Major Budget Buster - HEALTHCARE

[midwestdee]

If you look at a chart of health care costs, they have been on an uphill climb for years, which has nothing to do with the health care reform bill. Around 15 years ago we were paying $550 a month for family coverage, it was scheduled to jump to over $700 and I ended up taking a job (I had been a happy housewife) with an employer that had (relatively) affordable health care (I still consider my self a working happy housewife). Unfortunately, the biggest benefits of the reform will not take place until 2014. Many huge corporations are having a hissy fit right now, but they will get over it. McDonalds is griping about the cost - but you can bet it is FAR less than what they pay their top 25 employees (when you include bonuses & Salary). Medical expenses have been the top reason for bankruptcies (around 60 % I think) for years and that is ridiculous. The same arguments used against health care reform were used against Medicare (it was a 40 year battled for the Democrats to finally pass Medicare, for you historians out there), but we all seem to be surviving. As a matter of fact, these old coots seem to think it is a God given right. If we don't want all Americans to have a chance to obtain basic health care, we need to get rid of Medicare. We should have to foot the bill for granny ourselves.

 

[Colleen27]

That is a page of statstics...not of true human story examples. I want to see where "Jane Doe" presented to the clinic with a health need and the physician refused to treat her because she had no money or insurance. Are those stories out there? If so, it may change my mind a bit.....but I'm not seeing it.

They're out there, but they frequently don't make headlines. Just a few months ago in our town there was a benefit dinner for a family that couldn't afford the necessary up-front costs for the mother to have surgery and chemo for a breast cancer reoccurrence (theirs is actually a "happy side of health care reform" story too, because the reason they had to pay OOP was because she'd reached her lifetime limit with her first battle with cancer, so now that insurers can't impose lifetime limits they should be paying again).

A friend of the family is type one diabetic, diagnosed in his early 20s, and hasn't been able to get insurance at all. He has had no consistent medical care at all, just sporadic visits to free/sliding scale clinics when they don't conflict with his work schedules and ER visits when there's a major problem. Hopefully health care reform will help him too, by doing away with the exclusions on pre-existing conditions, but in the meantime his diabetes isn't well-controlled and is doing ongoing harm to his overall health.

 

[disneylover1959]

The only good thing I see with the new health care plan is that my 23 year old daughter in college will be carried on our insurance till she is 26.

 

[DisOrBust]

I aven't read the whole thread but feel I have to jump in here.

First as far as working at walmart. Their premiums are high and many workers can NOT afford the premium so are using medicaid and any state assistance available.

Georgia has "Peach Care" they studied the demographics of who was using it. 5% were children of walmart Employees. Another 4% were Walmart (adult) employees using Medicaid. So basically the state of Georgia and it's taxpayers are subsidizing Walmarts Halth insurance while they make Billions. Walmart should pay its share of the employees premium, its obsene.

It's only one example of hundreds.

Sure the Walmarts are fighting health care reform, they would have to pay their fair share.

 

[hambirg]

I remember more than 10 years ago being shocked how much our health care was going up...and it's been that way each year.

It would have gone up with our without the health care plan...but the plan is a nice scapegoat for some to direct their anger at.

Ok. . I haven't read all the posts. . .BUT really??? Let's see. . if they mandate that you MUST have something, and the people supplying it can now charge whatever the h*ll they want, because it has been mandated that you MUST have it or be fined. . .how does that make it a "nice scapegoat"? Maybe you need to revisit Econ 101. I've seen it with my own eyes in my state with mandatory car insurance. And I'm not saying that people shouldn't carry car insurance. . .just what happens when the government gets involved with their nice little mandates. What do you think would happen it the Feds decided that you were mandated to buy 8 gallons of milk every month. . .they are just doing it for your own good. Don't you think the price of milk would sky rocket. . .being as milk producers would know you don't have a choice and they could charge whatever the hell they want because you HAVE to buy it?! Uh. .. yeah!

Don't you wonder why the insurance lobby is massively huge? Add the pharmaceutical lobby in there too! Honestly, as crappy as the health care insurance industry has been about actually paying claims, I think that they realize that there is a good number of people that have figured out that they would be much better off just carrying cheap catastrophic coverage, banking their premiums and paying out of pocket for everything else. So what were they to do? Yep! Lobby their buddies on capital hill to make their product mandatory. . .and then sell that idea to the sheeple! It's disgusting. . .and even more so that they have actually convinced some people that it's in their best interest.

 

[hambirg]

If you look at a chart of health care costs, they have been on an uphill climb for years, which has nothing to do with the health care reform bill. Around 15 years ago we were paying $550 a month for family coverage, it was scheduled to jump to over $700 and I ended up taking a job (I had been a happy housewife) with an employer that had (relatively) affordable health care (I still consider my self a working happy housewife). Unfortunately, the biggest benefits of the reform will not take place until 2014. Many huge corporations are having a hissy fit right now, but they will get over it. McDonalds is griping about the cost - but you can bet it is FAR less than what they pay their top 25 employees (when you include bonuses & Salary). Medical expenses have been the top reason for bankruptcies (around 60 % I think) for years and that is ridiculous. The same arguments used against health care reform were used against Medicare (it was a 40 year battled for the Democrats to finally pass Medicare, for you historians out there), but we all seem to be surviving. As a matter of fact, these old coots seem to think it is a God given right. If we don't want all Americans to have a chance to obtain basic health care, we need to get rid of Medicare. We should have to foot the bill for granny ourselves.

Medicare is a federally run program. . . that is something VERY different than requiring people to BUY something from a private, FOR PROFIT industry. If we want a federal health care program than bring it on! My ex is German. . .that's what they have. .. it's expensive, but it works. HOWEVER, that's NOT what we're talking about here at all!

 

[Tink-aholic]

I have not read the Healtcare Reform Act (along with most other politicians), but I do remember hearing that the "fine" imposed for not having insurance will be very low...less than $250 per year, I think. It was based on the model in Massachusetts (where I work), where the fine is $1000 per year. To me, the national fine wouldn't be enough of an incentive to get people to purchase health insurance.

I started a thread here a few months ago. A woman on the thread openly admitted that if she paid for her own health insurance (whole family was on Medicaid), then there was no way that she could pay for her Disney cruise. She felt completely justified, too.

Now, if this woman was only allowed Medicaid for a brief period of time and fined increasing amounts each year, maybe she would have enough "incentive" to seek out her own plan.

 

[Colleen27]

Ok. . I haven't read all the posts. . .BUT really??? Let's see. . if they mandate that you MUST have something, and the people supplying it can now charge whatever the h*ll they want, because it has been mandated that you MUST have it or be fined. . .how does that make it a "nice scapegoat"? Maybe you need to revisit Econ 101. I've seen it with my own eyes in my state with mandatory car insurance. And I'm not saying that people shouldn't carry car insurance. . .just what happens when the government gets involved with their nice little mandates. What do you think would happen it the Feds decided that you were mandated to buy 8 gallons of milk every month. . .they are just doing it for your own good. Don't you think the price of milk would sky rocket. . .being as milk producers would know you don't have a choice and they could charge whatever the hell they want because you HAVE to buy it?! Uh. .. yeah!

I agree and disagree; I do think the reform bill was a massive giveaway to the insurance lobby, and in fact that was a pretty widely acknowledged fact with one article I read about the mandate saying something along the lines of "The insurance lobby agreed (to new rules about pre-existing conditions and preventive care) because the bill also includes a mandate that will expand their customer base". Why should the industry the govt is trying to regulate have to AGREE to the regulations?

But there are some cost controls built into the reform bill in terms of the rules about what percentage of revenues have to be spent on patient care. Weak and not nearly enough to have a meaningful effect on overall healthcare spending, but at least it is something to prevent companies from doing exactly what you describe.

 

[Colleen27]

I have not read the Healtcare Reform Act (along with most other politicians), but I do remember hearing that the "fine" imposed for not having insurance will be very low...less than $250 per year, I think. It was based on the model in Massachusetts (where I work), where the fine is $1000 per year. To me, the national fine wouldn't be enough of an incentive to get people to purchase health insurance.

I started a thread here a few months ago. A woman on the thread openly admitted that if she paid for her own health insurance (whole family was on Medicaid), then there was no way that she could pay for her Disney cruise. She felt completely justified, too.

Now, if this woman was only allowed Medicaid for a brief period of time and fined increasing amounts each year, maybe she would have enough "incentive" to seek out her own plan.

I'd be interested in knowing what state she was in. In our state, the annual income limit for adults to be covered by medicaid is so low that there's no way for that to happen. The official cutoff is 35% of the poverty level, or about 7K for a family of four. A Disney cruise for a family of four can easily cost more than that!

Even the programs for low-income working families (which provide kids-only coverage) cut off at 200% poverty level/$44K for a family of four. The average family policy costs more than 12K now, or you can go the high deductible route, which costs us 6K with another 5K out of pocket before it pays out a dime. Either way, I can't see punitive fines for people who can't spend 25+% of their income on health care, and I absolutely can't understand why it would be desirable (to anyone except the insurance companies) to force them to buy insurance that they probably can't afford to use.

 

[DisneyMomJen]

Ok. . I haven't read all the posts. . .BUT really??? Let's see. . if they mandate that you MUST have something, and the people supplying it can now charge whatever the h*ll they want, because it has been mandated that you MUST have it or be fined. . .how does that make it a "nice scapegoat"? Maybe you need to revisit Econ 101. I've seen it with my own eyes in my state with mandatory car insurance. And I'm not saying that people shouldn't carry car insurance. . .just what happens when the government gets involved with their nice little mandates. What do you think would happen it the Feds decided that you were mandated to buy 8 gallons of milk every month. . .they are just doing it for your own good. Don't you think the price of milk would sky rocket. . .being as milk producers would know you don't have a choice and they could charge whatever the hell they want because you HAVE to buy it?! Uh. .. yeah!

Don't you wonder why the insurance lobby is massively huge? Add the pharmaceutical lobby in there too! Honestly, as crappy as the health care insurance industry has been about actually paying claims, I think that they realize that there is a good number of people that have figured out that they would be much better off just carrying cheap catastrophic coverage, banking their premiums and paying out of pocket for everything else. So what were they to do? Yep! Lobby their buddies on capital hill to make their product mandatory. . .and then sell that idea to the sheeple! It's disgusting. . .and even more so that they have actually convinced some people that it's in their best interest.

Well put and Thank You!!! Maybe we do need a Econ 101 class added here!

 

[jodifla]

Ok. . I haven't read all the posts. . .BUT really??? Let's see. . if they mandate that you MUST have something, and the people supplying it can now charge whatever the h*ll they want, because it has been mandated that you MUST have it or be fined. . .how does that make it a "nice scapegoat"? Maybe you need to revisit Econ 101. I've seen it with my own eyes in my state with mandatory car insurance. And I'm not saying that people shouldn't carry car insurance. . .just what happens when the government gets involved with their nice little mandates. What do you think would happen it the Feds decided that you were mandated to buy 8 gallons of milk every month. . .they are just doing it for your own good. Don't you think the price of milk would sky rocket. . .being as milk producers would know you don't have a choice and they could charge whatever the hell they want because you HAVE to buy it?! Uh. .. yeah!

Don't you wonder why the insurance lobby is massively huge? Add the pharmaceutical lobby in there too! Honestly, as crappy as the health care insurance industry has been about actually paying claims, I think that they realize that there is a good number of people that have figured out that they would be much better off just carrying cheap catastrophic coverage, banking their premiums and paying out of pocket for everything else. So what were they to do? Yep! Lobby their buddies on capital hill to make their product mandatory. . .and then sell that idea to the sheeple! It's disgusting. . .and even more so that they have actually convinced some people that it's in their best interest.

I'm with you, I'd prefer a federally run plan. But since that wasn't going to happen, I'm very happy they've got a plan to stop letting insurance companies drop you when you are sick, deny you if you or your children have pre-existing conditions, and taken off the lifetime cap.

Ideally, when companies are competing for customers, the increased competition means prices go down....at least that's what I learned in MY econ 101. But I agree that it might not play out that way in health care. But again health care rates have climbed exponentially the past few years, well before somebody stepped in and tried to do something about it.

What I see is 50 million more people getting health care who had no access to it before.

 

[DisneyMomJen]

I'd be interested in knowing what state she was in. In our state, the annual income limit for adults to be covered by medicaid is so low that there's no way for that to happen. The official cutoff is 35% of the poverty level, or about 7K for a family of four. A Disney cruise for a family of four can easily cost more than that!

This can be a topic for a whole other thread - how people abuse the system and the rest of the taxpayers pay for them. Its sad, but I know a few families who have their own businesses, do not pay taxes (or very little) and even get money back from the government. They make a pretty good living and would be able to afford a Disney Cruise for their family. Especially getting back money that they did not have to pay in for taxes or insurance that they did not have to pay out of pocket.

 

[karice2]

I have seen a couple a posts about people getting jobs at Wal-mart. Wal-mart can't hire the 10% of the population that is unemployed.

I want to start a company and hire people to work for me. I don't want to hire people and not offer health insurance because my morals just won't allow me to do it but I can't offer a reasonable cost insurance because of the high prices that insurance companies want to charge for small business insurance.

Oh well, I will continue to work for my company and get my insurance and do my business part time and not hire anyone. A double whammy to the economy since small business is what hires the most amount of people in the US not Wal-mart.

Wal-mart is the work of the devil. Just my opinion.

 

[gonzo76]

Well said! It's also funny that no one but no one knows or has even read what's in this so called Health Care Reform ticket/document. This whole thing makes me so mad. Health care isn't a right. If people don't have health insurance then maybe they should work at Walmart where they have to give their employees health care. I'm so sick of paying for everyone else's "healthcare, food, shelter, medicare, cell phones (yes you heard me right), utilities. Everyone needs to take responsibility for themselves period.

I have only read up until this point so excuse me if this has already been said.

I find it ironic that you would tell people to get a job at Walmart. It is known that many employees that work at Walmart are on public assistance. I don't think Walmart was the best example.

 

[ccgirl]

They're out there, but they frequently don't make headlines. Just a few months ago in our town there was a benefit dinner for a family that couldn't afford the necessary up-front costs for the mother to have surgery and chemo for a breast cancer reoccurrence (theirs is actually a "happy side of health care reform" story too, because the reason they had to pay OOP was because she'd reached her lifetime limit with her first battle with cancer, so now that insurers can't impose lifetime limits they should be paying again).

A friend of the family is type one diabetic, diagnosed in his early 20s, and hasn't been able to get insurance at all. He has had no consistent medical care at all, just sporadic visits to free/sliding scale clinics when they don't conflict with his work schedules and ER visits when there's a major problem. Hopefully health care reform will help him too, by doing away with the exclusions on pre-existing conditions, but in the meantime his diabetes isn't well-controlled and is doing ongoing harm to his overall health.

It sounds like these people couldn't get insurance not that they couldn't be treated. Public, non profit hospitals have to treat you regardless of your propensity to pay.

As far as having to have health insurance. I am all for it. I am a MA resident, and we are required to have health insurance. I am happy about that. Our hospitals were going broke, due in large part to the people that would go in without health insurance to be treated. I had a friend, with a very good job, who didn't want to "waste" her pay on healthcare insurance. She used to take her children to the ER with every earache or runny nose. Since she didn't have insurance, got paid under the table, she didn't end up paying the bill. I also know of friends/family that do not make a great salary so are on one of the MA sponsored health plans. They are actually very good.

We are also required to have car insurance. I just look at insurance as a necessity not a nicety. If I couldn't afford health insurance for my family, I certainly wouldn't be taking vacations.

Just my two cents.

 

[Planogirl]

Many small businesses can't afford healthcare and what about the self-employed? I admit that I haven't researched how these individuals would be affected. Many people are just barely getting by so how much added expense are we talking about?

 

[brunette8706]

Please note the bolded - you look foolish by arguing the facts, that per capital the US ranks 19th in giving!

*
I'm not arguing FACTS. I'm arguing that she had to make light of what I said that the USA as a WHOLE gave more than 28 million to chartible organizations. I really don't care how YOU slice and dice data by stating well as a whole the USA is number 19 because of it's size and population. Really. Who CARES? Why make light of the fact that indeed the USA gave well more than any other country. I have never in my life seen so many anti American people on this board. The Big Ole United States is such a BULLY! UGH.

Further, I want to know who these 50 million people are. And....I want to know what is in this health care document, you know the one that passed legislation and know one read it. As I said before something is extremely fishy.

 

[Planogirl]

*
I'm not arguing FACTS. I'm arguing that she had to make light of what I said that the USA as a WHOLE gave more than 28 million to chartible organizations. I really don't care how YOU slice and dice data by stating well as a whole the USA is number 19 because of it's size and population. Really. Who CARES? Why make light of the fact that indeed the USA gave well more than any other country. I have never in my life seen so many anti American people on this board. The Big Ole United States is such a BULLY! UGH.

Further, I want to know who these 50 million people are. And....I want to know what is in this health care document, you know the one that pass legislation and know one read it. As I said something is extremely fishy.

I'm hardly anti-USA and don't see how much a nation gives or doesn't give is relevant to the problem anyway. The issue is too many people without health insurance costing the system a lot of money if I'm not mistaken. How can that be resolved? One company can't hire everyone and even if they did they don't offer health insurance for a long period of time from what I hear. Most companies won't offer health insurance to part-timers who work under a certain number of hours either and retail loves part-time workers.

 

[barbarabini]

Another poster asked if we would be ok, if the gov't took another 500 per month so everyone could have healthcare.

I know many people disagree with it but I think I can live with that. What I can't stomach is the thought that an organization like Remote Area Medical has to operate in the USA and that they get lines that are days long.

(btw ... there are not all illegals on these lines...alot are white, unemployed, underemployed, low income people).

 

[Planogirl]

Another poster asked if we would be ok, if the gov't took another 500 per month so everyone could have healthcare.

I know many people disagree with it but I think I can live with that. What I can't stomach is the thought that an organization like Remote Area Medical has to operate in the USA and that they get lines that are days long.

(btw ... there are not all illegals on these lines...alot are white, unemployed, underemployed, low income people).

A lot of people couldn't afford that. It's hard enough to pay for what we have now IMO.