Going to the poor house:2015 Inusrance premiums

[ellochka]

Wow. Cherry picking? Distorting numbers? Lying with numbers?

Really?

I know you want to sell this stuff super bad. You can hang your hat on a chart with a 5 year spread and try to make it actually say something. Go for it. Those are interesting descriptors you chose given the example you gave.

We aren't going to agree. Period. Not going to happen.

Best to leave it at that.

Oh, yeah, that's puny 5 years of life on average... Of course, that's so little! That's like every other person would live 10 years longer. That's like adding 10 years of life to one of your parents. 10 whole years. That's a big fat chunk of nothing. Obviously. In fact, 2 years on average would be more like 10 years to a life of every 5th person, which would be an equivalent of a major medical breakthrough. But why would we pursue something that pedestrian. Right. We'd better disagree and try to twist the numbers.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Oh, yeah, that's puny 5 years of life on average... Of course, that's so little! That's like every other person would live 10 years longer. That's like adding 10 years of life to one of your parents. 10 whole years. That's a big fat chunk of nothing. Obviously. In fact, 2 years on average would be more like 10 years to a life of every 5th person, which would be an equivalent of a major medical breakthrough. But why would we pursue something that pedestrian. Right. We'd better disagree and try to twist the numbers.

What were you saying about distorting numbers?

 

[ellochka]

What were you saying about distorting numbers?

Oops, sorry, I did not realize arithmetic is not your strong point. But it is true, if you increase the life of 50% of the population by 10 years, on average, the population life expectancy will rise by 5 years. That's because life expectancy never rises like the tide, you know. You generally increase lives of some people (with certain diseases) more than others. Then again, why would I bother you with sensible analysis...

 

[OceanAnnie]

Oops, sorry, I did not realize arithmetic is not your strong point. But it is true, if you increase the life of 50% of the population by 10 years, on average, the population life expectancy will rise by 5 years. That's because life expectancy never rises like the tide, you know. You generally increase lives of some people (with certain diseases) more than others. Then again, why would I bother you with sensible analysis...

What is the relevance? You want to talk about increasing the life of 50% of the population by 10 years? (By the way, that looks a lot like twisting.) "You generally increase lives of some people.. more than others.". What?

So how about you apply your "sensible analysis" across the board to your population chart, you know so you won't be "cherry picking".

Then what do you have?

Good luck with that.

 

[Gracie09]

I found out when dh had cancer just how much help is out there for medical bills. Most hospitals have some kind of "Charity Care" program if you are struggling to pay the bills. They have very high income limits to qualify too. Ours is into the six figures for a family of three to get a percentage paid after all insurances have paid. Right now, dh, dd and I get 80% . It brings down co pays to $5 for primary care, $10 for specialists. Our latest surgeries and scans cost very little. If you can get past the name of it- and requesting an application for it- it's well worth looking into. His entire bill for chemo and a stem cell transplant was over a million dollars. The insurance company settled and paid out less than half that and the hospital ended up paying most of our share. Since dh is over five years in remission, I can say from experience, I believe we do have the best medical care in the world. Having said that, our health insurance premium doubled for 2015. Everyones has. Yikes! We decided since we do have that Charity Care, to just go with the cheapest plan we can find. Then cross our fingers we stay healthy.

I'm glad your husband got the treatment he needs but this is part of the problem. The hospital passes the cost of the charity to the other patients through higher rates which then the instance companies then pass along to the consumers through higher premiums. So the hospital isn't just being nice by saying don't worry about your bill. It's making a business decision that there is no way you will pay the bill but if they spread their cost among all the patients it will recover it's costs. And then you compounded the problem by knowingly remaining underinsured and betting that the charity care will be there to bail you out.
Everyone wants to know why health insurance has gone up so much look at stuff like this and malpractice insurance rates. My fabulous ob/gyn who literally saved my and my daughters life closed up shop a couple years ago because his malpractice insurance rates were so high he couldn't make a living. He had a thriving practice and no malpractice claims against him but it didn't matter. Americans are sue happy. I had family ask if I was going to sue him because my dd has a neuro issue (I'm not he had nothing to do with it, it just happens sometimes). This mentality is why doctors order tons of tests even when they know the cause of the problem or want a more aggressive treatment plan instead of wait and see because they don't want to get sued.

 

[jrmasm]

And next year they get to pay taxes on those plans.

Do you have a source? Everything I'm finding on the IRS website says benefits will be reported on W2s for informational purposes only and are not taxable.


http://www.irs.gov/uac/Employer-Pro...Reporting-Requirements:-Questions-and-Answers

 

[eliza61]

---------------------------------------

Here's the thing. You and others are still selling socialized medicine. The majority didn't and don't want it! After pushing the ACA through (how many times?) and robbing Peter to pay Paul, the majority still don't want it!

I don't think anyone would argue we needed reform. But the ACA wasn't it.

It hurt more people than it helped. Everyone knows it's going to get worse.

All the goings on about how great socialized medicine is isn't going to change anyone's minds after the damage that was done. The ACA stinks. It's not affordable.

I mean, come on.

I'm not selling socialized medicine but you and the others want to go back to the "glory" days. which really were not so glorious. As I said, all it means was that you were not effected.
The pre-aca system was chewing up more and more of the nations GDP. so please stop advocating that this is all so sudden and new.



I totally agree the aca stinks but the old system stunk worse and wasn't affordable either. We love the image of Dr. Welby and the myth of walking into a hospital and getting great care. Like Dr. Welby that only happened on TV.

The difference is the old system overwhelmingly hurt poor people and poor people in this country are disposable so no one had a problem with it. when people were literally dying due to lack of medical care (and please let's not pretend everyone gets good medical care) it was never a problem, no outcry, no talk of changing anything. zippo.


LOl, it's called chickens coming home to roost.

I'm in the minority that does hope it gets worse simply because until EVERYONE starts feeling the pain will some change happens.

Americans simply do not do the right thing until no other option is left. We've seen it time and time again the last few decades. Only when our pocketbooks are hit do people start to care.

Personally I laugh when people start screaming "socialized" medicine. What did you think happen prior to the ACA.
ln a nutshell the cost of indigent care was past onto you. PERIOD, end of story. you and I (general consumers) pay each and every time.

As Gracie09 pointed out hospitals, doctors, medical establishment, pharmaceutical company do not give any thing away. they either fund raise for the cost (e.g. St. Jude) or they pass the cost onto the consumers.

So exactly what do you call that?

Ok, I've think I've beaten a dead horse. I do wish all struggling with this issue best of luck. I don't have any answers, it's a huge problem. all I can pray for is some one or a group of some ones will have the courage to fix the real problem and not just say "let me make my situation better".

 

[morgan98]

Medical insurance is not cheap. However, for the amount of money we pay, we expect the best care at the exact time we need it. We want drug companies to develop better drugs and we want our doctors and hospitals to have the best diagnostic equipment. We want to see specialists when we need them. Then we are surprised that a doctors visit costs more than $25. Yet, we really have no problem paying $120 a month for our cell phone bill our another $125 a month for cable.

I think the other thing that is lost in this argument is that some of the prices being quoted are for families. In general, employer plans subsidize the employee's portion but not the rest of the family. My employer plan costs me (I am the only family member on my plan, my husband is on his own employer's plan) $110 a month for really pretty excellent coverage. However, my employer is paying 80% of my premium and I am paying 20%. It would stand to reason that if I had a family with a spouse and 2-3 children on my plan, it would cost $1,000. Yes, it is a lot of money, but it is a necessary expense per person such as food and utilities.

 

[Dakota731]

Oh, gee, their care is so awful, they must me dying by the time they are 60! Oh, wait, they are not! They live longer than Americans!

For the second time, this has NOTHING TO DO WITH SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. If you take out homicide and auto deaths, the US is first in life expectancy. And I can't think how OBAMACARE has solved those two issues.

Then we are surprised that a doctors visit costs more than $25. Yet, we really have no problem paying $120 a month for our cell phone bill our another $125 a month for cable.

Finally some common sense on this thread! The sad thing is that we have been promised so much free stuff by certain politicians that we don't want to pay for anything any more. Where are your priorities? To me having the best medical care in the world is worth far more than an Ipad or an Iphone.

 

[Dakota731]

This is what you want?
The Health Council of Canada recently surveyed over three thousand patients and found that those with chronic illnesses like high blood pressure or heart disease were largely dissatisfied with the medical care they received. Less than half of respondents with such conditions reported that the care they received was excellent or very good.

But aren’t they getting it for free? Shouldn’t they be grateful?

Not really. Despite the massive taxes Canadians remit to finance universal care, they still must pay out of pocket for some services. Nearly a quarter of chronically ill respondents said that they had skipped their medications or neglected to fill a prescription because it was too expensive.

The United Kingdom is the latest to tighten its belt. The National Health Service (NHS) — the centralized public agency that runs Britain’s government healthcare system — is being forced to shave $31 billion from its budget by 2015.

These cuts are leading to a precipitous drop in the quality of care patients receive. The NHS has been living well beyond its means for quite awhile. And now brutal government-enforced cost controls are exacting a heavy human toll.

In order to realize some savings, the NHS is raising the threshold at which patients qualify for treatment and lengthening wait times for surgeries determined “non-lifesaving.” The Service is also cutting more than 20,000 NHS jobs over the next two years and closing a number of hospitals.

Patients are feeling the pain. For decades, they’ve turned over substantial portions of their hard-earned paychecks as taxes — and accepted “free”
health care from the government in return.

They’ve foregone cutting-edge medical treatments available in the United States, told by their leaders that these new therapies were no better than the old ones — just more expensive. At least in Britain, they thought, everyone has access to basic health care. That has to be better than the situation in America, where tens of millions of people lack health insurance, right?

Hardly. The British healthcare system may “guarantee” access to care — but that doesn’t mean patients actually receive it.

 

[OceanAnnie]

1. I'm not selling socialized medicine but you and the others want to go back to the "glory" days. which really were not so glorious. As I said, all it means was that you were not effected.
2. The pre-aca system was chewing up more and more of the nations GDP. so please stop advocating that this is all so sudden and new.



3. I totally agree the aca stinks but the old system stunk worse and wasn't affordable either. We love the image of Dr. Welby and the myth of walking into a hospital and getting great care. Like Dr. Welby that only happened on TV.

4. The difference is the old system overwhelmingly hurt poor people and poor people in this country are disposable so no one had a problem with it. when people were literally dying due to lack of medical care (and please let's not pretend everyone gets good medical care) it was never a problem, no outcry, no talk of changing anything. zippo.


5. LOl, it's called chickens coming home to roost.

6. I'm in the minority that does hope it gets worse simply because until EVERYONE starts feeling the pain will some change happens.

7. Americans simply do not do the right thing until no other option is left. We've seen it time and time again the last few decades. Only when our pocketbooks are hit do people start to care.

8. Personally I laugh when people start screaming "socialized" medicine. What did you think happen prior to the ACA.
9. ln a nutshell the cost of indigent care was past onto you. PERIOD, end of story. you and I (general consumers) pay each and every time.

As Gracie09 pointed out hospitals, doctors, medical establishment, pharmaceutical company do not give any thing away. they either fund raise for the cost (e.g. St. Jude) or they pass the cost onto the consumers.

10. So exactly what do you call that?

11. Ok, I've think I've beaten a dead horse. 12. I do wish all struggling with this issue best of luck. 13. I don't have any answers, it's a huge problem. all I can pray for is some one or a group of some ones will have the courage to fix the real problem and not just say "let me make my situation better".

1. I was speaking to those that specifically were pro social medicine. And I certainly don't want to go back to the same problems. "Glory days?". We were paying a lot. Now it's a lot more. Hardly glory days.

2. No one is advocating that the problem is all of a sudden or new. Now it's just worse.

3. Half way agree. The ACA stinks. The old system wasn't worse it could've been reformed.

4. Medicare. Medicaid. Charity hospitals. There were safety nets. Could they have been reformed? Yes. Who said it was never a problem? No outcry? No talk of changing anything? It's been a problem. It's been talked about. But doing the wrong thing for the sake of doing something doesn't make it "right". So now that the new system hurts the middle class, it's somehow fitting? That's what it sounds like.

5. You didn't say that, did you? That was one controversial statement and still is, it's packed with "that's what you get".

6. You hope it gets worse and everyone feels the pain for some change to happen? The change has already happened. You already got what you hoped for and there is more to come. That's a heck of a thing to wish for.

7. I don't believe that. There have been plans for change but they were all shot down. Partisan. But that's another topic altogether.

8. I laugh too. For different reasons I'm sure.

9. No kidding. Now it's on hyper-drive.

10. Free market system. Does it need reforming? Yes. I don't think anyone would argue with that.

11. Me too.

12. Thanks.

13. I never said I only want my situation better. I said there has to be a better way. I am hoping for positive change for all of us.

 

[MichiganKris]

Someone a page or so ago wanted proof that insurance premiums paid by your employer would be taxed. Here is a link to that information on United Health Care's website. It's a pretty substantial amount also, 40% beginning in 2018.

http://www.uhc.com/united_for_refor...ovisions/excise_tax_on_high_cost_coverage.htm

 

[morgan98]

Someone a page or so ago wanted proof that insurance premiums paid by your employer would be taxed. Here is a link to that information on United Health Care's website. It's a pretty substantial amount also, 40% beginning in 2018.

http://www.uhc.com/united_for_refor...ovisions/excise_tax_on_high_cost_coverage.htm

Please note that this tax is for what is considered a "Cadillac Plan." I was on one of these until last year, when my employer basically lowered the coverage on the best plan they offered so it would comply with this law. Note that my current coverage is still what I would consider excellent coverage, although it is not as good as the former plan was.

A majority of employer provided plans are not "Cadillac Plans."

 

[jrmasm]

Someone a page or so ago wanted proof that insurance premiums paid by your employer would be taxed. Here is a link to that information on United Health Care's website. It's a pretty substantial amount also, 40% beginning in 2018.

http://www.uhc.com/united_for_refor...ovisions/excise_tax_on_high_cost_coverage.htm

Thanks. The PP said people would start paying next year.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Thanks. The PP said people would start paying next year.

It's hard to keep up with all the delays. You know why there were delays.

 

[jrmasm]

Please note that this tax is for what is considered a "Cadillac Plan." I was on one of these until last year, when my employer basically lowered the coverage on the best plan they offered so it would comply with this law. Note that my current coverage is still what I would consider excellent coverage, although it is not as good as the former plan was.

A majority of employer provided plans are not "Cadillac Plans."

Just scanned an article that says just that. Employers with these plans will be looking for a way around the tax.

A lot can change between now and 2018.

 

[jrmasm]

It's hard to keep up with all the delays. You know why there were delays.

Seems to me that if you're going to be gleeful about a negative affect on another group, you should at least have your information right.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Seems to me that if you're going to be gleeful about a negative affect on another group, you should at least have your information right.

I'm not gleeful. Not in the least. I'm part of that group.

There have been delays. It is hard to keep up. Nothing wrong in stating that.

 

[jrmasm]

I'm not gleeful. Not in the least. I'm part of that group. There have been delays. It is hard to keep up. Nothing wrong in stating that.

I wasn't talking about you.

 

[OceanAnnie]

I wasn't talking about you.

I'm not gleeful about any of this mess for anyone.

ETA: If you mean something like chickens coming home to roost, no I'm not gleeful about that either. I wish it never would have happened. But that ship has long sailed.