole is guilty of robbery of other countries natural resources via the use of violence (in the case of Iraq) or by intimidation (do what we say or we won't "protect" you from the evil regimes out there!)? A very strong argument could be made that a lot of the things that we have gained are a result of this. Who perpetrates these wars and policies? Is it the very poor?

Here's a common definition of burglary:



Can it not be said that every single CEO, board member, embezzler, inside trader, member of upper management that had very personal knowledge of the fact that crimes were being committed against the company, its shareholders or its customers were committing burglary under that very broad definition?

The problem with you is that you are trying to pull a "No true Scotsman" fallacy and narrow the field by using semantically framed arguments.

You first claim that the poor fill the prisons because they are all deadbeats and when I counter that a great majority of the poor are acquitted after the fact than those in the "better class", you try to move the goalposts by limiting what you consider "common crimes". Now, I am telling you that there is no difference between someone entering a private residence with the intent to steal/rob and a person in a $1000 suit walking into a corporate headquarters with the intent of filing a falsified income statement with the intent to rob investors of their money.

Let's hear the further rationalization that is sure to come.

No matter how you attempt to spin this, the fact is it's the poor causing most of the crime in our society. Whether it's petty larceny or otherwise.

It's got nothing to do with the rich being able to hire better lawyers.

 

[alkemyst]

Always entertaining watching privilege speak. Are you even aware of what the cutoff is for public assistance in a 2 family home? It's around $1800 gross income. Most of the people who are making that type of income work in jobs that do not offer health insurance benefits. Try finding a comprehensive plan that will cover everything two cancer survivors need. Cheapest one I found was $540 a month, and that had a very strict prescription drug limitation.

Cancer policies are the cheapest out there. I pay $9 / month for mine....my company doesn't offer it.

I not only get my care taken care of, but also a $50k cash 'reward' for any maligancy.

I have had it for 20+ years. It's much more expensive now, but still under $50-60 a month for most.

 

[PeshakJang]

Before you start jumping for joy, you might want to look at the fine print:

...

I guess you're SOL if you've already been diagnosed.

Well shit... I guess if you are running out of a burning house, it's the wrong time to buy homeowner's insurance.

 

[Slew Foot]

Oh me oh my. Those poor little insurance companies are going to have to lose some of their profits from denying legitimate claims and then using the financial advantages that they have over a single person to drag it out in court because it is cheaper than paying the claim?

The tactic is called the "Three Ds", "Deny, Delay and Defend"

Here's a factcheck.org story on the amount of profits that health insurers are making:



Don't miss that those are QUARTERLY profits and not annual.

What ever will they do?

Wow they made a billion bucks in profit a quarter. If that's 5 billion a year, that's about $15 a person in the us. Whup de doo.

 

[bfdd]

If the need is as RARE as you claim, buying policy to insure for it should cost next to nothing. Do you see the poor as the worse class?

If something is rare, that most likely means treatment is rare and more often than not expensive.

 

[RightIsWrong]

No matter how you attempt to spin this, the fact is it's the poor causing most of the crime in our society. Whether it's petty larceny or otherwise.

It's got nothing to do with the rich being able to hire better lawyers.

I think that you are missing the boat if you think that just being poor causes crime in this country.

That statement is so idiotic and ignorant of the socioeconomic factors the impact a person's actions that it is incredibly sad.

Wow they made a billion bucks in profit a quarter. If that's 5 billion a year, that's about $15 a person in the us. Whup de doo.

Then I guess they won't miss it if they drop down to only $10/person, right?

Well shit... I guess if you are running out of a burning house, it's the wrong time to buy homeowner's insurance.

And I guess if you have insured someone, it is equally wrong to start telling them after they have received treatment that they are no longer able to collect benefits for that specific coverage.

It's funny that those that scream the loudest against the rights of the individual are screaming the loudest for the rights of corporations. When did an abstract concept's rights count for more than an actual human being?

Also, since you are so gung-ho for corporations existing as if they were a person, which was the basis for the Supreme Court's ruling that they be allowed to fund en masse political campaigns, I'm sure that you would also be willing to go on record and say that any crimes that are committed by or in the name of said corporation should be transferred to the same people that are legally afforded to use the corporation as a being for political purposes, the board members. If a company is found to be guilty of illegal activities, no more fines that are paid by the shareholders, the fines and, if it were criminal and not just civil will be paid/served by the CEO, CFO and every other board member.

Unless, of course you'd like to admit to your hypocrisy and state that you think that the double standards are a good thing?

 

[PeshakJang]

And I guess if you have insured someone, it is equally wrong to start telling them after they have received treatment that they are no longer able to collect benefits for that specific coverage.

Who is saying that? AFLAC won't drop you. As long as you get the coverage before you were initially diagnosed, they cover everything, including recurrence and extension.

"We pay only for treatment of Cancer and Associated Cancerous Conditions diagnosed on or after the Effective Date of coverage, including direct extension, metastatic spread, or recurrence."

So try reading something before raging about what Daily Kos told you.

It's funny that those that scream the loudest against the rights of the individual are screaming the loudest for the rights of corporations. When did an abstract concept's rights count for more than an actual human being?

What does this have anything to do with individual/corporate rights? It has to do with you not reading jack shit before running around screaming. What rights are you claiming are being violated in the first place?

Also, since you are so gung-ho for corporations existing as if they were a person, which was the basis for the Supreme Court's ruling that they be allowed to fund en masse political campaigns, I'm sure that you would also be willing to go on record and say that any crimes that are committed by or in the name of said corporation should be transferred to the same people that are legally afforded to use the corporation as a being for political purposes, the board members. If a company is found to be guilty of illegal activities, no more fines that are paid by the shareholders, the fines and, if it were criminal and not just civil will be paid/served by the CEO, CFO and every other board member.

Unless, of course you'd like to admit to your hypocrisy and state that you think that the double standards are a good thing?

So now you want to change the argument from cancer insurance to supreme court decisions regarding corporate status? Probably a good idea, since you had no argument for the former.

 

[classy]

Some things are just stupid in this...insurance is based on maximum and typical payouts. By removing the lifetime cap (many policies were already at $2 million or more) you are requiring companies to buy insurance that is far beyond even a RARE need.

Then you have the Flexible Spending limits...it used to be you could put aside tax deferred income for health care costs at up to $3500/yr. It's a use it or lose it system. Now it's been capped at $2500. Sounds good to the poor as $2500 is a lot of money, but this was useful for middle class families with constant care needed or looking at dental work.

I really don't agree with this socialist style belief. Unfortunately the poor votes outnumber the better class.

The sad part is many that voted for this were already getting benefits equal to the new plan.

Our FSA plan was capped at $2500 even before healthcare reform.

 

[Zebo]

We refuse to address cost side of people we give monopoly power to. Insurance, doctors, pharma. Nothing will reduce costs. Simple arbitrage positional mathematics.

 

[alkemyst]

I think that you are missing the boat if you think that just being poor causes crime in this country.

That statement is so idiotic and ignorant of the socioeconomic factors the impact a person's actions that it is incredibly sad.

WTF did I say that. I said they are the most common. There are good poor people out there. There are a lot. However, as a group the bad outweigh the bad in all other economic levels.

I am all for mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients and personal accounting of their spending/purchases.

 

[theeedude]

If something is rare, that most likely means treatment is rare and more often than not expensive.

That is the whole point of insurance.

 

[Throckmorton]

I love the argument "you have the freedom to buy insurance for your insurance!"

 

[PeshakJang]

I love the argument "you have the freedom to buy insurance for your insurance!"

Who has made that argument?