|
Simple summary of health care
|
|
Topic Started: Jun 18 2009, 01:26 PM (821 Views)
|
|
brumdog44
|
Jun 25 2009, 09:25 PM
Post #46
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- aaronk2727
- Jun 25 2009, 09:16 PM
- brumdog44
- Jun 25 2009, 04:47 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 23 2009, 08:14 AM
- aaronk2727
- Jun 22 2009, 10:43 PM
so if that newly approved drug is covered, which causes your premium to go up considerably at next contract date (the drug is expensive and no generics available yet), you are OK with that?
They already do this. I am sure your insurance premiums rise annually just like mine do. I know it is a hugely unpopular idea, but if there were a law that required adults to carry insurance, the price of health care (per visit) in the US would shrink, as would your insurance premiums. Right now all the uncompensated heathcare provided to the nation's indigent population is being passed back on to taxpayers and your insurance premiums.
No kidding. You weren't serious on this question, were you aaron? Our blue anthem rates continually raise at near double digit percentages.
brum, under this scenario, the annual increases would dwarf those of today's environment IMO. they would have to in order to absorb those costs. That has zero to do with the point that was being made. My statement was that health care companies regularly change their formulary/non-formulary codes mid-contract.
And if a newly approved drug is covered, the insurance company IS going to raise premiums on the next contract date. So what is the argument? I've seen contract rates go up 14% in a year, and in other cases the company not even offering a bid.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Jun 25 2009, 09:33 PM
Post #47
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Jun 25 2009, 09:25 PM
- aaronk2727
- Jun 25 2009, 09:16 PM
- brumdog44
- Jun 25 2009, 04:47 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 23 2009, 08:14 AM
- aaronk2727
- Jun 22 2009, 10:43 PM
so if that newly approved drug is covered, which causes your premium to go up considerably at next contract date (the drug is expensive and no generics available yet), you are OK with that?
They already do this. I am sure your insurance premiums rise annually just like mine do. I know it is a hugely unpopular idea, but if there were a law that required adults to carry insurance, the price of health care (per visit) in the US would shrink, as would your insurance premiums. Right now all the uncompensated heathcare provided to the nation's indigent population is being passed back on to taxpayers and your insurance premiums.
No kidding. You weren't serious on this question, were you aaron? Our blue anthem rates continually raise at near double digit percentages.
brum, under this scenario, the annual increases would dwarf those of today's environment IMO. they would have to in order to absorb those costs.
That has zero to do with the point that was being made. My statement was that health care companies regularly change their formulary/non-formulary codes mid-contract. And if a newly approved drug is covered, the insurance company IS going to raise premiums on the next contract date. So what is the argument? I've seen contract rates go up 14% in a year, and in other cases the company not even offering a bid. ok, here's my point brum. If the insurance company is deciding not to cover a drug, we have to assume it is because of the cost. If your premium is currently rising at 14% under the scenario where they are taking these expensive drugs off of the coverage, it will obviously have to rise much more if they are forced to continue the coverage on this drug. Are you willing to pay that increase?
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
yawnzzz
|
Jun 25 2009, 10:11 PM
Post #48
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 4,964
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- February 6, 2008
|
- aaronk2727
- Jun 25 2009, 09:33 PM
ok, here's my point brum. If the insurance company is deciding not to cover a drug, we have to assume it is because of the cost. If your premium is currently rising at 14% under the scenario where they are taking these expensive drugs off of the coverage, it will obviously have to rise much more if they are forced to continue the coverage on this drug. Are you willing to pay that increase? I missed some of this argument, so excuse me if I missed something... but shouldn't that be his choice? If they want to raise prices because of this, then he should have the option of sticking with them or not, but they can't take something away mid-contract. Imagine if anyone else could do that. Imagine leasing an apartment for a year with appliances included. Mid-year the landlord comes in and removes the fridge, stove, etc. saying that it's too expensive to maintain, and he'd have to increase his rate. He doesn't have the right to do that, so why are insurance companies allowed to do the same?
|
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Jun 26 2009, 12:33 AM
Post #49
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- aaronk2727
- Jun 25 2009, 09:33 PM
- brumdog44
- Jun 25 2009, 09:25 PM
- aaronk2727
- Jun 25 2009, 09:16 PM
- brumdog44
- Jun 25 2009, 04:47 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 23 2009, 08:14 AM
- aaronk2727
- Jun 22 2009, 10:43 PM
so if that newly approved drug is covered, which causes your premium to go up considerably at next contract date (the drug is expensive and no generics available yet), you are OK with that?
They already do this. I am sure your insurance premiums rise annually just like mine do. I know it is a hugely unpopular idea, but if there were a law that required adults to carry insurance, the price of health care (per visit) in the US would shrink, as would your insurance premiums. Right now all the uncompensated heathcare provided to the nation's indigent population is being passed back on to taxpayers and your insurance premiums.
No kidding. You weren't serious on this question, were you aaron? Our blue anthem rates continually raise at near double digit percentages.
brum, under this scenario, the annual increases would dwarf those of today's environment IMO. they would have to in order to absorb those costs.
That has zero to do with the point that was being made. My statement was that health care companies regularly change their formulary/non-formulary codes mid-contract. And if a newly approved drug is covered, the insurance company IS going to raise premiums on the next contract date. So what is the argument? I've seen contract rates go up 14% in a year, and in other cases the company not even offering a bid.
ok, here's my point brum. If the insurance company is deciding not to cover a drug, we have to assume it is because of the cost. If your premium is currently rising at 14% under the scenario where they are taking these expensive drugs off of the coverage, it will obviously have to rise much more if they are forced to continue the coverage on this drug. Are you willing to pay that increase? yawnz already covered this, but you are going off on a completely unrelated tangent.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Jul 7 2009, 07:52 PM
Post #50
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Jun 26 2009, 12:33 AM
- aaronk2727
- Jun 25 2009, 09:33 PM
- brumdog44
- Jun 25 2009, 09:25 PM
- aaronk2727
- Jun 25 2009, 09:16 PM
- brumdog44
- Jun 25 2009, 04:47 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 23 2009, 08:14 AM
- aaronk2727
- Jun 22 2009, 10:43 PM
so if that newly approved drug is covered, which causes your premium to go up considerably at next contract date (the drug is expensive and no generics available yet), you are OK with that?
They already do this. I am sure your insurance premiums rise annually just like mine do. I know it is a hugely unpopular idea, but if there were a law that required adults to carry insurance, the price of health care (per visit) in the US would shrink, as would your insurance premiums. Right now all the uncompensated heathcare provided to the nation's indigent population is being passed back on to taxpayers and your insurance premiums.
No kidding. You weren't serious on this question, were you aaron? Our blue anthem rates continually raise at near double digit percentages.
brum, under this scenario, the annual increases would dwarf those of today's environment IMO. they would have to in order to absorb those costs.
That has zero to do with the point that was being made. My statement was that health care companies regularly change their formulary/non-formulary codes mid-contract. And if a newly approved drug is covered, the insurance company IS going to raise premiums on the next contract date. So what is the argument? I've seen contract rates go up 14% in a year, and in other cases the company not even offering a bid.
ok, here's my point brum. If the insurance company is deciding not to cover a drug, we have to assume it is because of the cost. If your premium is currently rising at 14% under the scenario where they are taking these expensive drugs off of the coverage, it will obviously have to rise much more if they are forced to continue the coverage on this drug. Are you willing to pay that increase?
yawnz already covered this, but you are going off on a completely unrelated tangent. brum, sorry to re-hatch this, but I missed the post. My main point is that the root cause of health insurance costs is health costs...common sense tells us all that. If the insurance company covers more, they will spend more, and they will pass those costs on to you at some point in some way. I just think consumers need to be more aware of this when they complain about what is or isn't covered under a plan that their employer VOLUNTARILY covers all or a portion of for them to begin with.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Jul 7 2009, 08:20 PM
Post #51
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- eelbor
- Jun 23 2009, 04:11 PM
- aaronk2727
- Jun 23 2009, 03:03 PM
- eelbor
- Jun 23 2009, 08:14 AM
- aaronk2727
- Jun 22 2009, 10:43 PM
so if that newly approved drug is covered, which causes your premium to go up considerably at next contract date (the drug is expensive and no generics available yet), you are OK with that?
They already do this. I am sure your insurance premiums rise annually just like mine do. I know it is a hugely unpopular idea, but if there were a law that required adults to carry insurance, the price of health care (per visit) in the US would shrink, as would your insurance premiums. Right now all the uncompensated heathcare provided to the nation's indigent population is being passed back on to taxpayers and your insurance premiums.
Sure, my premium goes up every year, however that is under the current state where they aren't required to carry certain drugs that are very expensive or have changed the classification of them to keep costs low. If they were forced to cover all FDA products/services, your premium would skyrocket. The nanny state mentality necessary to accept such a law isn't worth any amount of insurance premium savings.
You are correct. Much better to make them into a little Soylent Green and be done with it. You want to abandon abandon people to the system that exists now. But it is not saving you a dime. In the current system you pay their health care, just as I do. Uninsured people people use the emergency room as their primary care facility, and can not pay the bill. This money is passed back on to the insurance companies and to you in your taxes. You spoke earlier of having some good ideas to transform health care. Were you going to get to those, or keep them to yourself? eel, I actually covered all of these about a year ago, but I'll lay my suggestions out again. BTW, these are not "aaronk originals", as I am not a healthcare expert. I grabbed these from various articles over the years and I think they make 100% sense. There are 7 of them, but I will only show a few at a time to make for easier reading and quicker discussion.
#1) Make all medical services, insurance and personal savings for such expenses exempt from all federal, state and local income and payroll taxes. Those who complain about the cost of medical care and insurance must be confronted with the fact that if we cannot afford medical care, we surely cannot afford to pay taxes on the money we set aside for it.
#2) Allow an individual or corporate tax deduction equal to double the value of the service for all charity care by medical care providers. At one time America had a vigorous network of private charity care, which was largely destroyed by the government barging in. We need to restore that environment of private charity, which was more efficient, effective and compassionate.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
yawnzzz
|
Jul 7 2009, 08:48 PM
Post #52
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 4,964
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- February 6, 2008
|
- aaronk2727
- Jul 7 2009, 07:52 PM
brum, sorry to re-hatch this, but I missed the post. My main point is that the root cause of health insurance costs is health costs...common sense tells us all that. If the insurance company covers more, they will spend more, and they will pass those costs on to you at some point in some way. I just think consumers need to be more aware of this when they complain about what is or isn't covered under a plan that their employer VOLUNTARILY covers all or a portion of for them to begin with. Voluntarily covers? It's absolutely no different than someone's salary. The only reason I pay for insurance for my employees versus giving them the money to pay for their own is that I can get a better deal.
Health costs are definitely a problem, but you can't completely ignore insurance companies. They're the epitome of middlemen. What service do they provide? At least doctors and prescription companies are providing a service. In a perfect world, all those people in insurance pushing papers would get jobs to contribute to society, and everyone would pay for their own health costs. Obviously that will never happen because hardly anyone would save money for a rainy day, but I can dream..
|
|
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Jul 7 2009, 11:44 PM
Post #53
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
Saying that empoyers 'voluntarily' pay for insurance is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. Funny how you bring up people being guilty of not knowing their credit card contracts, but when it comes to a contract between me and my employer that CONTRACTS him to pay for my insurance, the employer is volunteering the service.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Jul 8 2009, 07:07 AM
Post #54
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Jul 7 2009, 11:44 PM
Saying that empoyers 'voluntarily' pay for insurance is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. Funny how you bring up people being guilty of not knowing their credit card contracts, but when it comes to a contract between me and my employer that CONTRACTS him to pay for my insurance, the employer is volunteering the service. your employer doesn't even have to employ you Brum, let alone pay for your insurance. Yes, you have a contract that obligates them to cover it now, but they are not FORCED to cover it....they agreed to cover it.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Jul 8 2009, 07:09 AM
Post #55
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- yawnzzz
- Jul 7 2009, 08:48 PM
- aaronk2727
- Jul 7 2009, 07:52 PM
brum, sorry to re-hatch this, but I missed the post. My main point is that the root cause of health insurance costs is health costs...common sense tells us all that. If the insurance company covers more, they will spend more, and they will pass those costs on to you at some point in some way. I just think consumers need to be more aware of this when they complain about what is or isn't covered under a plan that their employer VOLUNTARILY covers all or a portion of for them to begin with.
Voluntarily covers? It's absolutely no different than someone's salary. The only reason I pay for insurance for my employees versus giving them the money to pay for their own is that I can get a better deal. Health costs are definitely a problem, but you can't completely ignore insurance companies. They're the epitome of middlemen. What service do they provide? At least doctors and prescription companies are providing a service. In a perfect world, all those people in insurance pushing papers would get jobs to contribute to society, and everyone would pay for their own health costs. Obviously that will never happen because hardly anyone would save money for a rainy day, but I can dream.. "what service do they provide" In MANY cases, they actually reduce healthcare costs through using their buying power to negotiate much lower rates for many services.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
gallopingboiler
|
Jul 8 2009, 09:30 AM
Post #56
|
Senior
- Posts:
- 701
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #83
- Joined:
- February 6, 2008
|
- aaronk2727
- Jul 8 2009, 07:07 AM
- brumdog44
- Jul 7 2009, 11:44 PM
Saying that empoyers 'voluntarily' pay for insurance is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. Funny how you bring up people being guilty of not knowing their credit card contracts, but when it comes to a contract between me and my employer that CONTRACTS him to pay for my insurance, the employer is volunteering the service.
your employer doesn't even have to employ you Brum, let alone pay for your insurance. Yes, you have a contract that obligates them to cover it now, but they are not FORCED to cover it....they agreed to cover it. I agree that an employer doesn't have to employ any particular person but to get the work done that the one person would do they have to have someone doing it. I believe that employers (like any model in a free market) has competition with other employers to attract the best and brightest of workers for the positions they need to fill. Along with salary and vacation, the healthcare package is part of the whole employeer package to attract these people.
Along with that point...Isn't it in the best interest of the employeer to make sure that the employees are healthy and ready to perform the tasks required for their jobs? Not having healthcare would be a big hit to the stability of the labor force for any company, which in turn causes overall damage to the bottom line.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Jul 8 2009, 09:47 AM
Post #57
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- gallopingboiler
- Jul 8 2009, 09:30 AM
- aaronk2727
- Jul 8 2009, 07:07 AM
- brumdog44
- Jul 7 2009, 11:44 PM
Saying that empoyers 'voluntarily' pay for insurance is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. Funny how you bring up people being guilty of not knowing their credit card contracts, but when it comes to a contract between me and my employer that CONTRACTS him to pay for my insurance, the employer is volunteering the service.
your employer doesn't even have to employ you Brum, let alone pay for your insurance. Yes, you have a contract that obligates them to cover it now, but they are not FORCED to cover it....they agreed to cover it.
I agree that an employer doesn't have to employ any particular person but to get the work done that the one person would do they have to have someone doing it. I believe that employers (like any model in a free market) has competition with other employers to attract the best and brightest of workers for the positions they need to fill. Along with salary and vacation, the healthcare package is part of the whole employeer package to attract these people. Along with that point...Isn't it in the best interest of the employeer to make sure that the employees are healthy and ready to perform the tasks required for their jobs? Not having healthcare would be a big hit to the stability of the labor force for any company, which in turn causes overall damage to the bottom line. I agree
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
brumdog44
|
Jul 8 2009, 07:56 PM
Post #58
|
The guy picked last in gym class
- Posts:
- 43,823
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #181
- Joined:
- February 20, 2008
|
- aaronk2727
- Jul 8 2009, 07:07 AM
- brumdog44
- Jul 7 2009, 11:44 PM
Saying that empoyers 'voluntarily' pay for insurance is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. Funny how you bring up people being guilty of not knowing their credit card contracts, but when it comes to a contract between me and my employer that CONTRACTS him to pay for my insurance, the employer is volunteering the service.
your employer doesn't even have to employ you Brum, let alone pay for your insurance. Yes, you have a contract that obligates them to cover it now, but they are not FORCED to cover it....they agreed to cover it. This continues to be the dumbest line of argument I've ever heard.
They also aren't FORCED to pay you anything above minimum wage. So the fuck what?
Salary above minimum wage, just like health benefits, is used TO ATTRACT BETTER EMPLOYEES.
Now let's say that a business pays $14000 for a family health plan at a reduced rate; outside of the collective rate, let's say it costs $17000.
So business A offers an employee $50000 and a family health plan.
Business B offers an empoyee $64000 but no health plan.
All things equal, which one should the employee take? A....because in B they will have to spend $17000 on insurance, giving them a real net salary of $47000, $3000 less than employer A.
If B was to compete with A, then they have to have offer the employee $67000...$3000 more than emloyer A. So the EMPLOYER, not the EMPLOYEE, has saved themselves $3000.
The bottom line is that in a competitive jobs where benefits are involved, health care benefits positively affect the employer.
|
|
| |
|
Mr Gray
|
Jul 8 2009, 08:05 PM
Post #59
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 16,503
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #26
- Joined:
- February 5, 2008
|
- brumdog44
- Jul 8 2009, 07:56 PM
- aaronk2727
- Jul 8 2009, 07:07 AM
- brumdog44
- Jul 7 2009, 11:44 PM
Saying that empoyers 'voluntarily' pay for insurance is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. Funny how you bring up people being guilty of not knowing their credit card contracts, but when it comes to a contract between me and my employer that CONTRACTS him to pay for my insurance, the employer is volunteering the service.
your employer doesn't even have to employ you Brum, let alone pay for your insurance. Yes, you have a contract that obligates them to cover it now, but they are not FORCED to cover it....they agreed to cover it.
This continues to be the dumbest line of argument I've ever heard. They also aren't FORCED to pay you anything above minimum wage. So the fuck what? Salary above minimum wage, just like health benefits, is used TO ATTRACT BETTER EMPLOYEES. Now let's say that a business pays $14000 for a family health plan at a reduced rate; outside of the collective rate, let's say it costs $17000. So business A offers an employee $50000 and a family health plan. Business B offers an empoyee $64000 but no health plan. All things equal, which one should the employee take? A....because in B they will have to spend $17000 on insurance, giving them a real net salary of $47000, $3000 less than employer A. If B was to compete with A, then they have to have offer the employee $67000...$3000 more than emloyer A. So the EMPLOYER, not the EMPLOYEE, has saved themselves $3000. The bottom line is that in a competitive jobs where benefits are involved, health care benefits positively affect the employer. brum, it seems like you are showing a little bit of "typical state worker" attitude, which (to your credit) doesn't happen much. What I mean by that is that you, and many many other "entitlement minded" workers, show very little appreciation for what their employers give them, be that salary or benefits. To bitch about something that someone else is paying for all or a large portion of is something that I don't understand.
If you don't like your coverage, I am certain that you can go out and buy your own or upgrade your existing for a cost. That cost may force you to sacrifice a vacation, a newer car, or a big screen TV, but it is a matter of cost benefit & priorities.
|
 The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
|
| |
|
yawnzzz
|
Jul 8 2009, 09:16 PM
Post #60
|
Coach
- Posts:
- 4,964
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- February 6, 2008
|
- aaronk2727
- Jul 8 2009, 08:05 PM
brum, it seems like you are showing a little bit of "typical state worker" attitude, which (to your credit) doesn't happen much. What I mean by that is that you, and many many other "entitlement minded" workers, show very little appreciation for what their employers give them, be that salary or benefits. To bitch about something that someone else is paying for all or a large portion of is something that I don't understand.
If you don't like your coverage, I am certain that you can go out and buy your own or upgrade your existing for a cost. That cost may force you to sacrifice a vacation, a newer car, or a big screen TV, but it is a matter of cost benefit & priorities. I'm starting to really feel bad for your employees.... maybe I should call them up and offer them a job where they'll actually feel like an equal in the business relationship instead of someone worshiping the God of all providing. You don't 'give' employees salary and benefits, they earn it.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|