Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 10:27:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 13:57:40 GMT
"A new analysis of the Graham-Cassidy health care proposal has found that the Republican bill contains a sneaky provision that guts coverage for preexisting conditions. According to the Center For Budget and Policy Priorities, “The revised Affordable Care Act (ACA) repeal plan from Senators Bill Cassidy and Lindsey Graham, which is also backed by Senators Dean Heller and Ron Johnson, would give states broad waiver authority to eliminate the ACA’s core protections for people with pre-existing health conditions. These waivers would come on top of the proposal’s elimination of the ACA’s marketplace subsidies and Medicaid expansion, its radical restructuring of the rest of the Medicaid program, and its large cuts to total federal funding for health insurance coverage.” The states could waive provisions that forbid insurance companies from charging people higher rates based on their health status and requirements that insurance companies cover essential benefits. Republicans are trying to backdoor a plan that raises insurance rates or take coverage away from the 130 million Americans who have preexisting conditions. It all goes back to the same design flaw that exists in every Republican health care plan. The only way that Republicans can make coverage more affordable is by either kicking the most expensive people out of the insurance market or by making insurance more expensive for people who have preexisting conditions."
They'll never stop trying to make insurance affordable (for the young and healthy).
www.politicususa.com/2017/09/15/gop-stabs-sick-people-sneaky-provision-gutting-preexisting-condition-coverage.html
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 10:27:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 14:07:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Sept 17, 2017 14:38:06 GMT
It is impressive to me how persistent they are being in trying to ruin people's lives.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Sept 17, 2017 14:40:26 GMT
There is no way to respond civilly to this.
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Sept 17, 2017 15:23:33 GMT
Once you realize that the Republican party is not interested in the well-being of Americans as far as health goes, it becomes easier to understand their goals.
They do not feel that the government should be involved in any way with your health. If you have money and can afford health insurance or a doctor visit and treatment, you can get it. If you don't have the money for that, you probably aren't the type of person who will make America better so it's not really a loss if 'your type' (ie,the sick and not rich type) lives a short, miserable life and then dies. It's really not their concern.
Other countries DO believe that the health of their citizens is important and as such, the government has an important role to play in keeping their citizens healthy and well. The Republican party does not. The healthcare business is just that - a business - and they want no part in determining who can buy services and who can't. Just as they don't feel the need to ensure that every American is able to afford and purchase a car or an iPhone or a pair of really nice pants, healthcare is not their concern.
It's nothing personal on their end. It's just that they don't want to get in the way of profits and whether or not you and your family can afford the care that you need isn't all that important. They really, truly don't care because they don't believe they should be involved in any way, other than to keep the business as regulation-free so that the shareholders can be happy with their bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 17, 2017 15:31:45 GMT
Once you realize that the Republican party is not interested in the well-being of Americans as far as health goes, it becomes easier to understand their goals. They do not feel that the government should be involved in any way with your health. If you have money and can afford health insurance or a doctor visit and treatment, you can get it. If you don't have the money for that, you probably aren't the type of person who will make America better so it's not really a loss if 'your type' (ie,the sick and not rich type) lives a short, miserable life and then dies. It's really not their concern. Other countries DO believe that the health of their citizens is important and as such, the government has an important role to play in keeping their citizens healthy and well. The Republican party does not. The healthcare business is just that - a business - and they want no part in determining who can buy services and who can't. Just as they don't feel the need to ensure that every American is able to afford and purchase a car or an iPhone or a pair of really nice pants, healthcare is not their concern. It's nothing personal on their end. It's just that they don't want to get in the way of profits and whether or not you and your family can afford the care that you need isn't all that important. They really, truly don't care because they don't believe they should be involved in any way, other than to keep the business as regulation-free so that the shareholders can be happy with their bottom line. Yes and no - they don't believe it should be a federally run program. They think the states should run it and have discretion to modify mandates and spending. I hate these over simplification checklists as they imply that they are new FEDERAL implementations - and they're not. It's essentially sending the issue back to the states and giving them flexibility to implement health care reform as they see fit. One can agree or disagree with that plan - and depending on your state and what the STATE implemented, you could be significantly better or worse off.
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on Sept 17, 2017 16:06:37 GMT
If the funds and program direction is returned to the states, where would you (general you) rather live, California or Kansas? Washington State or Mississippi? As a person with an ongoing health crisis and massive pre-existing condition, I am glad I live in a progressive state.
I am always surprised business doesn't get behind single payer. I realize they get a massive tax break for employee healthcare expenses but I would think they would rather ditch the headache. I can't think of a bigger brake on getting good employees, particularly for smaller business, than healthcare.
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Sept 17, 2017 16:20:00 GMT
Yeah, how is that exactly going to work if the states can have different rules and laws for this? Basically, you will have a ton of people with health issues moving to states that offer coverage for pre-existing conditions and leaving the states that don't offer those things.
The whole idea of insurance is that you have to cover enough well people to have enough funding to cover the sick people. If all of the sick people rush to CA, everyone there is going to have huge increases in premiums. Meanwhile, the states that don't cover much will see the sick people leaving and then their premiums may go down. So the reality is, the progressive states (that already subsidize the less well-off states) will get to subsidize them even more.
One thing in the new bill that I've seen referred to is that the premium can be raised at any time if you are diagnosed with something. So let's say you've agreed to buy insurance for $900/month. Then you get diagnosed with cancer. The insurer can way "well....we know you have a policy with us and we said the premium was $900/month. But now you have cancer. The premium is now $4000/month. Take it or leave it, your choice." Isn't the whole point of insurance to purchase it when you don't need it so that it's there when you DO? What other product would you be ok with this sort of scheme? Yeah, we know we told you the car payments were $400/month when you signed the purchase agreement. But we found out that you plan to actually drive the car. The payments are actually going to be $800/month. Or you can just give the car back." Or at the supermarket - "Yeah, we know the milk was advertised on the shelf as $2/gallon. But you're buying pudding mix, so obviously you're planning to make pudding with it. Milk for pudding is $10/gallon. Your choice!"
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 17, 2017 17:15:16 GMT
I'd love to know what those of you posting here propose to allow health coverage to be affordable? While there are some who have benefited by Obamacare, many others have had their premiums double and triple. Someone posted here that they are now paying $17,000 per year in premiums for their family. I bet it's no consolation to that pea that people with pre-existing conditions now get insurance or that people who had none before now have it.
What we have now is not working for many people who previously could afford insurance but who now, due to high premiums and outrageous deductibles either forego insurance or some other necessity in order to have it.
Middle class people are being harmed. Contrary to what you may believe.
So what is the solution? And don't say "single payer" because again, the middle class ends up paying. Almost 1 in 2 people pay no federal tax which means they will not be paying anything in the "single payer" scenario. The "rich" and the middle class will pay.
Again, what is a solution that is equitable to all?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 10:27:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 17:52:58 GMT
There is no solution that is equitable to all because life is not "equitable to all". Some babies are born w/pre-existings. Some people are paralyzed due to another driving texting and driving. There is no equity guarantee in health.
That's life.
What we do about it is what makes our society great, or suck.
|
|
|
Post by snowsilver on Sept 17, 2017 18:05:05 GMT
There is no solution that is equitable to all because life is not "equitable to all". Some babies are born w/pre-existings. Some people are paralyzed due to another driving texting and driving. There is no equity guarantee in health. That's life. What we do about it is what makes our society great, or suck. That may be true, Zing, but I ask with no intention of snark at all--what makes the person with a pre-existing condition more "worthy" than the middle class family scrabbling to make it already? I am sure that you, as well as I, have read the hundreds of horrific posts right here on this forum from middle class Peas who are drowning under Obama Care. Who could afford their insurance before the program went into effect, but now cannot. Until, I can be convinced otherwise, I am in favor of allowing the states to try to resolve this. Perhaps 50 efforts may come up with a solution that, while not perfect (there is no perfect solution) will work better than what we now have which truly is not working.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 10:27:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 18:16:19 GMT
There is no solution that is equitable to all because life is not "equitable to all". Some babies are born w/pre-existings. Some people are paralyzed due to another driving texting and driving. There is no equity guarantee in health. That's life. What we do about it is what makes our society great, or suck. That may be true, Zing, but I ask with no intention of snark at all--what makes the person with a pre-existing condition more "worthy" than the middle class family scrabbling to make it already? I am sure that you, as well as I, have read the hundreds of horrific posts right here on this forum from middle class Peas who are drowning under Obama Care. Who could afford their insurance before the program went into effect, but now cannot. Until, I can be convinced otherwise, I am in favor of allowing the states to try to resolve this. Perhaps 50 efforts may come up with a solution that, while not perfect (there is no perfect solution) will work better than what we now have which truly is not working. We don't need to start w/the middle class family scrabbling to make it. We can start w/those 10% who have accumulated 76% of the wealth. Then we can move down from there. Some people have hundreds of millions. Some have nothing. Some have pre-existings. Some have great health. In a decent society, those who have tens or hundreds of millions more and need less, pay more than those who have less or need more.
|
|
|
Post by snowsilver on Sept 17, 2017 18:48:15 GMT
That may be true, Zing, but I ask with no intention of snark at all--what makes the person with a pre-existing condition more "worthy" than the middle class family scrabbling to make it already? I am sure that you, as well as I, have read the hundreds of horrific posts right here on this forum from middle class Peas who are drowning under Obama Care. Who could afford their insurance before the program went into effect, but now cannot. Until, I can be convinced otherwise, I am in favor of allowing the states to try to resolve this. Perhaps 50 efforts may come up with a solution that, while not perfect (there is no perfect solution) will work better than what we now have which truly is not working. We don't need to start w/the middle class family scrabbling to make it. We can start w/those 10% who have accumulated 76% of the wealth. Then we can move down from there. Some people have hundreds of millions. Some have nothing. Some have pre-existings. Some have great health. In a decent society, those who have tens or hundreds of millions more and need less, pay more than those who have less or need more. No, that is in a socialist society, which we are not (yet). And I know you are aware that the rich in this country pay massive amounts of taxes already. What we need to do is shore up our middle class because even the middle class (upper levels) are now hit with crippling taxes. Health care is probably the hardest problem to resolve we will ever face, and there is absolutely no way that it can be fixed so that it is "fair" to everyone. I, personally, believe in national catastrophic care only. I know that makes me insensitive and a bunch of other words, but I am also a realist.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 10:27:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 18:53:05 GMT
"What makes the person with pre-existing condition more "worthy" than the middle class family scrabbling to make it?"
That middle class family struggling may find themselves moved from the "struggling" column of life to the "pre-existing" column in a blink of an eye.
In the long run, because we can't predict the future, it benefits us all to spread the risk and include rather than exclude people with pre-existing conditions because tomorrow your new baby or grandbaby could be born with a pre-existing condition.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 17, 2017 19:00:23 GMT
There is no solution that is equitable to all because life is not "equitable to all". Some babies are born w/pre-existings. Some people are paralyzed due to another driving texting and driving. There is no equity guarantee in health. That's life. What we do about it is what makes our society great, or suck. I disagree. You want the government (or a particular segment of it) to make the determination about who is more deserving. As you say, life isn't equitable. If that's the case, why doesn't the same argument apply about pre-existing conditions? After all, life isn't fair. In your opinion, your position results in society being great. In my opinion, you are wrong.
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Sept 17, 2017 19:01:29 GMT
We currently spend approximately 17% of our GDP on healthcare, more than other developed nations. France was at 11%. And the outcomes of our spending don't jive with the outcomes other countries get. We are spending more, but getting less.
How do we make it fair? First, we get rid of the idea that healthcare should be a for profit venture. Some things should be run for profit, some things shouldn't. We keep moving to privatize things that perhaps shouldn't (prisons, for example). If there is profit to be made in running a prison, there is profit to be made in making sure that those prisons have enough prisoners to fill them. That isn't right. It is supposed to be justice that is served, not the owners and shareholders of prisons. Some things are done 'for the good of the nation' - education, public infrastructure, law and fire, etc. If our people are not healthy, they can't work and contribute. Having a healthy, productive populace is good for the nation, even if you can't make a profit from it.
Second, we stop being so shortsighted. We are penny wise and pound foolish. People gripe because they don't want to pay for some other person's doctor visits. Unless we change the law so that hospital ERs don't have to treat/stabilize people, this is the most expensive way to care for people. As a taxpayer, you are going to pay for the treatment of these people no matter what - they aren't just going to stay home and let their loved one die because they don't have insurance. Either you can pay for it when it's an office visit and some medication, or you can pay for the ER visit later on because they didn't get treatment.
Third, we start accepting that despite the best medicine and treatment options, every one of us is going to die at some point. It is the inevitable outcome for every single person. Sometimes, aggressive treatment is not the best option. We spend a TON of money in the last year of life for many people. Often these treatments are futile, and just make the last year of life more miserable than desired. The ACA was supposed to have a benefit for planning for end of life wishes, but those got branded "death panels" and were used as a talking point. It turns out that the so-called 'death panels' would have allowed people to meet with their own doctors to determine how they wanted to spend their last months, and instead of that we now get death panels consisting of some stranger in a building trying to keep costs down for the shareholders' benefits.
Our health care system is NOT the best in the world. We have a lower life expectancy than many other countries. We have a higher infant mortality rate. We spend more money on things like testing and procedures and have worse outcomes than countries who focus on preventive care. Let's address these things and see where we go from there.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 10:27:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 19:36:23 GMT
We don't need to start w/the middle class family scrabbling to make it. We can start w/those 10% who have accumulated 76% of the wealth. Then we can move down from there. Some people have hundreds of millions. Some have nothing. Some have pre-existings. Some have great health. In a decent society, those who have tens or hundreds of millions more and need less, pay more than those who have less or need more. No, that is in a socialist society, which we are not (yet). And I know you are aware that the rich in this country pay massive amounts of taxes already. What we need to do is shore up our middle class because even the middle class (upper levels) are now hit with crippling taxes. Health care is probably the hardest problem to resolve we will ever face, and there is absolutely no way that it can be fixed so that it is "fair" to everyone. I, personally, believe in national catastrophic care only. I know that makes me insensitive and a bunch of other words, but I am also a realist. The effective rates of the wealthy are far less than the effective rates of the middle taking into account ALL taxes, not just federal income taxes: FICA, state/city, sales, gas, utility, etc. $5 of taxes on a tank of gas is still $5, whether you earn $20,000,000 or $30,000/year. "The lower one’s income, the higher one’s overall effective state and local tax rate. Combining all state and local income, property, sales and excise taxes that Americans pay, the nationwide average effective state and local tax rates by income group are 10.9 percent for the poorest 20 percent of individuals and families, 9.4 percent for the middle 20 percent and 5.4 percent for the top 1 percent." itep.org/whopays/So, call it what you like, but I think there are FAR MORE who can pay FAR MORE to help those suffering. And yes, I think it is insensitive to tell a family w/a child born w/several illnesses that they're F##($*ed after they reach some "lifetime maximum" or can't even get insurance at all due to "pre-exsiting" while some other a-hole is worrying about the leather finish on his second yacht.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 17, 2017 20:07:12 GMT
No, that is in a socialist society, which we are not (yet). And I know you are aware that the rich in this country pay massive amounts of taxes already. What we need to do is shore up our middle class because even the middle class (upper levels) are now hit with crippling taxes. Health care is probably the hardest problem to resolve we will ever face, and there is absolutely no way that it can be fixed so that it is "fair" to everyone. I, personally, believe in national catastrophic care only. I know that makes me insensitive and a bunch of other words, but I am also a realist. The effective rates of the wealthy are far less than the effective rates of the middle taking into account ALL taxes, not just federal income taxes: FICA, state/city, sales, gas, utility, etc. $5 of taxes on a tank of gas is still $5, whether you earn $20,000,000 or $30,000/year. "The lower one’s income, the higher one’s overall effective state and local tax rate. Combining all state and local income, property, sales and excise taxes that Americans pay, the nationwide average effective state and local tax rates by income group are 10.9 percent for the poorest 20 percent of individuals and families, 9.4 percent for the middle 20 percent and 5.4 percent for the top 1 percent." itep.org/whopays/So, call it what you like, but I think there are FAR MORE who can pay FAR MORE to help those suffering. And yes, I think it is insensitive to tell a family w/a child born w/several illnesses that they're F##($*ed after they reach some "lifetime maximum" or can't even get insurance at all due to "pre-exsiting" while some other a-hole is worrying about the leather finish on his second yacht. Funny how that site completely disregarded federal income taxes - typically the highest percentage of taxes paid by high income individuals and yes the most progessive system - yeah no bias there!
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 17, 2017 20:10:42 GMT
A bit less biased look at taxes by income - yes lower income people pay higher state and local taxes - but when you layer in FEDERAL taxes, suddenly the story changes. That top 1% suddenly looks a lot different - 32.6% (vs 19.2 for lowest 20%) And yes the highest percentage of any income bracket. People may prefer a more progressive system, but can we stop the utter lie that upper income people don't pay taxes. ctj.org/ctjreports/2015/04/who_pays_taxes_in_america_in_2015.php#.Wb7WLMiGOM8
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 10:27:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 20:10:44 GMT
The effective rates of the wealthy are far less than the effective rates of the middle taking into account ALL taxes, not just federal income taxes: FICA, state/city, sales, gas, utility, etc. $5 of taxes on a tank of gas is still $5, whether you earn $20,000,000 or $30,000/year. "The lower one’s income, the higher one’s overall effective state and local tax rate. Combining all state and local income, property, sales and excise taxes that Americans pay, the nationwide average effective state and local tax rates by income group are 10.9 percent for the poorest 20 percent of individuals and families, 9.4 percent for the middle 20 percent and 5.4 percent for the top 1 percent." itep.org/whopays/So, call it what you like, but I think there are FAR MORE who can pay FAR MORE to help those suffering. And yes, I think it is insensitive to tell a family w/a child born w/several illnesses that they're F##($*ed after they reach some "lifetime maximum" or can't even get insurance at all due to "pre-exsiting" while some other a-hole is worrying about the leather finish on his second yacht. Funny how that site completely disregarded federal income taxes - typically the highest percentage of taxes paid by high income individuals and yes the most progessive system - yeah no bias there! Just like all the "poor little m/billionaire" tax websites moan and groan about only Fed income taxes, ignoring all other Fed taxes, state, city, utility, gas and sales taxes. Yeah, no bias there.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 17, 2017 20:13:41 GMT
Funny how that site completely disregarded federal income taxes - typically the highest percentage of taxes paid by high income individuals and yes the most progessive system - yeah no bias there! Just like all the "poor little m/billionaire" tax websites moan and groan about only Fed income taxes, ignoring all other Fed taxes, state, city, utility, gas and sales taxes. Yeah, no bias there. I posted a site which actually listed ALL taxes - but you won't like that one either, as it proves yet again you're WRONG about higher income people paying no taxes. I'm still waiting for a response from our previous discussion on this topic - you don't like hard data, so you choose to ignore it and continue to spout talking points and ignore anything that doesn't support your bias.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 10:27:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 20:18:09 GMT
Just like all the "poor little m/billionaire" tax websites moan and groan about only Fed income taxes, ignoring all other Fed taxes, state, city, utility, gas and sales taxes. Yeah, no bias there. I posted a site which actually listed ALL taxes - but you won't like that one either, as it proves yet again you're WRONG about higher income people paying no taxes. I'm still waiting for a response from our previous discussion on this topic - you don't like hard data, so you choose to ignore it and continue to spout talking points and ignore anything that doesn't support your bias. Darcy, let's not do this again. Where did I say higher income pay NO taxes. They pay about the same rate, all in, as the middle. WHICH SUCKS!!! You make 80,000, you pay about 30% in taxes - leaving you w/about $56,000 on which to raise your family. You make $20,000,000 you pay about 30% in taxes - leaving you with $14,000,000 on which to raise your family. Cry me a freaking river if I think it's much harder to make ends meet on $56,000 than on $14,000,000. See how that works!? ps - as far as I can remember, I have answered similarly in every other discussion. If you can find a post that I didn't respond to, I will be happy to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 17, 2017 20:25:57 GMT
I posted a site which actually listed ALL taxes - but you won't like that one either, as it proves yet again you're WRONG about higher income people paying no taxes. I'm still waiting for a response from our previous discussion on this topic - you don't like hard data, so you choose to ignore it and continue to spout talking points and ignore anything that doesn't support your bias. Darcy, let's not do this again. Where did I say higher income pay NO taxes. They pay about the same rate, all in, as the middle. WHICH SUCKS!!! You make 80,000, you pay about 30% in taxes - leaving you w/about $56,000 on which to raise your family. You make $20,000,000 you pay about 30% in taxes - leaving you with $14,000,000 on which to raise your family. Cry me a freaking river if I think it's much harder to make ends meet on $56,000 than on $14,000,000. See how that works!? Actually that's not true - if you have earned income of 20,0000 you're paying 50% in taxes all in (assuming you don't live in CA or NY where it will be higher) - don't take the average of the top 1% which is $1.7 million in all states and extrapolate - it's intellectually dishonest and in this case straight up wrong. You seem to want to concentrate on the .01% - go for it - but the reality is even if we confiscated 100% of their money, it wouldn't solve our deficit problem. There's just not enough of them despite your desire to make even less of them.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 10:27:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 20:43:12 GMT
Even though I'm retired I just renewed my Commercial Insurance Brokers license in case trump causes the stock market to tank and I have to go back to work. Part of the process involves taking and passing classes as part of the continuing education requirement.
In the test there was this question/answer.
"Fundamental to proper sales conduct is the understanding that all insurance is constructed of the same elements expenses, experience, & return of profit. Therefore, a policy that appears to be significantly better than others in the marketplace should be suspect.
Every decision an insurance company makes involve the three elements expenses, experience, & return of profit. What premiums to charge, what coverages to write, & what marketplaces to enter. That's not going to change.
The ACA told the insurance companies that they must insure everyone, they must offer these minimum benefits, and they could no longer cap the limit of what they pay out on a policy.
To help offset the increase in exposure to the insurance companies the ACA had the requirement that all individuals must buy insurance or pay a fine and the government made payments to certain insurance companies to offset the increase in exposure. On paper it looked like it would work.
But then a couple of curve balls were thrown.
The individual market hit the the insurance companies the hardest when the ACA went in to affect. Either they didn't anticipate it at all or not enough but as I read one insurance guy said "we didn't know there were that many sick people." And sick people cost money. The other curve ball was less than expected people purchased coverage opting to pay the fine instead. The healthy premiums needed to help offset the sick premiums were missing.
The main problem is the individual markets and how to fix it so people can afford their insurance/deductibles. Fixing the individual markets will also help the employer sponsored plans because I suspect part of the increase in those plans are the insurance companies raising premiums to help offset the losses from the individual markets.
How do you fix it? This is what I think could/should be done.
1. Everyone has to purchase insurance. If they don't they won't be find. Instead if they get sick or in an accident and they can't pay for the medical care with either insurance or cash they are turned away. Harsh but that's the way it needs to be.
2. The Feds need to increase the income level of who is eligible to receive supplemental payments to help pay the premium.
3. The states that have not expand Medicaid need to. While this has no direct impact on the individual markets it could. It's like a time bomb waiting to go off. 4. Wellness programs. Before I retired my carrier at the time Antheim Blue Cross had a wellness program. If we signed up for it our premium was discounted. They would comecthevoffice and dontests, check blood pressure, have yoga and excrise classes. My employer was ok with this being done during the work day. The classes were done at lunch time. I think this should become mandatory
5. Shop procedures and tests. I did not know that could be done until our Benefits guy told us it could It's kind of like get three estimates thing. On Antheim's website you could check out a potential lab to make sure they weren't some backroom operation. Granted this isn't available in all areas but in the areas where there are several options it should be automatic.
I'm sure there are other ways to fix the ACA. I can tell you buying insurance across state lines, high risk pools, and doing away with the individual mandate and minimum benefits are not the answer. They could actually make things worse.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Sept 17, 2017 20:54:49 GMT
Even though I'm retired I just renewed my Commercial Insurance Brokers license in case trump causes the stock market to tank and I have to go back to work. Part of the process involves taking and passing classes as part of the continuing education requirement. In the test there was this question/answer. "Fundamental to proper sales conduct is the understanding that all insurance is constructed of the same elements expenses, experience, & return of profit. Therefore, a policy that appears to be significantly better than others in the marketplace should be suspect. Every decision an insurance company makes involve the three elements expenses, experience, & return of profit. What premiums to charge, what coverages to write, & what marketplaces to enter. That's not going to change. The ACA told the insurance companies that they must insure everyone, they must offer these minimum benefits, and they could no longer cap the limit of what they pay out on a policy. To help offset the increase in exposure to the insurance companies the ACA had the requirement that all individuals must buy insurance or pay a fine and the government made payments to certain insurance companies to offset the increase in exposure. On paper it looked like it would work. But then a couple of curve balls were thrown. The individual market hit the the insurance companies the hardest when the ACA went in to affect. Either they didn't anticipate it at all or not enough but as I read one insurance guy said "we didn't know there were that many sick people." And sick people cost money. The other curve ball was less than expected people purchased coverage opting to pay the fine instead. The healthy premiums needed to help offset the sick premiums were missing. The main problem is the individual markets and how to fix it so people can afford their insurance/deductibles. Fixing the individual markets will also help the employer sponsored plans because I suspect part of the increase in those plans are the insurance companies raising premiums to help offset the losses from the individual markets. How do you fix it? This is what I think could/should be done. 1. Everyone has to purchase insurance. If they don't they won't be find. Instead if they get sick or in an accident and they can't pay for the medical care with either insurance or cash they are turned away. Harsh but that's the way it needs to be. 2. The Feds need to increase the income level of who is eligible to receive supplemental payments to help pay the premium. 3. The states that have not expand Medicaid need to. While this has no direct impact on the individual markets it could. It's like a time bomb waiting to go off. 4. Wellness programs. Before I retired my carrier at the time Antheim Blue Cross had a wellness program. If we signed up for it our premium was discounted. They would comecthevoffice and dontests, check blood pressure, have yoga and excrise classes. My employer was ok with this being done during the work day. The classes were done at lunch time. I think this should become mandatory 5. Shop procedures and tests. I did not know that could be done until our Benefits guy told us it could It's kind of like get three estimates thing. On Antheim's website you could check out a potential lab to make sure they weren't some backroom operation. Granted this isn't available in all areas but in the areas where there are several options it should be automatic. I'm sure there are other ways to fix the ACA. I can tell you buying insurance across state lines, high risk pools, and doing away with the individual mandate and minimum benefits are not the answer. They could actually make things worse. I agree with a lot of what you say - and will add on that the fundamental issue is still the actual COST OF CARE and until there is a change on the the underlying costs, it's utterly unsustainable. When we pay more in GOVERNMENT dollars than every single country with the exception of 2 and only cover less than 40% of our population something has to change. It's the utter elephant in the room - we already spend more in PUBLIC spending, than Canada, the UK, Australia, France, Germany....... and we're only covering Medicare, Medicaid and VA.
|
|
|
Post by izzyscraps on Sept 17, 2017 21:07:34 GMT
I don't know about all the mess y'all are talking about. I do know that when Obamacare came into place, we couldn't afford insurance for our family of 5 anymore. So we have none cuz we can't pay our regular bills anymore AND the high premiums that have taken the place of affordable premiums for us. So we go without insurance now and pray none of us need surgery or something. Oh, but we will be penalized for not being able to afford insurance now also when tax time comes. So yeah. That's all
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 10:27:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 21:23:04 GMT
Darcy, let's not do this again. Where did I say higher income pay NO taxes. They pay about the same rate, all in, as the middle. WHICH SUCKS!!! You make 80,000, you pay about 30% in taxes - leaving you w/about $56,000 on which to raise your family. You make $20,000,000 you pay about 30% in taxes - leaving you with $14,000,000 on which to raise your family. Cry me a freaking river if I think it's much harder to make ends meet on $56,000 than on $14,000,000. See how that works!? Actually that's not true - if you have earned income of 20,0000 you're paying 50% in taxes all in (assuming you don't live in CA or NY where it will be higher) - don't take the average of the top 1% which is $1.7 million in all states and extrapolate - it's intellectually dishonest and in this case straight up wrong. You seem to want to concentrate on the .01% - go for it - but the reality is even if we confiscated 100% of their money, it wouldn't solve our deficit problem. There's just not enough of them despite your desire to make even less of them. Where is your source for that? And, no, I don't want to concentrate on the .01%. I just want to start there. Then we can get to the .1% then the 1% and so on.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 10:27:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 21:25:54 GMT
Even though I'm retired I just renewed my Commercial Insurance Brokers license in case trump causes the stock market to tank and I have to go back to work. Part of the process involves taking and passing classes as part of the continuing education requirement. In the test there was this question/answer. "Fundamental to proper sales conduct is the understanding that all insurance is constructed of the same elements expenses, experience, & return of profit. Therefore, a policy that appears to be significantly better than others in the marketplace should be suspect. Every decision an insurance company makes involve the three elements expenses, experience, & return of profit. What premiums to charge, what coverages to write, & what marketplaces to enter. That's not going to change. The ACA told the insurance companies that they must insure everyone, they must offer these minimum benefits, and they could no longer cap the limit of what they pay out on a policy. To help offset the increase in exposure to the insurance companies the ACA had the requirement that all individuals must buy insurance or pay a fine and the government made payments to certain insurance companies to offset the increase in exposure. On paper it looked like it would work. But then a couple of curve balls were thrown. The individual market hit the the insurance companies the hardest when the ACA went in to affect. Either they didn't anticipate it at all or not enough but as I read one insurance guy said "we didn't know there were that many sick people." And sick people cost money. The other curve ball was less than expected people purchased coverage opting to pay the fine instead. The healthy premiums needed to help offset the sick premiums were missing. The main problem is the individual markets and how to fix it so people can afford their insurance/deductibles. Fixing the individual markets will also help the employer sponsored plans because I suspect part of the increase in those plans are the insurance companies raising premiums to help offset the losses from the individual markets. How do you fix it? This is what I think could/should be done. 1. Everyone has to purchase insurance. If they don't they won't be find. Instead if they get sick or in an accident and they can't pay for the medical care with either insurance or cash they are turned away. Harsh but that's the way it needs to be. 2. The Feds need to increase the income level of who is eligible to receive supplemental payments to help pay the premium. 3. The states that have not expand Medicaid need to. While this has no direct impact on the individual markets it could. It's like a time bomb waiting to go off. 4. Wellness programs. Before I retired my carrier at the time Antheim Blue Cross had a wellness program. If we signed up for it our premium was discounted. They would comecthevoffice and dontests, check blood pressure, have yoga and excrise classes. My employer was ok with this being done during the work day. The classes were done at lunch time. I think this should become mandatory 5. Shop procedures and tests. I did not know that could be done until our Benefits guy told us it could It's kind of like get three estimates thing. On Antheim's website you could check out a potential lab to make sure they weren't some backroom operation. Granted this isn't available in all areas but in the areas where there are several options it should be automatic. I'm sure there are other ways to fix the ACA. I can tell you buying insurance across state lines, high risk pools, and doing away with the individual mandate and minimum benefits are not the answer. They could actually make things worse. I agree with a lot of what you say - and will add on that the fundamental issue is still the actual COST OF CARE and until there is a change on the the underlying costs, it's utterly unsustainable. When we pay more in GOVERNMENT dollars than every single country with the exception of 2 and only cover less than 40% of our population something has to change. It's the utter elephant in the room - we already spend more in PUBLIC spending, than Canada, the UK, Australia, France, Germany....... and we're only covering Medicare, Medicaid and VA. We pay more because we have a for-profit system that bakes in profits, advertising, marketing, administration for hundreds of unique plans at each of thousands of providers for thousands of groups, instead of more simplified all-in, one set of rules, single payer.
|
|
|
Post by snowsilver on Sept 17, 2017 21:31:31 GMT
Izzyscraps, I promise you that many of us DO care what has happened to you. I have been simply astonished at the lack of response from many Peas to the multiple threads we have had here from many, MANY of our Peas detailing how their financial lives have virtually been ruined by Obama Care. Your story is just one of literally hundreds of stories I have read. When did we decide that this country has the right to do to its citizens what has been done to you and thousands of others??!! Somewhere along the line we seem to have decided that a preexisting condition trumps everything else including the financial solvency of thousands and thousands of our middle class citizens. Personally, I am stunned that we also think that a 26-year-old ADULT has the right to demand that American citizens pay his/her insurance so they can remain on mom and dad's policy. This is just nonsense to me. A person that old should be taking care his own needs.
Obamacare is a disaster and I am constantly stunned at the refusal of its proponents to admit that. It has destroyed so many families that before it went into effect were managing.
All of this is why I support catastrophic insurance only.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 10:27:59 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2017 21:39:40 GMT
Izzyscraps, I promise you that many of us DO care what has happened to you. I have been simply astonished at the lack of response from many Peas to the multiple threads we have had here from many, MANY of our Peas detailing how their financial lives have virtually been ruined by Obama Care. Your story is just one of literally hundreds of stories I have read. When did we decide that this country has the right to do to its citizens what has been done to you and thousands of others??!! Somewhere along the line we seem to have decided that a preexisting condition trumps everything else including the financial solvency of thousands and thousands of our middle class citizens. Personally, I am stunned that we also think that a 26-year-old ADULT has the right to demand that American citizens pay his/her insurance so they can remain on mom and dad's policy. This is just nonsense to me. A person that old should be taking care his own needs. Obamacare is a disaster and I am constantly stunned at the refusal of its proponents to admit that. It has destroyed so many families that before it went into effect were managing. All of this is why I support catastrophic insurance only. You're not listening to me. I want izzyscraps to be able to afford it too. And I want the very wealthiest to pay MUCH MORE and the next wealthiest to pay some more and so on, so that those in the middle can pay less and still afford health care. Catastrophic only is not going to help people w/pre-existings either be able to get or keep insurance w/o being kicked off or priced off due to millions in medical bills/year.
|
|