Now you are FORCED to buy health insurance, what will you eliminate to afford it?

reply to post by Nicademus


Taxes don't pay for it. Nobody does. They stiff the ambulance company and insurance company makes it up this lost money in other areas with other charges higher than they should be to make up the difference.

Things should cost what they are worth. Does that make too much sense? Do you really think the prices on some of this stuff is realistic? Come on can we start making a little bit of sense somewhere along the line? I am not saying become a rocket scientist but for Gods sake do the math.

So instead of the poor paying nothing to use the emergency rooms and blocking them up for true emergencies, which God forbid you may be one day...they get free primary care and so don't end up in the emergency rooms as often. They will have to pay something in...they get something out...everybody is happy.

Follow the money. When ever anyone is spending a fortune to stop something you have to ask yourself - What do they stand to lose?

All anyone has to do is follow the money and you will see what you are up against and why. Hedge funds on health were never a good idea.

reply to post by rusethorcain

Taxes don't pay for it. Nobody does. They stiff the ambulance company and insurance company makes it up this lost money in other areas with other charges higher than they should be to make up the difference.

Who are you referring to? The uninsured? If they are not insured how are the insurance companies being stiffed. Also where is your data that shows "nobody pays"?

Things should cost what they are worth. Does that make too much sense? Do you really think the prices on some of this stuff is realistic? Come on can we start making a little bit of sense somewhere along the line? I am not saying become a rocket scientist but for Gods sake do the math.

Because people steal a product or service it should become compulsory for the populace pay for that product or service? Why? Then shouldn't we be doing this with credit cards as well?

They will have to pay something in...they get something out...everybody is happy.

And if they can't afford insurance? If the fine or the premium cost takes food off their table or shelter over their heads is the insurance going to cover the resulting dis-ease caused by those issues?

Follow the money.

Good idea. Seems to lead straight from the average American to the corrupt insurance cartel. This used to be done though good marketing but now it is by force.

Hedge funds on health were never a good idea.

What hedge funds are you referring to?

reply to post by Nicademus


ummm, talk to me when you break a bone, find out the er is only gonna splint it, and well, send you on your way to a specialist that wants an outrageous down payment to set it.....
then, you might know why one should have insurance.

this whole argument is getting old....
this bill is unconstitutional, but, well, it's perfectly okay to take money from those who are trapped in our current system, unable to obtain the care they need, just so yous can give it to the "poor", who just may have an income twice the amount of the one who is being denied, if not more!!
it's been unconstitutional for years!!

and it's gotten to the point where no one, not we the people, not your local, state, or federal gov't can afford the current system!

you don't like the bill, it's unconstitutional, I don't like the current system, it's unconstitutional.
what would be constitutional....oh, ya, have the gov't pull back the money that they are sending into this system...but no one wants that one either!

Originally posted by harvib

However it is not debatable that this legislation created tremendous demand for the insurance industry. Due to the fact that this legislation requires individuals to have insurance, all who previously didn't have insurance will now be entering the market place to purchase insurance. The increased demand becomes present the day the legislation is signed not due to some epidemic as you state.

That would make sense if there was a shortage. But there isn't. Increased demand in that sense works when there is a limited supply. When the supply is unaffected by the number of users, as there is no shortage and no demand that would increase prices.

If, using my earlier example, suddenly 100,000 people wanted to buy tires, but there were only 50,000 tires available, then the increased demand would result in increased prices. When there are plenty of tires to go around, prices will not go up. This is not a supply and demand situation at all as the supply is unlimited. They can write as many policies as they want with no shortage.

In addition, The bill requires that ANY price increase has to be justified and pass a review board for approval.

The company I work for has a health plan. A few years ago our company took off and expanded. Due to the almost doubling of employees we were able to negotiate a better deal. With a larger group we got a better price. We increased demand, and lowered costs. That is the idea behind the concept of increasing the number of insured, brings down costs.

reply to post by Terapin


This is correct.

Insurance companies already have a monopoly. In my previous post I gave the example of your local hospital only accepting 2 kinds of insurance. Since they are not providing anything in the terms of *PHYSICAL GOODS*, and *JUST SERVICES* there is really no such thing as supply and demand in this instance.

The only way it will save is if they figure out a way to spread or mitigate risk within a very large sample size. Since there ARE STILL ONLY TWO OR THREE INSURERS IN YOUR AREA that most hospitals and Dr's accept I am quite skeptical about breaks in price.

See, the way to change this all would be to allow insurers to insure you out of state. Or out of your area. They still let the insurance companies basically control a monopoly. They KILLED Microsoft for this but for some reason AETNA, CIGNA, BCBS lobbyists really own our congress.



[edit on 25-3-2010 by GreenBicMan]

I have read this entire thread and I am convinced that there are a lot of people who don’t understand what this Health Care Bill truly does so I’m here to help with that.

People seem to think the US is getting a health care system similar to Canada or the UK in that the citizens pay a tax that gets put into a pool that is then used to pay for citizens to go to the doctor’s office or the hospital. If this was what we were getting, I think we’d see a lot less opposition to it even though it was rammed through The House at midnight on a weekend.

What we have now, before bill passage, is that we go to insurance companies and buy a policy that helps subsidize costs for us to go to a doctor or hospital and is voluntary. You can buy it individually outside of your employer or through your employer’s group plan.

What we get after the bill passage is the same thing, except it’s now mandatory. If we don’t get an insurance plan, we get fined on a monthly basis. Who will enforce this? The IRS will. I’ve even heard (but haven’t verified) that you could get imprisoned or loose your license if you don’t pay the fines. If you make more than 200k / year, then you get taxed to pay for the optional government subsidized plans for the people who make between 100% - 400% of the poverty level who choose to get those instead of from a company directly. This includes businesses. When taxes increase, businesses increase the prices of their goods and services to offset that money which translates into the regular people paying for this. We are ALL paying for this in multiple ways.

I agree that there are a lot of good things in this bill, but they could’ve been passed in a way that doesn’t mandate people buying insurance or paying a fine if they don’t and that didn't have all the negatives. They could’ve just passed restrictions on the insurance companies encompassing all of the good things in this bill, but they didn’t. And for the ones who are making the ridiculous car insurance argument: you can choose to not buy a car and thus not pay for insurance. With this bill, since you’re alive you no longer have a choice to buy health insurance.

I’ll say it again; I think we’d see a lot less opposition to this bill, even though it was rammed through The House at midnight on a weekend, if we were getting a health care system like they have in Canada or the UK. I, for one, would be fine with that. But this bill, as it is, is unconstitutional because it forces a person to buy something that is otherwise a choice. The difference in the UK type system is that the government is paying the health care professionals FOR the people from a pool, instead of the people being forced to buy a product from a company.

I foresee all US insurance companies merging into one company in the future with outrageous premiums. If you don’t think premiums will go up, you’re kidding yourself. See: “Higher Insurance Premiums” at www.nationalcenter.org....


[edit on 25-3-2010 by digifanatic]

[edit on 25-3-2010 by digifanatic]

reply to post by Terapin

That would make sense if there was a shortage. But there isn't. Increased demand in that sense works when there is a limited supply. When the supply is unaffected by the number of users, as there is no shortage and no demand that would increase prices.

i don't believe this to be correct. Price point as a function of demand is not exclusively dependent on supply. In other words, the industry, prior to this legislation, had to consider avoiding a price point that would deter individuals and businesses from participating in the insurance industry. However this is no longer the case. Price point considerations within the industry no longer have to consider what people will be willing to pay for the service because the people don't have a choice.

In addition, The bill requires that ANY price increase has to be justified and pass a review board for approval.

I also don't believe this statement to be true. The closest thing to this that I have read is in section 2794:

SEC. 2794. ENSURING THAT CONSUMERS GET VALUE FOR THEIR DOLLARS.

`(a) Initial Premium Review Process-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary, in conjunction with States, shall establish a process for the annual review, beginning with the 2010 plan year and subject to subsection (b)(2)(A), of unreasonable increases in premiums for health insurance coverage.

`(2) JUSTIFICATION AND DISCLOSURE- The process established under paragraph (1) shall require health insurance issuers to submit to the Secretary and the relevant State a justification for an unreasonable premium increase prior to the implementation of the increase. Such issuers shall prominently post such information on their Internet websites. The Secretary shall ensure the public disclosure of information on such increases and justifications for all health insurance issuers.

Notice also that it states "unreasonable increases". Yet where are the guidelines that establish what is reasonable and unreasonable? As it stands it is up to the provider to determine what is reasonable or not. Is it likely any provider is going to confess that their increase is "unreasonable"?

Furthermore there is no authority given to regulate against "unreasonable" increases. Simply that they must submit a "justification" for it.

There seems to be only an illusion of oversight but nothing substantial to prevent the industry from unchecked premium increases.

The company I work for has a health plan. A few years ago our company took off and expanded. Due to the almost doubling of employees we were able to negotiate a better deal. With a larger group we got a better price. We increased demand, and lowered costs. That is the idea behind the concept of increasing the number of insured, brings down costs.

You got a group discount. Companies will do this because they have more incentive to compete for larger blocks of business. However this is because of intra-industry competition. Although there will still be group discounts the overall premium price will increase.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by harvib]

Insurance companies will compete against each other for the new customers. They now have to disclose much more information about their business practices as per the transparency requirements. Customers can choose those they feel offer the best coverage for the price. Those who attempt to skyrocket their prices will lose out to companies that are more cost effective. The ability to significantly raise premiums without justification has been removed.

My company makes various insurers compete against each other for our business. It has worked well. We ask for a quote from various insurers. We compare price and benefits. We then go back to the vendors showing them the other companies better offers, and got them to create a custom policy for us with a price point we found acceptable. This resulted in some savings for our company policy and benefits we desired. Not a huge amount of savings, but enough to make it noticeable. If people vote with their checkbooks they will chose the policy they prefer. Any company that raises costs without improving benefits will notice customer loss.

Time will tell. Feel free to sit it out for a year and see what happens. You can be sure that if insurers attempt to raise prices without justification to the public, that there will be a massive public outcry. Now that everyone has to get insurance there will be a much larger public interest in the business and people will watch and learn, and then scream bloody murder to their congressmen to do something about insurers who try to rape peoples wallets. Remember, there are elections coming up.

reply to post by Terapin

Insurance companies will compete against each other for the new customers.

No doubt there will still be competition between "providers" within the industry. However there is also no doubt that premium prices as a whole will increase. There is just nothing to prevent it. They no longer have to worry about the consumer abandoning their "service" as an industry.

The ability to significantly raise premiums without justification has been removed.

Please read the part of the legislation I quoted. There is no wording that requires that premium increases be justified. Only "unreasonable" increases. And the determination as to what is reasonable and unreasonable is left up to the company. Which one do you think they are going to pick?


[edit on 25-3-2010 by harvib]

Originally posted by Terapin
The company I work for has a health plan. A few years ago our company took off and expanded. Due to the almost doubling of employees we were able to negotiate a better deal. With a larger group we got a better price. We increased demand, and lowered costs. That is the idea behind the concept of increasing the number of insured, brings down costs.

That would work in a totally capitalistic market. With the Law in it's present form, what will happen when the government decides that Company A, B and C's prices are too high in State D? Insurance Company D will benefit but but the residents of State D might have fewer selection of plans. In fact, companies A,B and C could just close down doing business there as it's a losing proposition. When governments put in forms of price controls it is going to mess up the whole supply/demand/price structure. Prices might become artificially low just due to massive government subsidizing. What form do you think that subsidizing is going to take? Insurance companies will not compete to offer additional services as price will become the factor that overrides all of their decisions.

Look what is happening with Doctors and Dentists and Pharmacies with Medicaid. I know 3 dentists personally, none of them accept Medicaid patients as they just break even or even lose money on treating them. Some Walgreens are not accepting new customers for Medicaid Prescriptions as, again, they lose money on the deal. I don't think companies will stick around long when they can't make a profit or barely eek one out.

I just don't see this working out well in the long run for the average American citizen that already has health care coverage.

Originally posted by Terapin

. . . You can be sure that if insurers attempt to raise prices without justification to the public, that there will be a massive public outcry . . .

I do believe you are correct . . . there would definitely be a massive public outcry . . . and with respect to how much good that'll do, lets just say the public outcry to the $700 billion that the banks and insurance cimpanies got handed to them on a silver platter worked real well . . . so well in fact that they got another $300 or so billion on top of it. The fat-cats still ran away with thier multi million dollar bonuses while more than one or two mainstreeters stuck the business end of a twelve gauge down the pie hole and ended it because they lost their jobs and then everything because the corporate gurus sent their jobs overseas.

Why the HELL should anyone trust anything the government's selling be it Republican or Democrat, especially when it takes 3000 pages, more than $4 billion in earmarks and some empty promises about not funding abortions to ram it through, and then to do a hurryup quick sign it despite assuring the public during a presidential campaign that no bill would be signed until it sat on a desk for five days.

So . . . based on the fact that they've not ironed out the details yet, still have questions regarding the legality of parts of this bill, still have questions about the constitutionality of this bill and still can't quite pinpoint how exactly it will benefit the little guy, we're all supposed to figure out how we're going to pay the premiums to our for profit insurance providers that already sucked hundreds of billions of government money into their bloated infrastructures.

I think of everything I've read on this, the OP nails it exactly . . . . HOW THE BLEEPING HELL AM I GOING TO PAY FOR THIS . . .

Thjere my friend, is the source of the angst in all of this . . . they can't tell us what, where or when the benefits of all this will come about, and many of us have absolutely no idea how we're going to cover the premiums.

It seems that everyone is getting hung up on emergency room care instead of other things like diseases that are statistically FAR more likely to "get" you unless you are in your late teens/early 20's. This is where things tend to really fall apart in European style health systems. If you break your leg you will get quick and immediate care (even if you don't have any insurance at all here in the US, but yes of course you will also get a big bill later on) in pretty much any industrialized nation, but, and this is a big BUT - if you get a progressively deadly disease like cancer your survival rate is far higher if you are in the US than under pretty much any medically socialized country.
If you get prostate cancer your survival rate is much higher here than in England.

This is where this new law is gonna get you - very few doctors, nurses, other medical personnel and hospitals will be added (in fact, many doctors have said they would retire early if this legislation passed) - but tons of many new (and many very sick) people will be added.

Better hope you get a broken arm instead of cancer (hopefully no one here will get any sort of illness or injury!) - it ain't gonna be fun when you are told to come back in a few months for tests, then come back in a few months for treatment, and by that time you are terminal. Or worse yet, be told you are too old to have aggressive treatment for your cancer. Better pray that cancer is a slow-growing one.

BTW, you can get catastrophic insurance in the mean time that will protect you against a $200K trauma center bill if you get in a car accident - it's little more expensive than a decent life insurance policy. Your deductible will be a few $K, but you won't lose your home over some catastrophe.

I wonder where this woman is now. I wonder what her thoughts are.


Someone should really get an interview with her now to see if she is still happy or what.



Raist

Jeez I don't get how you Americans are so damn broke.

I live in Canada, I don't have a fancy job, but I'm 24 years old and I somehow manage my car payments, mortgage payments, home, auto and life insurance payments, and I manage to live a pretty comfortable life and have never, ever had any issues with money at all.

And I pay 40% of my income to taxes (which pays my health care, among other things).

I think you guys are doing something wrong or something.

Originally posted by DazedDave
Jeez I don't get how you Americans are so damn broke.

I live in Canada, I don't have a fancy job, but I'm 24 years old and I somehow manage my car payments, mortgage payments, home, auto and life insurance payments, and I manage to live a pretty comfortable life and have never, ever had any issues with money at all.

And I pay 40% of my income to taxes (which pays my health care, among other things).

I think you guys are doing something wrong or something.

Damn straight... You know what we're doing wrong? We're blaming all our personal problems on our government instead of improving ourselves first.

Most of the people in this thread are a pretty good example of people who can't come to terms with responsibility.

I think it funny that someone is suggesting that this would have had less opposition if it had been more like Canada's healthcare.

I'm guessing you didn't hear all the Republicans freaking out that we we "going socialist" and going to have "a socialist plan like Canada". The opponents seemed to feel it was already too much in the direction of what Canada's program is like.

I think even the people who are happy with the bill passing will agree it's not perfect. However, it is at least showing an attempt to improve the jacked up system we currently have. And Obama's managed to do within his first year (more or less) than what Clinton was able to do in eight, with regards to doing something about healthcare.

I'm not happy about having to buy insurance, since I've always just gone to the VA for my healthcare (benefit of having served in the Army), but it will be nice to not have to worry about what I'll do when an emergency occurs where I'd need an ambulance and/or need to go to medical care closer than the nearest VA Hospital.

Originally posted by Terapin

Time will tell. Feel free to sit it out for a year and see what happens. You can be sure that if insurers attempt to raise prices without justification to the public, that there will be a massive public outcry. Now that everyone has to get insurance there will be a much larger public interest in the business and people will watch and learn, and then scream bloody murder to their congressmen to do something about insurers who try to rape peoples wallets. Remember, there are elections coming up.

IF.... Big if..... Everyone ends up with insurance coverage, the increase in people covered will be what? 10%.

Most of the previously uninsured will still be paying with someone elses money, because they are too poor to buy it, it will be subsidized.

These people are going to change things so there will be screaming to the congressmen if the prices increase? Not.

My medical insurance has increased to the tune of 30-40% per year for the last 5 years.

There are no provisions to regulate the prices in this bill. The only change is I will pay more to the federal government for what I already had.

[edit on 26-3-2010 by butcherguy]

Originally posted by Raist

I wonder where this woman is now. I wonder what her thoughts are.

Someone should really get an interview with her now to see if she is still happy or what.
Raist

I have a picture of Dick Cheney standing in front of a missile carrier with all the folks from Halliburton and Wackenhut all just giddy with excitement because President Bush promised them he would find a way to start a war they can be proud of.

No longer would their family business be ignored.
or allowed to pass into oblivion.

Now we can dust off some of those old weapons and bring them out of retirement and finally test the new ones we have had in the works.

And he did.

reply to post by Raist


I would rather have a President accused of paying someones mortgage than starting someones war.

reply to post by rusethorcain


Is it possible to disagree with the actions of both? If you disapproved of Bush do you automatically have to approve of Obama?

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
-The Who