Quote:not to mention there are damm few employers who give you that choice...very few people can afford health insurance out of their own pocket
The truth is that it all comes out of your pocket. The benefits package that is offered to any employee is part of their total budgetted compensation. The employee has to generate enough value to cover the cost of their wage, payroll taxes, matching 401k, and health care etc. If the employee doesn't generate enough value to cover the expense of their employment and generate profit for the company then they will be fired.
The only real advantages are tax based.
As for social security, if everyone was allowed to participate in the market then we wouldn't have this problem. There would be real tangible generational wealth in the middle class. The last time that the government came in to try and better run our actuarial lives they stole a page out of 19th century germany called old age insurance and forced us all to participate with the muscle of the IRS. This should make us extremely cautious of them turning to the next 19th century page when trying to rope us into national health insurance.
You're right. The pricing is outrageous for OBAMACARE plans. That's because they are based on a flawed premise. Pre-existing conditions is a fine campaign slogan. It envokes all the emotional cursors of compassion and fairness. IT has nothing to do with actuarial science. Try calling up to get life insurance on a dead relative. Try getting fire insurance on a house that has already burned down. It makes no sense. And if you did, then the cost would be passed onto anyone stupid enough to actually have a policy before hand (hence outrageous prices.) That's why the trade off for pre-existing conditions is a series of fines or 30% surcharges to try and force people to buy into an overpriced system that no one actually wants or needs.
As for the idea that some people can't afford health insurance that might be the case. a.) that's why we already have a massive entitlement for the truly indogent called medicaid. b.) where is it written that the 3300 per child that we already redistribute through EIC only has to go to new cars and rims?
There is a role for compassion in our society, but that doesn't include ensnaring the 70% of the country that's out working their rear ends off into a system that makes it impossible for them to have any quality of life for the sake of COMPASSION to those less motivated.
Today employers are collecting and analyzing the biometrics of their insured employees and offering subsidies or penalties related to health goals they set each year. Your employer gets better rates when the subscriber panel improves their health, so you in turn get incentives and assistance in being healthier. Gym memberships, cooking classes, meditation and all kinds of other optional (for now anyway) tricks to improve your health.
The data they collect is owned by the insurance company who underwrites or administers the group's plan.
That's today. Your data. Owned by a private corporation and used for whatever they want including resale.
Tomorrow, when we have single payer, the government will own that data.
As a member of the tax paying public I demand that measures be instituted to insure that my tax dollars are not wasted on the health of those who choose not to take care of themselves. Therefore, in the interest of public health and adequate stewardship of the tax payer's dollar, we must institute mandatory DNA screening for preventable genetic disorders, weekly mandatory weigh ins with appropriate incentives (up to and including incarceration) for maintaining the recommended BMI, immediate legislation to ban guns, cigarettes, alcohol, the consumption of meat, sweets including chocolate, and to compel participation in daily cardiovascular calisthenics. Its for your own good that you achieve total health my friends.
Just remember my words, whoever has a financial interest in your health will eventually have control of your life, because they have their wallet invested in your behavior.
Quote:The truth is that it all comes out of your pocket. The benefits package that is offered to any employee is part of their total budgetted compensation. The employee has to generate enough value to cover the cost of their wage, payroll taxes, matching 401k, and health care etc. If the employee doesn't generate enough value to cover the expense of their employment and generate profit for the company then they will be fired.
The only real advantages are tax based.
As for social security, if everyone was allowed to participate in the market then we wouldn't have this problem. There would be real tangible generational wealth in the middle class. The last time that the government came in to try and better run our actuarial lives they stole a page out of 19th century germany called old age insurance and forced us all to participate with the muscle of the IRS. This should make us extremely cautious of them turning to the next 19th century page when trying to rope us into national health insurance.
You're right. The pricing is outrageous for OBAMACARE plans. That's because they are based on a flawed premise. Pre-existing conditions is a fine campaign slogan. It envokes all the emotional cursors of compassion and fairness.
IT has nothing to do with actuarial science. Try calling up to get life insurance on a dead relative. Try getting fire insurance on a house that has already burned down. It makes no sense. And if you did, then the cost would be passed onto anyone stupid enough to actually have a policy before hand (hence outrageous prices.) That's why the trade off for pre-existing conditions is a series of fines or 30% surcharges to try and force people to buy into an overpriced system that no one actually wants or needs.
As for the idea that some people can't afford health insurance that might be the case. a.) that's why we already have a massive entitlement for the truly indogent called medicaid. b.) where is it written that the 3300 per child that we already redistribute through EIC only has to go to new cars and rims?
There is a role for compassion in our society, but that doesn't include ensnaring the 70% of the country that's out working their rear ends off into a system that makes it impossible for them to have any quality of life for the sake of COMPASSION to those less motivated.
If insurance companies were not forced to to accept pre existing conditions, we could never switch jobs or insurance companies because the insurance companies most certainly would not cover any pre existing condition...What would happen to people with Diabetes and such? That's the reason for mandating that they accept pre existing conditions...
Quote:Before Obamacare, insurance companies regularly accepted pre-existing conditions from new employees who's condition was covered under a previous policy. Government force was not required.
But they did not have to...at any time they could have refused to do so, now they can't
Quote:But they did not have to...at any time they could have refused to do so, now they can't
Like any business, health insurance companies still had to please the customer.
Do you really think that using government force is the way to go here? Why buy insurance if government guns demand that you can just sign up when you need it?
Imagine if that were the case for car insurance, or fire insurance.
Quote:If insurance companies were not forced to to accept pre existing conditions, we could never switch jobs or insurance companies because the insurance companies most certainly would not cover any pre existing condition...What would happen to people with Diabetes and such? That's the reason for mandating that they accept pre existing conditions...
You're still missing it. There is no such thing as life INSURANCE for your dead relative. It causes the actuarial foundation to collapse. The answer is decoupling insurance from employment and making it basic and affordable. The solution for the chronically ill should be separate. Dragging the 99% into general insolvency is not mathematically sustainable.
Quote:You're still missing it. There is no such thing as life INSURANCE for your dead relative. It causes the actuarial foundation to collapse. The answer is decoupling insurance from employment and making it basic and affordable. The solution for the chronically ill should be separate. Dragging the 99% into general insolvency is not mathematically sustainable.
The relative isnt dead when you switch insurance companies...I really don't get what you are trying to say...If insurance companies were not forced to accept pre existing conditions, and I take a new job with a new insurance company and they did not cover my pre existing condition, I would have no coverage...Granted generally insurance have covered pre existing conditions when switching, but at any moment they could stop doing that. Now they can not...My mother ran into that problem with diabetis over a decade ago more like 2 decades ago...My dad was working and they switched insurance companies and the new one would not cover pre existing conditions...They had to buy a supplemental insurance because the cost of medicine was so ungodly high
chronically ill persons need healthcare too...why make it 2 entities and complicate things even more? Insurance is a multi billion dollar a year business, they can afford it, and that's what they are in business to do... There would be all kinds of law suits if you tried to separate normal healthy persons insurance from chronically ill persons...IDK id diabetes is considered chronically ill, because when controlled I can libe a normal healthy life...Maybe the health freaks who die of "natural causes" should pay more because they lay in the hospital bed dying of nothing and the insurance company has to pay up
Quote:The relative isnt dead when you switch insurance companies...I really don't get what you are trying to say...
The example I used was based on LIFE INSURANCE. In the case of life insurance, a pre-existing condition would be DEATH. You can't call up and get a life insurance policy for someone who is already dead. INSURANCE is an ALEATORY CONTRACT based on the INSURANCE against a RISK. If your house has already burned down you can't buy fire insurance. IF your relative has already passed they can't get life insurance. When you start taking on people who have already had catastrophic health challenges in the general risk pool you are no longer talking about INSURANCE and RISK POOLING you are talking about a form of actuarial WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION!
If insurance companies were not forced to accept pre existing conditions, and I take a new job with a new insurance company and they did not cover my pre existing condition, I would have no coverage...Granted generally insurance have covered pre existing conditions when switching, but at any moment they could stop doing that. Now they can not...My mother ran into that problem with diabetis over a decade ago more like 2 decades ago...My dad was working and they switched insurance companies and the new one would not cover pre existing conditions...They had to buy a supplemental insurance because the cost of medicine was so ungodly high
Let me say this. I am not talking about throwing people out on the street. This system was screwed up by the statists in the 40's because of price controls. Everyone should be able to own their own policy with the same tax advantages as corporations. They should also be able to join associations and form groups on their own to pool purchasing power and lower costs.
The structure of the system has created a challenge dealing with people who are currently insured who didn't skirt the system that may have a pre-existing condition. MY point is two fold 1.) let's have a frank ACTUARIAL CONVERSATION about what that means and 2.) Forcing everyone into a system they can't afford doesn't make any sense. The way we are approaching it now is creating an actuarial death spiral. Plans that universally cover all pre-existing conditions are too expensive and don't fit for 95% of the population. The only way that they can actually think to get anyone to buy into that system is through SUBSIDIES FINES AND PENALTIES. The problem is that the money still comes from somewhere and the fact that it doesn't make budgetary sense for most folks doesn't change!
chronically ill persons need healthcare too...why make it 2 entities and complicate things even more? Insurance is a multi billion dollar a year business, they can afford it, and that's what they are in business to do... There would be all kinds of law suits if you tried to separate normal healthy persons insurance from chronically ill persons...IDK id diabetes is considered chronically ill, because when controlled I can libe a normal healthy life...Maybe the health freaks who die of "natural causes" should pay more because they lay in the hospital bed dying of nothing and the insurance company has to pay up
If you want to just demonize corporations you go right ahead. The VA has done gang busters from what I understand.
You separate the two risk pools because its easier. This tangled web of increasing cost and trying to hide it with taxes subsidies fines and penalties is not sustainable. Allow the average healthy person to pay their own insurance and then set up a risk pool for the chronically ill that has a different foundation of support from the community. At current you are actually making the problem worse because people pay so much for insurance that doesn't really provide access (deductible shock) that they can't afford the actual care and aren't seeing a doctor. This creates more chronically ill people.
Quote:well they dont...
Says who? The customer is the employer not the subscribers.
Quote:Says who? The customer is the employer not the subscribers.
That's odd.
I believe most of the subscribers pay as well.
What do those who are on Tricare think about it? Do they like it?
Quote:That's odd.
I believe most of the subscribers pay as well.
What do those who are on Tricare think about it? Do they like it?
The subscribers have no say in the matter other than choosing what level of benefits they want their employer to provide. As such, they have no power to negotiate or walk away. They are captives not customers.
I don't deal with many Tricare subscribers, but as a physician side organization we don't like it. The few I know don't love it but are accustomed to it.
Quote:The employees pay part of the cost, but the employers choose the insurance company. The employees can always seek different employment if they don't like what the company offers. In times like the last eight years when jobs are scarce a business has no incentive to seek a better policy, but that's not the case when businesses have to compete for employees.
Admittedly it's a screwed up system.
Ideally employers would be out of the middleman role and everyone would have their own policy, so health insurance wouldn't be a factor in one's job decision. That would also mean that the problem with pre-existing condition coverage would disappear, since everyone would already have coverage before they discovered a health problem.
Look, we have to leave it to the experts working in government to fix the broken system that the experts in government created.
Public option or singlepayer. Remove the insurance burden from employers. We already pay into Medicare. Why is this [BLEEP] so difficult?
Quote:Public option or singlepayer. Remove the insurance burden from employers. We already pay into Medicare. Why is this [BAD WORD REMOVED] so difficult?
Yea no thanks I'll take no insurance over a single payer system.
Quote:Yea no thanks I'll take no insurance over a single payer system.
I am good with that. As long as we start allowing hospitals to require pay before service first when treating the uninsured.
Quote:I am good with that. As long as we start allowing hospitals to require pay before service first when treating the uninsured.
Of course I advocate healthcare isn't a right so if a for profit hospital says no money no service I'm good with that.
But let's not pretend even in that most extrem scenario there wouldn't be charity driven clinics offering free or low cost healthcare options.