Millions Paying 10k Plus inHealth Care Premiums and Remain Afraid

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.

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

a reply to: LooksLocked

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

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If the ACA was repealed tomorrow no one would 'lose' healthcare.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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?

a reply to: diggindirt


Yes the young folks just starting out..........already with a bill equal to a house payment or better. Born from the womb these days to work for the insurance firms. I mean total the house, the car and the health and there is whose jackass we are.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
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?

Dude at some point yous got to water the horse that pulls the wagon. And its not a dam picnic for working people. What you think we are not paying dearly here? Thats what this thread is about. Its not all about the poor all the dam time.

The problem is that we are actually about under-charging the rich, by making it mandatory to lower the price enough so the poor can buy it too.

IE. If the price for the latest internal head scan is 500 and everyone who hits their head must get one every time they hit their head (or there will be a law suit), then the company that invented this scan is getting 500 times the number of people who get a scan (say 50,000 scans per year for a total of 25 million )- a low price to develop and bring to market any cutting edge tech.


But if only the rich were getting that scan, the price probably wouldn't be regulated at all. Each rich person might have to pay 20,000 If 2,000 rich people choose to get that scan, the developer will have gotten 40 million.

After the development cost is paid, the price might drop all the way down to 20 bucks a scan. And then you get your cheap healthcare, and it actually is paid for by the rich (instead of by everyone).

I want to add that the seeming utopia I just described is EXACTLY what happened with cell phones.

Usually if something actually has happened, that is considered good evidence that it will happen if we repeat the experiment for another product.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
I want to add that the seeming utopia I just described is EXACTLY what happened with cell phones.

Usually if something actually has happened, that is considered good evidence that it will happen if we repeat the experiment for another product.

Although it would be nice to equate healthcare to cell service, you just cant cross model that stuff.

Here is another stupid issue that I came across this week and it repeats all the time.

Pt had pain came to the ER. CT scan performed finds pelvic mass, Ovarian stuff, very large.

You dont do surgery in the ER and this wasnt life threatening, so they were sent home, But the ER doctor ordered an Ultrasound in the Morning if the pain continues...

So if the patient was discharged theyre no longer ER and Now subject to their insurance rules for preapproval.
They cant come back and have it done without a preapproval from their primary doctor.

Yet they did come back... So option A is send them to their doctor to be seen in clinic and let them order the scan and get preapproval from insurance... or Option B, yup... Go back thru the ER.

2 ER visits in 2 days for a known large mass in the pelvis? Does the Ultrasound need to be done? No they need gynecological surgery. But what do we do? The Ultrasound. Which states the exact same thing as the CT.

2 tests now verifying the same thing...

Finally patient is Transferred to the hospital that their OB GYN resides at for surgery.
Hospital to Hospital transfers from ER go to the other ER.

3 ER visits in 2 Days, with 2 Advanced Imaging tests, a Surgery, recovery, etc.

Had they started in the right place they could've had 1 ER visit, 1 Scan, 1 Surgery... the same day.

But still cover your ass by the Doctors is out of hand, and it slows the process.
Patients going to the ER, the wrong facility, or not seeing their specialists for stuff is also a problem.

The Utopia for Healthcare isnt volume, the volume is huge and overwhelming.

Its the Right Patient in the Right Place, receiving the Right Care at the Right Time.

Its an attempt to achieve basically what I said: provide an inferior level of care for those who can't pay full price. Only the irony is that it ends up costing more.

The ER is where you can go without insurance. A loophole. But basically serves the role of "lower cost alternative". (OR well.... lower price. The cost is actually greater. Just the price the recipient pays is less.)

There is no way to avoid doing it. But if we would admit we were doing it, and just plain come to terms with it, people would get better care (even the poor), AND it would cost less in total. BOTH.


But instead we need to lie to ourselves, and pretend there's this morally acceptable path. One that perfectly matches all of our ideals. One where the poor always get the same care as the rich, and that is really good care.

Cognitive dissonance. Self delusion. Those are the placebos for which we are trading away real world results we could have achieved.

Even if the care the rich got was only slightly better than the care the poor got, the rich would probably be willing to pay at least 10 times as much to get it.

Which would fund the research and development of treatments the poor ultimately get anyway.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Even if the care the rich got was only slightly better than the care the poor got, the rich would probably be willing to pay at least 10 times as much to get it.

Which would fund the research and development of treatments the poor ultimately get anyway.

How would that work? You fill out an income form at the Hospital, and your medical care charges will be based on your reported income?

a reply to: ChrisM101


ChrisM101, your post was very informative in pointing out how inefficient our medical system can be. Thank-you.

originally posted by: ChrisM101

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.

Have been hearing this for years. Same old BS. Health industry overcharges and has crafty ways of doing it. Fancy commercials as well. Insurance company I had very good, would even try to warn you that your health care provider was about to stroke you.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Even if the care the rich got was only slightly better than the care the poor got, the rich would probably be willing to pay at least 10 times as much to get it.

Which would fund the research and development of treatments the poor ultimately get anyway.

How would that work? You fill out an income form at the Hospital, and your medical care charges will be based on your reported income?

No. You are missing the point.

The rich would CHOOSE to pay ten times more, if they could get care that was just slightly better.

If they don't want to pay 10 times more, they can do the same as any poor person and just get ordinary care for the poor person price. But most rich people would not do that. Their health matters to them. They'll shell out the cash for that small percentage of better odds.