| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 |
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 19743
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Pescador
I have had a craw full of the spin about substandard plans. I used to sell a Blue Cross plan, individual, in Colorado that had a 1,000 deductible,
80/20 co-insurance, $20 co-pay Dr. Visit, full Rx coverage, Accident rider. Lifetime max 2 million. for a 40 yr. old male, non smoker the monthly
premium was $105. Now they have to drop that plan because Maternity was an exclusion. Sub-standard my fanny. |
Yes, but you would refuse to sell that or any plan to someone with a preexisting condition or refuse to cover the condition! And seems to me that 50
percent of people need maternity coverage at some time in their life. I like that govt standardized plans and provides coverage for preexistign. You
bellyachers are tiresome!
By the way, you should be able to offer maternity coverage to any male for no additional cost. Duh! Males are unlikely to ever use the maternity
coverage! Add a sentence to the plan benefits and you can still sell plan! Doh!
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
Liberal Math
One need look no further than the Goat's statement to understand why the Libs get things so wrong:
"And seems to me that 50 percent of people need maternity coverage at some time in their life."
An assumption that isn't supported by statistics.
|
|
|
vgabndo
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3461
Registered: 12-8-2003
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Checking-off my bucket list.
|
|
Obviously you know a lot more about the insurance corporations than I do. Seems like you should get together with Lancairdriver. He's paying $850 for
a policy that you can sell for $105, and all you have to do is add coverage for pregnant women. Lanc's underwriter wants $400. a month to add
contraception and pediatric dental care to a $850. policy which already has maternity care which you offer for $105. which already HAS pediatric
dental care and contraception, and only needs maternity.
Or, you quadruple the price of your policy and add maternity care. Do you think that Lancairdriver is going to go on paying $1,200. for a minimum
qualifying policy if he can get it from you for $420. and cut his ORIGINAL premium in half?
Here's what I know about the ACA and Citizens United. My former Congressman, who was not running for reelection, was gifted with over $300,000.00 in
free money by an amazing collection of HMO's, insurance companies, and a whole raft of medical "societies" because he made it clear from the beginning
that his mind was permanently closed to any discussion of changing healthcare in America. (Those were the bribes which were REQUIRED to be reported)
He kept his promise to big business and they paid him off. The corporate insurance giants MUST have known that buying a few congressmen would be good
for the bottom line. Yes, my politics are showing. The ACA is a flawed law. I personally think there was a possibility worth exploring that it could
have been a better law if the GOP had participated in rational discussion. "You want to destroy America you socialist fools", doesn't count.
Undoubtedly, there are people who cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug. Sam Harris
"The situation is far too dire for pessimism."
Bill Kauth
Carl Sagan said, "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."
PEACE, LOVE AND FISH TACOS
|
|
|
vgabndo
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3461
Registered: 12-8-2003
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Checking-off my bucket list.
|
|
What liberal math?
44% of married women by the time they reach their mid 40's will have needed maternity coverage. A smaller percentage of single women will need such
coverage too. Add in the number of husbands who need maternity care for their children, process-in the fact that only half of Americans over 18 are
married, and I'd say Goat was pretty close at 50% (Mostly Pew numbers)
Of course you knew that he was making the very common generalization that half of us is female and females get pregnant, thus a generalized 50%.
Did that go over your head?
Liberal math!!!!! Make your case. What percentage of Americans need maternity healthcare insurance?
Undoubtedly, there are people who cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug. Sam Harris
"The situation is far too dire for pessimism."
Bill Kauth
Carl Sagan said, "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."
PEACE, LOVE AND FISH TACOS
|
|
|
LancairDriver
Super Nomad
Posts: 1601
Registered: 2-22-2008
Location: On the Road
Member Is Offline
|
|
Obviously the ACA act never would have left the ground without collaboration between the planners and the insurance company's getting on board. Of
course it is all about money. You aren't going to insure 40 million who have no insurance with thin air. So who pays the bill. Mostly small business,
and the middle class are discovering they too will have to take a bite of the big dung sandwich.
I'm sure pescador was referring to an individual policy where we are paying for family coverage. Our policy went from $357,000 in 2013, to $516,000 in
2014 for 35 employees, and this was with shopping around. Doing this for over 25 years means we aren't novices. That is a huge hit for a small
business, and can't be absorbed. The difference of $159,600 will now be picked up by 35 employees where they paid zero before. They will all wind up
paying $4,560/yr now that would otherwise be spent for car payments, house payments, college funds, etc. Easy to see the impact on the individual and
the general economy. Multiply this situation times hundreds of thousands of small businesses and you will better understand why the economy will have
a permanent 40% of the working population on food stamps and other subsidies.
|
|
|
Pescador
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3587
Registered: 10-17-2002
Location: Baja California Sur
Member Is Offline
|
|
Yes, that was a quote for an Individual Plan which meant you could pass underwriting and had no pre-existing conditions. Group insurance,which had
to take every that applied was at least 3 times more expensive. That policy worked for millions of people but is now called substandard.
Now, let's take the discussion about Kaiser-permanente . They are able to take your Medicare part A and B which is around $364 a month. If you
compare tour Medicare plan A and B which is an 80% plan with deductibles but run by the government!and you have the government write a check to
Kaiser, you get a great coverage for the same price. They do that because they have developed a good delivery system that is cost effective and
efficient,while the government struggles with fraud and mismanagement.
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
Unsupported Generalizations
SPOT ON !
The Point EXACTLY. Glad that VGA resolution was sharp enough and able to tune in on that.
As to actual FACTS and FIGURES, they are the responsibility of those advocating a position based on actuarial numbers.
Which are then appropriate for contest and critical analysis
|
|
|
Osprey
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3694
Registered: 5-23-2004
Location: Baja Ca. Sur
Member Is Offline
|
|
Words Matter
With the advent of the ACA, Affordable Care Act, comes more questions than answers. And it’s about time. There’s a stunning disconnect between Health
Care and Insurance and until now there seemed no good reason to talk about it. Now it’s crucial.
The term Health Care points us toward Total Care or some kind of plan for cradle to grave protection of one’s health. That’s a big bill to fill with
so many possibilities, so many diseases, accidents and conditions of disability. It may be that we, as a country, just don’t have the will, the money
or the smarts to make that happen ----- in the meantime we have tried a long list of methods that now are being questioned.
PPOs were popular for a while and HMOs were all the rage too – they tried mightily to cut costs, tailor protection plans and go beyond reimbursement.
All the while, the public did not really see the difference between Care, Indemnity and Maintenance. So here comes the big disconnect. The term
Pre-existing Condition was about the safest language they could find to draw a line between Indemnity and Welfare. We can all see the gap widen if we
form the analogy of buying fire insurance for your house AFTER THE FIRE. “What’s a fair premium for that?” is one of the new questions. The answer is
that there is no fair cost or premium – the protection is Welfare and we can either afford it, as a country, or we cannot.
Maybe the people of the United States can afford it if we find out how much it is, find a way to fund it, let the people provide it, manage it and
keep it safe and inviolate. That idea leaves us less to argue about when it comes to Long Term Care, Cost of Medicine, Maternity and things like
inoculations. We already do a helluva lot of this stuff in big charitable hospitals, hospices and care centers all across the country.
If we took that staggering cost out of the ACA equation it would be a lot more like insurance and the public has a pretty good grasp on that term.
Thousands of 100 year old health insurance companies are still able to provide the simple reimbursement for health and accident services for NEW
ILLNESSES AND ACCIDENTS that have served us pretty well so far.
If the ACA people don’t have their math right about the cost of Pre-existing Condition coverage, the coverage could bankrupt the plan. In the meantime
if the plan causes hospitals to close, doctors to retire, insurers to collapse all the people then out of work won’t be able to pay into any system
and in fact they will be drag on the social coffer.
The only high side I see for the public right now is that there are millions of people out there who will opt out now and ONLY JOIN WHEN THEY HAVE THE
FIRST SIGNS OF EMPHASEMA, PARKINSON’S, CANCER, ETC.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Very well laid out, Osprey. Thank you!!!
Barry
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Dittos ... some great "examples and thoughts" on the topic
|
|
|
oxxo
Banned
Posts: 2347
Registered: 5-17-2006
Location: Wherever I am, I'm there
Member Is Offline
Mood: If I was feeling any better, I'd be twins!
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Pescador
Be careful, your politics are showing through your logic. Actually most insurance companies were able to do what they do and most made from1.5
to2.5% profit margins. They became experts assessing risk and staying ahead of the curve. |
It can be said that your politics are showing through your logic. The company you worked for rates very low in customer satisfaction. They not only
became experts at assessing risk by eliminating those with pre-existing conditions and staying ahead of the curve of avoiding responsibility of
comprehensive care while also delivering poor customer service. How is that different form the US Postal Service or Amtrak?
| Quote: | | There has been lots of talk about how some people could not get coverage but almost all states had a state mandated plan which you were eligible for
if you had been turned down by any insurance company. |
You mean like Romneycare in MA? The plan that the ACA is modeled after? The plan that was endorsed by the Republican Party when it was implemented?
The plan that Romney said was appropriate at the State level, but no other State implemented?
| Quote: | | So, I see let's let the government run the delivery system. Do you think it will be run as well as Amtrack, or the post Office, or any of the other
systems that take 20% more to run because they are government entities. |
I think government will run the ACA delivery system about as efficiently as Social Security and we know how unhappy senior citizens are with that
program! I think the ACA is a flawed program because it doesn't go far enough and is too complicated. The government should have implemented a more
comprehensive "single payer" system like in Canada or most countries that have universal health care. But the President tried to compromise with the
party of "no" and we have what is second best.
| Quote: | | I have had a craw full of the spin about substandard plans. |
I have had my craw full of the spin about how the ACA isn't going to work when we haven't given it an opportunity to work yet!
| Quote: | | I used to sell a Blue Cross plan, individual, in Colorado that had a 1,000 deductible, 80/20 co-insurance, $20 co-pay Dr. Visit, full Rx coverage,
Accident rider. Lifetime max 2 million. for a 40 yr. old male, non smoker the monthly premium was $105. |
What year was that? I had Blue Cross coverage about 40 years ago and my premiums were higher than that. And what happens to that member who exceeds
their $2M lifetime max when they are on kidney dialysis or two or three forms of cancer (like my father)
| Quote: | | Now they have to drop that plan because Maternity was an exclusion. Sub-standard my fanny. |
The cost of maternity today is $9000 to $25000 depending on location and whether Caesarean is required. I guess if you don't get pregnant your fanny
could care less how someone else pays for it.
| Quote: | Originally posted by LancairDriver
Of course it is all about money. You aren't going to insure 40 million who have no insurance with thin air. So who pays the bill. Mostly small
business, and the middle class are discovering they too will have to take a bite of the big dung sandwich. |
This is partisan specualtion on your part, not supported by any statistics at this point. The current Administration says that the ACA will be paid
for by efficiencies in the healthcare delivery system which they have implemented. Only time will tell if that statement can be supported.
| Quote: | | I'm sure pescador was referring to an individual policy where we are paying for family coverage. Our policy went from $357,000 in 2013, to $516,000 in
2014 for 35 employees, and this was with shopping around. Doing this for over 25 years means we aren't novices. That is a huge hit for a small
business, and can't be absorbed. The difference of $159,600 will now be picked up by 35 employees where they paid zero before. They will all wind up
paying $4,560/yr now that would otherwise be spent for car payments, house payments, college funds, etc. Easy to see the impact on the individual and
the general economy. |
I congratulate your company for picking up $800+ per month health premium for your employees and their families. I was never able to land a job with
a company with such comprehensive health benefits. But with the added benefits of the ACA including pre-existing conditions, maternity, dental for
children, and dependents to age 26, your employees should be willing to pick up the extra premium instead of paying $25000 out of pocket for the
unplanned pregnancy of that 16 y.o. daughter.
Your logic is flawed when you say that $4560 per family is going to be taken out of the economy by the ACA. $4560 is now gong to be put into the
economy by someone else for house payments, car payments, college funds, etc.
| Quote: | | Multiply this situation times hundreds of thousands of small businesses and you will better understand why the economy will have a permanent 40% of
the working population on food stamps and other subsidies. |
You mean like those of us on a Social Security subsidy, Medicare, or military pension? What is this? a war on us old people? Yes, I still work and
so do a majority of my old friends.
| Quote: | Originally posted by Pescador
Yes, that was a quote for an Individual Plan which meant you could pass underwriting and had no pre-existing conditions. Group insurance,which had
to take every that applied was at least 3 times more expensive. That policy worked for millions of people but is now called substandard.
|
Yes, it might have worked for "millions" but it also DIDN"T work for "millions" too.
| Quote: | | Now, let's take the discussion about Kaiser-permanente . They are able to take your Medicare part A and B which is around $364 a month. If you
compare tour Medicare plan A and B which is an 80% plan with deductibles but run by the government!and you have the government write a check to
Kaiser, you get a great coverage for the same price. They do that because they have developed a good delivery system that is cost effective and
efficient,while the government struggles with fraud and mismanagement. |
Why didn't Blue Cross follow the Kaiser model that is cost effective and efficient? maybe because Blue Cross struggles with fraud and mismanagement?
And once again, my Kaiser Senior Advantage Plan is a total of about $100 per month including Medicare payment, is a 100% plan less a co-pay of $15 to
$50 depending on procedure, includes reduced cost medications and vision, and a maximum out-of-pocket of about $5000 per year. Yep, I get get great
coverage for the same price when the government works hand-in-hand with a progressive health care provider. HEY, wait a minute, isn't that what the
ACA is all about?
|
|
|
durrelllrobert
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7393
Registered: 11-22-2007
Location: Punta Banda BC
Member Is Offline
Mood: thriving in Baja
|
|
Rome, KAISER and the ACA were not built in a day
Here's how it took Kaiser 60 years to get to be number 1:
http://share.kaiserpermanente.org/article/history-of-kaiser-permanente/
Kaiser Permanente evolved from industrial health care programs for construction, shipyard, and steel mill workers for the Kaiser industrial companies
during the late 1930s and 1940s. It was opened to public enrollment in October 1945.
The organization that is now Kaiser Permanente began at the height of the Great Depression with a single inventive young surgeon and a 12-bed hospital
in the middle of the Mojave Desert. When Sidney Garfield, MD, looked at the thousands of men involved in building the Colorado River Aqueduct Project,
he saw an opportunity. He borrowed money to build Contractors General Hospital; six miles from a tiny town called Desert Center, and began treating
sick and injured workers. But financing was difficult, and Dr. Garfield was having trouble getting the insurance companies to pay his bills in a
timely fashion. To compound matters, not all of the men had insurance. Dr. Garfield refused to turn away any sick or injured worker, so he often was
left with no payment at all for his services. In no time, the hospital’s expenses were far exceeding its income.
Enter Harold Hatch, an engineer-turned-insurance agent. Hatch suggested that the insurance companies pay Dr. Garfield a fixed amount per day, per
covered worker, up front. This would solve the hospital’s immediate money troubles and, at the same time, would enable Dr. Garfield to emphasize
maintaining health and safety rather than merely treating illness and injury. Thus, “prepayment” was born. For the princely sum of five cents per day,
workers were provided this new form of health coverage. For an additional five cents per day, workers could also receive coverage for non-job related
medical problems. Thousands of workers enrolled, and Dr. Garfield’s hospital became a financial success.
As the aqueduct project wound down, Dr. Garfield prepared to leave his desert hospital and start a solo practice in Los Angeles. But he got a call
from another industrialist. This time, the problem was providing health care to 6,500 workers and their families at the largest construction site in
history—the Grand Coulee Dam. Excited by the possibilities, Dr. Garfield put his solo practice plans on hold. He turned the existing run-down hospital
into a state-of-the-art treatment facility and recruited a team of doctors to work in a “prepaid group practice.” The method again was a smashing
success and a big hit with the workers and their families. But as the dam neared completion in 1941, it seemed once again that the grand experiment
was reaching an end.
Once again, however, history intervened. America’s entry into World War II brought tens of thousands of workers—many of who were inexperienced and in
poor health already—pouring into the Kaiser Shipyards in Richmond, Calif., to meet the nation’s demand for big Liberty Ships, aircraft carriers, and
the like. Now, Henry J. Kaiser had the problem: How to provide health care for this teeming mass of 30,000? Kaiser was convinced that Dr. Garfield
could solve his problem, but it took some special wrangling—the surgeon was already scheduled to enter active duty with his U.S. Army Reserve unit in
just a few weeks. But at Kaiser’s request, President Franklin D. Roosevelt released Dr. Garfield from his military obligation specifically so he could
organize and run a prepaid group practice for the workers at the Richmond shipyards. And so, Dr. Garfield and his innovative health care delivery
system came to the San Francisco Bay Area, and formed the association with Kaiser that would imbed itself in the organization and continue until the
present day.
Bob Durrell
|
|
|
dasubergeek
Senior Nomad
Posts: 694
Registered: 8-17-2013
Member Is Offline
|
|
Just a perspective from another country with a very Obamacare-like system:
I lived in Switzerland, which required universal health insurance cover.
Switzerland is an extremely decentralized government; the federal government controls the military, post, monetary system and provides the minimum
standards for health cover (must cover maternity, must cover hospitalization in semi-private rooms, etc.). Everyone must hold insurance. Insurance is
not sold through the employer; you purchase it on your own, like auto or homeowner's insurance.
The federal rules state that everyone in an age group in the same commune (municipality) must be charged the same rate for the same plan... so if you
have Plan A and you are 40 years old in Nyons, you pay the same as all other 40-year-olds in Nyons. Companies compete on benefits (some offer private
rooms in hospital, for example) and on contribution. The most common plan has a 300 Fr. (about $340) deductible and a 10 percent co-insurance, with a
700 Fr. or 1000 Fr. ($780 or $1125) out-of-pocket maximum. Costs do rise, but not particularly quickly; in the early 90s they cost about 250 Fr. per
month per adult, now they're more like 310 Fr. per month. Children have, by law, no "franchise" (deductible) and their plans tend to be far cheaper.
Dental and vision are not covered.
If you cannot afford it (a means test), you are given a subsidy by the canton (like a state), which varies based on your income tax reporting.
If you show up in a hospital, clinic or physician's practice and you are uninsured (and not exempt, like foreigners on visitor visas), you are treated
and then furnished with paperwork for enrollment based on your residence. You must enroll and pay your first premium; the bill is sent to your new
insurance company, and you are fined for non-compliance.
The system works astoundingly well; everyone pays something (there are no completely "free" rides except for children who are wards of the state).
I'm not suggesting at all that this is indicative of how the U.S. system will work; just that it does work in other places.
|
|
|
LancairDriver
Super Nomad
Posts: 1601
Registered: 2-22-2008
Location: On the Road
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by durrelllrobert
Here's how it took Kaiser 60 years to get to be
http://share.kaiserpermanente.org/article/history-of-kaiser-permanente/
Kaiser Permanente evolved from industrial health care programs for construction, shipyard, and steel mill workers for the Kaiser industrial companies
during the late 1930s and 1940s. It was opened to public enrollment in October 1945.
The organization that is now Kaiser Permanente began at the height of the Great Depression with a single inventive young surgeon and a 12-bed hospital
in the middle of the Mojave Desert. When Sidney Garfield, MD, looked at the thousands of men involved in building the Colorado River Aqueduct Project,
he saw an opportunity. He borrowed money to build Contractors General Hospital; six miles from a tiny town called Desert Center, and began treating
sick and injured workers. But financing was difficult, and Dr. Garfield was having trouble getting the insurance companies to pay his bills in a
timely fashion. To compound matters, not all of the men had insurance. Dr. Garfield refused to turn away any sick or injured worker, so he often was
left with no payment at all for his services. In no time, the hospital’s expenses were far exceeding its income.
Enter Harold Hatch, an engineer-turned-insurance agent. Hatch suggested that the insurance companies pay Dr. Garfield a fixed amount per day, per
covered worker, up front. This would solve the hospital’s immediate money troubles and, at the same time, would enable Dr. Garfield to emphasize
maintaining health and safety rather than merely treating illness and injury. Thus, “prepayment” was born. For the princely sum of five cents per day,
workers were provided this new form of health coverage. For an additional five cents per day, workers could also receive coverage for non-job related
medical problems. Thousands of workers enrolled, and Dr. Garfield’s hospital became a financial success.
As the aqueduct project wound down, Dr. Garfield prepared to leave his desert hospital and start a solo practice in Los Angeles. But he got a call
from another industrialist. This time, the problem was providing health care to 6,500 workers and their families at the largest construction site in
history—the Grand Coulee Dam. Excited by the possibilities, Dr. Garfield put his solo practice plans on hold. He turned the existing run-down hospital
into a state-of-the-art treatment facility and recruited a team of doctors to work in a “prepaid group practice.” The method again was a smashing
success and a big hit with the workers and their families. But as the dam neared completion in 1941, it seemed once again that the grand experiment
was reaching an end.
Once again, however, history intervened. America’s entry into World War II brought tens of thousands of workers—many of who were inexperienced and in
poor health already—pouring into the Kaiser Shipyards in Richmond, Calif., to meet the nation’s demand for big Liberty Ships, aircraft carriers, and
the like. Now, Henry J. Kaiser had the problem: How to provide health care for this teeming mass of 30,000? Kaiser was convinced that Dr. Garfield
could solve his problem, but it took some special wrangling—the surgeon was already scheduled to enter active duty with his U.S. Army Reserve unit in
just a few weeks. But at Kaiser’s request, President Franklin D. Roosevelt released Dr. Garfield from his military obligation specifically so he could
organize and run a prepaid group practice for the workers at the Richmond shipyards. And so, Dr. Garfield and his innovative health care delivery
system came to the San Francisco Bay Area, and formed the association with Kaiser that would imbed itself in the organization and continue until the
present day. |
Very good example of the free enterprise system at work, very little government intervention (FDR lifting the draft notice for the Doctor)
Today Henry Kaiser would be reviled as one of the hated 1%. How times have changed.
[Edited on 12-16-2013 by LancairDriver]
|
|
|
Bajaboy
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4375
Registered: 10-9-2003
Location: Bahia Asuncion, BCS, Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by dasubergeek
Just a perspective from another country with a very Obamacare-like system:
I lived in Switzerland, which required universal health insurance cover.
Switzerland is an extremely decentralized government; the federal government controls the military, post, monetary system and provides the minimum
standards for health cover (must cover maternity, must cover hospitalization in semi-private rooms, etc.). Everyone must hold insurance. Insurance is
not sold through the employer; you purchase it on your own, like auto or homeowner's insurance.
The federal rules state that everyone in an age group in the same commune (municipality) must be charged the same rate for the same plan... so if you
have Plan A and you are 40 years old in Nyons, you pay the same as all other 40-year-olds in Nyons. Companies compete on benefits (some offer private
rooms in hospital, for example) and on contribution. The most common plan has a 300 Fr. (about $340) deductible and a 10 percent co-insurance, with a
700 Fr. or 1000 Fr. ($780 or $1125) out-of-pocket maximum. Costs do rise, but not particularly quickly; in the early 90s they cost about 250 Fr. per
month per adult, now they're more like 310 Fr. per month. Children have, by law, no "franchise" (deductible) and their plans tend to be far cheaper.
Dental and vision are not covered.
If you cannot afford it (a means test), you are given a subsidy by the canton (like a state), which varies based on your income tax reporting.
If you show up in a hospital, clinic or physician's practice and you are uninsured (and not exempt, like foreigners on visitor visas), you are treated
and then furnished with paperwork for enrollment based on your residence. You must enroll and pay your first premium; the bill is sent to your new
insurance company, and you are fined for non-compliance.
The system works astoundingly well; everyone pays something (there are no completely "free" rides except for children who are wards of the state).
I'm not suggesting at all that this is indicative of how the U.S. system will work; just that it does work in other places. |
Thanks for the first hand account. I'm sure plenty of people will not believe you because Fake News told them differently.
|
|
|
rts551
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6700
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by LancairDriver
Another point of view. My company has paid 100% on an average of 35 employees for the past 25 years. $2,500 deductible has been the average, and the
cost has been about $850.00 per month per employee. Each year at renewal time the employees have helped to make the choices on the policy. Surgery's
have ranged from quad bypasses to appendix removals and no one has gone ever gone bankrupt or exceeded the coverage. Most have had no medical issues
at all.
However, this year our policy that has served everyone well for years was deemed inadequate because we didn't have pediatric dental and furnish free
contraceptives required by ACA which no one wanted or needed. The alternative "acceptable" plan now costs $1,230/mo./employee. Guess what? We are not
a government operation and we can't take a 50% hit, so the employees are now required to pay the extra $400/mo. to make up the difference. So now
collectively the employees have to all take a bite of the extra $14,000/mo.for coverage that previously cost them nothing. Do you think they feel
better off?
So far most of the cheering for ACA has been from those who have taxpayer subsidized government coverage or are employed in a taxpayer supported job.
No consideration is given to the private sector that generates the tax dollars to pay for this. Yes I know government employees pay taxes also,
however
taxes paid with tax payer generated dollars fall way short of even. Thousands of presently employed people will be having hours cut and pay the price
for this in other ways if it isn't modified or eliminated.
These are some real facts from one in the private sector who drive 90% of employment in the job market. |
seems like a no brainer to me. If the insurance company is raising the rates by that much for pediatric dental and rubbers then I would look for
another insurance company (which you say is partly your responsibility).
|
|
|
absinvestor
Senior Nomad
Posts: 725
Registered: 11-28-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
oxxo- I don't like the ACA and you do. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine. However, the feedback from Colorado Kaiser is much
different than the feedback you received at your California Christmas party. In addition to our 2 Kaiser Dr's I spoke to a neighbor who recently had a
colonoscopy and to his wife who had just gone in for a mamogram. Their Dr's feedback was similar to what our Dr said- fewer Dr's and hospitals.
Summary of their opinions- bad deal. Your comment that just because our kids liked their plan doesn't mean it is a good plan is insulting. Both are
highly educated, run successful businesses and have substantial earnings and assets. They elected to have plans that didn't cover day to day medical
expenses but that would cover a catastrophic event. The 600/mo that they saved in premiums could be better invested elsewhere. Who are you or the ACA
to say what is best for them?? When you take into account what will happen with the currently delayed employer mandate the President's misstatement
will be untruthful for way more than the 90-95%. However, even at 10% the President was untruthful to 15-30million taxpayers. Rather than trying to
reinvent our entire medical system he could have garnered majority support for a plan that helped underinsured and the non insured. Instead, we now
have a program that the majority of US taxpayers don't agree with.
|
|
|
bajaguy
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9247
Registered: 9-16-2003
Location: Carson City, NV/Ensenada - Baja Country Club
Member Is Offline
Mood: must be 5 O'clock somewhere in Baja
|
|
"......... your employees should be willing to pick up the extra premium instead of paying $25000 out of pocket for the unplanned pregnancy of that 16
y.o. daughter......."
How about if the parents of the daughter, or better yet, the parents of the father be responsible for the costs of the "unplanned"
pregnancy????........And pregnancy is never "unplanned", it should be expected when people engage in "those activities".
|
|
|
LancairDriver
Super Nomad
Posts: 1601
Registered: 2-22-2008
Location: On the Road
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by rts551
| Quote: | Originally posted by LancairDriver
Another point of view. My company has paid 100% on an average of 35 employees for the past 25 years. $2,500 deductible has been the average, and the
cost has been about $850.00 per month per employee. Each year at renewal time the employees have helped to make the choices on the policy. Surgery's
have ranged from quad bypasses to appendix removals and no one has gone ever gone bankrupt or exceeded the coverage. Most have had no medical issues
at all.
However, this year our policy that has served everyone well for years was deemed inadequate because we didn't have pediatric dental and furnish free
contraceptives required by ACA which no one wanted or needed. The alternative "acceptable" plan now costs $1,230/mo./employee. Guess what? We are not
a government operation and we can't take a 50% hit, so the employees are now required to pay the extra $400/mo. to make up the difference. So now
collectively the employees have to all take a bite of the extra $14,000/mo.for coverage that previously cost them nothing. Do you think they feel
better off?
So far most of the cheering for ACA has been from those who have taxpayer subsidized government coverage or are employed in a taxpayer supported job.
No consideration is given to the private sector that generates the tax dollars to pay for this. Yes I know government employees pay taxes also,
however
taxes paid with tax payer generated dollars fall way short of even. Thousands of presently employed people will be having hours cut and pay the price
for this in other ways if it isn't modified or eliminated.
These are some real facts from one in the private sector who drive 90% of employment in the job market. |
seems like a no brainer to me. If the insurance company is raising the rates by that much for pediatric dental and rubbers then I would look for
another insurance company (which you say is partly your responsibility). |
Do you honestly think that after pouring millions of dollars into healthcare insurance policy's over 25 years that we don't know how to shop for the
best deals in insurance? Maybe you would be interested in consulting for us since you seem to know so much about insurance.
|
|
|
rts551
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6700
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by LancairDriver
| Quote: | Originally posted by rts551
| Quote: | Originally posted by LancairDriver
Another point of view. My company has paid 100% on an average of 35 employees for the past 25 years. $2,500 deductible has been the average, and the
cost has been about $850.00 per month per employee. Each year at renewal time the employees have helped to make the choices on the policy. Surgery's
have ranged from quad bypasses to appendix removals and no one has gone ever gone bankrupt or exceeded the coverage. Most have had no medical issues
at all.
However, this year our policy that has served everyone well for years was deemed inadequate because we didn't have pediatric dental and furnish free
contraceptives required by ACA which no one wanted or needed. The alternative "acceptable" plan now costs $1,230/mo./employee. Guess what? We are not
a government operation and we can't take a 50% hit, so the employees are now required to pay the extra $400/mo. to make up the difference. So now
collectively the employees have to all take a bite of the extra $14,000/mo.for coverage that previously cost them nothing. Do you think they feel
better off?
So far most of the cheering for ACA has been from those who have taxpayer subsidized government coverage or are employed in a taxpayer supported job.
No consideration is given to the private sector that generates the tax dollars to pay for this. Yes I know government employees pay taxes also,
however
taxes paid with tax payer generated dollars fall way short of even. Thousands of presently employed people will be having hours cut and pay the price
for this in other ways if it isn't modified or eliminated.
These are some real facts from one in the private sector who drive 90% of employment in the job market. |
seems like a no brainer to me. If the insurance company is raising the rates by that much for pediatric dental and rubbers then I would look for
another insurance company (which you say is partly your responsibility). |
Do you honestly think that after pouring millions of dollars into healthcare insurance policy's over 25 years that we don't know how to shop for the
best deals in insurance? Maybe you would be interested in consulting for us since you seem to know so much about insurance. |
Jesus. I did not question your integrity. Take a chill pill and charge it to your A+ plan.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 |
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
