Feeling backed into a corner

Seriously guys? A member is asking for advice and we end up in politics.

93EXCivic wrote: Seriously guys? A member is asking for advice and we end up in politics.

Bound to happen, because nobody really knows (not even my girlfriends dad, who sells health insurance to individuals and small businesses) because of the politics.

mazdeuce wrote: This is what medicine costs IN THE U.S.A.. This is what it has cost for the past decade. It's going to come out of taxes or our pay or something.

FTFY.

Serisouly, look up the same procedures in other industrialised (first world) countries (especially ones with true universal healthcare) and you will see that the US, just plain charges more. And don't give me that "but we are better at it here" crap.

The cost is not because of Obamacare, Nor is it because the insurance companies are trying to screw you (they are trying to make a good profit though), or because stuff needs to be that expensive. It is because at the beginning of the Charges, things are overpriced.. BECAUSE of insurance. in countries that don't have health insurance (just higher taxes) health care is considerably cheaper.. why? no dang middleman.

as long as there is health insurance, they can keep the costs up, because they will get paid.

anyway, we wanted to keep this non political right? well, you live in the US, and 15k is what it costs to insure 3 people (you, your wife, your kid) in the US. you either need to find a job that pays part of the costs, or pay the price.

or quit and work for McDonanld's so you can get the Gov't to subsidise the cost of the insurance.

seriously, if you are making 30k a year, and it is going to cost 15k to insure you... would it not be cheaper to make 15k, and get free health insurance? (because of taxes.. you would actually have MORE money).

think about it.

In reply to 93EXCivic:

I'm honestly pleasantly surprised it went this long.

mtn wrote: Bound to happen, because nobody really knows (not even my girlfriends dad, who sells health insurance to individuals and small businesses) because of the politics.

Precisely - this is, literally, an applied Obamacare thread, and the rules that govern insurance are defined by politics.

In reply to SCARR:

Unfortunately your numbers are very very close to reality. I was a little ashamed to come out and say how little I make. There is more to add as far as why I can't just find another job but that'll have to wait until later. . . Maybe.

MadScientistMatt wrote:

mtn wrote: Bound to happen, because nobody really knows (not even my girlfriends dad, who sells health insurance to individuals and small businesses) because of the politics.

Precisely - this is, literally, an applied Obamacare thread, and the rules that govern insurance are defined by politics.

I would like thank all of you for helping me understand a little better about what's happening though.

THANK YOU

There is going to be a LOT of discussion, questions and answers on this topic floating around in the next few months (not necessarily here of course).

You are not alone, I am sure there are many in your situation. I feel confident you will get a much more definitive answer in the not too distant future.

SCARR wrote:

mazdeuce wrote: This is what medicine costs IN THE U.S.A.. This is what it has cost for the past decade. It's going to come out of taxes or our pay or something.

anyway, we wanted to keep this non political right? well, you live in the US, and 15k is what it costs to insure 3 people (you, your wife, your kid) in the US. you either need to find a job that pays part of the costs, or pay the price.

This was my point. Things in the US are expensive. Because of that, it costs $15k to insure a family of three. Whether the company pays that, or you pay that, or the government pays that, it's what it costs right now. Right now we're trying to shuffle that cost around, which is really the best course of action for an individual, have a job that has your company pay it, but the cost is still there. As more and more of the cost gets shifted to individuals then we're bound to have other discussions, but that's the politics part of it. Really though, right now any individual needs to figure out how to make sure that someone else is paying for their health insurance if they can. The best way is probably still a job that does it. After that it's time to really sort through the rules on what you can and can't buy and what the penalties will be if you don't. Cost benefit and all of that and hope that you're not the guy who gets caught out.

it costs $15k to insure a family of three.

That just seems insane to me...as in "An insane amount of coverage." Haven't priced it in a couple years, but for 2 SMOKERS, it was $320 something a month for catastrophic coverage (the only reason to have health insurance, IMO.) When we get sick, we pay $60 cash for a doctor visit. Cost went up quite a bit when we priced out "Family policy" (for pregnancy.) I think it was almost double...but not over $1k a month.

Maybe things have changed that dramatically in the last couple years. I don't know. I do know that a lot of people I know pay for waaaaaay more coverage than they need, in the interest of "I only pay $20 for a doctor visit!"

This thread blows my mind.

I was listening to the news this morning and it was stated that a lot of companies are changing their insurance policies for various reasons. Cost is the main reason. The other reason is that changes have been coming for quite a while. Ten years at least as the cost charged for health care has risen. Obamacare is the cover, and admittedly the catalyst in some cases, for these companies to make the change. Example: UPS declared today that they will no longer cover family members who can get coverage at their own employer. Link

This move even though the health care law only adds 7-10% to the cost of healthcare. Other factors are that this will exclude many women of child bearing age who drive up the cost of care due to being pregnant. Excluding wives also helps employers avoid the "Cadillac plan" tax going into effect in 2018.

Xceler8x wrote: This move even though the health care law only adds 7-10% to the cost of healthcare.

Duke wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: Med care has to change. That's about all we can do. The profit taking is out of control. One medical companies profits (cough McKeeson! cough) has been up 8% in the last 5 years. Net profit of $521 million. Revenue is $30 Billion.

By my calculations, that's a profit margin of 17.36%. A good margin, indeed, but hardly usurious, evil, or "out of control". That also says nothing about ROI. How long have they had the money committed that is making that profit also affects the real value of that profit margin. If that's the end result of a 5-year investment, the actual return is considerably lower than if it was a 6-month windfall.

Here's an honest question....

Is it right that there is an entire industry that makes money and all they do is take money and decide how it is paid out to the actual health care providers. By doing that, they don't actually make your health better, just take your money, decide how to use it, and then pay it out to doctors, nurses, and hospitals.

Do you feel it's moraly correct to profit on sick people?

We complain that many don't like the idea of a government burocrat deciding one what care I get, but we seem perfectly ok with a corporate burocrat with the interest of making money for shareholders doing the exact same thing.

We complain about socialized healthcare, without really understanding that insurance, by it's very nature, is socailzied payout of money- we pool it all together, and the needy are the ones who use it. How it's different that I pay Blue Heath Special vs. medicare, and I get a return back- I don't understand. At some point, it's a black box- money in to money out that can be used for health service. Tax is apparently evil but payments to profit companies that do the same thing is ok..... It's the same thing, money goes to a fund, someone decides how it's spent, you get a benefit.

What I DO understand- when I pay Blue Health Special, they may have operating costs of 3% vs. Medicare's 5-7%, but since they also take out 10-20% for profit, the net money that I can get out is LESS than Medicare.

IMHO, healcare is a national security concern. If we want viable businesses, we need to keep our people healthy. Go over the death numbers- if we are willing to fight and die, and spend billions if not trillions of dollars when a few people are attacked and killed, why are we not spending the same amount on preventable diseases that kill far far more Americans than any terrorist have.

Anyway, back to the original question- are you ok with an industry that takes your hard earned money, decides on how it's paid out, AND also makes profits for it's shareholders? For YOUR healthcare.

Since I heard about this recently on a radio show, I thought I would pass it along.

In Portland, ME, there is a doctor (and I am sure there are more around like him) who has decided that he is not going to be playing the game. He is no longer going to accept any insurance. He is doing pay for service. He has all of his prices posted on the practice's website:

http://www.ciampifamilypractice.com/Our_Prices.html

You are getting better service (he does house calls!!!) and you are getting the middlemen (government/insurance companies) out of the problem. This is the way medical care used to be done in this country before Uncle Sam got involved in it. If you could find a practitioner like this, just pay the fine, and get some catastrophic coverage for a hospitalization and do some sort of HSA, you might be able to control the pain better.

Here is a link to the audio from the talk show with Dr. Ciampi

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/06/13/nightside-dr-michael-ciampi-takes-no-insurance/

By your logic it also wouldn't be morally correct to profit off of hungry people(grocery stores)? What about people who are snow bound (snow plow operators)?

Business's are here to make money; that profit margin isn't out of line at all.

alfadriver wrote: Do you feel it's morally correct to profit on sick people?

Yes. I believe it is morally correct to profit on every human need. I do not feel it is morally required that someone provide even vital goods or services to someone else at or below their actual cost.

The current problem has come about because some people think that morals (or vote buying, or lobbying, or whatever the motivation) make it OK to legally require some portion of the population to subsidize the cost of health care. Ultimately, that will always boil down to those who can pay being required - by taxes or higher premiums - to pay for those who cannot or will not.

That's just a simple law of thermodynamics, let alone economics. The money has to come from somewhere.

Insurance is the sharing of risk and cost among a large group of people, agreed. In the absolutely most superficial way, that is vaguely similar to government-run social services. But it was originally the VOLUNTARY sharing of risk. Once it is made LAW, it is no longer a voluntary participation on the part of those who choose (or can afford to) participate. It becomes something of which an individual cannot opt out, even if they choose to shoulder the entire burden of their own risk. Well, OK, they can choose to opt out of the benefits, but they still can't opt out of the "contribution" part.

I think the current healthcare system is broken and untenable. However, it is my considered opinion that the industry has been systematically and purposefully broken by the very same process that is now being touted as the "cure". Despite all clamoring and diatribe to the contrary, we do not have a free market health care industry in the US. It has been decades since that was true. Between legislated morality in the form of redistribution/entitlement programs, and corporate influence that guarantees the so-called "moral" lawmaking benefits the insurance industry, the actual consumers are left paying very much and receiving very little.

Do not under any circumstances confuse the system we have today as "capitalist". It is not. This is the very opposite of free market capitalism.

Let me ask you this - what do you expect will happen to the price of a given commodity when it becomes illegal to not buy it?

chandlerGTi wrote: By your logic it also wouldn't be morally correct to profit off of hungry people(grocery stores)? What about people who are snow bound (snow plow operators)? Business's are here to make money; that profit margin isn't out of line at all.

This. If companies couldn't make money, why would they do it? I guarantee medical research would drop big time if companies weren't making money from it.

In reply to alfadriver:

I said it before, and I'll say it again.

As long as the insurance companies are involved, you will always have a second rate healthcare system.

If that's what you "free market" guys want, then more power to you.

I LOL at you guys sometimes. Just like the copyright discussion. You think there's only one way to do things. Anything else can't possibly work. Have a look around. How's it working out for you?

Duke wrote:

alfadriver wrote: Do you feel it's morally correct to profit on sick people?

Yes. I believe it is morally correct to profit on every human need. I do not feel it is *morally* required that someone provide even vital goods or services to someone else at or below their actual cost. The current problem has come about because some people think that morals (or vote buying, or lobbying, or whatever the motivation) make it OK to *legally* require *some portion* of the population to subsidize the cost of health care. Ultimately, that will *always* boil down to those who *can* pay being *required* - by taxes or higher premiums - to pay for those who cannot or will not. That's just a simple law of thermodynamics, let alone economics. The money has to come from *somewhere.* Insurance is the sharing of risk and cost among a large group of people, agreed. In the absolutely most superficial way, that is vaguely similar to government-run social services. But it was originally the *VOLUNTARY* sharing of risk. Once it is made LAW, it is no longer a voluntary participation on the part of those who choose (or can afford to) participate. It becomes something of which an individual cannot opt out, even if they choose to shoulder the entire burden of their own risk. Well, OK, they *can* choose to opt out of the benefits, but they still can't opt out of the "contribution" part. I think the current healthcare system is broken and untenable. However, it is my considered opinion that the industry has been systematically and purposefully broken by *the very same process that is now being touted as the "cure".* Despite all clamoring and diatribe to the contrary, *we do not have a free market health care industry in the US.* It has been decades since that was true. Between legislated morality in the form of redistribution/entitlement programs, and corporate influence that guarantees the so-called "moral" lawmaking benefits the insurance industry, the actual consumers are left paying very much and receiving very little. Do not under any circumstances confuse the system we have today as "capitalist". It is not. This is the very opposite of free market capitalism. Let me ask you this - what do you *expect* will happen to the price of a given commodity when it becomes illegal to *not* buy it?

Thanks, now I don't have to type it out.

Zomby Woof wrote: In reply to alfadriver: I said it before, and I'll say it again. As long as the insurance companies are involved, you will always have a second rate healthcare system. If that's what you "free market" guys want, then more power to you.

Works OK with my car insurance. My car got hit, I took it to a guy I trust who runs a body shop, he did a good job fixing it, and insurance paid me back with some of the money I put in. In addition, if I hit somebody, they will get put right and my insurance company has a ready pool of my cash available to make sure that person isn't punished for my mistake.

I don't think my car repair was either second rate OR too expensive, just because my insurance was involved in the transaction.

Datsun1500 wrote: They make the money investing the premiums, not short changing the providers. They take the risk that If I pay them $X that they will make enough off of $X to justify paying $Y on my behalf. I have no issue with that. If I stay healthy, they win. If I need a bunch of stuff, they lose.

This is grossly over simplified. Expand a bit and this might be something worth talking about.

I'd also recommend you back your assertions with some data as well.

chandlerGTi wrote: By your logic it also wouldn't be morally correct to profit off of hungry people(grocery stores)? What about people who are snow bound (snow plow operators)? Business's are here to make money; that profit margin isn't out of line at all.

Those are services you can take or leave. Everyone needs medical care at some point in their lives. Hence the problem with profiting from it.

93EXCivic wrote:

chandlerGTi wrote: By your logic it also wouldn't be morally correct to profit off of hungry people(grocery stores)? What about people who are snow bound (snow plow operators)? Business's are here to make money; that profit margin isn't out of line at all.

This. If companies couldn't make money, why would they do it? I guarantee medical research would drop big time if companies weren't making money from it.

This is not true. Jonas Salk gave away the polio vaccine for the good of humanity once he invented it. He walked away from $7 billion dollars for the benefit of you and me. Now I'll post a link so you can verify this yourself and know it's not just my opinion. Link I promised to back up the facts, not opinions, I have stated.

In reply to Duke:

Obviously never worked for a body shop, or insurance company I see.

Bad analogy for obvious reasons.

Duke wrote: I think the current healthcare system is broken and untenable. However, it is my considered opinion that the industry has been systematically and purposefully broken by *the very same process that is now being touted as the "cure".* Despite all clamoring and diatribe to the contrary, *we do not have a free market health care industry in the US.* It has been decades since that was true. Between legislated morality in the form of redistribution/entitlement programs, and corporate influence that guarantees the so-called "moral" lawmaking benefits the insurance industry, the actual consumers are left paying very much and receiving very little. Do not under any circumstances confuse the system we have today as "capitalist". It is not. This is the very opposite of free market capitalism. Let me ask you this - what do you *expect* will happen to the price of a given commodity when it becomes illegal to *not* buy it?

For the record, I completely agree with the statements above. Maybe we diverge in how to fix it?

With your last question, I'd imagine the cost will follow the same trajectory as auto insurance. In my state you have to have it by law or you pay a penalty. Same deal with health insurance now. Is the price of auto insurance inflated? It doesn't seem to be compared to other states. I'll leave this question unanswered as I'm sure someone know knowledgeable than me can answer it.

Xceler8x wrote:

chandlerGTi wrote: By your logic it also wouldn't be morally correct to profit off of hungry people(grocery stores)? What about people who are snow bound (snow plow operators)?

Those are services you can take or leave. Everyone needs medical care at some point in their lives. Hence the problem with profiting from it.

Umm, hello? Everybody needs food every day, not just "at some point in their lives". You may survive decades without medical care, but your life is measured in weeks without food. And that still does nothing to back up the assertion that it is morally wrong to profit from providing items that fill basic human needs. You assume a priori that profiting from meeting people's needs is wrong... but I (and many others) don't accept that assumption.

Xceler8x wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: This. If companies couldn't make money, why would they do it? I guarantee medical research would drop big time if companies weren't making money from it.

This is not true. Jonas Salk gave away the polio vaccine for the good of humanity once he invented it. He walked away from $7 billion dollars for the benefit of you and me.

The polio vaccine was Jonas Salk's property to give away if he chose to. End of story. And, coincidentally, also the answer to Zomby Woof's comment about copyright and intellectual property.