Going to the poor house:2015 Inusrance premiums

[Dakota731]

It would have been cheaper to just give the uninsured inurance and leave the rest of us alone.
__________________

We already had that -my daughter works in the ER at a huge hospital and said they are required to treat the uninsured for whatever they come in for with no co-pays and no deductible. So hundreds every week come in for sore throats, ear infections, coughs etc - free meds and free treatment.

It's been a nightmare from the start.

And we ain't seen nothing yet! My vibrant healthy mom (age 69) just had knee replacement and her surgeon told her it's good she had it done this year because next year the government panels start that tell doctors who can have what done. He said at her age, she probably would be denied because she's retired and would use her Medicare insurance. Scary stuff!

 

[eliza61]

My brother's girlfriend said it's nice unless you need something in a hurry. Her father waited 6 months for heart surgery.


So not so much.

Not very surprising. The wealthy here get way better insurance than the general masses. I think that's a problem anywhere.

Now it's simply switched. those who can afford premiums that have low deductibles will have first access (simply from the fact that they will go to the doctor) those who have very large out of pocket limits to hit will not.

here in the states we actually have a large medical tourism industry. seniors who can afford it go out of the country to have routine procedures done.

actually that practice (of leaving ones country to get better medicine) doesn't really bother me. 42000 Canadians out of what 30 million is less than 1%. (guesstimation)

my worries are more for the average family like the ones here who just want your every day availability without going broke.

 

[TmrwSpdwy]

You are right that our 5% tax includes some for our healthcare system, but all in call what you pay is based on what your income is. Even if you are in the poor house, you still will receive the same level of health care as someone who makes 6 figures. Per month the amount of money is very minimal.

I'm not so sure, considering the people with that kind of money in Canada are heading to the US for their procedures so they don't have to get in line.

 

[havaneselover]

Not very surprising. The wealthy here get way better insurance than the general masses. I think that's a problem anywhere. Now it's simply switched. those who can afford premiums that have low deductibles will have first access (simply from the fact that they will go to the doctor) those who have very large out of pocket limits to hit will not. here in the states we actually have a large medical tourism industry. seniors who can afford it go out of the country to have routine procedures done. actually that practice (of leaving ones country to get better medicine) doesn't really bother me. 42000 Canadians out of what 30 million is less than 1%. (guesstimation) my worries are more for the average family like the ones here who just want your every day availability without going broke.

Actually I think government employees and union members are the ones with the best insurance.

 

[eliza61]

We already had that -my daughter works in the ER at a huge hospital and said they are required to treat the uninsured for whatever they come in for with no co-pays and no deductible. So hundreds every week come in for sore throats, ear infections, coughs etc - free meds and free treatment.



And we ain't seen nothing yet! My vibrant healthy mom (age 69) just had knee replacement and her surgeon told her it's good she had it done this year because next year the government panels start that tell doctors who can have what done. He said at her age, she probably would be denied because she's retired and would use her Medicare insurance. Scary stuff!

No we didn't have that. who do you think pays for them coming into the er? We pretended like the rest of us were "left alone". Hospitals (at least in NJ) do not run in the red. So those free meds were paid for by some one. So the statement "leave the rest of us alone" is a nice little illusion that we tell ourselves.


so for example in Camden NJ the large hospital is Cooper. (this is a watered down explanantion) Cooper handles all those indigent patients that have no coverage and considering 78% of the city is on some type of assistance and 40% live below poverty, that can be a lot of people. At the end of the fiscal year, Cooper hospital submits a big fat bill to the Gov saying "here's what it cost us to cover all those people". The state of nj then funds cooper hospital for most of it. That money comes from the tax payers in a variety of ways.
1) when you register you car in NJ you're hit with a tax
2) when you get your automobile insurance there is a surcharge
3) if you work in nj you get levied a surcharge to cover it.

So it's not really "leaving everyone else alone".


So once again, my argument is stop focusing on "who's paying what" start focusing on why it's costing 2000 bucks to give some one cough medicine but that's not going to happen because it will require some very unpopular decisions.

1) what type of end of life care do we give (when care is most expensive)
2) do we hold life style choices accountable. (if you are a smoker can I charge you more, what about if your kid is obese?)
3) what's the baseline standard of care that we decide everyone should have.
4) do we need the latest and greatest. My neck of the woods every hospital is in "competition". there are always commercials touting the latest technology. well who's paying for that hospital to have that state of the art imaging machine? Is it serving everyone or just 1% of the patients who have this disease?

just as some examples. I don't have the answers, these are just osme of the things I ponder. Now love it or hate it, ACA is here for at least the next two years. even after Tuesday, no party will have a super majority which is what it will take to over turn it and I have zippo confidence that any thing will get done no matter what the out come So what do people do?

 

[havaneselover]

You are so right about that. The outsourced (to Canada) website cost well over what it would have cost to insure the uninsured. Then the cost to market and sell it to a public that the majority didn't want. It's been a nightmare from the start.

The government provides half the service at twice the cost. Think usps runs health care. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[j's m]

No we didn't have that. who do you think pays for them coming into the er? We pretended like the rest of us were "left alone". Hospitals (at least in NJ) do not run in the red. So those free meds were paid for by some one. So the statement "leave the rest of us alone" is a nice little illusion that we tell ourselves.


so for example in Camden NJ the large hospital is Cooper. (this is a watered down explanantion) Cooper handles all those indigent patients that have no coverage and considering 78% of the city is on some type of assistance and 40% live below poverty, that can be a lot of people. At the end of the fiscal year, Cooper hospital submits a big fat bill to the Gov saying "here's what it cost us to cover all those people". The state of nj then funds cooper hospital for most of it. That money comes from the tax payers in a variety of ways.
1) when you register you car in NJ you're hit with a tax
2) when you get your automobile insurance there is a surcharge
3) if you work in nj you get levied a surcharge to cover it.

So it's not really "leaving everyone else alone".

Another way that charity care was paid for in NJ was by raiding the state unemployment fund. About 4.7 BILLION was raided by both parties from 1993 to 2008.

Then the recession hit, people filed for unemployment and the fund was empty. So NJ borrowed from the federal government and surcharged the businesses to pay more into the fund, sent us separate bills for interest on the money borrowed from the government, and raised the amount charged to the businesses.

I feel like we are still paying for charity care based on high business unemployment taxes.

 

[ellochka]

The government provides half the service at twice the cost. Think usps runs health care. What could possibly go wrong?

Actually, it's not true, especially in healthcare. All the countries with socialized medicine pay less for better outcomes, and in the US Medicare is pretty efficient for what it pays. It does "buy" more than it needs to, but that's a different question (aka "positive wallet biopsy").

 

[Dakota731]

Actually I think government employees and union members are the ones with the best insurance.

And their unions pay plenty to certain candidates to get them elected and be assured that they don't have to switch to crappy coverage like the rest of us.

 

[TmrwSpdwy]

^ That's about to change.

 

[havaneselover]

Actually, it's not true, especially in healthcare. All the countries with socialized medicine pay less for better outcomes, and in the US Medicare is pretty efficient for what it pays. It does "buy" more than it needs to, but that's a different question (aka "positive wallet biopsy").

Saying all the countries with socialized medicine pay less for better outcomes is a little strong, don't you think? The us government did an amazing job with the VA. Can't wait until that's the system all but the privileged few have access to.

 

[ellochka]

Saying all the countries with socialized medicine pay less for better outcomes is a little strong, don't you think? The us government did an amazing job with the VA. Can't wait until that's the system all but the privileged few have access to.

It may be strong, but it's a fact. And you are right that VA is a good system. Government-run, but good.

 

[havaneselover]

It may be strong, but it's a fact. And you are right that VA is a good system. Government-run, but good.

Do you live under a rock? The VA is awful.

And no it's not a fact by any stretch of your very large imagination. US cancer survival rates are much higher than most countries (breast is 89% 5 year survival in us, 77% in England, 78% in Getmany; prostate is 99% in US, 70% in England, 82% in Germany; etc.)

 

[OceanAnnie]

It may be strong, but it's a fact. And you are right that VA is a good system. Government-run, but good.

The countries that have socialized medicine do not pay less for better outcomes. They just pay less. You are entitled to your opinion, but it isn't a fact. If you read news sources from those countries your opinion could change.

The VA reference was a joke. It was recently in the news as being a national disgrace for having months long wait lists. Our service people deserve better. Terrible.

 

[ellochka]

Do you live under a rock? The VA is awful.

And no it's not a fact by any stretch of your very large imagination. US cancer survival rates are much higher than most countries (breast is 89% 5 year survival in us, 77% in England, 78% in Getmany; prostate is 99% in US, 70% in England, 82% in Germany; etc.)

I work in analytics. If you want to show A is better than B even though it is quite evident that the opposite is true, you start going through every possible slice and measure (preferably the ones that are not compatible), and eventually, you will find something.

So, how come those great survival rates do not translate into longer life expectancy? Because somebody looked very-very hard to find things that look better.

 

[ellochka]

The countries that have socialized medicine do not pay less for better outcomes. They just pay less. You are entitled to your opinion, but it isn't a fact. If you read news sources from those countries your opinion could change.

The VA reference was a joke. It was recently in the news as being a national disgrace for having months long wait lists. Our service people deserve better. Terrible.

Life expectancy is the outcome. It's longer in countries with socialized medicine. It's a fact.

 

[okeydokey]

Actually, it's not true, especially in healthcare. All the countries with socialized medicine pay less for better outcomes, and in the US Medicare is pretty efficient for what it pays. It does "buy" more than it needs to, but that's a different question (aka "positive wallet biopsy").

Yes, a HUGE part of what we pay in insurance premiums is for profits for the Insurance companies. Eliminate the profit and you be paying only for the health care and admin and the cost goes down.

 

[ellochka]

Yes, a HUGE part of what we pay in insurance premiums is for profits for the Insurance companies. Eliminate the profit and you be paying only for the health care and admin and the cost goes down.

The insurance company profits add 3% to 5% to the total costs. I wish it was the final answer, but it's not.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Life expectancy is the outcome. It's longer in countries with socialized medicine. It's a fact.

That "outcome" is in the ballpark of 5 years difference. Most analysts give a +/- margin of that much.

 

[Dakota731]

actually that practice (of leaving ones country to get better medicine) doesn't really bother me. 42000 Canadians out of what 30 million is less than 1%

A lot more would come if they could afford it, but not many middle class people can afford to come to the US and pay for surgeries or cancer treatments in cash (which can run into the six figures or more).

The insurance company profits add 3% to 5% to the total costs

And haven't we learned by now that Washington bureaucrats would spend a lot more than that to run socialized medicine. Look how much Obama care costs to operate. Government NEVER runs anything cheaper than private industry.