health insurance

Datsun1500 wrote:

jmthunderbirdturbo wrote: at $26 an hour, minus health care and other deductions, im close to the poverty line. in contrast, my dad was border line RICH on $15.00 an hour in the 90's...

$26 an hour is $52k a year at 40 hours a week. No where close to any poverty level. You are $18k above the median in Clearwater and $8k above the median for the State of Florida. The US poverty level for a family of 4 is $23k

I'm sure he feels much better now that you've informed him of this.

"The government never gets anything right...except for when to kill someone for a crime..and when to restrict abortion....and poverty statistics that reflect the real world.."

JMThunderbirdTurbo. You're line is the pink one, at the bottom. It's not your imagination. This really exists.

In reply to Datsun1500:

The poverty line crap is kinda pointless.......it should be post taxes/insurance/etc. Cost of living is also pretty high in FL.

FWIW relative to the OP, my employer is hinting at raises that will make up the difference that we got nailed with.....I hope that ones true. Maybe I can still go buy a fiesta st before the interest rates go through the roof.

I will just put this here for the folks complaining about ACA.

You're just late to the game I have been bitching about since I started working.

Insurance companies are regulated and sponsored gambling, and when they loose they try to welch on the bet.

Just an FYI the ACA draft 1 was written by the Heritage Foundation and pushed by Newt Gingrich unsuccessfully in the late 90's.

IMHO:

Things that need to punished for being in existence.

5 Lawyers
4 Politicians
3 SOB that stole my ATV when I was a kid
1 Insurance companies

Datsun1500 wrote: Just for reference, try being self employed. My coverage has been $7-$8,000 a year with a $3500 deductible for at least 6 years now.

I'm retired and mine is (was for 2013 … 2014 ??) $6942.60

Mine doubled, but I guess our company has decided to stick it to the smokers because I got a 50% discount after my mandatory physical turned up no nicotine, so I'm paying essentially the same now once the discount applied.

Flight Service wrote:

That's one of the most useless and deceptive graphs I've ever seen.

In shows increases in percentages, with no relation between the individual items at all, and no association to dollar amounts. Just because the LINES move up, doesn't mean the DOLLARS do. Worker's contributions to premiums are a very small percentage of their earnings.

It also shows:

• Worker's contributions remained a STEADY percentage of premiums.

• Worker's earnings OUTPACED inflation by 9%.

• Actual INCREASE in worker's buying power of 5%, after inflation & increased worker's contributions

If your graph is correct, the net spendable income has INCREASED by $18,255 after paying the difference in increases in worker's contributions to premiums (assuming a 1999 median income of $42,000).

In reply to SVreX:

Don't you bring your mathematical comprehension into this. This is your warning. 1 more time and you get put in the corner of the circle and have to use the safety scissors again.

In reply to nocones:

Lol!

Luv it.

SVreX wrote: In shows increases in percentages, with no relation between the individual items at all, and no association to dollar amounts. Just because the LINES move up, doesn't mean the DOLLARS do. Worker's contributions to premiums are a very small percentage of their earnings.

It shows them as a percentage increase since 1999. This a very useful graph as it shows how much your wages go up percentage as how much your health care costs go up as a percentage.

What it shows is how insurance premiums are out pacing inflation and workers wages. The graph isn't stupid or useless because you make inferences about the data presented.

This is a simple comparison, not a dollar figure.

SVreX wrote: It also shows: - Worker's contributions remained a STEADY percentage of premiums.

No it doesn't, just the opposite.

SVreX wrote: - Worker's earnings OUTPACED inflation by 9%.

Correct

SVreX wrote: - Actual INCREASE in worker's buying power of 5%, after inflation & increased worker's contributions

SVreX wrote: If your graph is correct, the net spendable income has INCREASED by $18,255 after paying the difference in increases in worker's contributions to premiums (assuming a 1999 median income of $42,000).

I am going to give you the rope to hang yourself on this one.

Median income 1999 $40,696 2012 $51,017 so the median income didn't rise as it showed in the report as it is using a base single term employee so we will just use that. $10,321. I hope there is some big decreases in health care costs, because your $18K surplus isn't looking good.

So if I was median income in 99 I paid 14% of my income for my family. Then if I stayed median income in 2012 I just went to 30% of my income. Or in dollars my spending money went from $35K to ...$35K???? So all I lost is inflation with time served. But who would stay median, that is a definite looser there, let's say you had the 47% increase in salary over the 13 years.

So $40,696 with 47% increase is 59,823...So I have $8K more money now then when I started. Wow that is really makein it!

I think it is safe to say that

1. Insurance costs have out stripped inflation and workers wages, no matter how you look at, dramatically and it started way before the ACA.
2. Don't insult people because you think understand what the graph says. It is rude and could bite you.
3. nocones is correct.

my employer used to have three employee-contribution rates, based on salary bands. this year they have seven. my salary is four hundred dollars above the threshold which has to contribute 57% of the total cost of premiums. if my salary was $401 less, i'd only have to pay 34%. so that $401 is costing me about $3000 in 2014. my cost goes from $3269 to $6480, an increase of 98% over last year. not sure where i'm gonna get the extra $268 per month, but i'm pretty sure it's gonna come out of college savings for the kids.

AngryCorvair wrote: my employer used to have three employee-contribution rates, based on salary bands. this year they have seven. my salary is four hundred dollars above the threshold which has to contribute 57% of the total cost of premiums. if my salary was $401 less, i'd only have to pay 34%. so that $401 is costing me about $3000 in 2014. my cost goes from $3269 to $6480, an increase of 98% over last year. not sure where i'm gonna get the extra $268 per month, but i'm pretty sure it's gonna come out of college savings for the kids.

Ask for a $402 demotion and an extra couple vacation days.

So why are costs rising so much? I don't mean let's blame aca. That's to easy obviously there are some unique 2014 changes associated with it. But the charts that have been posted despite some disagreements about exactly what they mean clearly show a very steady increase in insurance costs over the last 15 years. This tried is simply not sustainable going forward but what is causing it? Greed on insurance companies? Hospital profits? CEO pay? Liability insurance costs? Litegation costs? Increased health care use per capita? Increased instance of disease? Decline in overall health? What is driving this trend and what can we the consumer do to reverse it?

In reply to Flight Service:

Oooh! Name calling AND circular logic together in the same overly-defensive response- that oughta work.

For the record, the math I referred to was ENTIRELY from your graph. If there are errors, they are yours. The only thing I added were historical medians.

I obviously won't convince you, but a couple of key points:

• Median premium in 2013- $10,472. Median worker contribution- $2,310. According to YOUR chart, that means the median premium in 1999 was $3,850, and the median contribution was $825. Both are 22% of the premium. Sounds pretty steady to me.

• Your median incomes in your second post said 1999 $40,696 and 2012 $51,017. That's only a 25% increase. Your 1st graph said 47%. If you keep switching the numbers, we won't have anything to discuss.

• Your first chart showed the worker contribution. Your second one shows only the total premium. The impact to the worker is NOT the total premium, it is their contribution (22%). Unless, of course, you were trying to show us how generous employers have been to pick up a larger percentage of the premiums.

• Your first graph claims a 172% increase in premium from 1999-2012. Your second one claims 256% for individuals and 272% for families for the same period. Which one would you like to stand on?

If you're gonna post scary graphs and pictures, please pick a couple that agree with themselves. It would make it much easier for me to support you.

I'm making this easy on you. I'm using the numbers YOU provide. I'm not even doing any research.

It's YOUR numbers which are disagreeing with themselves.

nocones wrote: So why are costs rising so much? I don't mean let's blame aca. That's to easy obviously there are some unique 2014 changes associated with it. But the charts that have been posted despite some disagreements about exactly what they mean clearly show a very steady increase in insurance costs over the last 15 years. This tried is simply not sustainable going forward but what is causing it? Greed on insurance companies? Hospital profits? CEO pay? Liability insurance costs? Litegation costs? Increased health care use per capita? Increased instance of disease? Decline in overall health? What is driving this trend and what can we the consumer do to reverse it?

Thanks. Refocus.

May I suggest it is an attitude on the part of the consumers?

As medical technology and methods advance, we feel we have the right to whatever is available. We want full coverage for any treatment we desire, with no exemptions, and the freedom to choose any doctor or treatment we want.

There is a cost to that.

We are not willing to limit costs. This is the core problem with the ACA (and the entire healthcare system). It can't work, because the core logic is faulty.

We can't have unlimited healthcare unless we are prepared to also have unlimited healthcare costs. If we want to limit the costs, we have to be prepared to limit the coverage.

nocones wrote: So why are costs rising so much?

The trend clearly shows that the ACA is clearly not the only cause, but those graphs should not reflect any impact of the the ACA (i.e. it might get worse).

It appears that the "cause" is multi-faceted. There is very likely not one true "cause" (although this is a very clear tendency in most argument about complex subjects). In general, it does not seem like insurance companies are taking huge profits out of the situation (they are heavily regulated) but there mere presence (very large companies, paying a lot of people to do things) must have a pretty big drag on the system.

Hard to say how much of it is legal. A Youtube video that Dr. Hess posted a while back talked of how Texas limited punitive damages in medical cases. The impact? He said it was around 1%... not so big.

Is it drug / medical device companies? Well, they clearly make a profit (which realistically, they need to). But, they used to make a LOT more, they are also pretty regulated. If they were the primary cause, cost would have taken a huge dip a few years ago.

One aspect that most don't talk about is how modern medicine is a bit of it Own Worst Enemy. By that I mean, most advances in medicine cure a new disease, or allow us to live longer, but they come (generally) and a higher (sometimes a LOT higher) cost. So as we are able to treat more and more things, cost will naturally rise.

As an example of the above, that I know about. There is a certain drug out there (I am sure they are others very similar) that will treat a form of advanced cancer. It does not cure the cancer, but it can extend the life of the user by a few months to a year. For this result, the drug will cost in the neighborhood of $50,000 dollars! I am generalizing a bit here, but you get the idea.

So, what do you do about that? At some point, you get to the point of "I am sorry, it's just to expensive to keep you alive, we are going to let you die". This point may get more common as technology marches on. A hope is that advances will also make things cheaper, but I think the issue will still exists. Maybe a push towards technology to decrease cost, rather then increase treatments (not where the money wants to go of course).

This brings up (and excuse me because this is a somewhat political area) the concept of the so called "death panels". If you don't think there is someone somewhere today (government or insurance) who is not making these decisions already, you are fooling yourself. End of Life Counseling (i.e. death panels) seem to me to be something that is GREATLY needed. I believe something like 80% of all medical expenses are generated in the last few years of life. (there is a certain political figure who raged against this and for that reason I believe that person deserves all the derision they get, I personally despise that person for that alone)

So, to summarize. Complex problem. No simple answer. I think the best we can do is start heading in the right direction once we figure out what that direction is. If there are people making money in the way... it won't be easy.

SVreX wrote:

nocones wrote: So why are costs rising so much? I don't mean let's blame aca. That's to easy obviously there are some unique 2014 changes associated with it. But the charts that have been posted despite some disagreements about exactly what they mean clearly show a very steady increase in insurance costs over the last 15 years. This tried is simply not sustainable going forward but what is causing it? Greed on insurance companies? Hospital profits? CEO pay? Liability insurance costs? Litegation costs? Increased health care use per capita? Increased instance of disease? Decline in overall health? What is driving this trend and what can we the consumer do to reverse it?

Thanks. Refocus. May I suggest it is an attitude on the part of the consumers? As medical technology and methods advance, we feel we have the right to whatever is available. We want full coverage for any treatment we desire, with no exemptions, and the freedom to choose any doctor or treatment we want. There is a cost to that. We are not willing to limit costs. This is the core problem with the ACA (and the entire healthcare system). It can't work, because the core logic is faulty. We can't have unlimited healthcare unless we are prepared to also have unlimited healthcare costs. If we want to limit the costs, we have to be prepared to limit the coverage.

Really well put.

May I add: When you are required by law to purchase a product or service, do you think the price of that product or service is going to increase, or decrease?

While the Obamacare (that's what he WANTS us to call it, remember?) lovers' only defense is to say "well, there's no way to PROVE that there's a correlation between Obamacare and rising healthcare costs," there's also no way to deny that Obamacare has already caused MILLIONS of people to lose their coverage...you know...that coverage that "if you liked it, you could keep it. End of story."

It'll only get worse when the full scope of this thing is unleashed...long after your hero is out of office. Have fun trying to pay for your unnecessarily all-encompassing policy when you get cut to 30 hours a week. We warned you. You didn't listen.

nocones wrote: So why are costs rising so much? I don't mean let's blame aca. That's to easy obviously there are some unique 2014 changes associated with it. But the charts that have been posted despite some disagreements about exactly what they mean clearly show a very steady increase in insurance costs over the last 15 years. This tried is simply not sustainable going forward but what is causing it? Greed on insurance companies? Hospital profits? CEO pay? Liability insurance costs? Litegation costs? Increased health care use per capita? Increased instance of disease? Decline in overall health? What is driving this trend and what can we the consumer do to reverse it?

Several reasons, malpractice claims, false sense of entitlement, industry waste, the cost of education, the rising costs of everything else, and the list goes on.

Innovative technology isn't free, and too many people don't understand that.

Part of the nice jump as well has been all the extra things that are now covered that previously were not.

poopshovel wrote: .....We warned you. You didn't listen.

Well, perhaps if "you" had presented any sort or alternate plan or idea that wasn't "it's just fine how it is" or putting your fingers in your ears and muttering "don't want, don't want" those that voted might have had a better alternative.

P.S. - Why you would want to insert yourself into this argument, I have no idea.

aircooled wrote:

poopshovel wrote: .....We warned you. You didn't listen.

Well, perhaps if "you" had presented any sort or alternate plan or idea that wasn't "it's just fine how it is" or putting your fingers in your ears and muttering "don't want, don't want" those that voted might have had a better alternative. P.S. - Why you would want to insert yourself into this argument, I have no idea.

Not fer nothin, but there were several alternative plans and improvements proposed, but anyone not "on side" was locked out of the writing of the law and ignored. Thus we got "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it" and now were all peeling the onion together to find out what's inside, and a lot of people aren't finding what they thought they would.

The people I have spoken too point toward higher profit pushes since insurance companies and hospitals have cut the patient out till the very end.

There have also been a few "agents" add that take a piece of profit.

Datsun1500 wrote: Why does there need to be some type of alternative plan? Why do you feel it's necessary for the government to solve it for you? Here's a plan, you take care of your needs, I'll take care of mine.

Well, the previous one clearly wasn't working out so well and current one seems to be heading in a bad direction.

Having no system is a plan, but good luck convincing retired people they need to "take care of their own needs". That would dramatically reduce HC cost though. You may wish to completely remove government from the provider side of healthcare, but in any sort of realistic terms, that is basically not going to happen.

In reply to aircooled:

Wait a minute...

Almost every retired person I know has some form of healthcare coverage, and always has. They have "taken care of their own needs".

Why do you feel the need for a government system, and why do you feel that without one we have "no system"?

This was never a question of healthcare coverage. It was always a question of socialized medicine, which pisses off some people, and gives others a boner.

The only difference is the fans of socialized medicine learned how to call it other things.

Is it really a surprise that the people who used to get pissed off at the concept of socialized medicine STILL get pissed off at the concept of socialized medicine?

aircooled wrote: ... that is basically not going to happen.

I'm not sure how you meant that, but it sounds like, "We are going to shove it down your throat whether you like it or not, so get ready to gag and pretend you love it".

which is....basically not going to happen.

SVreX wrote: I'm not sure how you meant that, but it sounds like, "We are going to shove it down your throat whether you like it or not, so get ready to gag and pretend you love it". which is....basically not going to happen.

Which is pretty much what happened.