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.

 

Should Every Health Insurance Buyer Pay More To Keep Benefits Rich For All?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2017 @ 02:30 AM
link   
May 16, 2017

I was reading this story www.romper.com... that describes giving birth in America, after the American Health Care Act (AHCA) replaces the Affordable Care Act (ACA - ObamaCare).

With the AHCA, benefits that not everyone wants or needs, will once again become OPTIONAL, just like they were before ObamaCare. When a health insurance plan is purchased, you will be able to buy MATERNITY coverage, or to not buy Maternity coverage...it's up to you.

In the Romper.com article, this new Mom racks up $54,000 in medical bills, due to having a premature baby. She didn't add/purchase maternity coverage to her AHCA plan, so the full $54,000 is her responsibility.

Today, with ObamaCare, everyone who buys health insurance is covered for maternity, along with any complications. That benefit, and the cost of that benefit, is built into every policy purchased..be it a Man/Woman/Young/Old..it makes no difference.


That Romper.com article made me wonder... To WHAT DEGREE should Americans share each others' burdens, when it comes to healthcare?

Using the above example, is it better to expect that a woman of childbearing age will add the optional maternity benefit to her health policy, even though having that benefit adds $250 to her monthly premium? (American Health Care Act)

Or, is it better that every person (man/woman/boy/girl) buying health insurance pay an additional $40 a month, to GUARANTEE that every woman who has a child, has the maternity benefit? (Affordable Care Act - aka "ObamaCare")

I realize that sicker individuals prefer "Cadillac" coverage, and that "everybody pays a little more" in order to keep their personal insurance policy affordable. And we know that healthy people generally want low-cost "catastrophic" plans..a combination that's not available with ObamaCare.

Should each person be responsible for choosing their own level of benefits? Or, is it best for everyone to pay a higher price, to ensure that all have the same rich benefit package, as defined by the Federal (or state) Government?

ATS family...In your opinion, which one of these two scenarios do MOST Americans prefer? Thank-you for taking the time to share your thoughts.

-CareWeMust



edit on 5/17/2017 by carewemust because: slight wording adjustment




posted on May, 17 2017 @ 03:05 AM
link   
This is a problem so complicated, I don't think it'll get worked out soon or cheaply.
I'd love to see everyone with good healthcare. Mine sucks and I'm out of pocket around $200 every visit, plus medicines and that's getting off lite compared to some. "Everybody" pays about $450 a year, everyone has insurance. But, it doesn't and won't work that way. Not everyone works, not everyone pays taxes. Some who are on benefits, receive coverage through those benefits, part of the cost subsidized by the govt. So, do the people who work have to pay more or do we just rob some other program?
When plans are too expensive for some, the govt subsidizes those too, so some don't pay the full amount and the burden will likely go to those in higher income brackets. Is it fair to charge them more? Make them pay their share and several others? Or again, how do we make up the difference?
Very close to 20 Trillion in debt and counting.
One thing is certain : We have got to bring down medical costs. I do not mean pay Drs and Nurses less, but $20 for a Tylenol when in the hospital? A single test is $5000? My ex is a RN of over 20 years and some of the examples of waste in hospitals is sickening. One small example : Let's say you get a shot of painkiller or you are diabetic. The ampoule they draw out of is multiple dose,[ usually 2 -3 ] but they are forced by policy to draw one dose, throw it away and get a new one for every dose after, but you get charged for the full ampoule each time.

I truly hope we straighten it out soon. Everyone needs access to good, affordable care, without bankrupting their family.



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64


Those are excellent thoughts and spot-on real world examples, David. Thank-you. What do you feel are the best methods from driving down the insane cost of medical care? The U.S. Government COULD put in place price ceilings for tests, medications, etc..



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 04:26 AM
link   
The biggest problem is that Healthcare is a business that is employs so many and to take the insurance companies out of the equation and Hospital administrations out of it as well would cripple our economy. Factor in all the companies that manufacture medical devices, or provide them, Pharma and you've got a massive part of our GNP.

After Manufacturing went oversea's we went whole hog into "service industries" with health related business's picking up the slack.

To dismantle this would drive unemployment back into the 1980 levels if not worse. No ones discussing it but it's why you see one bandaid after another being applied to the ACA mess. No one knows how to untangle this mess and are scared silly to try in any meaningful way because we'd have a replay of the Great Depression.



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust



Should Every Health Insurance Buyer Pay More To Keep Benefits Rich For All?


If we get back the right to NOT buy it then charge whatever you want. If the Government is forcing me to buy it then hell no.



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 05:39 AM
link   
A proper single payer system would in all likely hood cost less to the individual than the average person pays now.



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

We need to stop bombing Arabs for Israel and provide REAL healthcare to our people. AMERICA FIRST!!!!



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: eNumbra
A proper single payer system would in all likely hood cost less to the individual than the average person pays now.


Other countries can do it!!! WHY CAN'T WE!!!! THIS IS PURE BS!!!!

The truth is there's just basic corruption going on where the Hospitals can charge Pentagon toilet seat pricing. There's collusion going on so what Hospitals charge keeps going up and healthcare premium taxes keep rising without restraint. CEOs love a good cartel or monopoly.



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
This is a problem so complicated, I don't think it'll get worked out soon or cheaply.
I'd love to see everyone with good healthcare


Other countries are just smarter than the US. We just can't figure out how to do it here what they do.



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Affordable health care cannot be done purely by private health insurance. It requires a social approach. The idea that only profitable enterprise can afford its subscribers on the whole is ridiculous.

Especially in a country that spends anywhere between billions and trillions on military costs.

If your politicians can actually agree with each other, affordable and COMPREHENSIVE care is financially viable, if complicated, according to the public understanding. The number crunchers would say that health care, in a preventative sense, more than covers the accidental nature of life. That's the point of private health insurance.

However, you poor 'Mericans are suffering under an umbrella of blown out costs thanks to a flagrantly unregulated system of health care. They who have the wealth, have the health.

Just a random page for a source, it makes sense to me....Pro's Con's Free Universal Healthcare

....might I add in retrospect...selling private health insurance is easy...making it affordable or of quality is not so simple. However, I believe our social drive is towards the betterment of all, not a few.
edit on 17-5-2017 by sunkuong because: the heebie jeebies



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

It depends on how you define benefits.

I am an old fart. The children I raised are adults. Only one has children and his son is nearly grown. They don't live in my county, yet I pay taxes for schools. I live in the country and we have dirt roads that we have to maintain on our own dime, but I pay taxes on streets and roads that benefit all.

Some things come with intrinsic benefits. It is not that easy to separate what is good for the many, from what is good for the few.



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
May 16, 2017

That Romper.com article made me wonder... To WHAT DEGREE should Americans share each others' burdens, when it comes to healthcare?

I think that the better question to ask would be: To what degree should we be forced to share each other's burdens by an overbearing government in a (crony) capitalist society? I know the answer to that, which will be noted after this next quote...


Should each person be responsible for choosing their own level of benefits? Or, is it best for everyone to pay a higher price, to ensure that all have the same rich benefit package, as defined by the Federal (or state) Government?

ATS family...In your opinion, which one of these two scenarios do MOST Americans prefer?

Well, as one Lt. Kaffee once said, "It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove," so my opinion on the latter half of that quote is irrelevant to a logical discussion.

However, I always believe that personal choice in what one purchases is ALWAYS a good thing, and when a government steps in and says that you MUST buy something, and at this level of service, and yadda yadda yadda, that's not a good thing.

I am reluctantly open to (although still don't like) the idea that maybe a basic, base coverage might be good option for people to buy into through the government (and I mean EXTREMELY basic...like, SafeAuto car insurance basic), but I don't think that it should be forced. Anything on top of that is voluntary and at the cost of the individual or between them and their employer.

But in any event, I don't think that a federal mandate--especially for such comprehensive plans--is appropriate or a good idea. But there will never be a simple solution or any solution that will appease all, so that's why I believe that the federal government, at the least, needs to relinquish its stranglehold on the health insurance industry.

ETA: I think that society has a moral obligation to help those who cannot help themselves for basic needs, but I don't feel that morality can be legislated from the federal government, and I think that communities would be better at helping those in need if it wasn't always forced by daddy gubmint.
edit on 17-5-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Everytime I think of one way to help, 3 more things pop up. If we let govt limit prices in healthcare, where does it stop? People will want gas, food, clothes, etc, price controlled and there goes Capitalism. I am always leery of giving our govt more power to rule our lives.



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: sunkuong
Especially in a country that spends anywhere between billions and trillions on military costs.

I (and many others that I have seen post on ATS) am so tired of this red-herring argument.

Military spending is an enumerated constitutional directive that the federal government is mandated to do.

Usurping the health-insurance industry, manipulating the healthcare industry, and providing medical insurance to people via programs like Medicaid and Medicare is NOT an enumerated, mandated function of federal government. (and to many, that means that the 10th Amendment kicks in and that the federal government SHOULDN'T be doing those things)

I'm not saying that we can't reduce our military spending fairly dramatically, but the two are not comparable in a logical, intelligent discussion.


However, you poor 'Mericans are suffering under an umbrella of blown out costs thanks to a flagrantly unregulated system of health care. They who have the wealth, have the health.

No, the amount of regulations and federal involvement is exactly the 'why' behind the cost problem. Take a few seconds and Google how much healthcare and health insurance costs have gone up since the PPACA (a massive amount of government regulations) took effect.

Claiming that the problem is that we don't have enough government intrusion into the health insurance and healthcare industry is laughable.

We "poor 'Mericans" lead the world in medical research and innovations, much of which is funded by increased healthcare costs, yet people from, let's say, Melbourne, want to lecture us on the cost of healthcare?

Let's see the massive amount of contribution that Australia is providing the world in the different fields of healthcare compared to the U.S....Oh, wait, there isn't much to see.

Yet, here we are, doing the tired old runaround with people of other nations who reap the benefits of the results of America's research and innovations, yet don't really help pay for the R&D of it all, wanting to lecture us on why we pay so much for healthcare and that we should do what they do.

Give me a GD break. Maybe we should just stop researching and innovating, then the cost of our healthcare would drop quite dramatically--maybe the rest of the world can start catching up and doing a better job at subsidizing the expensive job that America leads in concerning healthcare innovations and research.

Updated numbers from that 2-year-old link above (from the "SJR - International Science Ranking"), with the ranking of Australia in each category noted, followed by how many times more the United States has contributed to each category than Australia, just for some perspective:

Main page for all sciences
Biochemistry, Genetics, and Molecular Biology (11th, 11.8x more)
Dentistry (15th, 11x more)
Health Professions (4th, 6.5x more)
Immunology and Microbiology (11th, 9.8x more)
Medicine (10th, 9.8x more)
Neuroscience (9th, 11.1x more)
Nursing (3rd, 7.4x more)
Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Pharmaceutics (14th, 13.5x more)
Psychology (5th, 9.9x more)
And I'll even throw in Veterinary (11th, 7.5x more)

What you will notice (if you've read this far) is that, without fail, the United States leads, generally by at least a margin of 3-to-1, in every single one of those medically focused categories, the rest of the entire world. Second place is ALWAYS a distant second, not even generally coming close.

So let's not start lecturing the U.S. about its healthcare costs, unless the rest of the world would like to catch up to the R&D that we do and help better subsidizing that cost.



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   
So you described someone who did not select coverage they should have and needed.

There is no fix for stupidity.



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
May 16, 2017

I was reading this story www.romper.com... that describes giving birth in America, after the American Health Care Act (AHCA) replaces the Affordable Care Act (ACA - ObamaCare).

With the AHCA, benefits that not everyone wants or needs, will once again become OPTIONAL, just like they were before ObamaCare. When a health insurance plan is purchased, you will be able to buy MATERNITY coverage, or to not buy Maternity coverage...it's up to you.

In the Romper.com article, this new Mom racks up $54,000 in medical bills, due to having a premature baby. She didn't add/purchase maternity coverage to her AHCA plan, so the full $54,000 is her responsibility.

Today, with ObamaCare, everyone who buys health insurance is covered for maternity, along with any complications. That benefit, and the cost of that benefit, is built into every policy purchased..be it a Man/Woman/Young/Old..it makes no difference.

That Romper.com article made me wonder... To WHAT DEGREE should Americans share each others' burdens, when it comes to healthcare?


Insurance doesn't work if you don't buy it before hand. I don't understand what is so hard for people to get about this concept when it comes to health, but they seem to accept this fact with all other forms of insurance. Insurance is just a financial product to protect you against something catastrophic that MIGHT happen. The insurance company is betting it won't and you are betting it will. Insurance works because far more people buy coverage than actually wind up needing it so those premiums collected can cover the small percentage of people who need it.

Insurance cannot function mathematically as a product if people are allowed to by it AFTER THE FACT.

Being a female and not having maternity coverage by choice is retarded. You cannot fix stupid. No one is responsible for that $54,000 bill except that chick.

You say you need life insurance coverage AFTER you've died. You don't go get car insurance to pay for your totaled car AFTER you've been in a wreck. You don't get homeowner's insurance AFTER you've had your house burn down.

I've just accepted the fact that half our populace is just retarded. This is why our insurance cost so much because everyone else is paying for these idiots who don't get proper coverage. This is why that aspirin cost $10/pill. Since hospitals must treat everyone regardless of coverage, they shift costs over to those that do have insurance to make up fo the losses. I'm starting to think we may need some type of national coverage for everyone that at least covers a bare minimum since we can't depend on people to manage their own lives anymore.
edit on Wed May 17 2017 by DontTreadOnMe because: trimmed overly long quote Quote Crash Course



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated


Your assessment is pretty spot-on. But unlike other insurance types, no one HAS to take care of you if you don't have insurance. If you don't have life insurance no one is going to pay your family if you die. If you don't have auto insurance no one is going to pay to fix you (or the other driver's) car if you get in an accident. If you don't have home owner's insurance no one will replace your home if it burns.


But with health insurance, if you get sick or injured, the hospital is required to treat you no matter what. And as the economy started to slide and the job market shriveled-up more and more people could no longer afford insurance and employers covered less and less of that cost. With no insurance, people would not get preventative treatment so when they DO end up I the ER they are more of a train wreck and cost a great deal more to treat. And so the hospitals pass on more of the uncovered costs to us --- at least as much as the insurance companies allow through their rate-setting --- and eat the rest. And many close. And now, instead of driving 30min to the nearest hospital at 3am when your kid is running a 104deg temperature you get to drive 1-1/2 hours.



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: carewemust
May 16, 2017

I was reading this story www.romper.com... that describes giving birth in America, after the American Health Care Act (AHCA) replaces the Affordable Care Act (ACA - ObamaCare).

With the AHCA, benefits that not everyone wants or needs, will once again become OPTIONAL, just like they were before ObamaCare. When a health insurance plan is purchased, you will be able to buy MATERNITY coverage, or to not buy Maternity coverage...it's up to you.

In the Romper.com article, this new Mom racks up $54,000 in medical bills, due to having a premature baby. She didn't add/purchase maternity coverage to her AHCA plan, so the full $54,000 is her responsibility.

Today, with ObamaCare, everyone who buys health insurance is covered for maternity, along with any complications. That benefit, and the cost of that benefit, is built into every policy purchased..be it a Man/Woman/Young/Old..it makes no difference.


That Romper.com article made me wonder... To WHAT DEGREE should Americans share each others' burdens, when it comes to healthcare?

Using the above example, is it better to expect that a woman of childbearing age will add the optional maternity benefit to her health policy, even though having that benefit adds $250 to her monthly premium? (American Health Care Act)

Or, is it better that every person (man/woman/boy/girl) buying health insurance pay an additional $40 a month, to GUARANTEE that every woman who has a child, has the maternity benefit? (Affordable Care Act - aka "ObamaCare")

I realize that sicker individuals prefer "Cadillac" coverage, and that "everybody pays a little more" in order to keep their personal insurance policy affordable. And we know that healthy people generally want low-cost "catastrophic" plans..a combination that's not available with ObamaCare.

Should each person be responsible for choosing their own level of benefits? Or, is it best for everyone to pay a higher price, to ensure that all have the same rich benefit package, as defined by the Federal (or state) Government?

ATS family...In your opinion, which one of these two scenarios do MOST Americans prefer? Thank-you for taking the time to share your thoughts.

-CareWeMust




Insurance doesn't work if you don't buy it before hand.


I guarantee you everyone is going to die. I think the chances of using a hospital in your lifetime is like 100%. If not at one end then at the other.

If you having a heart attack people generally do argue with being taken to the hospital. Healthcare is not the same thing as buying bubble gum.


edit on 17-5-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Although I am not American, I find your country's struggles with affordable healthcare similar to Canada's, in that, they (we) need to rethink how processes can be made more efficient, such as bundling together the costs of processes from onset of disease to full recovery, or to have the patient become proactive in researching and their owning their own health care decisions (as quoted from the article below).

As well as using smarter ways of diagnosing a greater number of patients, for example, if a specialist sees 20 patients in one day, he/she could then attend a meeting with many specialists whereby they could all have a meeting of the minds on each doctor's patients - so one meeting with perhaps 10 doctors = 200 diagnoses in a matter of hours.

It boggles the mind why they are still stumbling and falling when it comes to making healthcare affordable and not challenging the drug companies on their ever-increasing pricing of medicine.

www.kevinmd.com...
edit on 15CDT09America/Chicago04890931 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: carewemust
May 16, 2017

I was reading this story www.romper.com... that describes giving birth in America, after the American Health Care Act (AHCA) replaces the Affordable Care Act (ACA - ObamaCare).

With the AHCA, benefits that not everyone wants or needs, will once again become OPTIONAL, just like they were before ObamaCare. When a health insurance plan is purchased, you will be able to buy MATERNITY coverage, or to not buy Maternity coverage...it's up to you.

In the Romper.com article, this new Mom racks up $54,000 in medical bills, due to having a premature baby. She didn't add/purchase maternity coverage to her AHCA plan, so the full $54,000 is her responsibility.

Today, with ObamaCare, everyone who buys health insurance is covered for maternity, along with any complications. That benefit, and the cost of that benefit, is built into every policy purchased..be it a Man/Woman/Young/Old..it makes no difference.


That Romper.com article made me wonder... To WHAT DEGREE should Americans share each others' burdens, when it comes to healthcare?

Using the above example, is it better to expect that a woman of childbearing age will add the optional maternity benefit to her health policy, even though having that benefit adds $250 to her monthly premium? (American Health Care Act)

Or, is it better that every person (man/woman/boy/girl) buying health insurance pay an additional $40 a month, to GUARANTEE that every woman who has a child, has the maternity benefit? (Affordable Care Act - aka "ObamaCare")

I realize that sicker individuals prefer "Cadillac" coverage, and that "everybody pays a little more" in order to keep their personal insurance policy affordable. And we know that healthy people generally want low-cost "catastrophic" plans..a combination that's not available with ObamaCare.

Should each person be responsible for choosing their own level of benefits? Or, is it best for everyone to pay a higher price, to ensure that all have the same rich benefit package, as defined by the Federal (or state) Government?

ATS family...In your opinion, which one of these two scenarios do MOST Americans prefer? Thank-you for taking the time to share your thoughts.

-CareWeMust




Insurance doesn't work if you don't buy it before hand.


I guarantee you everyone is going to die. I think the chances of using a hospital in your lifetime is like 100%. If not at one end then at the other.

If you having a heart attack people generally do argue with being taken to the hospital. Healthcare is not the same thing as buying bubble gum.



Yes, the chances of needing some type of major medical is very high which is why people should be covered. The reality though is that the vast majority of major medical costs are incurred later in life, particularly as medicine gets more advanced and are able to keep the elderly living longer. This is why Obamacare wanted to get so many young people on the insurance roles as the young are not nearly as likely to need coverage. The young basically subsidize the old.

My daughter was born six weeks premature and my wife also required a 3 week hospital stay during her birth. Total bills were north of $150,000. I think our out of pocket was maybe $7500. The complications were totally unexpected and this is why we prioritize our insurance and pay for good coverage.

I see so many people complaining about insurance, but yet these same folks will have a full dressed Harley, boat, big mortgage, and all kinds of other material pleasures.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join