when did "we" control insurance premiums? when werent "we" at the mercy of the insurance corporations? what year did the shift in power take place?
Never. But we did have a choice of providing or not providing...obtaining or not obtaining. So now if a company wants to charge you a $2,500 premium because you had kidney stones 3 years ago, there's nothing stopping them and you will buy it or pay the penalties. Sounds like a great time to be in the insurance business. :roll:
agree, total bs but this is obamacare, nothing to do with "fiscal cliff"
there was nothing stopping the insurance companies from only covering the healthy, nothing stopping them from denying coverage to those that are covered. most of those that filed bankruptcy due to health cost had coverage! but again this is obamacare, health insurance reform, which is old news
Never. But we did have a choice of providing or not providing...obtaining or not obtaining. So now if a company wants to charge you a $2,500 premium because you had kidney stones 3 years ago, there's nothing stopping them and you will buy it or pay the penalties. Sounds like a great time to be in the insurance business. :roll:
Had our annual benefits meeting a few weeks back. Premiums went up 6.7%. We were told this represents "a slight increase" over last year. In a few months we will begin annual performance reviews. A good one of those will win you a 3% salary increase. By my math that is less than half of a "slight increase."
Health insurance companies never fail to remind me of the mob. "Fuck you, pay me."
Never. But we did have a choice of providing or not providing...obtaining or not obtaining. So now if a company wants to charge you a $2,500 premium because you had kidney stones 3 years ago, there's nothing stopping them and you will buy it or pay the penalties. Sounds like a great time to be in the insurance business. :roll:
Had our annual benefits meeting a few weeks back. Premiums went up 6.7%. We were told this represents "a slight increase" over last year. In a few months we will begin annual performance reviews. A good one of those will win you a 3% salary increase. By my math that is less than half of a "slight increase."
Health insurance companies never fail to remind me of the mob. "Fuck you, pay me."
Good math. Except your insurance prem is less than your salary. So, if you health benefit contribution is 12% of your salary, less than half you salary increase goes toward that, while you are still ending up with higher net salary (not to mention the fact that your TAKE HOME pay is effected even less b/c your contribution is pre-tax).
Or, in other words, 6.7% of $6,000 ($402) is much less than 3% of $50,000 ($1,500).
Or, who would you like to pay for your health insurance? And, couldn't you say the same about car insurance, your mortgage lender, the Federal Gov't, so on and so forth?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Never. But we did have a choice of providing or not providing...obtaining or not obtaining. So now if a company wants to charge you a $2,500 premium because you had kidney stones 3 years ago, there's nothing stopping them and you will buy it or pay the penalties. Sounds like a great time to be in the insurance business. :roll:
Had our annual benefits meeting a few weeks back. Premiums went up 6.7%. We were told this represents "a slight increase" over last year. In a few months we will begin annual performance reviews. A good one of those will win you a 3% salary increase. By my math that is less than half of a "slight increase."
Health insurance companies never fail to remind me of the mob. "Fuck you, pay me."
Good math. Except your insurance prem is less than your salary. So, if you health benefit contribution is 12% of your salary, less than half you salary increase goes toward that, while you are still ending up with higher net salary (not to mention the fact that your TAKE HOME pay is effected even less b/c your contribution is pre-tax).
Or, in other words, 6.7% of $6,000 ($402) is much less than 3% of $50,000 ($1,500).
Or, who would you like to pay for your health insurance? And, couldn't you say the same about car insurance, your mortgage lender, the Federal Gov't, so on and so forth?
My point wasn't that the health insurance increase was of a higher dollar amount than my pay raise. It was that today 6.7% is being pushed as a slight increase, whereas in a few months 3% will suddenly be a significant increase. And whereas my auto insurance and fixed-rate mortgage stay largely constant from year to year, only my health insurance increases regularly between 6% and 12%. This has been the case here for years, long before Obamacare. Maybe it is a symptom of Romneycare, but I really believe it is more likely just that Harvard Pilgrim knows it can get away with these increases.
Fuck you, pay me. And oh by the way, we are rejecting your claim.
My point wasn't that the health insurance increase was of a higher dollar amount than my pay raise. It was that today 6.7% is being pushed as a slight increase, whereas in a few months 3% will suddenly be a significant increase. And whereas my auto insurance and fixed-rate mortgage stay largely constant from year to year, only my health insurance increases regularly between 6% and 12%. This has been the case here for years, long before Obamacare. Maybe it is a symptom of Romneycare, but I really believe it is more likely just that Harvard Pilgrim knows it can get away with these increases.
Fuck you, pay me. And oh by the way, we are rejecting your claim.
My point was - a higher % on a lower amount is still, generally, a lower amount. %ages are funny things.
Obamacare never addressed it's original stated goal - bend the cost curve.
So, I don't get the complaint that premiums are rising. Health expenditures continue to rise. So, insurance covering them will continue to rise.
This tax deal is no different. At every turn, Obama fails to address the REAL problem - the COST of things. It's easy to say pre-existing conditions. It's easy to tax someone else. It's hard to address spending.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
My point wasn't that the health insurance increase was of a higher dollar amount than my pay raise. It was that today 6.7% is being pushed as a slight increase, whereas in a few months 3% will suddenly be a significant increase. And whereas my auto insurance and fixed-rate mortgage stay largely constant from year to year, only my health insurance increases regularly between 6% and 12%. This has been the case here for years, long before Obamacare. Maybe it is a symptom of Romneycare, but I really believe it is more likely just that Harvard Pilgrim knows it can get away with these increases.
Fuck you, pay me. And oh by the way, we are rejecting your claim.
My point was - a higher % on a lower amount is still, generally, a lower amount. %ages are funny things.
Obamacare never addressed it's original stated goal - bend the cost curve.
So, I don't get the complaint that premiums are rising. Health expenditures continue to rise. So, insurance covering them will continue to rise.
This tax deal is no different. At every turn, Obama fails to address the REAL problem - the COST of things. It's easy to say pre-existing conditions. It's easy to tax someone else. It's hard to address spending.
That a higher percentage on a lower amount is still a lower amount has very little to do with my point. I was comparing wording and spin, not dollars.
The rest is just blaming Obama to blame Obama because Obama is there to be blamed. Same shit, different thread.
My point wasn't that the health insurance increase was of a higher dollar amount than my pay raise. It was that today 6.7% is being pushed as a slight increase, whereas in a few months 3% will suddenly be a significant increase. And whereas my auto insurance and fixed-rate mortgage stay largely constant from year to year, only my health insurance increases regularly between 6% and 12%. This has been the case here for years, long before Obamacare. Maybe it is a symptom of Romneycare, but I really believe it is more likely just that Harvard Pilgrim knows it can get away with these increases.
Fuck you, pay me. And oh by the way, we are rejecting your claim.
My point was - a higher % on a lower amount is still, generally, a lower amount. %ages are funny things.
Obamacare never addressed it's original stated goal - bend the cost curve.
So, I don't get the complaint that premiums are rising. Health expenditures continue to rise. So, insurance covering them will continue to rise.
This tax deal is no different. At every turn, Obama fails to address the REAL problem - the COST of things. It's easy to say pre-existing conditions. It's easy to tax someone else. It's hard to address spending.
That a higher percentage on a lower amount is still a lower amount has very little to do with my point. I was comparing wording and spin, not dollars.
The rest is just blaming Obama to blame Obama because Obama is there to be blamed. Same shit, different thread.
But, you can say 6.7% is slight and 3% is significant. Now, I have no idea what your salary is to make those sorts of judgments, so maybe in your instance the point is well taken. But just labeling a % one or another without knowing the basis is typically what the media does. To me, a 6.7% increase in health care premium IS slight as some are seeing 10%-20% increases in their premiums. And 3% salary increase is significant, as normal is 1% to 2% and "tops" is about 4% in an office setting. So, those labels are NOT spin. They reflect the relative value of the 2 items being discussed.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
But, you can say 6.7% is slight and 3% is significant. Now, I have no idea what your salary is to make those sorts of judgments, so maybe in your instance the point is well taken. But just labeling a % one or another without knowing the basis is typically what the media does. To me, a 6.7% increase in health care premium IS slight as some are seeing 10%-20% increases in their premiums. And 3% salary increase is significant, as normal is 1% to 2% and "tops" is about 4% in an office setting. So, those labels are NOT spin. They reflect the relative value of the 2 items being discussed.
The 6.7% increase this year is only described as slight because it follows a 12% bump last year and an 11% bump the year before. I know of no other industry besides the health insurance racket that could get away with these price increases year after year. Not one.
But, you can say 6.7% is slight and 3% is significant. Now, I have no idea what your salary is to make those sorts of judgments, so maybe in your instance the point is well taken. But just labeling a % one or another without knowing the basis is typically what the media does. To me, a 6.7% increase in health care premium IS slight as some are seeing 10%-20% increases in their premiums. And 3% salary increase is significant, as normal is 1% to 2% and "tops" is about 4% in an office setting. So, those labels are NOT spin. They reflect the relative value of the 2 items being discussed.
The 6.7% increase this year is only described as slight because it follows a 12% bump last year and an 11% bump the year before. I know of no other industry besides the health insurance racket that could get away with these price increases year after year. Not one.
Gas?
And, it's not the Insurance Industries fault. It's regulation and cost increases. I won't go into more detail or bore you to death. But, suffice it to say, every time the gov't insists something is covered, the utilization and price of that item all of a sudden shoots up. I don't quite get all this insurance industry hatred. If you understood the mechanics, you would understand more where the pressure lies. Sure, there are "fat cats," or whatever you'll come up with. But, the majority of the premium is the cost of the goods and services.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
But, you can say 6.7% is slight and 3% is significant. Now, I have no idea what your salary is to make those sorts of judgments, so maybe in your instance the point is well taken. But just labeling a % one or another without knowing the basis is typically what the media does. To me, a 6.7% increase in health care premium IS slight as some are seeing 10%-20% increases in their premiums. And 3% salary increase is significant, as normal is 1% to 2% and "tops" is about 4% in an office setting. So, those labels are NOT spin. They reflect the relative value of the 2 items being discussed.
The 6.7% increase this year is only described as slight because it follows a 12% bump last year and an 11% bump the year before. I know of no other industry besides the health insurance racket that could get away with these price increases year after year. Not one.
Gas?
And, it's not the Insurance Industries fault. It's regulation and cost increases. I won't go into more detail or bore you to death. But, suffice it to say, every time the gov't insists something is covered, the utilization and price of that item all of a sudden shoots up. I don't quite get all this insurance industry hatred. If you understood the mechanics, you would understand more where the pressure lies. Sure, there are "fat cats," or whatever you'll come up with. But, the majority of the premium is the cost of the goods and services.
But gas prices fluctuate and do come down as often as often as they go up. Is gas too expensive? Maybe, but drive across the street or down the road in search of a better deal. I don't really have a practical alternative to health insurance through my employer. Fuck you, pay me.
But gas prices fluctuate and do come down as often as often as they go up. Is gas too expensive? Maybe, but drive across the street or down the road in search of a better deal. I don't really have a practical alternative to health insurance through my employer. Fuck you, pay me.
So, then why are you comparing it to other industries?
And, BTW, if you are healthy young up to middle aged man, you are subsidizing everyone else. But, that's ok. They'll all be paying for us in the few years.
(And it could be worse - you could be thrown into the Obama high risk pool and begin paying 10 times what you do under your employer's plan. So, be thankful for what you have).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
But gas prices fluctuate and do come down as often as often as they go up. Is gas too expensive? Maybe, but drive across the street or down the road in search of a better deal. I don't really have a practical alternative to health insurance through my employer. Fuck you, pay me.
So, then why are you comparing it to other industries?
And, BTW, if you are healthy young up to middle aged man, you are subsidizing everyone else. But, that's ok. They'll all be paying for us in the few years.
(And it could be worse - you could be thrown into the Obama high risk pool and begin paying 10 times what you do under your employer's plan. So, be thankful for what you have).
Because I don't know of a better comparison. And pointing that out helps support my earlier point - many of us have no alternative and the health insurance company knows it. So they raise their prices and we have no choice but to pay them.
But gas prices fluctuate and do come down as often as often as they go up. Is gas too expensive? Maybe, but drive across the street or down the road in search of a better deal. I don't really have a practical alternative to health insurance through my employer. Fuck you, pay me.
So, then why are you comparing it to other industries?
And, BTW, if you are healthy young up to middle aged man, you are subsidizing everyone else. But, that's ok. They'll all be paying for us in the few years.
(And it could be worse - you could be thrown into the Obama high risk pool and begin paying 10 times what you do under your employer's plan. So, be thankful for what you have).
Because I don't know of a better comparison. And pointing that out helps support my earlier point - many of us have no alternative and the health insurance company knows it. So they raise their prices and we have no choice but to pay them.
But, your employer has alternatives and unless it's one of the rarities pays far more of the cost of your insurance than you do. So, simply raising prices in a free market would lose the carrier business. Unless, of course, you're with a large employer that self insures. In which case, their costs are their costs and all they are negotiating with the carrier is the administrative expense which is still a competitive bidding process.
So, I'm still not quite sure where you're getting health insurance companies can raise prices with impunity.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Because I don't know of a better comparison. And pointing that out helps support my earlier point - many of us have no alternative and the health insurance company knows it. So they raise their prices and we have no choice but to pay them.
But, your employer has alternatives and unless it's one of the rarities pays far more of the cost of your insurance than you do. So, simply raising prices in a free market would lose the carrier business. Unless, of course, you're with a large employer that self insures. In which case, their costs are their costs and all they are negotiating with the carrier is the administrative expense which is still a competitive bidding process.
So, I'm still not quite sure where you're getting health insurance companies can raise prices with impunity.
My employer might have alternatives. I do not, short of looking for a new job.
Because I don't know of a better comparison. And pointing that out helps support my earlier point - many of us have no alternative and the health insurance company knows it. So they raise their prices and we have no choice but to pay them.
But, your employer has alternatives and unless it's one of the rarities pays far more of the cost of your insurance than you do. So, simply raising prices in a free market would lose the carrier business. Unless, of course, you're with a large employer that self insures. In which case, their costs are their costs and all they are negotiating with the carrier is the administrative expense which is still a competitive bidding process.
So, I'm still not quite sure where you're getting health insurance companies can raise prices with impunity.
My employer might have alternatives. I do not, short of looking for a new job.
Of course. But, your hypothesis seemed to be that the health insurance companies can charge whatever they want. If so, your hypothesis is wrong.
Now, the Federal Gov't can charge whatever they'd like. So, your mob reference would seem more properly placed there as everyone's paycheck will attest this or next Friday.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Of course. But, your hypothesis seemed to be that the health insurance companies can charge whatever they want. If so, your hypothesis is wrong.
My belief is that a health insurance company can increase its rates anywhere between 6% and 20% a year, regardless of whether or not their costs have risen to match, and pretty much get away it. I could not get away with that in my industry and I doubt you could in yours, provided you are not in the health insurance racket.
And, it's not the Insurance Industries fault. It's regulation and cost increases. I won't go into more detail or bore you to death. But, suffice it to say, every time the gov't insists something is covered, the utilization and price of that item all of a sudden shoots up. I don't quite get all this insurance industry hatred. If you understood the mechanics, you would understand more where the pressure lies. Sure, there are "fat cats," or whatever you'll come up with. But, the majority of the premium is the cost of the goods and services.
is this your belief or is this factual? if factual please provide point(s) of reference...
International Journal of Health Services, a group of policy experts, including Dr. Woolhandler, it was determined that the amount of tax dollars that Medicare has “overpaid private insurance companies under the Medicare Advantage program and its predecessors over the past 27 years is a startling figure of $282.6 billion in excess payments, most of them over the past eight years.”
Health care bills come with hefty levels of fraud. From the historic study twenty years ago by the then General Accounting Office of the Congress to the present estimates by the nation’s leading expert in this field, Professor Malcolm Sparrow at Harvard University, fully ten percent of all health care expenditures are the result of computerized billing fraud and abuse. That will be $270 billion this year.
COSTS!!!!!!
Private insurance companies squander around 31 percent of their budget on non-treatment related administrative costs.
“Why does an appendectomy in Germany cost roughly a quarter what it costs in the United States? ($3,285 compared to $13,123). Or an MRI scan cost less than a third as much, on average, in Canada? ($304 compared to $1,009).
“Americans continue to spend more on health care than patients anywhere else. In 2009, we spent $7,960 per person, twice as much as France, which is known for providing very good health services. And for all that spending, we get very mixed results—some superb, some average, some inferior—compared with other advanced nations.”
Moreover, France and Germany, Italy, England, Canada, Belgium, Sweden and all other western countries plus Japan and Taiwan cover almost all their citizens, unlike the U.S. where 50,000,000 people are uninsured.
Boffey, who wrote a book on the National Academy of Sciences, (The Brain Bank of America: An Inquiry into the Politics of Science), goes on to cite the comparative price report of the International Federation of Health Plans in 2010. They are stunning! For Britain, Canada, France, Germany and the U.S. respectively, the average cost in dollars for bypass surgery is $13,998, $22,212, $16,325, $27,237 and in the U.S. $59,770!!!!!!!. For cataract surgery the bill is $1,299, $927, $3,352, N.A. and in the U.S. $14,764!!!!!!.
And, it's not the Insurance Industries fault. It's regulation and cost increases. I won't go into more detail or bore you to death. But, suffice it to say, every time the gov't insists something is covered, the utilization and price of that item all of a sudden shoots up. I don't quite get all this insurance industry hatred. If you understood the mechanics, you would understand more where the pressure lies. Sure, there are "fat cats," or whatever you'll come up with. But, the majority of the premium is the cost of the goods and services.
is this your belief or is this factual? if factual please provide point(s) of reference...
It is factual. Not a belief.
Pregnancy covered same as non-pregnancy is a regulatory requirement. It's not even an insurable coverage by definition as the cause is known and 100% prevented. It is purely discretionary even if it happens by "accident," the cause does not happen by accident. The result does.
I'm not saying it should not be covered. But, you asked for a point of reference.
If you'd like for me to take that one step further, non-Medically necessary C-Sections are at an alarmingly high rate. If they were not covered by insurance or allowed to go through more stringent medical necessity tests, they would not be so high.
Again, not advocating one way or another. Just trying to make simple points. However, If these coverages were not mandatory (i.e. you could select or not select such coverage), your health insurance would be cheaper.
There are a ton of these examples.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
International Journal of Health Services, a group of policy experts, including Dr. Woolhandler, it was determined that the amount of tax dollars that Medicare has “overpaid private insurance companies under the Medicare Advantage program and its predecessors over the past 27 years is a startling figure of $282.6 billion in excess payments, most of them over the past eight years.”
Health care bills come with hefty levels of fraud. From the historic study twenty years ago by the then General Accounting Office of the Congress to the present estimates by the nation’s leading expert in this field, Professor Malcolm Sparrow at Harvard University, fully ten percent of all health care expenditures are the result of computerized billing fraud and abuse. That will be $270 billion this year.
COSTS!!!!!!
Private insurance companies squander around 31 percent of their budget on non-treatment related administrative costs.
“Why does an appendectomy in Germany cost roughly a quarter what it costs in the United States? ($3,285 compared to $13,123). Or an MRI scan cost less than a third as much, on average, in Canada? ($304 compared to $1,009).
“Americans continue to spend more on health care than patients anywhere else. In 2009, we spent $7,960 per person, twice as much as France, which is known for providing very good health services. And for all that spending, we get very mixed results—some superb, some average, some inferior—compared with other advanced nations.”
Moreover, France and Germany, Italy, England, Canada, Belgium, Sweden and all other western countries plus Japan and Taiwan cover almost all their citizens, unlike the U.S. where 50,000,000 people are uninsured.
Boffey, who wrote a book on the National Academy of Sciences, (The Brain Bank of America: An Inquiry into the Politics of Science), goes on to cite the comparative price report of the International Federation of Health Plans in 2010. They are stunning! For Britain, Canada, France, Germany and the U.S. respectively, the average cost in dollars for bypass surgery is $13,998, $22,212, $16,325, $27,237 and in the U.S. $59,770!!!!!!!. For cataract surgery the bill is $1,299, $927, $3,352, N.A. and in the U.S. $14,764!!!!!!.
There's an agenda there.
I'm not pretending there's not waste. But to state simply - it's Administration for no purpose!!! Is silly. And, again, you must be insisting there's price fixing, as there's a competive bid process for Medicare. Government FFS Medicare patients cost more than those covered by Managed Care/Insurance. So, even if you want to argue the administrative expense point, they are still saving you and me money.
Now, to your latter question - our doctors like to be paid more. I don't begrudge them that. But, if you do, have at it. There's also obscene malpractice insuranse costs b/c of our broken litigation system.
There's also fraud, etc.
To lay this all or even remotely mostly on the insurance industry is naive.
EDIT: The solution is Managed Care. As the Democratic Governor of NY has noted via the Mandated Managed Care for Medicaid. If the Democratic Presidents would stop fighting it, they might see it, too instead of trying to kill the Golden Goose.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Now, the Federal Gov't can charge whatever they'd like. So, your mob reference would seem more properly placed there as everyone's paycheck will attest this or next Friday.
And, I apologize. I re-quote myself to get this thread back on its original track.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
And, it's not the Insurance Industries fault. It's regulation and cost increases. I won't go into more detail or bore you to death. But, suffice it to say, every time the gov't insists something is covered, the utilization and price of that item all of a sudden shoots up. I don't quite get all this insurance industry hatred. If you understood the mechanics, you would understand more where the pressure lies. Sure, there are "fat cats," or whatever you'll come up with. But, the majority of the premium is the cost of the goods and services.
is this your belief or is this factual? if factual please provide point(s) of reference...
It is factual. Not a belief.
Pregnancy covered same as non-pregnancy is a regulatory requirement. It's not even an insurable coverage by definition as the cause is known and 100% prevented. It is purely discretionary even if it happens by "accident," the cause does not happen by accident. The result does.
I'm not saying it should not be covered. But, you asked for a point of reference.
If you'd like for me to take that one step further, non-Medically necessary C-Sections are at an alarmingly high rate. If they were not covered by insurance or allowed to go through more stringent medical necessity tests, they would not be so high.
Again, not advocating one way or another. Just trying to make simple points. However, If these coverages were not mandatory (i.e. you could select or not select such coverage), your health insurance would be cheaper.
There are a ton of these examples.
wait are you saying we should have our baby born in the car delivered by the husband?
wait are you saying the patient should play doctor?? the preggo should price shop for the best "birth rate"? they should demand a natural birth over c-sect?
question: which is more profitable to hospitals and doctors? natural births (no drugs) or intervention and eventual c-sect?
question: which is "more convenient" to all involved, soon to be parents and doctors, natural birth or scheduled c-sect?
The funny thing about cliffs... they don't move. Leastwise, at a rapid pace.
That means, the cliff isn't racing towards us... WE are hurtling towards it. In that case, if you ever find yourself driving towards a cliff with you foot to the floor... easy fix... get off the accelerator, apply the brakes and steer away from the cliff.
...
If we have shit was can't pay for... but already bought it... we need to get another form of income and quit spending on shit we don't need. Let's start with the military hardware we appropriated in the 1980s and are still buying today... to stop Soviet armoured divisions from overrunning our NATO allies in Western Europe.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
is this your belief or is this factual? if factual please provide point(s) of reference...
It is factual. Not a belief.
Pregnancy covered same as non-pregnancy is a regulatory requirement. It's not even an insurable coverage by definition as the cause is known and 100% prevented. It is purely discretionary even if it happens by "accident," the cause does not happen by accident. The result does.
I'm not saying it should not be covered. But, you asked for a point of reference.
If you'd like for me to take that one step further, non-Medically necessary C-Sections are at an alarmingly high rate. If they were not covered by insurance or allowed to go through more stringent medical necessity tests, they would not be so high.
Again, not advocating one way or another. Just trying to make simple points. However, If these coverages were not mandatory (i.e. you could select or not select such coverage), your health insurance would be cheaper.
There are a ton of these examples.
wait are you saying we should have our baby born in the car delivered by the husband?
wait are you saying the patient should play doctor?? the preggo should price shop for the best "birth rate"? they should demand a natural birth over c-sect?
question: which is more profitable to hospitals and doctors? natural births (no drugs) or intervention and eventual c-sect?
question: which is "more convenient" to all involved, soon to be parents and doctors, natural birth or scheduled c-sect?
You are clearly confusing Health INSURANCE and Health CARE. Your responses make no sense.
Different kind of insurance. We were talking about HEALTH insurance, this is in reference to MALPRACTICE insurance. Are you now lumping all insurance together?
And, you can read whatever slanted "journalism" (using that word VERY loosely here), but there are OB/Gyn's (for example) that have stopped working b/c they were spending 75% of their year paying for malpractice insurance due to the litigiousness (and stupidity of juries) of our society. We need to have tort reform. All these things add unnecessary costs to the system.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
off topic but....
just one question for perspective if you would? please rank the following in order of greatest to least effecting current housing prices. there are no right or wrong sequences
mortgage deduction
current underwater mortgages
fed interest rates
current foreclosures or in process foreclosures
shadow inventory held by banks
fed foreclosure to rental program
bank bulk sales to investors
The US currently spends almost as much on its military and on paying for current and past wars in terms of interest on war debt and care for wounded and aging soldiers as the entire rest of the world spends on arms and war. Approximately $1.3 trillion gets spent each year in taxpayer’s dollars and in more borrowed funds (50 cents of every federal tax dollar goes to pay for the US military, the intelligence apparatus, veterans’ benefits and other related military costs). It is simply ludicrous, given this situation, to imagine that the US can significantly reduce its budget deficit either by raising taxes or by cutting social spending.
Comments
agree, total bs but this is obamacare, nothing to do with "fiscal cliff"
there was nothing stopping the insurance companies from only covering the healthy, nothing stopping them from denying coverage to those that are covered. most of those that filed bankruptcy due to health cost had coverage! but again this is obamacare, health insurance reform, which is old news
Had our annual benefits meeting a few weeks back. Premiums went up 6.7%. We were told this represents "a slight increase" over last year. In a few months we will begin annual performance reviews. A good one of those will win you a 3% salary increase. By my math that is less than half of a "slight increase."
Health insurance companies never fail to remind me of the mob. "Fuck you, pay me."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Good math. Except your insurance prem is less than your salary. So, if you health benefit contribution is 12% of your salary, less than half you salary increase goes toward that, while you are still ending up with higher net salary (not to mention the fact that your TAKE HOME pay is effected even less b/c your contribution is pre-tax).
Or, in other words, 6.7% of $6,000 ($402) is much less than 3% of $50,000 ($1,500).
Or, who would you like to pay for your health insurance? And, couldn't you say the same about car insurance, your mortgage lender, the Federal Gov't, so on and so forth?
My point wasn't that the health insurance increase was of a higher dollar amount than my pay raise. It was that today 6.7% is being pushed as a slight increase, whereas in a few months 3% will suddenly be a significant increase. And whereas my auto insurance and fixed-rate mortgage stay largely constant from year to year, only my health insurance increases regularly between 6% and 12%. This has been the case here for years, long before Obamacare. Maybe it is a symptom of Romneycare, but I really believe it is more likely just that Harvard Pilgrim knows it can get away with these increases.
Fuck you, pay me. And oh by the way, we are rejecting your claim.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
My point was - a higher % on a lower amount is still, generally, a lower amount. %ages are funny things.
Obamacare never addressed it's original stated goal - bend the cost curve.
So, I don't get the complaint that premiums are rising. Health expenditures continue to rise. So, insurance covering them will continue to rise.
This tax deal is no different. At every turn, Obama fails to address the REAL problem - the COST of things. It's easy to say pre-existing conditions. It's easy to tax someone else. It's hard to address spending.
That a higher percentage on a lower amount is still a lower amount has very little to do with my point. I was comparing wording and spin, not dollars.
The rest is just blaming Obama to blame Obama because Obama is there to be blamed. Same shit, different thread.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
But, you can say 6.7% is slight and 3% is significant. Now, I have no idea what your salary is to make those sorts of judgments, so maybe in your instance the point is well taken. But just labeling a % one or another without knowing the basis is typically what the media does. To me, a 6.7% increase in health care premium IS slight as some are seeing 10%-20% increases in their premiums. And 3% salary increase is significant, as normal is 1% to 2% and "tops" is about 4% in an office setting. So, those labels are NOT spin. They reflect the relative value of the 2 items being discussed.
The 6.7% increase this year is only described as slight because it follows a 12% bump last year and an 11% bump the year before. I know of no other industry besides the health insurance racket that could get away with these price increases year after year. Not one.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Gas?
And, it's not the Insurance Industries fault. It's regulation and cost increases. I won't go into more detail or bore you to death. But, suffice it to say, every time the gov't insists something is covered, the utilization and price of that item all of a sudden shoots up. I don't quite get all this insurance industry hatred. If you understood the mechanics, you would understand more where the pressure lies. Sure, there are "fat cats," or whatever you'll come up with. But, the majority of the premium is the cost of the goods and services.
But gas prices fluctuate and do come down as often as often as they go up. Is gas too expensive? Maybe, but drive across the street or down the road in search of a better deal. I don't really have a practical alternative to health insurance through my employer. Fuck you, pay me.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
So, then why are you comparing it to other industries?
And, BTW, if you are healthy young up to middle aged man, you are subsidizing everyone else. But, that's ok. They'll all be paying for us in the few years.
(And it could be worse - you could be thrown into the Obama high risk pool and begin paying 10 times what you do under your employer's plan. So, be thankful for what you have).
Because I don't know of a better comparison. And pointing that out helps support my earlier point - many of us have no alternative and the health insurance company knows it. So they raise their prices and we have no choice but to pay them.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
But, your employer has alternatives and unless it's one of the rarities pays far more of the cost of your insurance than you do. So, simply raising prices in a free market would lose the carrier business. Unless, of course, you're with a large employer that self insures. In which case, their costs are their costs and all they are negotiating with the carrier is the administrative expense which is still a competitive bidding process.
So, I'm still not quite sure where you're getting health insurance companies can raise prices with impunity.
My employer might have alternatives. I do not, short of looking for a new job.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Of course. But, your hypothesis seemed to be that the health insurance companies can charge whatever they want. If so, your hypothesis is wrong.
Now, the Federal Gov't can charge whatever they'd like. So, your mob reference would seem more properly placed there as everyone's paycheck will attest this or next Friday.
My belief is that a health insurance company can increase its rates anywhere between 6% and 20% a year, regardless of whether or not their costs have risen to match, and pretty much get away it. I could not get away with that in my industry and I doubt you could in yours, provided you are not in the health insurance racket.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
is this your belief or is this factual? if factual please provide point(s) of reference...
REGULATION!!!!!
International Journal of Health Services, a group of policy experts, including Dr. Woolhandler, it was determined that the amount of tax dollars that Medicare has “overpaid private insurance companies under the Medicare Advantage program and its predecessors over the past 27 years is a startling figure of $282.6 billion in excess payments, most of them over the past eight years.”
Health care bills come with hefty levels of fraud. From the historic study twenty years ago by the then General Accounting Office of the Congress to the present estimates by the nation’s leading expert in this field, Professor Malcolm Sparrow at Harvard University, fully ten percent of all health care expenditures are the result of computerized billing fraud and abuse. That will be $270 billion this year.
COSTS!!!!!!
Private insurance companies squander around 31 percent of their budget on non-treatment related administrative costs.
“Why does an appendectomy in Germany cost roughly a quarter what it costs in the United States? ($3,285 compared to $13,123). Or an MRI scan cost less than a third as much, on average, in Canada? ($304 compared to $1,009).
“Americans continue to spend more on health care than patients anywhere else. In 2009, we spent $7,960 per person, twice as much as France, which is known for providing very good health services. And for all that spending, we get very mixed results—some superb, some average, some inferior—compared with other advanced nations.”
Moreover, France and Germany, Italy, England, Canada, Belgium, Sweden and all other western countries plus Japan and Taiwan cover almost all their citizens, unlike the U.S. where 50,000,000 people are uninsured.
Boffey, who wrote a book on the National Academy of Sciences, (The Brain Bank of America: An Inquiry into the Politics of Science), goes on to cite the comparative price report of the International Federation of Health Plans in 2010. They are stunning! For Britain, Canada, France, Germany and the U.S. respectively, the average cost in dollars for bypass surgery is $13,998, $22,212, $16,325, $27,237 and in the U.S. $59,770!!!!!!!. For cataract surgery the bill is $1,299, $927, $3,352, N.A. and in the U.S. $14,764!!!!!!.
It is factual. Not a belief.
Pregnancy covered same as non-pregnancy is a regulatory requirement. It's not even an insurable coverage by definition as the cause is known and 100% prevented. It is purely discretionary even if it happens by "accident," the cause does not happen by accident. The result does.
I'm not saying it should not be covered. But, you asked for a point of reference.
If you'd like for me to take that one step further, non-Medically necessary C-Sections are at an alarmingly high rate. If they were not covered by insurance or allowed to go through more stringent medical necessity tests, they would not be so high.
Again, not advocating one way or another. Just trying to make simple points. However, If these coverages were not mandatory (i.e. you could select or not select such coverage), your health insurance would be cheaper.
There are a ton of these examples.
I'm not pretending there's not waste. But to state simply - it's Administration for no purpose!!! Is silly. And, again, you must be insisting there's price fixing, as there's a competive bid process for Medicare. Government FFS Medicare patients cost more than those covered by Managed Care/Insurance. So, even if you want to argue the administrative expense point, they are still saving you and me money.
Now, to your latter question - our doctors like to be paid more. I don't begrudge them that. But, if you do, have at it. There's also obscene malpractice insuranse costs b/c of our broken litigation system.
There's also fraud, etc.
To lay this all or even remotely mostly on the insurance industry is naive.
EDIT: The solution is Managed Care. As the Democratic Governor of NY has noted via the Mandated Managed Care for Medicaid. If the Democratic Presidents would stop fighting it, they might see it, too instead of trying to kill the Golden Goose.
And, I apologize. I re-quote myself to get this thread back on its original track.
wait are you saying we should have our baby born in the car delivered by the husband?
wait are you saying the patient should play doctor?? the preggo should price shop for the best "birth rate"? they should demand a natural birth over c-sect?
question: which is more profitable to hospitals and doctors? natural births (no drugs) or intervention and eventual c-sect?
question: which is "more convenient" to all involved, soon to be parents and doctors, natural birth or scheduled c-sect?
1. theres the insurance word again
2. the facts contradict your belief...
http://www.justice.org/clips/five_myths ... igence.pdf
facts again contradict your belief...
That means, the cliff isn't racing towards us... WE are hurtling towards it. In that case, if you ever find yourself driving towards a cliff with you foot to the floor... easy fix... get off the accelerator, apply the brakes and steer away from the cliff.
...
If we have shit was can't pay for... but already bought it... we need to get another form of income and quit spending on shit we don't need. Let's start with the military hardware we appropriated in the 1980s and are still buying today... to stop Soviet armoured divisions from overrunning our NATO allies in Western Europe.
Hail, Hail!!!
You are clearly confusing Health INSURANCE and Health CARE. Your responses make no sense.
Different kind of insurance. We were talking about HEALTH insurance, this is in reference to MALPRACTICE insurance. Are you now lumping all insurance together?
And, you can read whatever slanted "journalism" (using that word VERY loosely here), but there are OB/Gyn's (for example) that have stopped working b/c they were spending 75% of their year paying for malpractice insurance due to the litigiousness (and stupidity of juries) of our society. We need to have tort reform. All these things add unnecessary costs to the system.
still waiting on this....
The US currently spends almost as much on its military and on paying for current and past wars in terms of interest on war debt and care for wounded and aging soldiers as the entire rest of the world spends on arms and war. Approximately $1.3 trillion gets spent each year in taxpayer’s dollars and in more borrowed funds (50 cents of every federal tax dollar goes to pay for the US military, the intelligence apparatus, veterans’ benefits and other related military costs). It is simply ludicrous, given this situation, to imagine that the US can significantly reduce its budget deficit either by raising taxes or by cutting social spending.