US Thanks, Obamacare

[sleepydvdr]

I just got out of our annual insurance meeting. The rate for my insurance has gone up 67% from last year! The benefits aren't as good as before and now they want us to jump through hoops to reduce our deductible (join programs to stop smoking, lose weight, etc).

Any time the govt mandates crap like this, it adds bloat and costs more.

 

[Ansciess]

No, Obamacare does not explain a 67% increase.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...4/how-obamacare-affects-health-plan-premiums/

Any time private industry is involved in something as necessary as health coverage, someone is going to be gouging you for profits.

 

[RabbitLuvr]

I expect my work's insurance premiums will go up this year, in part thanks to the half a million dollars+ that insurance paid out for my cancer treatment!

Edit: I haven't kept track of how much they ended up paying, but I can easily see on my account they were billed over half a million, so far.

 

[beancounter]

My healthcare cost went down by about 1% this year...

But like the poster said above, it had nothing to do with Obamcare, and everything to do with your company deciding that you should bear a greater percentage of the premium cost they pay.

 

[ledboots]

This report is interesting. Apparently employers raised rates more than necessary the past few years, so the new increases are less. However, employees share of healthcare costs has gone up *50 percent* since 2008.

http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Benefits-...witt-analysis-shows-record-low-healthcare-co/

"For 2013, average healthcare costs per employee are projected to jump to $11,188. Consistent with the previous 2 years, employees will be asked to contribute 21 percent of the total health care premium, which equates to $2,385 for 2013. Average employee out-of-pocket costs are expected to increase to $2,429.These projections mean that over the last 5 years, employees' share of healthcare costs, including employee contributions and out-of-pocket costs, will have increased more than 50 percent from $3,199 in 2008 to $4,814 in 2013."In 2010, employers found themselves in a challenging budgetary position, thus taking more aggressive actions with their benefit plans. An expected decline in employment levels and new costs resulting from health care reform had to be factored into expected costs, which led many employers and insurers to conservatively project their healthcare premiums for 2011," said Tim Nimmer, fellow to the Society of Actuaries, member of the American Academy of Actuaries, and chief healthcare actuary at Aon Hewitt."As actual results materialized, employers have seen some stabilization in employment levels, less severe impact of high cost claims, a general movement towards consumer-driven plans and greater clarity around the average cost impact associated with health care reform. As a result, 2012 premiums were offset to reflect the better than expected historical experience. For 2013, we expect premium increases to gravitate back to the 6 percent range."

 

[yakherder]

Medical care simply costs too much in the U.S. That is going to remain true whether the money comes out of taxes or out of pocket. Good intentions or not, I think people are fighting the wrong battle (the one where even if you win you still lose).

 

[Ansciess]

Sure, but controlling costs would require government overhaul and regulation, and republicans/libertarians aren't going to allow that to happen if they can help it.

 

[ledboots]

Sure, but controlling costs would require government overhaul and regulation, and republicans/libertarians aren't going to allow that to happen if they can help it.

Government overhaul does not usually cut costs or fraud. Of course, Medicare payouts to hospitals have been cut half a trillion dollars (money was rerouted to new, non medicare health care), so there will be cuts to nursing staff, equipment purchases, etc. And many physicians are retiring because they don't feel that government agencies can safely decide what care they can and cannot provide their own patients.

 

[Ansciess]

Government overhaul does not usually cut costs or fraud. Of course, Medicare payouts to hospitals have been cut half a trillion dollars (money was rerouted to new, non medicare health care), so there will be cuts to nursing staff, equipment purchases, etc. And many physicians are retiring because they don't feel that government agencies can safely decide what care they can and cannot provide their own patients.

Seriously, how did those physicians manage to feel that private, for-profit insurance companies could safely decide what they could and could not provide their own patients? There are a lot of restrictions on my insurance coverage, on things that I currently need or might need in the future. And I'm sure I don't need to provide evidence of people dying as they were fighting with their insurance companies for coverage of their treatment that was being denied.

But we're actually talking about INSURANCE, not care that can be provided. Doctors can practice however they want (within limits), they just may not be able to get insurance money for it. And because of private industry greed, many millions of people don't have insurance and have to pay out of pocket anyway.

 

[Wolfie]

Government overhaul does not usually cut costs or fraud. Of course, Medicare payouts to hospitals have been cut half a trillion dollars (money was rerouted to new, non medicare health care), so there will be cuts to nursing staff, equipment purchases, etc. And many physicians are retiring because they don't feel that government agencies can safely decide what care they can and cannot provide their own patients.

Yep.

The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money.

 

[Ansciess]

So are you saying Medicare shouldn't exist?

 

[Wolfie]

The people getting Medicare now PAID into it their entire working lives. You can't take it away now when they're too old to work. But I'd rather keep my contributions and make plans on my own for when I'm that age, yes.

 

[Ansciess]

What private insurance company will want to insure someone in their 60s who may well have health problems? You couldn't go on the open market and buy insurance with most any life history of health issues. And you think you could buy insurance for anywhere near the cost of Medicare?

 

[silva]

Our company raised their rates by about 60% years ago! After that it got raised or trimmed every other year. They've also been charging for smokers and having do things to show we're taking care of our health. I like that, poor health is the leading cause of insurance increases

 

[RabbitLuvr]

There are a lot of restrictions on my insurance coverage, on things that I currently need or might need in the future.

I recently found out that my private insurance now considers nurse practitioners to be out-of-network. Regardless of geographical location, or which hospital/doctor's office they work in. So I can see my surgeon and only pay $30 out of pocket, or I can see her nurse in the same office and pay $500 out of pocket. Guess which one I'm going to choose?
Actually, their office writes that off when the insurance won't pay, which I'm sure just means they charge more for the surgeon's time and services to recoup their costs, since the nurse still needs to be paid. HOWEVER, it also means that I will not go to the Take Care Clinic inside Walgreens, or anything similar, because it's not staffed by actual doctors. Now that I know this, I will always choose to see an actual doctor, which I assume has higher rates.
Meanwhile, I keep hearing things on the radio about how everyone should consider seeing nurse practitioners instead of doctors, because there are more of them, and they charge less. Yeah, and if private insurance (which is already expensive) won't pay for me to see them, how am I going to afford that?

I was also denied having a PET scan when my doctor wanted to see if my cancer had spread to other parts of my body. I could have paid out-of-pocket, but the hospital wouldn't tell me exactly how much I'd be billed, and an online search said it could be anywhere from $3000-$10,000, which I can't afford. Instead, my doctor ordered a CT scan + a bone scan, which is a serviceable but less effective way to check. The insurance company was billed a few thousand dollars for that. So, from what I understand, the insurance company paid about the same for me to get the less effective test.

 

[mlp]

I agree with everything RabbitLuvr, Beancounter and Ansciess have written in this thread.

The problem with the provision of healthcare in this country isn't "socialism", it's the fact that it is a profit driven industry all the way down the line, almost completely uncontrolled and unregulated because of the lobbying power of everyone from the pharmaceutical companies to the medical equipment companies to the insurance companies to healthcare providers themselves. It's free market at its worst. That's why costs are so high.

It's not even necessary for a system to be single payor in order to control costs. Germany's system is multi-payor and provides for universal coverage. It costs much less than the U.S system, provides better results, better coverage (as well as universal coverage), and there are no wait times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany

I mention the German system specifically because I know of its advantages through family and friends.

 

[das_nut]

Medical care simply costs too much in the U.S. That is going to remain true whether the money comes out of taxes or out of pocket. Good intentions or not, I think people are fighting the wrong battle (the one where even if you win you still lose).

So much this.

I have yet to hear a good reason why our medical care costs so much, yet performs so poorly at extending life.

 

[Wolfie]

I recently found out that my private insurance now considers nurse practitioners to be out-of-network. Regardless of geographical location, or which hospital/doctor's office they work in. So I can see my surgeon and only pay $30 out of pocket, or I can see her nurse in the same office and pay $500 out of pocket. Guess which one I'm going to choose?
Actually, their office writes that off when the insurance won't pay, which I'm sure just means they charge more for the surgeon's time and services to recoup their costs, since the nurse still needs to be paid. HOWEVER, it also means that I will not go to the Take Care Clinic inside Walgreens, or anything similar, because it's not staffed by actual doctors. Now that I know this, I will always choose to see an actual doctor, which I assume has higher rates.
Meanwhile, I keep hearing things on the radio about how everyone should consider seeing nurse practitioners instead of doctors, because there are more of them, and they charge less. Yeah, and if private insurance (which is already expensive) won't pay for me to see them, how am I going to afford that?

I was also denied having a PET scan when my doctor wanted to see if my cancer had spread to other parts of my body. I could have paid out-of-pocket, but the hospital wouldn't tell me exactly how much I'd be billed, and an online search said it could be anywhere from $3000-$10,000, which I can't afford. Instead, my doctor ordered a CT scan + a bone scan, which is a serviceable but less effective way to check. The insurance company was billed a few thousand dollars for that. So, from what I understand, the insurance company paid about the same for me to get the less effective test.

Your insurance company sucks. I can't believe they'd deny a PET scan. I mean I believe it, but it shouldn't happen. But who's to say that won't happen under Obamacare?

While I'm not some big meanie who thinks people should die in the streets, I can't shake the feeling the government will screw this up like they screw up every other program they touch and/or create. The German system mlp mentioned sounds interesting. I will have to read the whole thing when I'm not so tired. Right now I'm off to soak my shoulder. The dogs did a number on it earlier.

 

[Wolfie]

They've also been charging for smokers and having do things to show we're taking care of our health. I like that, poor health is the leading cause of insurance increases

Mine does this too. There are like 5 things they test for and if you pass on 4/5 you get quite a break on premiums. Smoking is one. You don't have to take part. You can just pay the higher premium if you want. I'd like to see that implemented in Obamacare too. We don't need another repeat of Medicaid, where you can have asthma, continue to smoke and make numerous visits to the ER on the taxpayers' dime. (Yes, I've seen that countless times, among other things. Like a 10-day hospital stay financed by the taxpayers simply because someone failed to follow instructions from their previous hospital discharge. People don't care when they don't have to pay the bill.)

 

[Ansciess]

While I'm not some big meanie who thinks people should die in the streets, I can't shake the feeling the government will screw this up like they screw up every other program they touch and/or create.

Sounds like you think our military is screwed up. And the interstate highway system is terrible. And it's dangerous to drink the water here. And polio is rampant.

Anyway, I have no idea how to get through to someone with this way of thinking. You say you don't want there to be some universal public insurance or healthcare system. Yet you say you don't want people to die in the streets.

Well, what's your answer? Seriously. What's your solution?

Because we don't have a universal basic healthcare system now. And we don't (for the most part) let people die in the streets.

So what we inevitably have is an emergency care system, which in fact everyone ends up paying for, and is the most expensive and least effective way to deliver and pay for healthcare. You're already paying for the "deadbeats" you don't want to pay for, you just pay for them when they show up in the emergency room. If you don't want them to die in the streets, and you don't want your tax dollars to contribute in any way to their healthcare, then what is your solution? A realistic solution that can actually be implemented, given the skills and limitations of real humans? Meaning, aliens don't get to come down and perform free healthcare for deadbeats. Fraud doesn't suddenly disappear from humankind - not going to happen. Angels don't come and sort through those who are deserving of healthcare and disappear those who don't so you don't have to see them dying in the streets. There will always be people whom you don't feel are deserving. But it doesn't seem like you want to see them dying in the streets either (or do you?). Please follow your thinking through to some logical conclusion! How do you reconcile not wanting to see people die in the streets with not wanting your tax dollars to go to anyone else's healthcare? And do you not realize you're already subsidizing them in the most inefficient and expensive way?