Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hts121

Health Care

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, tklg said:

 

The health insurance market is not very free since health insurance plans became tied to employment post WW2. 

 

If health insurance were removed from employment benefits:

  1. Health insurance companies would have to compete in the market place, keeping premium prices under control
  2. Health insurance companies would be incentivized to negotiate better prices with providers, by needing to keep premiums to attract customers
  3. Healthy people would be incentivized to purchase insurance policies when they're healthy, since premiums would be less
  4. Gov't would be less inclined to meddle in the marketplace

Why are health insurance plans the only plans that are provided tax free through employers?  The idea of combining gov't with healthcare has only driving prices up. 

3

 

I agree that health insurance is a benefit that should be taxed as income, but I don't see how taxing health insurance coverage as income by itself is going to lower premiums. 

 

1.  Health insurance companies already compete for market share and prices are not and have not been under control.  Nothing changes.

2.  Health insurance companies already have an incentive to negotiate with providers to maximize their profits, and they do -- check out all the physician complaints about being squeezed by insurers.  Nothing changes.

3.  Healthy people already do not purchase insurance, and lowering premiums may allow some people who were otherwise motivated but priced out of the market to buy, but (a) there is no guarantee of lower premiums (insurance companies may opt for higher profits or more stock buybacks or higher CEO salaries, etc.) and (b) some healthy people may prefer to have extra pay over a health insurance "benefit" from their employer.  I suspect that if it's not tax free most employers will stop offering it as a benefit - too much hassle.

4.  LOL. If premiums don't go down, constituents will be calling their legislators, and the industry lobbyists aren't going to suddenly stop lobbying if health insurance becomes taxable. 

 

Government has a role to play in leveling the playing field -- regulations can make it easier for consumers to comparison-shop, regulations can ensure that everyone has access, regulations can ensure the quality of care meets a minimum standard, etc.  The question is how and what kind of role government should play, not whether the government will play.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tklg said:

 

The health insurance market is not very free since health insurance plans became tied to employment post WW2. 

 

If health insurance were removed from employment benefits:

  1. Health insurance companies would have to compete in the market place, keeping premium prices under control
  2. Health insurance companies would be incentivized to negotiate better prices with providers, by needing to keep premiums to attract customers
  3. Healthy people would be incentivized to purchase insurance policies when they're healthy, since premiums would be less
  4. Gov't would be less inclined to meddle in the marketplace

Why are health insurance plans the only plans that are provided tax free through employers?  The idea of combining gov't with healthcare has only driving prices up.  

 

InB4 argument that healthcare has become more complex, hence rising costs.  If that were true, wouldn't computers and other technological advancements be more expensive as well?  Health care technology has increased, yet we are all paying more for worse quality care.

 

Insurance companies are already incentivized to get the lowest prices they can.  But then they tack on their own margins.  And they already compete with each other, but never enough to threaten the margins.  Never.  And why should they?  It's not in their interest to do so.  They're better off with half the population dying for lack of health care.  Profitability would soar.

 

Even if you lopped off half of the current average premium, it would still be unaffordable for many of the young people you're seeking profits from-- especially those who have learned the hard way that paying premiums doesn't get you any health care, so you have to save up for that separately.

Edited by 327
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much says it all....

FB_IMG_1551033357986.jpg


"The boss rolls up in a new Lamborghini and tells his staff 'The greatest part about America is that hard work breeds wealth. So if you work hard and dedicate yourself tirelessly to the task at hand, I can get another new Lamborghini next year.'” -- Overheard in a Cleveland bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


"The boss rolls up in a new Lamborghini and tells his staff 'The greatest part about America is that hard work breeds wealth. So if you work hard and dedicate yourself tirelessly to the task at hand, I can get another new Lamborghini next year.'” -- Overheard in a Cleveland bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, but, we're FREE IN AMERICA!!!

 

Cuba has a lung cancer vaccine. Many U.S. patients can’t get it without breaking the law

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/01/09/cuba-has-lung-cancer-vaccine-many-u-s-patients-cant-get-without-breaking-law/1019093001/


"The boss rolls up in a new Lamborghini and tells his staff 'The greatest part about America is that hard work breeds wealth. So if you work hard and dedicate yourself tirelessly to the task at hand, I can get another new Lamborghini next year.'” -- Overheard in a Cleveland bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Being a political activist in the US is usually a dual edged sword.  There is the policy that activists lobby for and then the policy that gets implemented.  Sure, single payer "we all get free healthcare" sounds great at the high level....and then there are all of the caveats that come with it.  If Bernie is pushing a Canadian style system, there will be plenty of unhappy providers and healthcare seekers.

 

The issue is not so much the single-payer model so much as it is the current state of healthcare in the US.  Prediction: Adding single-payer to an already dysfunctional system is only going to increase costs and decrease quality / access to care.  Go ahead and quote all of your rebuttals, time will resolve this debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same kind of whores from the left side of the floor....

 

Pharma & Insurance Gave $43M to the 129 House Democrats Not Backing Medicare for All

https://gritpost.com/pharma-insurance-43m-house-democrats/


"The boss rolls up in a new Lamborghini and tells his staff 'The greatest part about America is that hard work breeds wealth. So if you work hard and dedicate yourself tirelessly to the task at hand, I can get another new Lamborghini next year.'” -- Overheard in a Cleveland bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, taestell said:

Real bright fellow leading the Commonwealth.

 

 

 

"Hey kids, you could get a nasty shot OR a week-long illness that is horrendous and comes with the possibility of developing shingles as an adult."


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only scientists could develop a way to expose your children to a deactivated or weakened version of the chickenpox virus, allowing them to gain immunity but without the risk of actually catching the infectious disease.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

"Hey kids, you could get a nasty shot OR a week-long illness that is horrendous and comes with the possibility of developing shingles as an adult."

 

LOL this is what every parent has always done with their kids - expose them early so they get it out of the way.  I'm not anti-vaxxer by any means, but could be healthier to expose kids to the chickenpox rather than injecting them with all sorts of nasty ass chemicals that preserve the vaccine payload.  

 

INB4 omg...anti-vaxxer, science duh, you dummy, heard immunity, blah blah 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got charged $980 for an ambulance ride to the ER in December, except my mom drove me.  I owed $53 after insurance, so I just paid it and didn't bother spending 2-3 hours on the phone to let the insurance company know they were just defrauded. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2019 at 5:28 PM, tklg said:

 

I'm not saying people shouldn't have PEC options.  I'm saying that the insurance industry shouldn't be mandated to accept PEC because it destroys the industry and its market.  This is self evident in the ridiculous cost of premiums.

 

The current state of your argument requires healthy people to pay for PEC.  Just as PEC people deserve health care, non-PEC people deserve lower premiums.  

 

 

 

Carrying these comments over from the Trump Presidency threat -- you're wrong.  There was competition among insurers pre-ACA, and insurance wasn't cheap even for healthy lifestyles. 

 

Pre-ACA we were all complaining about the rate of increase of premiums, and that was what drove Congress to pass the ACA in the first place.  Lots of people couldn't afford health insurance, and got their healthcare on an emergency basis in the ER, the most expensive form of healthcare.  Hospitals did not just eat that cost -- healthy people who had enough money to pay for insurance paid for the ER services in the form of higher premiums.  Until the premiums got so high that they too could no longer afford health insurance, generating more uninsured people who would someday need to get healthcare in the ER.  

 

Abandoning coverage for PEC drives people with PEC out of the insurance market, back to the ER.  Experience demonstrates that allowing insurers to refuse coverage (or to charge whatever they want, which will lead to the same result) for PEC does not hold down premium costs. 

 

On 3/28/2019 at 6:15 PM, tklg said:

 

People are not doing fine because of bad policy, like requiring insurance companies to accept PEC.

 

If you're providing insurance, you need to be sure you have enough money to cover all of the claims.  If sick people aren't paying into the system when they're healthy, they'll be depleting the money supply causing all premiums to increase.  This includes PEC.

 

If insurance companies were allowed to deny PEC coverage, then a market for healthy people and low premiums could exist.

 

However, with the mandate, essentially what is happening is healthy people pay for sick people through high premiums.  Insurance companies don't really care, because the cost is just passed along to the consumer.

 

 

 

People with PEC who cannot afford or are refused health insurance will not be doing fine.  And they will go back to the most expensive form of care, the ER, and everyone's premiums will continue to increase.

Remember that everyone will need healthcare at some point in their lives.  A market for "healthy people" is a scam.  What happens when the healthy people get sick?  Pre-ACA , insurers could drop you as soon as you got expensive. 

 

If you want to minimize insurance costs, make the pool of insured as big as possible.  Because "everyone" eventually will need healthcare, the biggest and best insurance pool is "everyone."  I don't know how you can dispute that.  (There may be constitutional issues with the federal government organizing or funding insurance for everyone, but that's a separate issue.)

 

The rest of the world has figured this out, along with the problem of insurance companies who as the price of competition pay huge salaries to executives and spend vast sums on marketing rather than providing service.  That's why the overhead of most insurers is far higher than medicare. 

 

The Republican Party promised their own health care plan in the 2016 election, and never brought anything of significance to a vote.  They don't care, and the only plan seems to be a return to pre-ACA.  That's what I would expect after the 2020 election as well, if they win.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok there’s a lot going on here and really multiple conversations.

 

Regarding ACA it sounds like you’re assuming my position is that ACA is the reason for higher premiums?  The reason why health insurance has been increasingly higher is because it’s subsidized by the govt by attaching to employers.  So to make insurance more competitive, it needs to exist in a free market.  Since the new deal, health insurance has not been a free market since employers are able to provide tax free.  

 

So the ACA just exacerbated this issue by requiring PEC.  Again, how are insurance companies supposed to insure when anyone can make a claim?  Can you drive without insurance, wreck your car, and then go get insurance?   No?  Why not?  Also, can you file a claim for new tires or oil changes?  No?  Why not?

 

What to do about people with PEC is a separate convo.  I’m not saying there doesn’t need be something in place to handle, but there needs to be more incentive to get insurance before sick.

  Requiring PEC does not provide any incentive.

 

Regarding rest of world or muh Sweden healthcare, have you checked the tax rates making those systems possible?  How about diets?  Just because a country is too on world for healthcare doesn’t mean a socialized system is the reason.  Pretty sure Sweden had great healthcare before the current system.

 

The US is a Frankenstein of bad policy, regulation and govt subsidy.  Continuing to add on with more bad policy like ACA and PEC requirement only makes it worse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, tklg said:

The reason why health insurance has been increasingly higher is because it’s subsidized by the govt by attaching to employers. 

1

I agree that health insurance should not be attached to employers (insurance is cheapest for the largest pool; if you work for a small company, your "pool" is very small).  I'm not so sure that the cost is high BECAUSE employers can write off the cost, I think that the high cost is because employers are naturally a very small pool within the US population.   (Note that employees are also getting an untaxed benefit from an employer-provided benefit)

 

I would also suggest that insurance being tied to hospital/physician groups also increases the costs.  It might be better if the insurance payout for the service was provider-blind.

 

AND -- there is a government subsidy for lots of things, and that doesn't mean that an unsubsidized market would work better.  If everyone in the market is getting the same benefit the playing field is level. I am pretty confident that milk would not be cheaper or better without the government subsidy, pork will not be safer to eat now that the government has surrendered inspections to the industry. 

 

21 hours ago, tklg said:

So the ACA just exacerbated this issue by requiring PEC.  Again, how are insurance companies supposed to insure when anyone can make a claim? 

1

 

Let's remember that the ACA mandated that everyone have insurance to address this issue.  I would argue that the penalties for not having insurance were far too low, and the subsidies for people who could not afford insurance also were far too low.  

 

We all recognize that a system where you buy insurance after you get sick won't work.  But in a system where insurance is pooled by employer, if you get sick (while insured) and change employers, you are suddenly deemed to have a PEC and cannot obtain the same insurance as your new fellow employees also is a problem.  The ACA tried to address this without going away from employer-based pools as a way to compromise -- it was a bad decision.  

 

People also buy life insurance.  Everyone dies.  How can life insurance companies possibly insure people who will eventually make a claim?  Actuarial science, dude.  And they make a lot of money.

 

Sorry for the snark, but we should first consider whether we want insurance companies sucking CEO compensation, advertising, and profit from our health care dollars.  Medicare has none of that overhead -- why wouldn't you want to buy that?!?

Personally, I like the Medicare for America plan, but even more I like that people are having a serious policy discussion that goes beyond "repeal ACA."

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/28/18192674/medicare-for-all-cost-jacob-hacker

 

21 hours ago, tklg said:

Regarding rest of world or muh Sweden healthcare, have you checked the tax rates making those systems possible? 

1

 

Yes.  My friends in Sweden laugh at our tax system.  The top marginal rates are high, but the average person actually pays about the same or less than in the US -- there is only federal income tax, no state or city income tax pile-on.  The benefits they get are worth the price or the politicians who instituted the taxes would have been repealed long ago.  It's not that there are no fiscal conservatives in Sweden. 

 

21 hours ago, tklg said:

The US is a Frankenstein of bad policy, regulation and govt subsidy.  Continuing to add on with more bad policy like ACA  . . . . only makes it worse. 

2

 

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


"The boss rolls up in a new Lamborghini and tells his staff 'The greatest part about America is that hard work breeds wealth. So if you work hard and dedicate yourself tirelessly to the task at hand, I can get another new Lamborghini next year.'” -- Overheard in a Cleveland bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US states file lawsuit accusing drugs firms of inflating costs

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48241663


"The boss rolls up in a new Lamborghini and tells his staff 'The greatest part about America is that hard work breeds wealth. So if you work hard and dedicate yourself tirelessly to the task at hand, I can get another new Lamborghini next year.'” -- Overheard in a Cleveland bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why society doesn’t trust big pharma, they prove it over and over that they are evil and corrupt. They should have released info or let a university do the study...

 

 


"The boss rolls up in a new Lamborghini and tells his staff 'The greatest part about America is that hard work breeds wealth. So if you work hard and dedicate yourself tirelessly to the task at hand, I can get another new Lamborghini next year.'” -- Overheard in a Cleveland bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After repeated calls, Johnson's out-of-network charges were forgiven. But soon after, there was yet another mountain biking incident that required a trip to the ER.

"Actually, I brought in a piece of paper I wanted them to sign [to] acknowledge the physicians that will service my child are in network," he said. "And they wouldn't sign that."

 

https://www.nashvillepublicradio.org/post/tennessee-mountain-bike-accident-helped-shape-proposed-ban-surprise-medical-bills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


"The boss rolls up in a new Lamborghini and tells his staff 'The greatest part about America is that hard work breeds wealth. So if you work hard and dedicate yourself tirelessly to the task at hand, I can get another new Lamborghini next year.'” -- Overheard in a Cleveland bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The high cost of drugs in the U.S. is what's allowing the pharma companies to sell them for much cheaper elsewhere. Our diabetes pandemic is the world's goldmine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, surfohio said:

The high cost of drugs in the U.S. is what's allowing the pharma companies to sell them for much cheaper elsewhere. Our diabetes pandemic is the world's goldmine. 

 

This is somewhat true as the US bears the cost of most research and development for the rest of the world.   If we had a more progressive view on medicine, more of our tax dollars would go to R&D. 


Also, the initial Tweet above mentions "Pens," which are delivery devices.   The article does not.   Delivery devices are an entirely different animal as they are not as heavily regulated by the FDA.   The widely publicized Epipen gouging a few years back is  great example--they were charging $600 for the delivery device.  The drug itself could be purchased for a couple bucks if you're willing to load up a syringe and inject yourself after an allergic attack.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cleburger said:

 If we had a more progressive view on medicine, more of our tax dollars would go to R&D. 

 

I'm not sure how that would work though. Even in the most progressive countries it is the for-profit pharma companies doing the vast majority of the research. The incentives to create better drugs are strong in the private sector. I think tax dollars should go more toward preventative education which, in many cases, is adverse to the financial well-being of the manufacturers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 2:35 PM, Foraker said:

Republicans will be campaigning on loosening gun restrictions and eliminating requirements for coverage of pre-existing conditions, along with the usual tax cuts and further increases in military spending.

 

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/456733-graham-promises-obamacare-repeal-if-trump-republicans-win-in-2020

 

All of the usual budgetary stuff that has never worked - but they'll mix in their typical racism and fear of xenophobia to turn out their base.  Expect more caravan nonsense to start around October 25, 2020.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the UK....

 

 


"The boss rolls up in a new Lamborghini and tells his staff 'The greatest part about America is that hard work breeds wealth. So if you work hard and dedicate yourself tirelessly to the task at hand, I can get another new Lamborghini next year.'” -- Overheard in a Cleveland bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Ozzy crashed his ATV about 15 years ago his American doctor asked him what the crash cost him. The doctor estimated about 2-3 million dollars. Ozzy replied, "It didn't cost me anything. I'm British!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty big news....

 

 


"The boss rolls up in a new Lamborghini and tells his staff 'The greatest part about America is that hard work breeds wealth. So if you work hard and dedicate yourself tirelessly to the task at hand, I can get another new Lamborghini next year.'” -- Overheard in a Cleveland bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this is what "America first" means...

 

 


"The boss rolls up in a new Lamborghini and tells his staff 'The greatest part about America is that hard work breeds wealth. So if you work hard and dedicate yourself tirelessly to the task at hand, I can get another new Lamborghini next year.'” -- Overheard in a Cleveland bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...