Why buy coverage?

[Pneumothorax]

I thought our doctors are entitled to 300k+ per year because of their sheer awesomeness

So tired of the Doc Hate in these forums. I would LOVE to make that much a year and earn over double of what I make today. Your statement is like saying minor league baseball players all earn as much as A-rod!

 

[cubeless]

So tired of the Doc Hate in these forums. I would LOVE to make that much a year and earn over double of what I make today. Your statement is like saying minor league baseball players all earn as much as A-rod!

it's the rise of the proletariat... reign of terror is next... we will be made to pay for our bourgeois capitalist degradation of the working class... welcome to the lump...

 

[Brainonska511]

Can't believe the bill is going to cover illegals, but not tax paying, insurance fine paying, citizens.

How is it covering illegals?

Can you point out in the bill where it is covering illegals?

I see no such language. In Section 1411, it specifically says "...be a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States."

And in Section 1412 (d):
"(d) NO FEDERAL PAYMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS NOT LAWFULLY PRESENT.—Nothing in this subtitle or the amendments made by this subtitle allows Federal payments, credits, or cost-sharing reductions for individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

 

[LTC8K6]

How is it covering illegals?

Can you point out in the bill where it is covering illegals?

I see no such language. In Section 1411, it specifically says "...be a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States."

And in Section 1412 (d):
"(d) NO FEDERAL PAYMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS NOT LAWFULLY PRESENT.—Nothing in this subtitle or the amendments made by this subtitle allows Federal payments, credits, or cost-sharing reductions for individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

The question is about having a sudden emergency when you've decided to pay the fine instead of buying insurance. You would be taken to the ER and treated, yes? Would the bill be covered or not? I think it will, since healthcare is now a guaranteed right.

An illegal alien can go to the emergency room and be treated gratis. That will not change.

So, same situation. We have a fine paying, tax paying citizen, and an illegal alien, who both need emergency medical care, and neither has insurance.

They are both covered, I hope. If one is not, I hope it's not the one who has been paying in...

 

[Brainonska511]

The question is about having a sudden emergency when you've decided to pay the fine instead of buying insurance. You would be taken to the ER and treated, yes? Would the bill be covered or not? I think it will, since healthcare is now a guaranteed right.

I don't think it will. You didn't have a pre-existing condition in the terms that it would be defined as. A broken arm or needing stitches is not some pre-existing condition which you can then buy insurance for to pay for it. And what's to stop Congress from adjusting the law so that it makes the fine higher or forces people to pay back-premiums if they try to pull something like you're describing?

An illegal alien can go to the emergency room and be treated gratis. That will not change.

So, same situation. We have a fine paying, tax paying citizen, and an illegal alien, who both need emergency medical care, and neither has insurance.

They are both covered, I hope. If one is not, I hope it's not the one who has been paying in...

Well, if you're talking about illegals walking into the ER, then you are misinformed in the area of the truth by claiming that this bill would pay for illegals. Nothing really changes on that front and nothing will change until you change the law on what ERs have to do.

 

[LTC8K6]

So then a sudden medical problem can still wipe you out if you couldn't afford insurance? What's the point then? The reason my hypothetical citizen is paying the fine is because he can't afford the insurance premiums.

 

[Brainonska511]

So then a sudden medical problem can still wipe you out if you couldn't afford insurance? What's the point then? The reason my hypothetical citizen is paying the fine is because he can't afford the insurance premiums.

No. The reason the hypothetical person pays the fine is because they REFUSE to buy health insurance. The point of the bill is to make health insurance affordable and available to everyone so that they do buy it.

 

[bamacre]

No. The reason the hypothetical person pays the fine is because they REFUSE to buy health insurance. The point of the bill is to make health insurance affordable and available to everyone so that they do buy it.

No, that was Obama 2008. We're talking about Obama 2010.

 

[EagleKeeper]

No. The reason the hypothetical person pays the fine is because they REFUSE to buy health insurance. The point of the bill is to make health insurance affordable and available to everyone so that they do buy it.

Define affordable.

 

[LTC8K6]

No. The reason the hypothetical person pays the fine is because they REFUSE to buy health insurance. The point of the bill is to make health insurance affordable and available to everyone so that they do buy it.

AFAIK, the fine is much less than the premiums. Money is tight and getting tighter.

I really don't see the affordability in the bill. Premiums will rise as far as I can tell. The poor will get a subsidy.

 

[Tom]

Denninger's argument is very good IF it's possible to get insurance IMMEDIATELY. Like on the way to the hospital (pre-existing being that you're bleeding out, but they have to take you anyway). If there is a delay of some days or a week or two then it's not meaningful.

I think it's quite clear that with the government now mandating coverage most of us will see rate increases. It's actually inevitable.

Not really. Or at least no more than the rate that health care would increase otherwise, and hopefully less.

Supposedly $1000-2000 of everyone's health insurance cost per year covers the cost of providing health care to the uninsured, ie by going to the emergency room without being able to pay.

If a portion of that money was instead used to subsidize health insurance for those people, they could get health care before they get as sick, thereby saving the system money two ways, first by reducing the cost of care, 2nd by increasing their productivity.

Overall that part of the plan should cost less.

real world example= I know a 25 year old guy, hard worker, apperently healthy, cocksure he didn't need health insurance. Had a stroke and an anurism, was in hospital for a month. Recovered thanks to amazing medical technolgy and workers, bills are probably close to $300k, which he will never pay..

 

[shira]

First the assumption that the "profile" of the people covered by group policies is the same as everyone is false. The uninsured and rescinded have a disproportionate number of individuals with preexisting conditions, thus this group has much higher cost than group policy group. This will increase the average cost.

You're reasoning of faulty:

Imagine a hypothetical population of 100,000 people. Some have jobs with companies that offer group health insurance, some don't. There's no a priori reason why those working for companies that offer group policies would on average be any more or less healthy than those whose employers do not offer group policies. One would expect that - on a random basis - the two groups would have identical health profiles. Think about that and let it sink in.

In other words, if the entire group-policy population can be covered at a cost of $5000/individual and $14,000/family, then the entire non-group-policy population can be covered for approximately the same cost (there would be small, additional administrative costs for non-group policies). Remember, the group-policy group has - on a random basis - just as many people with serious health problems as the non-group-policy group. The only difference is that the non-group-policy people with pre-existing conditions can't get insurance pre-Obamacare.

Second the assumption that all group policy will qualify under the new rules is also false. There are special exemption for preexisting condition, catastrophic plans, and plans that aren't good enough that won't be allow to continue. These bring down the average policy cost versus what will occur under the new bill.

This is a valid point, but if my memory serves me correctly, the percentage of individuals covered by "non-qualifying" group plans is very small (on the order of 5% or less), and the increase in cost needed to "upgrade" these policies to "qualifying" status is not going to raise the average group rate by anywhere close to $10,000 for individuals (from $5000 to $15,000) and $10,000 per family (from $14,000 to $24,000). I know for a fact that first class group polices don't cost anywhere close to these amounts: I'm single, and am covered by an excellent BC/BS PPO policy (which includes generous drug coverage, small co-pays, and a small deductible), yet the total premium is about $5200. And I live in one of the highest-cost areas in the country.

Getting to $15,000 is just an outrageous fabrication.

There is another effect that you didn't think of at all is supply and demand. Demand will go up, while supply is relatively constant, so price go up.

You're in effect claiming that a 15% increase in the number of people covered by insurance is going to cause providers to on average more than DOUBLE their rates (I'm kind of averaging the claimed $5000 to $15,000 rate increase for individuals and the claimed $14,000 to $24,000 rate increase for families). As a test of what you're saying, consider areas of the U.S. where RIGHT NOW there are severe shortages of physicians (and there are many such places in the U.S., especially in rural areas); if you're right, health care costs in those areas should be at least double the rate in other areas; but that simply isn't the case. In fact, costs in rural area tend to be lower.

Another factor you've overlooked is that the uninsured are already getting health services for serious conditions - they have no choice. And the cost of those expensive services is already built into existing fee schedules, since providers must recoup the losses incurred in treating those patients by charging more to those who have insurance. So the increase in demand will primarily be for routine services, which tend to be much less expensive. Thus, while I do agree that the extra patients will add to the total cost of health care (primarily because there will be additional routine services delivered [and paid for] that weren't delivered in the past), I disagree that this will cause huge increases in fees. The biggest problem will be longer waits.

These three effects will cause a quite rapid increase in the average health insurance.

I think health care costs will CONTINUE to increase for the same reasons they've risen in the past. That's why in a number of other posts I've stated that I consider Obamacare merely a starting point; important cost-control measures still need to be added. I think the effects you've mentioned will be only minor cost drivers.

The author is probably making the assumption that people will think like him; pay the fine and just buy insurance when you need it. If I remember correctly, ~20% of population has ~80% of cost. So if only these individuals(which will rotate around year over year) bought insurance and the rest paid the fine, then the cost of insurance would increase 300% before the fines subsided some of the cost.

I don't think people will be allow to do what the author thinks. A simple waiting period(7-30 days) before the policy actually starts would prevent most people from trying such a plan because one accident could destroy you financially before coverage would start.

 

[Soltis]

I'm going into mental health counseling. Sure, it doesn't really pay much overall, but just reading posts around here makes me happy about all the potential clients!

lol I think i'll add this to my sig :sneaky:

 

[soccerballtux]

asdf

1). less intelligent people eat much less healthily. There are plenty of reasons why you're 2 sample groups would have MUCH different costs.

2). Supply/Demand-- it's called a steep supply curve bro. Happens all the time. It happens every summer with cost of gas (petrol), and every winter with cost of natural gas. You can't just wave your hands and magically increase the number of healthcare professionals, when schooling for such a thing takes 10 years. Costs WILL increase DRAMATICALLY.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Businesses will be dropping people like flies from business-covered "insurance"; there will be no reason for anyone as an employer to be providing this "benefit" into an environment where insurance prices will double - and probably double twice - in the next four years. If you think not, look at what was done to credit-card holders in front of the provisions of the CARD act going into effect.

How true do you all think this actually is?

 

[Tom]

1). less intelligent people eat much less healthily. There are plenty of reasons why you're 2 sample groups would have MUCH different costs.

2). Supply/Demand-- it's called a steep supply curve bro. Happens all the time. It happens every summer with cost of gas (petrol), and every winter with cost of natural gas. You can't just wave your hands and magically increase the number of healthcare professionals, when schooling for such a thing takes 10 years. Costs WILL increase DRAMATICALLY.

There's no reason for this bill to increase demand for healthcare professionals, it should do the opposite.

1. lots of medical conditions are easily treatable without extraordinary cost or health care, but are very expensive to remedy if allowed to develop. People without health insurance don't go to the doctor until they have no choice, when they are sick.

2. pay health care professionals for outcomes, not how many tests and and office visits they can accumulate.

 

[Carmen813]

How true do you all think this actually is?

Given that the Lewin Group believes it to be a bunch of bunk, so do I.

 

[piasabird]

I want to see what Wal-mart will do? I could see a business model where you could run each wal-mart as a franchise, hire a company to stock the shelves like cleaning crews in hotels and run each store with 49 employees. This might work in a McDonalds, but I doubt you can run a supercenter with less than 50 employees. Either that or all their employees will be deemed poor and they will be eligible for free healthcare. This would mean the USA goverment would be bankrolling low-wage employers. Hope you like paying for Wal-Marts Health Care!