Survey: Half of Americans will switch healthcare providers if subsidies are eliminated

Has anyone ever seen a court case with such huge potential ramifications that's been ignored the way King v. Burwell is? I think it's even more important than the first Supreme Court case on Obamacare because this ruling could basically end Obamacare in 34 states. The first Supreme Court case on Obamacare couldn't have done nearly that much in my opinion.

CHICAGO, IL--(Marketwired - June 23, 2015) - The upcoming Supreme Court ruling on King v. Burwell may result in more than half of Americans looking for a new healthcare provider that offers more transparent costs and billing, according to a new TransUnion Healthcare survey of insured consumers released today. If the Supreme Court rules to eliminate the subsidies, more than half (51%) of Americans will look for new providers, according to the survey.
The importance of healthcare cost transparency is clear. Americans say the opportunity to review cost estimates prior to undergoing treatment is just as important as bedside manner when selecting a healthcare provider, according to the survey. An identical 80% of respondents listed upfront cost estimates and bedside manner when asked which experiences would make them more likely to use a clinician.
The same number of respondents (80%) also identified clear billing processes as a major factor, highlighting the growing importance of cost transparency and clarity in determining where patients choose to receive care. In fact, the lack of clarity regularly leads to patient confusion and surprise. Despite improvements in overall billing experience, 61% of insured consumers say they are always (17%) or sometimes (44%) surprised by their out of pocket healthcare costs, and 55% are always (10%) or sometimes (45%) confused by the bills they receive.
www.marketwired.com...

a reply to: Profusion

I won't profess to knowing the details but O-care seems to have been a disaster from the beginning.

Do politicians really know what they're doing?

a reply to: EA006

Nope, they let the Lobbyists write it then rubber stamped it.

originally posted by: EA006
Do politicians really know what they're doing?

The know exactly what they are doing, they just do not go about it with any type of competency.

a reply to: Profusion

I think we would have been better off by removing insurance monopolies and allowing insurance companies the ability to operate across state lines.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Profusion

I think we would have been better off by removing insurance monopolies and allowing insurance companies the ability to operate across state lines.

To make insurance "affordable" and cost less than just paying for the bills yourself, the risk has to be spread between non-claimers and claimers. So you will find tsunami insurance cheap up a mountain hillside, avalanche insurance cheap beside the beach, but flood insurance is almost impossible to get next to a river.

Insurance companies are more likely to cherry-pick those areas with low insurance risks, while avoiding those areas with high risk.

a reply to: Profusion

Don't worry, the Supremes will cave on this aspect too, just as they did the first time around. The old concept of rule-by-law
was trashed in 2008.

originally posted by: irishhaf
a reply to: EA006

Nope, they let the Lobbyists write it then rubber stamped it.

Lobbyists did not write the ACA.

It was written by Republicans at the Heritage Foundation, implemented by Romney in Massachusetts and then take nationally by Obama.

originally posted by: Profusion
Has anyone ever seen a court case with such huge potential ramifications that's been ignored the way King v. Burwell is?

In what way is it being ignored? This is the most or second most anticipated decision of this term. It's King v. Burwell and the gay marriage decision. You want to talk ignored? Try the 60+ other decisions you don't see headlines about.

There are three days left in decision announcements, I imagine the King v. Burwell decision will come Friday or Monday.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Profusion

I think we would have been better off by removing insurance monopolies and allowing insurance companies the ability to operate across state lines.

That won't fix anything. Broadening risk pools which is the entire purpose of operating across state lines still doesn't solve the fundamental problem, in fact it furthers it. Insurance can only operate if more people purchase a service than will ever need it. If 33% of people will get cancer, then that means 67% of the populations cost of treating cancer (plus profit margin and overhead) needs to be paid by healthy individuals.

Insurance should have never been used to cover routine doctors visits and most prescriptions. The model only works when covering catastrophic events, and when we make the catastrophic routine, we all pay catastrophic costs.

I understand why insurance moved to cover those things, preventative care is much more cost effective but it has resulted in us misusing the system, and the system as it stands cannot operate under such a model.

If we want to fix health care costs we need to look elsewhere. Either we need a single governing body with enough power that it can dictate prices as is the case with single payer or we need to make doctor pricing itself competitive by making doctors offices and even hospitals publish costs so that people can shop around and go with whoever is cheaper. The former gives everyone coverage at a slightly higher cost while the latter gives most of society a lesser cost while denying some health care (but programs can be made to assist there).

a reply to: introvert

But who passed it and signed it into law?

a reply to: avgguy

Yes because that makes it all one person/organization's fault.

Five people held down a person but HE was the one who shot him. So he must be the only guilty party yeah?

a reply to: stormcell

Insurance companies are more likely to cherry-pick those areas with low insurance risks, while avoiding those areas with high risk.

Exactly, the same applies to health insurance. Insurance companies will always insure those they know won't cost them an arm and a leg as oppose to Big Al with a long medical history.

As long as insurance companies are there for a profit rather than provide the best bang for the buck for medical care, then your always going to have winners and losers. However, as long as the customer is overcharged (thus the insurance company, which doesn't pay the full price that you do) there is going to be a problem.

As I said, your going to have winners and losers with losers losing their live. Sad but true.