It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obamacare will lower your premiums! Wait, oops...

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Yes it increased because they didn't want to lose any money...

Gov didn't force them to raise the cost, they chose to.




posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I get it... I know how expensive it is to get a drug market... That's why they get the seven years.

That's the standard length of initial patent protection.

And that's why new drugs also cost 500 - 1000 dollars a pill... sometimes more.

Canadian generics are made in Canada as far as I know. There are strict controls on the manufacture.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: gspat

Yeah, there should be. I think most developed countries do keep a tight reign on what they sell and from where.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: gspat
a reply to: ketsuko

I get it... I know how expensive it is to get a drug market... That's why they get the seven years.

That's the standard length of initial patent protection.

And that's why new drugs also cost 500 - 1000 dollars a pill... sometimes more.

Canadian generics are made in Canada as far as I know. There are strict controls on the manufacture.


Even buying your prescriptions in other States can be a very big cost savings. Here in Michigan, it's often cheaper to get your scripts filled in Canada, Texas, Florida or Illinois . I don't know why there is such a price discrepancy from State to State, or why certain States are cheaper for certain Drugs, but it does exist.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Edumakated

Yes it increased because they didn't want to lose any money...

Gov didn't force them to raise the cost, they chose to.


That's not entirely true.

There is a law out there that states that a certain percentage (I forget) of insurance money HAS to be spent on the patients. I think it's 80%.

When Obamacare forced insurance companies that they had to take on people, their costs rose. They have to pay these costs somehow.

So they are forced to raise rates because of government mandates.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Yes, they somehow thought that adding many people who had not gotten health matters taken care of for years would not have above average occurrences of medical problems. It's the equivalent of taking your car into to the shop after 3 years of not doing any maintenance on it and expecting it to have average or below average problems. Just doesn't work that way.........
edit on 2-6-2015 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
O'Care is one of the most anti-american bill passed ever, it is almost criminal in nature. Do you know why the premiums are so high, they forcing us to buy things we don't need, I am a single male with no kids, still they want to me to have the following coverage. Here is a section of coverage I have to buy.



Mammogram & GYN screenings Lab X-ray Maternity - Prenatal Office Visit Maternity - Postnatal Office Visit Maternity - Labor & Delivery Hospital Stay Well Baby Care Inpatient Hospitalization Outpatient Surgery & Services Emergency Room Services Not Resulting in Admission Out of Network Coverage Chiropractic Acupuncture Pediatric Dental - Diagnostic & Preventative Services Pediatric Dental - Restorative Services (filings, Amalgam or composite resin) Pediatric Dental - Orthodontics (Medically Necessary)


Edit: The is from base minimum bronze plan.
edit on 2-6-2015 by VimanaExplorer because: Added Edit: The is from base minimum bronze plan.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Last year my premiums went up 17.5%. I recently received a notice that next year they are increasing another 11%. I'd say that was a big oops.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
This is why I hate the way our medical insurance is set up--I haven't been to the ER since I was a kid, I don't have Hep C, and I'm not undergoing or needing any heart or cancer treatment, yet if I lived in NC, I'd be paying extra for all the people that do.


That's not a feature of just our health insurance. That's a feature of how ALL insurance is set up, in fact it's pretty much the very definition of insurance.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Agreed...that's why I hate the way our medical insurance is set up. I'd rather the plans be considered individual savings accounts--whatever money you pay into it just builds up in an account, and when the time comes for you to need it, it's there.

I know, I know--that's basically a medical savings account. I'd prefer just to have one of those and set up a monthly allotment to that than pay a giant insurance company to deal with the doctors' offices for me. But I can't, because Obamacare tells me that I have to have insurance, and not just any insurance, but insurance that includes specific coverages, even if I don't want to pay for them.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
The entire medical/insurance industry was corrupt before ACA (Obamacare) and is even further corrupted by more government involvement.

The ACA reform was no reform at all, true reform would be something like what Karl Denninger has proposed over at Market Ticker.

After reading and contemplating what's said by Karl its apparent the entire finger pointing exercise between government, business and people is nothing but a huge charade.

How about an estimated 80% reduction in cost making insurance unnecessary for most people as they would have the ability to cash pay for services and prescriptions. Only insurance needed would be for far cheaper catastrophic coverage.

How To Fix The Budget

Put very simplistically, the more the government covers, the more its going to cost as a percentage of GDP unless and until the Medical Industry is beholden to laws applicable to all other business. As it is they can charge whatever they feel like charging and we've all heard the horror stories attributed to the medical industry exemptions which allow for egregious overcharging as a norm.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: beezzer


People cannot afford it, so government steps in and creates Single-Payer, thus bringing in government-run, government-controlled, socialized medicine.


Which is exactly what should have happened in the first place, and would have avoided a lot of these issues. There's a reason pretty much every other industrialized nation on the planet has a National Health Care system.

It's not like the US doesn't have the money to pay for it. Pretty sure you could take it all out of the defense budget with minimal disruptions.

~Tenth


You do realize that Insurance agencies are only allowed to earn so much per government mandate. Anything above is required of the agency to reimburse it's customers.

www.cms.gov...

And regarding every industrialize nation having a national healthcare... There is also a reason why the US has dominated the world economy for the last century. Now that we are becoming a Social Marxist nation, we are slipping faster than Bills zipper in Monika's presence.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
In a post above I linked to a website that proposes true reform by removing special provisions in law for medical, pharma and insurance companies in order to reduce costs to the point insurance would no longer be needed.

Just one example of multitudes available is the egregious cost of Solvaldi a Hepatitis C drug that costs $84,000 in the US for a course of treatment making the story below possible,

Patients Get Extreme


His plan: Dock a cruise ship flying an Indian flag off the coast of Miami. Stock the ship with versions of Sovaldi sold in India for $83,000 less than the U.S. retail price for 12 weeks of treatment. Ferry U.S. patients to the boat and send them home with the potentially life-saving medicines at a huge discount.



Yup, you read it right, the drug cost 1% in India compared to what a US consumer is charged!

THIS HAS TO STOP!!!!!!

It won't so long as the US taxpayer and medical consumer accepts the current system where providers, hospitals, drug companies and insurers all have exceptions carved out of anti-trust laws, price collusion/fixing, ability to charge different costs for same procedure/service, no pricing required prior to service and a plethora of other laws protecting what amounts to a shake down operation by all involved.

RICO should apply but their exempt from that too!
edit on 3-6-2015 by Phoenix because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: lordcomac




Of course they're raising the cost, now. that's how extortion at a government level works.

Sorry but the government isn't the one raising your premiums the insurance company is they are one jacking up the rates. Anyone that knows anything about capitalism knew this was going to happen. When you give a company a license to steal they are going to take as much as they can why else do you think the insurance companies push for the ACA to go through.

Then why did Obama give them the license to steal?



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Are people serious, the price of healtcare goes up, wow who would of know that

That wasn't the promise...therefore, it was yet another Obamalie.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
What are the primary jobs of a liberal/progressive President?

1. Make it easier for the Democrats to take more money from the people.
2. Grow government until it "employs" every citizen.
3. Take away any power the citizens have to fight back.
4. Increase the control of the people by controlling things they need like food, water, etc.
5. Blame everything, no matter how obvious the lie, on the Republicans.
6. Never fire or discipline a contributing member...move them around.

Obamacare was never intended to work. It was intended to add a new level of tax upon the people, destroy the existing medical insurance system, eventually swoop in to fix everything by controlling your access to healthcare and in the end...if you aren't a good, quiet little American...shut you off from your needs.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Agreed...that's why I hate the way our medical insurance is set up. I'd rather the plans be considered individual savings accounts--whatever money you pay into it just builds up in an account, and when the time comes for you to need it, it's there.

I know, I know--that's basically a medical savings account. I'd prefer just to have one of those and set up a monthly allotment to that than pay a giant insurance company to deal with the doctors' offices for me. But I can't, because Obamacare tells me that I have to have insurance, and not just any insurance, but insurance that includes specific coverages, even if I don't want to pay for them.


Such savings accounts are great for routine care, but are quite bad at covering catastrophic illness. Lets say for example you get in a car wreck and become partially paralyzed. The surgeries required typically run $80k-$100k and as far as catastrophic events go that's pretty cheap. A savings account that's covering your doctors visits, medications, and so on is an order of magnitude less expensive.

This leads into what I see as one of the problems with our insurance system. Insurance is designed to make things more expensive overall in exchange for removing your risk of catastrophic damage. If your routine medical bills are $1000, under insurance they should cost say $1200 but you're not at risk of a $1 million bill if you get cancer. We've warped insurance though so that it's covering the routine care that everyone is pretty much guaranteed to get and insurance just doesn't work under those conditions.

We need to cut back on the things insurance is covering so that it's there for catastrophic coverage while coming up with a better system to handle routine and preventative card.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: peskyhumans

The fun thing about Obamacare is that you still need insurance, only now it is more expensive and you will be fined if you can't afford it.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Agreed...that's why I hate the way our medical insurance is set up. I'd rather the plans be considered individual savings accounts--whatever money you pay into it just builds up in an account, and when the time comes for you to need it, it's there.

I know, I know--that's basically a medical savings account. I'd prefer just to have one of those and set up a monthly allotment to that than pay a giant insurance company to deal with the doctors' offices for me. But I can't, because Obamacare tells me that I have to have insurance, and not just any insurance, but insurance that includes specific coverages, even if I don't want to pay for them.


Such savings accounts are great for routine care, but are quite bad at covering catastrophic illness. Lets say for example you get in a car wreck and become partially paralyzed. The surgeries required typically run $80k-$100k and as far as catastrophic events go that's pretty cheap. A savings account that's covering your doctors visits, medications, and so on is an order of magnitude less expensive.

This leads into what I see as one of the problems with our insurance system. Insurance is designed to make things more expensive overall in exchange for removing your risk of catastrophic damage. If your routine medical bills are $1000, under insurance they should cost say $1200 but you're not at risk of a $1 million bill if you get cancer. We've warped insurance though so that it's covering the routine care that everyone is pretty much guaranteed to get and insurance just doesn't work under those conditions.

We need to cut back on the things insurance is covering so that it's there for catastrophic coverage while coming up with a better system to handle routine and preventative card.


Star & smiley face.

Insurance is supposed to cover catastrophic illnesses - break a leg, cancer, surgeries, etc. Insurance should not be paying for routine physicals, aspirin, colds, etc.

It is just like car insurance. You carry car insurance in case you get in a bad wreck. Imagine how much car insurance would cost if it paid for routine maintenance like oil changes, tire rotations, car washes, etc?

Health insurance has transformed from a true insurance policy to basically a health maintenance plan.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
It is just like car insurance. You carry car insurance in case you get in a bad wreck. Imagine how much car insurance would cost if it paid for routine maintenance like oil changes, tire rotations, car washes, etc?

Health insurance has transformed from a true insurance policy to basically a health maintenance plan.


Insurance can pay for those things. I just had some car maintenance done recently, under my insurance provider if I really wanted to I could send that maintenance bill to them and they would pay for it. Of course by doing so my premium would skyrocket just like health insurance has done.

People don't seem to grasp how insurance works. The whole idea is that you have a risk pool of people, lets say 1000. You know that statistically 35% will get cancer, 2% will have a heart attack, 10% will break a leg, and so on. You take the costs of those treatments and then divide it by the total pool, add a profit margin, and that's what people pay. When you start using insurance for costs that have a near 100% incident rate like physicals, doctors visits, and so on all you're doing is raising the cost of your own health care.


originally posted by: Phoenix
Yup, you read it right, the drug cost 1% in India compared to what a US consumer is charged!

THIS HAS TO STOP!!!!!!

It won't so long as the US taxpayer and medical consumer accepts the current system where providers, hospitals, drug companies and insurers all have exceptions carved out of anti-trust laws, price collusion/fixing, ability to charge different costs for same procedure/service, no pricing required prior to service and a plethora of other laws protecting what amounts to a shake down operation by all involved.

RICO should apply but their exempt from that too!


I read your link but I didn't see a real solution there. If I understood it correctly what it suggested is that drug companies could sell non FDA approved drugs as long as they were labeled as such. I think this is a really bad idea because it means no drugs would ever be submitted for FDA approval. When it takes 20 years for a medication to reveal if it has any adverse side effects the company that produces it will have moved on to another product long before the customer can make an informed choice.

What's happening with Indian generics is that the US is paying the cost of developing the drug and registering a patent. India, Canada, and others however don't have to recognize our patent. Instead what they do is they take the drug formulation and reproduce it themselves. They can make an immense profit selling it at 1% of the cost because they don't have any of the billions in development costs sunk into it. India has no incentive to clamp down on this, because doing so would significantly raise the medical costs of their citizens.

The only solution I can think of to this would be to create an international patent and then convince every nation on earth to become a signatory to it. The closest we get right now is a treaty that allows a person or company to simultaneously file a patent in each nation, but each nation can independently choose to accept or reject it. In the case of medicines India for example simply rejects the patent and makes a generic version. Such a treaty would be a major political undertaking though. While I think developed nations could probably come to an agreement on this, the economy of developing nations largely involves patent infringement and I just can't see China, India, all of Africa, and others signing on to this deal.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join