Quote:If your paying 1000.00/month then I agree your getting screwed. You're right you would be better off with a Health Savings Account!
Also the idea of insurance itself isn't the problem. It's how do we get affordable healthcare?
I actually do have a HSA which is something that the Bush administration pushed. However, because of the Obamacare rules I have to purchase insurance for things that I'll never need and/or never use.
Rather than MANDATE that employers provide health insurance, perhaps relax the rules and give them the OPTION to set up HSA's and a means to get catastrophic coverage not limited to companies within a certain state (ie., be able to sell policies across state lines)? That alone would be a better repeal-and-replace policy to Obamacare.
Quote:I actually do have a HSA which is something that the Bush administration pushed. However, because of the Obamacare rules I have to purchase insurance for things that I'll never need and/or never use.
Rather than MANDATE that employers provide health insurance, perhaps relax the rules and give them the OPTION to set up HSA's and a means to get catastrophic coverage not limited to companies within a certain state (ie., be able to sell policies across state lines)? That alone would be a better repeal-and-replace policy to Obamacare.
I think your penalty would have been less than the healthcare by half.
Quote:If your paying 1000.00/month then I agree your getting screwed. You're right you would be better off with a Health Savings Account!
Also the idea of insurance itself isn't the problem. It's how do we get affordable healthcare?
Stuff is way over priced. Iron Infusion alone cost 1500.00 per treatment. Seriously?
I read in an article today that health insurance and healthcare are not the same thing. Sadly a lot of people either don't know this, can't differentiate between the two or don't care.
Quote:Rand Paul has a plan that the GOP should get behind.
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443746/republican-health-care-plan-rand-paul'>http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443746/republican-health-care-plan-rand-paul</a>
<a class="bbc_url" href='http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-repeal-all-of-obamacare-and-replace-immediately/'>http://rare.us/story/rand-paul-repeal-all-of-obamacare-and-replace-immediately/</a>
Damn that sounds like a smart plan hopefully it gets some traction.
Quote:I read in an article today that health insurance and healthcare are not the same thing. Sadly a lot of people either don't know this, can't differentiate between the two or don't care.
The buzzword for the masses is "access."
It's best to just go to the hospital for everything and not pay.
Quote:It's best to just go to the hospital for everything and not pay.
That is where things will go.
Quote:It's best to just go to the hospital for everything and not pay.
ED utililization rates have been unaffected by the ACA. People still cant afford the OOP costs of HDHPs.
Quote:That is where things will go.
They were there, they are there.
Quote:I actually do have a HSA which is something that the Bush administration pushed. However, because of the Obamacare rules I have to purchase insurance for things that I'll never need and/or never use.
But that's the way insurance works. If people only purchase insurance for things they are likely to file a claim for, the insurance companies will be bankrupted.
If we're going to pass a law that says insurance companies cannot reject people because of pre-existing conditions, we have to have a mandate so healthy people will also purchase insurance. Otherwise, only sick people will purchase health insurance.
That's why this whole idea of doing away with the mandate while keeping the part about not rejecting people for pre-existing conditions is bound to fail. It would bankrupt the insurance companies.
Quote:Damn that sounds like a smart plan hopefully it gets some traction.
Ugh... "Purchase across state lines!" because networking with doctors isn't part of the health insurance industry... at all! I mean it's not like insurers have to make favorable deals with doctors in order to cover people on their plans or anything.
I mean I have a whole slew of problems with Rand's plan. But I won't get into them because it's not worth arguing about on this board. But the 'purchase across state lines!' thing just doesn't fix anything. Because there's barriers that exist that extend beyond the government.
Quote:But that's the way insurance works. If people only purchase insurance for things they are likely to file a claim for, the insurance companies will be bankrupted.
If we're going to pass a law that says insurance companies cannot reject people because of pre-existing conditions, we have to have a mandate so healthy people will also purchase insurance. Otherwise, only sick people will purchase health insurance.
Isn't that what is already in place but those people would rather pay the penalty than for insurance they can't afford? My brother and his wife never have to go to the doctor as they are never sick enough to go. Like, literally. Of course, they're still in their early 30's and that will change soon enough, but for now they just don't have to go so they pay the penalty. Well, they did until he got a job with the state earlier this year and now they have insurance through his employer. But they were paying the penalty.
That's why this whole idea of doing away with the mandate while keeping the part about not rejecting people for pre-existing conditions is bound to fail. It would bankrupt the insurance companies.
This is already making many companies pull out of exchanges. Blue Cross and Blue Shield is the biggest insurance supplier in NC and they're pulling out of the exchanges because too many sick people being seen and not enough healthy people to pay premiums but never have to use it. It's happening all over the country.
I guess my thing is forcing people to buy insurance who never have to go to the doctor except on the rarest of occasions. Why should the burden of others medical issues be on them? If the government wants people who can't afford it to have it then they need to reevaluate their medicare and medicaid requirements and guidelines and leave the rest of us and the insurance companies alone.
Quote:I guess my thing is forcing people to buy insurance who never have to go to the doctor except on the rarest of occasions. Why should the burden of others medical issues be on them? If the government wants people who can't afford it to have it then they need to reevaluate their medicare and medicaid requirements and guidelines and leave the rest of us and the insurance companies alone.
And then you get cancer and have no coverage, what then? I was the picture of health for 40 years then one day I had a stomach ache that turned into 8 months of therapy for Lymphoma that totaled over $750,000. I'm well off, but that would've bankrupted me without my insurance. What do we do with me if I don't have insurance at that point?
Quote:And then you get cancer and have no coverage, what then? I was the picture of health for 40 years then one day I had a stomach ache that turned into 8 months of therapy for Lymphoma that totaled over $750,000. I'm well off, but that would've bankrupted me without my insurance. What do we do with me if I don't have insurance at that point?
True. I had to have 2 unexpected surgeries in 14 month plus PT and that caused enough problems with insurance much less without. At that point I guess it would be a thing where you pay for what you need according to your age (younger people don't typically need much) and/or family history (if there is a history of something then that could be a risk and should be considered).
My husbands employer gives us flex credits according to our health and that is overseen by the insurance company. Once a year we have to go in and have our height and weight checked as well as blood drawn for all kinds of panels. According to them, my general overall health is excellent and see my shrink every two months for med maintenance. I am well within the body mass index for my height and weight and exercise regularly. My husband's health is the same outside of asthma and his body mass index in outside the range but not horribly so. So his employer actually gives us credits/helps pay for a portion of our insurance premium.
I wish there could be a system like that instituted into whatever plan the government comes up with so people still have coverage but aren't paying for what they don't need but when it comes time, they have insurance to cover them if something happens. I know it's not that simple but it is basically what I'm getting at.
Quote:True. I had to have 2 unexpected surgeries in 14 month plus PT and that caused enough problems with insurance much less without. At that point I guess it would be a thing where you pay for what you need according to your age (younger people don't typically need much) and/or family history (if there is a history of something then that could be a risk and should be considered).
My husbands employer gives us flex credits according to our health and that is overseen by the insurance company. Once a year we have to go in and have our height and weight checked as well as blood drawn for all kinds of panels. According to them, my general overall health is excellent and see my shrink every two months for med maintenance. I am well within the body mass index for my height and weight and exercise regularly. My husband's health is the same outside of asthma and his body mass index in outside the range but not horribly so. So his employer actually gives us credits/helps pay for a portion of our insurance premium.
I wish there could be a system like that instituted into whatever plan the government comes up with so people still have coverage but aren't paying for what they don't need but when it comes time, they have insurance to cover them if something happens. I know it's not that simple but it is basically what I'm getting at.
It's the concept of catastrophic coverage. You pay a premium monthly that pays out if you have a critical illness or injury but doesn't cover things like prevention, pharmacy, mental health, pregnancy and other smaller cost items. Those would be covered by an HSA or other savings program.
Quote:It's best to just go to the hospital for everything and not pay.
That's pretty much what liberals do.
Quote:I think your penalty would have been less than the healthcare by half.
True, but I also need the coverage for catastrophic illness/injury which is also part of the plan.
Quote:Unfortunately health doesn't work very well under the free market model as people don't really have much of a choice to purchase or not.
I GUARANTEE that I have spent more time in medical facilities of one sort or another than anyone else here over the past several years . For the past two years, a week hasn't gone by where I haven't been in a hospital or doctor's office. Currently, I am at the hospital DAILY.
I know how healthcare has regressed with this mess that is the ACA. I live it every single day. If it weren't for the fact that I come from a very wealthy family, I would be dead and buried for quite some time now.
In the past 2 years, my healthcare has cost myself and my family close to $60,000.00. What a great deal the ACA is.
The best part of this whole debacle: if you are too poor to afford health insurance, the government is going to come and take hundreds if not thousands of dollars of the money you could potentially make down the road, and why? Because you didn't make enough money in the first place to get fraudcare.
Quote:It's the concept of catastrophic coverage. You pay a premium monthly that pays out if you have a critical illness or injury but doesn't cover things like prevention, pharmacy, mental health, pregnancy and other smaller cost items. Those would be covered by an HSA or other savings program.
Yes. Too many factors and such for any of it to be an easy plan (in the first place ACA) and too much for an easy fix (whatever is coming next.) I mean to think about it for an individual or family is one thing, to try to factor in every situation is not so easy.