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.

 

Millions Paying 10k Plus inHealth Care Premiums and Remain Afraid

page: 10
60
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan
There were about 20 states that had already passed this crap pile in the '90s, my state being one of them. That's when the gigantic premium increases began because insurance companies began leaving the states. The primary reason? The giants wanted the smaller companies who wouldn't play ball with them eliminated. Worked like a charm so they pursued it on a national level.

Perhaps you and a bunch of other people aren't old enough to remember this. I am and I do remember seeing my premiums skyrocket just like the people who know squat about insurance companies and insurance regulations predicted.

It is exactly the same as the "education reform" visited on school systems by the progressives. It begins at the state level and when enough damage has been done, moves to the Feds. The progressive authoritarians want complete control of every single person on earth's life because they know what is best for you. Only the "authorities" will tell you the truth in today's authoritarian world. Anyone who questions is labeled "anti-government" and a danger.




posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt


Well Bro I believe you if for no other reason than the fact that many, millions, now have what amounts to a second house payment and still have to shell out the first 5000.....per year. Its like paying out the ass an still having to chase the dog down.

And yea they just saddled millions with bricks without straw in the name of "capitalism" even though they don't deserve to consider themselves in that game even. I mean who and what business operates like that and remains in business? Where else does the person paying for the ride have zero to say about it really? These are psychopath. b



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: LooksLocked

He Could get hit by lightning. Not even a body to burden his family to bury.



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Sorry, but those studies are BS. I work in this field. The ACA was nothing but a tax package and a burden to companies. 10-15 years ago most employers paid coverage in full to attract employees. Most of my clients now pass on 75-80% of the cost to the employees. I have seen a family plan go from 600 to 1700 in 8 years.

Now, were the costs rising, yes, but what the ACA should have done was regulated health care providers and instead bailed them out.

If the ACA was repealed tomorrow no one would 'lose' healthcare. It would create a free market that would be beneficial to those who need insurance not those selling it.

It has nothing to do with Obama actually. This was the plan before he came along but he should have said no. Instead he paid back his backers for the DNC's 2008 campaign.
edit on 08pm31pmf0000002017-08-07T19:52:50-05:000750 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2017 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock
Well, Log, I'm a Sis, but I've been called worse!


Here's a link to an excellent article that outlines the history of Kentucky's debacle. www.heritage.org...




American taxpayers and state legislators now can discern how key components of President Bill Clinton's failed 1993 Health Security Act would have worked by examining the repercussions of a curiously similar program enacted in the state of Kentucky. In April 1994, the Kentucky General Assembly passed a measure that redefined the state's insurance market, created several new state bureaucracies, and altered the financing of health care for the poor. In many respects, the Kentucky Health Care Reform Act of 1994 is a smaller version of the Clinton Administration's discredited Health Security Act. Moreover, the Kentucky plan, like similar health reform plans in Minnesota and the state of Washington, affords a growing body of case studies that state legislators can use to see for themselves how specific regulatory interventions may affect the efficient functioning of the health insurance market and the cost and access of health insurance for individuals and families.

The excessive regulation embodied in the Kentucky plan has sharply increased health insurance rates, has driven health insurance companies out of the state, and has threatened patient privacy. With each passing day, the crisis in Kentucky's health insurance market deepens and the need to fix the government's mistakes becomes more urgent. Thus far, 45 health insurers have left the individual health insurance market. George Nichols III, the state's Insurance Commissioner, recently remarked, "I think going beyond a year would destroy us."2 In the individual health insurance market, Kentucky Kare, the major plan that covers state employees and individuals, has lost $30 million during the past 20 months and continues to lose money at a rate that could exhaust its reserves in 19 more months.3

For state legislators around the country, Kentucky is a case study in how not to reform health care at the state level. For Members of Congress, developments in Kentucky demonstrate once again why the federal government should refrain from imposing ill-considered mandates on the private health insurance market.


The article is from 1997, when it had become abundantly clear that things were out of control. I spoke with George Nichols on numerous occasions. He was saddled with this mess and absolutely did the best he could do but the money was going down the drain at an alarming rate.

This hurt every citizen in the state that paid for health insurance. Many employers were forced to cut coverage for families. The Kentucky retirement systems did likewise. Since they began providing insurance, many businesses and government agencies paid the full price of a family plan. In about '96 they began requiring the employee to pay a portion of the family plan and by '99 the family plan had to be fully paid by the employee. The retirement systems cut the spousal policy from their benefits. At the time they told us that it was done to stabilize the pension system. The joke was on the retirees! We are trying to tie Illinois for worst-funded pension system in the US.

When we were planning for our retirement there was no way we could have dreamed that health insurance premiums would be $10k/yr with $7k deductible!
Who could have dreamed that interest rates on savings would be close to zero. We're just thankful that we listened to older, wiser folk who had experienced the Great Depression and didn't put all our investments in the market.

It's the young folks who are just starting out and are being financially responsible that I feel for so badly. If they are making a good salary or wage, they don't qualify for any breaks and their insurance is as much or more than their house payment. If they qualify for the subsidy one year, get a better job and don't qualify the next year, they also have to pay back the subsidy from the previous year.... It almost seems like they're trying to destroy this generation not with wars on foreign soil but by beating them down economically.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   
I saw something interesting happen in the trucking industry a bit ago. A new clean air technology emerged, called the DPF filter. Pugeot, I think, held the patent for it.

So what does the government immediately do? They pass a law requiring that every truck must have one. Pugeot, goes from having a patent monopoly on a clean air technology, to essentially having a patent monopoly on "the semi truck". Because you cannot build and sell a semi truck now without Pugeot's permission.

Trucks cost more than Ferraris now, and the payment on a new truck dominates the cost to do business for truckers.




I suspect something similar is happening in the healthcare industry. Every time a new, patented, test comes along, it becomes part of the mandated minimum coverage. You can get sued if you don't use it.

Or a new pharmaceutical.


If only you had an option whether to use the old tech, or the newest tech. Because in most cases, the old tech got the job done.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
I saw something interesting happen in the trucking industry a bit ago. A new clean air technology emerged, called the DPF filter. Pugeot, I think, held the patent for it.

So what does the government immediately do? They pass a law requiring that every truck must have one. Pugeot, goes from having a patent monopoly on a clean air technology, to essentially having a patent monopoly on "the semi truck". Because you cannot build and sell a semi truck now without Pugeot's permission.

Trucks cost more than Ferraris now, and the payment on a new truck dominates the cost to do business for truckers.




I suspect something similar is happening in the healthcare industry. Every time a new, patented, test comes along, it becomes part of the mandated minimum coverage. You can get sued if you don't use it.

Or a new pharmaceutical.


If only you had an option whether to use the old tech, or the newest tech. Because in most cases, the old tech got the job done.




There is some truth to this statement. Im a manager in Healthcare. There are all kinds of metrics the government tracks, from post surgical infection to was the temp of your food warm to would you reccomend this hospital to another.
That alone costs money just to survey every patient to get the answers for .gov and to avoid a cut in the pay from medicare for not meeting the goal or improving them. There is more Management staff to track and handle this crap than the staff to care for the patients in some instances.

Otherwise there is the threat of lawsuits. This drives physicians to over order.
CTs for example about $3-5000 each.
fall and hit your head, people used to say observe,wait and see if any changes occur in mental state or pupils.
Now you get a hed CT minimum, usually with a cervical spine CT if your neck is sore, and CT Facial Bones if you bump your face. So aside from the general ER bill you now have $10-15K in cover your ass scans for the Dr.

Ct of course allows more to be seen than a plain film xray. But Its overkill just for a bump.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   
And of course, that kind of overkill service cannot just be for the rich. It has to be for everyone.

If it were just for the rich, but the poor still got basic level care, we'd be experiencing the benefits of a free market. (High quality, but not the very highest, latest, cutting edge).


Technology development costs tend to fall entirely on the shoulders of the rich in that environment. Remember when cell phones were so big you basically had to install them in your car? The rich paid every step of the way, as cell phones got smaller and smaller. No burden at all on the poor. And now even very poor people have access to them.

But that worked because cell phones are an elective purchase.


If we want health care to end up like cell phones, then we as a society need to change our attitude about morality, equality, and etc. "Good enough care not to get sued over it" has to be defined in the courts as allowing for a price limit on what is given. So you only get the latest, cutting edge, service if you can afford it. (Or perhaps also if it is clear that nothing short of that would save your life.)



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Conservatives are already advocating to allow the poor to assume risk by not having insurance at all.

Why not go half way? Allow the poor to assume risk by purchasing insurance plans that omit cutting edge technology?



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join