non political - anyone else screwed by healthcare marketplace?

Datsun1500 wrote: All I hear in this thread is how important it is to have. If it's so important, then sacrifice something to pay for it. Is it more important than a car? Car insurance? Vacations? Etc. People find a way to afford those things, they can find a way to afford insurance. Do I want to pay $14,000 in insurance premiums every year, not really, but I'm not willing to risk not having it. If everyone was buying it at an early age instead of depending on someone else to handle it, premiums would be much, much, cheaper. As pointed out a few times here, a lot of the cost is to make up for the people that are not paying.

if mine had been that high I'd probably have had to say "no thanks" … more than half my gross salary … it would have made me choose between food, housing, utilities … and ins … I'd have taken my chances

it is really inconceivable to me to have to pay that much for ins … wow

Just as an FYI: I pay approximately $465 a month for my part of the health insurance premium. My company pays the rest as part of my benefits package and yes the total for both of us is real close to $14k a year. COBRA for me would mean that I pay both my part and what the company was paying so yes my cost would jump astronomically. I haven't priced the exchanges in my area but if it was, say, $2000 a month for both of us then it would be right in the ballpark of COBRA.

In reply to wbjones:

If I wanted to keep the same plan I had previous to the ACA it would have been well over half of my income. I made a thread about it a long time ago. Most didn't believe me, others said I wasn't paying enough to begin with. As it is we're paying roughly 60% more in premiums and 50% more in deductibles for a plan that pays way less.

In reply to mazdeuce:

I guess part of my problem when it comes to this sort of thing is I can be one very cold motherberker if pushed. If it takes a lot of people dieing before society as a whole learns, so be it. I fear that is what it's going to take in order for things to change.

This is such an easy problem to fix..

First.. Ban employers from providing health insurance.. Or something like that. This means people are shopping for their own, and insurance companies would then HAVE to provide products to cater to this very different market dynamic.

Then the wider range of target markets and products available would cause insurance companies to lean on providers to tailor their services to the market.

Right now there is little incentive for Health Care providers to provide a lower cost service. All we have to do is allow these conditions to exist.

The employer thing is a major red herring that has little to no bearing on this or anyone else's costs, I promise you.

Barking up the wrong tree. Insurance can lean on the providers charging thousands of dollars all they want. Lean hard enough, no contract agreement, and then you can get berkeleyed even harder when you go see them.

Insurance is reacting, not driving the bulk of the costs.

Why does everyone insist on following the lead of ACA and raging blindly against what they were told to rage against? This was billed as "health care reform," which IS what we need.

We didn't get that. We got health insurance regulations/mandates. Nothing in the health care industry was reformed.

The extremely small profit margin that health insurance represents shouldn't be the focus. Eventually? Sure. Now? We all have much bigger fish to fry.

ronholm wrote: ...Right now there is little incentive for Health Care providers to provide a lower cost service. All we have to do is allow these conditions to exist.

This seems to imply companies are not terribly concerned with the cost of the plans. The constant switching of plans by many companies in an attempt to save money indicates otherwise.

In reply to aircooled:

Exactly.

Companies/group insurance are very concerned with cost.

Why? Because the large majority of those plans are ASO. It has absolutely no bearing on individual plan cost.

ronholm wrote: Right now there is little incentive for Health Care providers to provide a lower cost service. All we have to do is allow these conditions to exist.

you know.. If I could use Yelp or something similar to get reviews of a hospital and know their service pricing up front, I would make decisions about where to receive care based on that cost.

There is a growing, but small, list of hospitals and doctors who list prices...... Now that's interesting.

So actually the ACA now provides me with a business idea. Start a bunch of clinics that advertise prices up front (with an hourly rate after for complex wacky stuff).

Ear Infection $16.99 Broken Toe (Non Compound Fracture ) $28

Etc...

I will say, it does pain me to hear people say they can't afford medical care. I don't know what to do about it.. but It does not sit well with me.

I'm rambling.

The PBS story lays it out pretty clear.

You guys could adopt virtually any other type of system in the world and instantly save 50% of your overall healthcare costs. In the USA's case, its simply a matter of "I ain't payin' fer THEM" holding you back. THe only thing that the current system does is make US healthcare providers (and only those higher up) ridiculously, insanity defying wealthy. There are systems that you can copy pasta to your heart's content to save tons of money, they don't even have to be perfect to be better than your system (since its berkeleyed up enough already), they all are "essentially" better.

Never fear; Canada is here!

HiTempguy wrote: The PBS story lays it out pretty clear. You guys could adopt virtually any other type of system in the world and instantly save 50% of your overall healthcare costs. In the USA's case, its simply a matter of "I ain't payin' fer THEM" holding you back. THe only thing that the current system does is make US healthcare providers (and only those higher up) ridiculously, insanity defying wealthy. There are systems that you can copy pasta to your heart's content to save tons of money, they don't even have to be perfect to be better than your system (since its berkeleyed up enough already), they all are "essentially" better.

Glenn beck told me you were a communist.

Next thing you know you'll tell me an ar-15 converted into a pistol is a stupid idea.

HiTempguy wrote: ...THe only thing that the current system does is make US healthcare providers (and only those higher up) ridiculously, insanity defying wealthy...

One thing the documentary seemed to imply (the part about the Switzerland switch over) is that the high US drug prices are effectively subsidizing the low prices in other countries... how nice for them...

Yep, correct on the drug prices. Also because we're the only country that allows advertisements of drugs.

Swank Force One wrote: Yep, correct on the drug prices. Also because we're the only country that allows advertisements of drugs.

If you experience ...

Fueled by Caffeine wrote:

Swank Force One wrote: Yep, correct on the drug prices. Also because we're the only country that allows advertisements of drugs.

If you experience ...

The most hilarious is an antidepressant that has "sudden, uncontrollable muscle movements that may become permanent"

I just imagine a person whose limbs start flailing about wildly saying "Welp, I guess I'm gonna be like this forever now."

Curmudgeon wrote: Just as an FYI: I pay approximately $465 a month for my part of the health insurance premium. My company pays the rest as part of my benefits package and yes the total for both of us is real close to $14k a year. COBRA for me would mean that I pay both my part and what the company was paying so yes my cost would jump astronomically. I haven't priced the exchanges in my area but if it was, say, $2000 a month for both of us then it would be right in the ballpark of COBRA.

COBRA for me was less than $7000 per yr

Swank Force One wrote: The employer thing is a major red herring that has little to no bearing on this or anyone else's costs, I promise you. Barking up the wrong tree. Insurance can lean on the providers charging thousands of dollars all they want. Lean hard enough, no contract agreement, and then you can get berkeleyed even harder when you go see them. Insurance is reacting, not driving the bulk of the costs. Why does everyone insist on following the lead of ACA and raging blindly against what they were told to rage against? This was billed as "health care reform," which IS what we need. We didn't get that. We got health insurance regulations/mandates. Nothing in the health care industry was reformed. The extremely small profit margin that health insurance represents shouldn't be the focus. Eventually? Sure. Now? We all have much bigger fish to fry.

from what I know about business, if the profit margins are as low as you indicate, then I would assume that most com. would drop that line of coverage …. if it's not profitable, most com. (of any kind) won't bother with it

Swank Force One wrote: Insurance is reacting, not driving the bulk of the costs. Why does everyone insist on following the lead of ACA and raging blindly against what they were told to rage against? This was billed as "health care reform," which IS what we need. We didn't get that. We got health insurance regulations/mandates. Nothing in the health care industry was reformed. The extremely small profit margin that health insurance represents shouldn't be the focus. Eventually? Sure. Now? We all have much bigger fish to fry.

Because the insurance company makes a good boogieman. Nobody reads their policy and then they think they are entitled to everything under the sun when they've bought the cheapest coverage offered. It's the same as when someone smacks up their 20 year old Corolla and then complains because the cheapo company wants t throw some used or aftermarket parts at it and call it a day.

I have been lucky because we have some good plans at work. It's pretty much the only reason I stay there. When it came time to pick one they offered five different ones. Knowing my wife's medical history I read through them and picked the most expensive one. It hasn't covered everything but it has covered everything the policy promised.

wbjones wrote:

Swank Force One wrote: The employer thing is a major red herring that has little to no bearing on this or anyone else's costs, I promise you. Barking up the wrong tree. Insurance can lean on the providers charging thousands of dollars all they want. Lean hard enough, no contract agreement, and then you can get berkeleyed even harder when you go see them. Insurance is reacting, not driving the bulk of the costs. Why does everyone insist on following the lead of ACA and raging blindly against what they were told to rage against? This was billed as "health care reform," which IS what we need. We didn't get that. We got health insurance regulations/mandates. Nothing in the health care industry was reformed. The extremely small profit margin that health insurance represents shouldn't be the focus. Eventually? Sure. Now? We all have much bigger fish to fry.

from what I know about business, if the profit margins are as low as you indicate, then I would assume that most com. would drop that line of coverage …. if it's not profitable, most com. (of any kind) won't bother with it

Most healthcare insurance companies are only doing health insurance. Also, the margins are small, but the dollars are still large. Or at least large enough to make a go of it.

wbjones wrote:

Swank Force One wrote: The employer thing is a major red herring that has little to no bearing on this or anyone else's costs, I promise you. Barking up the wrong tree. Insurance can lean on the providers charging thousands of dollars all they want. Lean hard enough, no contract agreement, and then you can get berkeleyed even harder when you go see them. Insurance is reacting, not driving the bulk of the costs. Why does everyone insist on following the lead of ACA and raging blindly against what they were told to rage against? This was billed as "health care reform," which IS what we need. We didn't get that. We got health insurance regulations/mandates. Nothing in the health care industry was reformed. The extremely small profit margin that health insurance represents shouldn't be the focus. Eventually? Sure. Now? We all have much bigger fish to fry.

from what I know about business, if the profit margins are as low as you indicate, then I would assume that most com. would drop that line of coverage …. if it's not profitable, most com. (of any kind) won't bother with it

We don't have a choice. Profit percentages are regulated by ACA mandates.

Data as of 2011 (prior to ACA). The problem was never health insurance company profit margins, but the "fix" was applied there as it was the only thing they could pass.

Margins are even lower now.

So... yeah. Let's all complain about insurance some more.

Swank Force One wrote: Margins are even lower now. So... yeah. Let's all complain about insurance some more.

Profits are not the same as the effect on overall cost. A giant industry has its operating costs completely paid by consumers who want a product without providing consumers any product. That has a substantial effect on cost. That doesn't even bring into play the doctor and patient mindset of "insurance is covering it so you should have it" that encourages unneeded tests, procedures, and medications. Then you have to include the lack of ability for the consumer to price shop because all costs are hidden behind the billing insurance vs. actual payment game. Health insurance isn't the only contributor but touting low profit margins is ignoring the realities of health insurances effect on consumer cost.

That wasn't really the point. Yes, insurance is just one more thing to get involved.

No, i don't want to go without insurance. Why not? Because CARE costs are out of control.

Health CARE reform didn't address anything related to health CARE costs.