Yeah that data makes zero sense. First, they immediately dismiss anyome who get health benefits through their employers, which is 90% of us. Then rationalizes that lost who pay for it get government assistance (which makes sense, because they wouldn't be paying for it if they had a full time job-except those self employed) and dismisses those as not being affected by the increase. Leaving us with only 3% who suffer the increase. Completely idiotic reasoning. Those 90% immediately dismissed still pay an increase!!!! Even if the employer pays the difference, cost in health care is none reason wages haven't risen much. Or, in many cases, the employee is responsible for the difference, I know my pay deductions have tripled as a result of employee contributions. Next, those who get government assistance, where do you think that magic money comes from? Everyone pays towards that!!!! Or do you not pay taxes? This article was probably the single dumbest argument for Obamacare I've seen. They don't even deny the skyrocketing prices, they just try to pretend only a small portion pay it, which isn't true. If you have health insurance, whether through work, government or your own, you pay the increase. Looking at the resources the article sites, employers pay about an extra 6k/year in premiums while the employee pays an extra 2k. Those employers are not just eating that extra cost. What is also mentioned in that same source that the article ignores is that price of deductibles have tripled in the same time, of which the employer and government pay zero portion. More and more employers are choosing horrible plans with huge deductibels and copays to keep the premiums from going even higher, which only affects the insured. If this article makes you want to buy into Obamacare, then send me a PM because I have a great investment opportunity for you, I just need a little bit of untraceable cash to get the ball rolling and we'll both get rich.
Yeah that data makes zero sense. First, they immediately dismiss anyome who get health benefits through their employers, which is 90% of us. Then rationalizes that lost who pay for it get government assistance (which makes sense, because they wouldn't be paying for it if they had a full time job-except those self employed) and dismisses those as not being affected by the increase. Leaving us with only 3% who suffer the increase. Completely idiotic reasoning. Those 90% immediately dismissed still pay an increase!!!! Even if the employer pays the difference, cost in health care is none reason wages haven't risen much. Or, in many cases, the employee is responsible for the difference, I know my pay deductions have tripled as a result of employee contributions. Next, those who get government assistance, where do you think that magic money comes from? Everyone pays towards that!!!! Or do you not pay taxes? This article was probably the single dumbest argument for Obamacare I've seen. They don't even deny the skyrocketing prices, they just try to pretend only a small portion pay it, which isn't true. If you have health insurance, whether through work, government or your own, you pay the increase. If this article makes you want to buy into Obamacare, then send me a PM because I have a great investment opportunity for you, I just need a little bit of untraceable cash to get the ball rolling and we'll both get rich.
I have health insurance, thank you. And since Obama care, my copays only went up by single digit % rather than double digit % in the 30 years I've had health insurance through my employer and in the last two years, my portion has remained flat. Yea, so tell me again how the previous model was better?
I thought I just did. Because based on the article you linked costs have gone up about 50% in the last few years and deductibles have tripled to prevent those costs from being even higher. But now you're denying those increases? Even the article you linked didn't deny the cost, they just defended it by saying either your employer or government absorbs the bulk of it. That just isn't true, stagnet wages combined with increase employee contributions would suggest everyone is paying for it. Double digit increase is to be expected over 30 years in your case. In my case, I'm a public employee with a simple step increase for salary based on yearly experience. As with many workers accross the nation there was a pay freeze for several years that was combined with premium increases. We were actually making less money for about 4 straight years in a row.
I thought I just did. Because based on the article you linked costs have gone up about 50% in the last few years and deductibles have tripled to prevent those costs from being even higher. But now you're denying those increases? Even the article you linked didn't deny the cost, they just defended it by saying either your employer or government absorbs the bulk of it. That just isn't true, stagnet wages combined with increase employee contributions would suggest everyone is paying for it. Double digit increase is to be expected over 30 years in your case. In my case, I'm a public employee with a simple step increase for salary based on yearly experience. As with many workers accross the nation there was a pay freeze for several years that was combined with premium increases. We were actually making less money for about 4 straight years in a row.
My double digit % increases were year over year, year after year. Six years of those thirty I was a public employee as well. We went from a choice of six health plans to two and saw increases in our portion to pay as well as co-pays, in violation of our CBA (mid contract, didn't open negotiations, just unilaterally imposed it). Where I live and work, healthcare isn't the number one issue. We have Romneycare. And yo, guess what? It works pretty well.
Briefly scanning the charts and graphs, net positive. Is it perfect? No. Should it be tweaked and improved upon? Yes. Repeal, replace and run away? No. The republican plan will be worse. But don't take my word for it. Live it, you'll see.
From what I've heard so far I don't like some of the proposed changes either. I wasn't defending that, I haven't made a single comment about it yet because quite honestly I don't know enough about it yet. I was only commenting on the article that tried to hide the fact prices are higher. First it said high prices are a myth put forth by republicans. Then it went on to say they have skyrocketed, but since 97% of Americans get their healthcare through their employment or is subsidized by the government it doesn't affect you unless you are the other 3%. To think the higher cost to employers isn't going to trickle down to the employee seems silly to me. And to argue that if Uncle Sam is paying for it, then it really isn't an increase either seems equally flawed. Those are the 2 arguments put forth in the article to defend the spike in costs. And if that is the defense, it doesn't explain the weaker plans as the prices increase. The article was beyond obvious that it was bias and portrayed information in a certain light. Even this pro-obamacare source you provided acknowledged the ridiculous price increases, it just tried to defend it by saying in 97% of cases your employer or government pays the majority of it. That doesn't make me feel better about the price increases.
Give them raises when they aren't in a union that overwhelmingly supports Democrats. They have an agenda to see that the students do the same, it ensures their survival.
give me a break.
Public schools are government indoctrination centers.
Do they get their instructions straight from Nibaru, or do the Illuminati use celebrities to deliver them?
The replacement health care plan that these idiots are trying to pass will take insurance away from 26 million by 2026 but 14 of those millions will loose insurance when yep you guessed it 2018 just in time for elections of house and senate !
^^this is the incorrect stereotype of doctors. While some plastic surgeons in Beverly Hills may live extravagant lifestyles, most real world rural doctors are far from this. Have you researched the average salary of pediatricians, family medicine docs, and internal medicine docs?? Maybe you could research that and realize that your assumptions are eroneous. And while most people complain about student loans for college, compound that with additional 250k medical school loans. Then ask around to see how many hours most docs invest into their practice that they are not able to bill for, like lawyers who bill per 15 min basis. And compare the salaries with professional athletes who make 1-25 million per year and CEOs of hospitals who make millions. And Wall Street hedge fund and bankers. Are you seriously blaming doctors for the exorbitant costs of healthcare because of their salaries?? Which actually can decrease because of reimbursement cuts by CMS and insurances. Granted that lots of doctors order too many tests because of "cover your ass" medical practices of today with all the lawsuits as well as the encouragement from hospitals that profit the most for all the unnecessary workup expenses...
This. My brother is a family practice doctor and he doesn't lead an extravagant lifestyle. He doesn't have children so that does help a bit. I would describe his life as comfortable. His biggest bills are student loan debt and malpractice insurance.
^^this is the incorrect stereotype of doctors. While some plastic surgeons in Beverly Hills may live extravagant lifestyles, most real world rural doctors are far from this. Have you researched the average salary of pediatricians, family medicine docs, and internal medicine docs?? Maybe you could research that and realize that your assumptions are eroneous. And while most people complain about student loans for college, compound that with additional 250k medical school loans. Then ask around to see how many hours most docs invest into their practice that they are not able to bill for, like lawyers who bill per 15 min basis. And compare the salaries with professional athletes who make 1-25 million per year and CEOs of hospitals who make millions. And Wall Street hedge fund and bankers. Are you seriously blaming doctors for the exorbitant costs of healthcare because of their salaries?? Which actually can decrease because of reimbursement cuts by CMS and insurances. Granted that lots of doctors order too many tests because of "cover your ass" medical practices of today with all the lawsuits as well as the encouragement from hospitals that profit the most for all the unnecessary workup expenses...
This. My brother is a family practice doctor and he doesn't lead an extravagant lifestyle. He doesn't have children so that does help a bit. I would describe his life as comfortable. His biggest bills are student loan debt and malpractice insurance.
Yeah, the student loan debt and malpractice insurance is out of this world absurd. While some doctors are able to pay off their student loans within several years of getting a job, many are not, but they're still left with the huge burden of malpractice insurance. And nurses can rack up a lot of student loan debt too, but have even a harder time paying it off since most nurses don't get paid squat for the crap they have to go through
The replacement plan is dead on arrival it will be a crushing blow to Ryan as it should the man is spineless it couldn't happen to a better man and bafoon's budget will also get thrown back in his face like the new immigration law ...
.3% of Americans identify as transgender, yet plenty of people support regulations and laws specifically to fit them...so what's your point? 3% is actually a pretty large number of people.
.3% of Americans identify as transgender, yet plenty of people support regulations and laws specifically to fit them...so what's your point? 3% is actually a pretty large number of people.
As many as the 26 million that will lose health insurance under Trump per CBO? What's your point?
.3% of Americans identify as transgender, yet plenty of people support regulations and laws specifically to fit them...so what's your point? 3% is actually a pretty large number of people.
As many as the 26 million that will lose health insurance under Trump per CBO? What's your point?
Didn't have one, just trying to figure out what your was...I've never been one to buy into the whole "a bad plan is better than no plan" rhetoric. Obamacare was a bad plan. Trumpcare is a bad plan. Health insurance is a scam. Pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers abuse insurance to an insane degree. Kill the healthcare providers and monopolistic pharmaceutical companies' desire or ability to charge outrageously for their products or services and you might someway get back on the right track. Taxpayers pay out the ass for medical and pharmaceutical research and then allow the pharmaceutical companies to patent their taxpayer funded product? That product should be publicly owned and readily available to all taxpayers. Private research may be a different beast, but medical patents should be seriously scrutinized.
.3% of Americans identify as transgender, yet plenty of people support regulations and laws specifically to fit them...so what's your point? 3% is actually a pretty large number of people.
As many as the 26 million that will lose health insurance under Trump per CBO? What's your point?
Didn't have one, just trying to figure out what your was...I've never been one to buy into the whole "a bad plan is better than no plan" rhetoric. Obamacare was a bad plan. Trumpcare is a bad plan. Health insurance is a scam. Pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers abuse insurance to an insane degree. Kill the healthcare providers and monopolistic pharmaceutical companies' desire or ability to charge outrageously for their products or services and you might someway get back on the right track. Taxpayers pay out the ass for medical and pharmaceutical research and then allow the pharmaceutical companies to patent their taxpayer funded product? That product should be publicly owned and readily available to all taxpayers. Private research may be a different beast, but medical patents should be seriously scrutinized.
Some parts of this comment make it seem like you fundamentally misunderstand the complexity and scope of the issues facing health care providers, insurers, and consumers. I don't remember if it was you or mace, but I corrected a huge misconception about rates for insured vs uninsured patients a while back but my connection was shaky and it was lost in a deluge of posts.
.3% of Americans identify as transgender, yet plenty of people support regulations and laws specifically to fit them...so what's your point? 3% is actually a pretty large number of people.
As many as the 26 million that will lose health insurance under Trump per CBO? What's your point?
Didn't have one, just trying to figure out what your was...I've never been one to buy into the whole "a bad plan is better than no plan" rhetoric. Obamacare was a bad plan. Trumpcare is a bad plan. Health insurance is a scam. Pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers abuse insurance to an insane degree. Kill the healthcare providers and monopolistic pharmaceutical companies' desire or ability to charge outrageously for their products or services and you might someway get back on the right track. Taxpayers pay out the ass for medical and pharmaceutical research and then allow the pharmaceutical companies to patent their taxpayer funded product? That product should be publicly owned and readily available to all taxpayers. Private research may be a different beast, but medical patents should be seriously scrutinized.
Some parts of this comment make it seem like you fundamentally misunderstand the complexity and scope of the issues facing health care providers, insurers, and consumers. I don't remember if it was you or mace, but I corrected a huge misconception about rates for insured vs uninsured patients a while back but my connection was shaky and it was lost in a deluge of posts.
That's not much of an elaboration...what parts are being misunderstood? The fact that healthcare providers and monopolistic pharmaceutical companies abuse the healthcare system? The FDA is not innocent in this whole mess either.
.3% of Americans identify as transgender, yet plenty of people support regulations and laws specifically to fit them...so what's your point? 3% is actually a pretty large number of people.
As many as the 26 million that will lose health insurance under Trump per CBO? What's your point?
Didn't have one, just trying to figure out what your was...I've never been one to buy into the whole "a bad plan is better than no plan" rhetoric. Obamacare was a bad plan. Trumpcare is a bad plan. Health insurance is a scam. Pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers abuse insurance to an insane degree. Kill the healthcare providers and monopolistic pharmaceutical companies' desire or ability to charge outrageously for their products or services and you might someway get back on the right track. Taxpayers pay out the ass for medical and pharmaceutical research and then allow the pharmaceutical companies to patent their taxpayer funded product? That product should be publicly owned and readily available to all taxpayers. Private research may be a different beast, but medical patents should be seriously scrutinized.
Some parts of this comment make it seem like you fundamentally misunderstand the complexity and scope of the issues facing health care providers, insurers, and consumers. I don't remember if it was you or mace, but I corrected a huge misconception about rates for insured vs uninsured patients a while back but my connection was shaky and it was lost in a deluge of posts.
That's not much of an elaboration...what parts are being misunderstood? The fact that healthcare providers and monopolistic pharmaceutical companies abuse the healthcare system?
I think it's unfair to say that healthcare providers abuse the healthcare system. Of course there are abuses, but the insurance system is far more abusive to providers than vice versa. Pharmaceutical companies, yeah, they are incredibly abusive and corrupt, I agree with you there. The entire system was fucked from the beginning, single payer systems are the only kind that can effectively control runaway costs and prevent widespread abuses. Capitalistic, free market principles just don't work inside a socialistic risk pool system, it's foolish to try to jam the two together. Everybody loses.
.3% of Americans identify as transgender, yet plenty of people support regulations and laws specifically to fit them...so what's your point? 3% is actually a pretty large number of people.
As many as the 26 million that will lose health insurance under Trump per CBO? What's your point?
Didn't have one, just trying to figure out what your was...I've never been one to buy into the whole "a bad plan is better than no plan" rhetoric. Obamacare was a bad plan. Trumpcare is a bad plan. Health insurance is a scam. Pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers abuse insurance to an insane degree. Kill the healthcare providers and monopolistic pharmaceutical companies' desire or ability to charge outrageously for their products or services and you might someway get back on the right track. Taxpayers pay out the ass for medical and pharmaceutical research and then allow the pharmaceutical companies to patent their taxpayer funded product? That product should be publicly owned and readily available to all taxpayers. Private research may be a different beast, but medical patents should be seriously scrutinized.
Some parts of this comment make it seem like you fundamentally misunderstand the complexity and scope of the issues facing health care providers, insurers, and consumers. I don't remember if it was you or mace, but I corrected a huge misconception about rates for insured vs uninsured patients a while back but my connection was shaky and it was lost in a deluge of posts.
I am curious. If it was a response to me it was lost like you said. What is the misconception of insured vs insured? I know I have commented about the uninsured before. I believe it is a total scam, and far more would benefit by not having any. The problem is that now doctors have so many contracts with insurance companies that few, if any, will have the cash prices they had just a few years ago that are a fraction of what they bill insurance.
.3% of Americans identify as transgender, yet plenty of people support regulations and laws specifically to fit them...so what's your point? 3% is actually a pretty large number of people.
As many as the 26 million that will lose health insurance under Trump per CBO? What's your point?
Didn't have one, just trying to figure out what your was...I've never been one to buy into the whole "a bad plan is better than no plan" rhetoric. Obamacare was a bad plan. Trumpcare is a bad plan. Health insurance is a scam. Pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers abuse insurance to an insane degree. Kill the healthcare providers and monopolistic pharmaceutical companies' desire or ability to charge outrageously for their products or services and you might someway get back on the right track. Taxpayers pay out the ass for medical and pharmaceutical research and then allow the pharmaceutical companies to patent their taxpayer funded product? That product should be publicly owned and readily available to all taxpayers. Private research may be a different beast, but medical patents should be seriously scrutinized.
Some parts of this comment make it seem like you fundamentally misunderstand the complexity and scope of the issues facing health care providers, insurers, and consumers. I don't remember if it was you or mace, but I corrected a huge misconception about rates for insured vs uninsured patients a while back but my connection was shaky and it was lost in a deluge of posts.
I am curious. If it was a response to me it was lost like you said. What is the misconception of insured vs insured? I know I have commented about the uninsured before. I believe it is a total scam, and far more would benefit by not having any. The problem is that now doctors have so many contracts with insurance companies that few, if any, will have the cash prices they had just a few years ago that are a fraction of what they bill insurance.
I'm not certain who it was, maybe neither of you so here is the gist. I can't dig in too deep here today, but billing insurance providers more for care than self-pay patients is illegal. Some doctors do it, to the tune of millions every year, but it isn't legal or smart. A discount for paying same-day is applicable, but that's it. The providers have contracts that stipulate what they will pay for a given procedure. Usually that agreement is a flat rate per service, but sometimes that pay is a percentage, so that drives professionals to raise their prices to bring in a little more from those particular providers, and everyone suffers from those inflated prices. The government pays the essential care for uninsured people at hospitals, that is another reason single payer makes sense.
.3% of Americans identify as transgender, yet plenty of people support regulations and laws specifically to fit them...so what's your point? 3% is actually a pretty large number of people.
As many as the 26 million that will lose health insurance under Trump per CBO? What's your point?
Didn't have one, just trying to figure out what your was...I've never been one to buy into the whole "a bad plan is better than no plan" rhetoric. Obamacare was a bad plan. Trumpcare is a bad plan. Health insurance is a scam. Pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers abuse insurance to an insane degree. Kill the healthcare providers and monopolistic pharmaceutical companies' desire or ability to charge outrageously for their products or services and you might someway get back on the right track. Taxpayers pay out the ass for medical and pharmaceutical research and then allow the pharmaceutical companies to patent their taxpayer funded product? That product should be publicly owned and readily available to all taxpayers. Private research may be a different beast, but medical patents should be seriously scrutinized.
Some parts of this comment make it seem like you fundamentally misunderstand the complexity and scope of the issues facing health care providers, insurers, and consumers. I don't remember if it was you or mace, but I corrected a huge misconception about rates for insured vs uninsured patients a while back but my connection was shaky and it was lost in a deluge of posts.
I am curious. If it was a response to me it was lost like you said. What is the misconception of insured vs insured? I know I have commented about the uninsured before. I believe it is a total scam, and far more would benefit by not having any. The problem is that now doctors have so many contracts with insurance companies that few, if any, will have the cash prices they had just a few years ago that are a fraction of what they bill insurance.
I'm not certain who it was, maybe neither of you so here is the gist. I can't dig in too deep here today, but billing insurance providers more for care than self-pay patients is illegal. Some doctors do it, to the tune of millions every year, but it isn't legal or smart. A discount for paying same-day is applicable, but that's it. The providers have contracts that stipulate what they will pay for a given procedure. Usually that agreement is a flat rate per service, but sometimes that pay is a percentage, so that drives professionals to raise their prices to bring in a little more from those particular providers, and everyone suffers from those inflated prices. The government pays the essential care for uninsured people at hospitals, that is another reason single payer makes sense.
I have never heard it was illegal. In fact, I spent a few minutes reading several articles to see if it was and none of them mentioned it was. I did find a few articles that did talk about cash discounts. In the first article I read quoted the LA Times: "1) A recent article in the Los Angeles Times reported a CT scan of the abdomen costs about $2,400 for patients insured by Blue Shield of California, while the Los Alamitos (Calif.) Medical Center cash price is only $250. That is a 89% discount by my calculation." That has been my experience. Going through insurance the prices are increased by a factor of 10. So someone who has a hospital visit, or a CT scan, sees the bill for $2500 and is glad they only pay 20% of that (which is still $500!) thinking "how could I afford this without insurance." While Joe Uninsured walks in, does the same thing, and pays only $250, less than the copay of the previous guy with insurance. The real kick in the nuts is the first guy also pays nearly $2,000 a month for the privilege of over paying. So he's really out over 2 grand in tat scenario. What laws make that illegal? Any state laws? I have read scenarios where the cash discounts are going away due to the contract the hospitals have with the insured companies, some of the contracts state they must charge the same price even to the uninsured. But that isn't the law, it is in the contracts they have with the insurance companies, and they are pretty much forced to sign since everyone is now forced to have insurance, so without those contracts they cant do business.
Another story in there is: "In perhaps the most interesting reaction to cash discounts, a patient who was unaware of the discounted cash pricing last month filed a lawsuit against Blue Shield of California for unfair business practices, breach of good faith and misrepresentation over her medical bills after she was charged $2,336 for a CT scan that would have cost her $1,054 in cash.
Blue Shield said it “cannot promise or represent that there could not be providers who will charge someone less out-of-pocket cost for a service than she would pay if the Blue Shield contract rate applies.” ' The whole article states that the total bill was $6700, of which her copay was $2336, then the hospital has a cash price of $1054 for the same thing! Not to mention her monthly premium would have probably covered most, if not all, of that cash bill to begin with. So even after having what most would consider expensive medical bills for that month, she still would have saved over $2,000 by not having insurance. Isn't insurance suppose to be helpful when you use it? That's what car insurance is for, don't need it most of the time, but in your one accident youre glad you had it. Health insurance is the opposite, you don't want it, and when you use it you got screwed even worse.
Ridiculous. What is the point of insurance then?
I realize that article is 5 years old, but that has been common practice for years. And if there is a new law that prevents the cash discount, that just means hospitals are forced to overcharge everyone, making the insurer super rich, and that law is just wrong. But I've had the same experience on a smaller scale. Every time I get a prescription filled I ask about the cash price, and far too many times the cash price is $11 while my copay is $30, as recent as just a couple months ago. And even though they have my insurance info on file, they let me pay cash.
It's illegal because it is fraudulent, but that isn't easy to pursue. For Medicare and Medicaid there is a cap on the amount of cash discount, but I don't know where it is specifically. The whole thing is a mess, the prices are jacked up to drive the negotiated rates up, and some services are severely overcharged to make up for others which are severely underpaid. Billing and coding is a nightmare when it comes to negotiated services, you have dozens of providers with handfuls of different rules on what services and procedures can be combined and billed in given situations.
I see bills from hospitals daily that are so laughable. the very same hospital will charge an uninsured person $2,200 for a CAT scan. The same person with bc/bs, the carrier pays a "negotiated" price of around $400, hospital eats the rest The same person on Medicaid, state pays about $200, hospital eats the rest.
Obviously they are earning off the $400 price or they wouldn't have agreed to it, right?
Only in the united states where the AMA, big pharma and Hospital Assoc. run shit, would the person who needs the biggest break, be charged 500% more than the guy who can afford private insurance. #RIPOFFS
Comments
3% of Americans impacted by premium increases.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Completely idiotic reasoning. Those 90% immediately dismissed still pay an increase!!!! Even if the employer pays the difference, cost in health care is none reason wages haven't risen much. Or, in many cases, the employee is responsible for the difference, I know my pay deductions have tripled as a result of employee contributions.
Next, those who get government assistance, where do you think that magic money comes from? Everyone pays towards that!!!! Or do you not pay taxes?
This article was probably the single dumbest argument for Obamacare I've seen. They don't even deny the skyrocketing prices, they just try to pretend only a small portion pay it, which isn't true. If you have health insurance, whether through work, government or your own, you pay the increase. Looking at the resources the article sites, employers pay about an extra 6k/year in premiums while the employee pays an extra 2k. Those employers are not just eating that extra cost. What is also mentioned in that same source that the article ignores is that price of deductibles have tripled in the same time, of which the employer and government pay zero portion. More and more employers are choosing horrible plans with huge deductibels and copays to keep the premiums from going even higher, which only affects the insured.
If this article makes you want to buy into Obamacare, then send me a PM because I have a great investment opportunity for you, I just need a little bit of untraceable cash to get the ball rolling and we'll both get rich.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
But now you're denying those increases? Even the article you linked didn't deny the cost, they just defended it by saying either your employer or government absorbs the bulk of it. That just isn't true, stagnet wages combined with increase employee contributions would suggest everyone is paying for it.
Double digit increase is to be expected over 30 years in your case.
In my case, I'm a public employee with a simple step increase for salary based on yearly experience. As with many workers accross the nation there was a pay freeze for several years that was combined with premium increases. We were actually making less money for about 4 straight years in a row.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-257.pdf
Briefly scanning the charts and graphs, net positive. Is it perfect? No. Should it be tweaked and improved upon? Yes. Repeal, replace and run away? No. The republican plan will be worse. But don't take my word for it. Live it, you'll see.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I was only commenting on the article that tried to hide the fact prices are higher. First it said high prices are a myth put forth by republicans. Then it went on to say they have skyrocketed, but since 97% of Americans get their healthcare through their employment or is subsidized by the government it doesn't affect you unless you are the other 3%. To think the higher cost to employers isn't going to trickle down to the employee seems silly to me. And to argue that if Uncle Sam is paying for it, then it really isn't an increase either seems equally flawed. Those are the 2 arguments put forth in the article to defend the spike in costs. And if that is the defense, it doesn't explain the weaker plans as the prices increase. The article was beyond obvious that it was bias and portrayed information in a certain light. Even this pro-obamacare source you provided acknowledged the ridiculous price increases, it just tried to defend it by saying in 97% of cases your employer or government pays the majority of it. That doesn't make me feel better about the price increases.
Do they get their instructions straight from Nibaru, or do the Illuminati use celebrities to deliver them?
millions of people are going to be hurt by it. and it includes tax cuts for the rich.
a republican wet dream, no doubt.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I don't remember if it was you or mace, but I corrected a huge misconception about rates for insured vs uninsured patients a while back but my connection was shaky and it was lost in a deluge of posts.
Pharmaceutical companies, yeah, they are incredibly abusive and corrupt, I agree with you there.
The entire system was fucked from the beginning, single payer systems are the only kind that can effectively control runaway costs and prevent widespread abuses. Capitalistic, free market principles just don't work inside a socialistic risk pool system, it's foolish to try to jam the two together. Everybody loses.
I know I have commented about the uninsured before. I believe it is a total scam, and far more would benefit by not having any. The problem is that now doctors have so many contracts with insurance companies that few, if any, will have the cash prices they had just a few years ago that are a fraction of what they bill insurance.
I can't dig in too deep here today, but billing insurance providers more for care than self-pay patients is illegal. Some doctors do it, to the tune of millions every year, but it isn't legal or smart. A discount for paying same-day is applicable, but that's it.
The providers have contracts that stipulate what they will pay for a given procedure. Usually that agreement is a flat rate per service, but sometimes that pay is a percentage, so that drives professionals to raise their prices to bring in a little more from those particular providers, and everyone suffers from those inflated prices.
The government pays the essential care for uninsured people at hospitals, that is another reason single payer makes sense.
"1) A recent article in the Los Angeles Times reported a CT scan of the abdomen costs about $2,400 for patients insured by Blue Shield of California, while the Los Alamitos (Calif.) Medical Center cash price is only $250. That is a 89% discount by my calculation."
That has been my experience. Going through insurance the prices are increased by a factor of 10. So someone who has a hospital visit, or a CT scan, sees the bill for $2500 and is glad they only pay 20% of that (which is still $500!) thinking "how could I afford this without insurance."
While Joe Uninsured walks in, does the same thing, and pays only $250, less than the copay of the previous guy with insurance. The real kick in the nuts is the first guy also pays nearly $2,000 a month for the privilege of over paying. So he's really out over 2 grand in tat scenario.
What laws make that illegal? Any state laws?
I have read scenarios where the cash discounts are going away due to the contract the hospitals have with the insured companies, some of the contracts state they must charge the same price even to the uninsured. But that isn't the law, it is in the contracts they have with the insurance companies, and they are pretty much forced to sign since everyone is now forced to have insurance, so without those contracts they cant do business.
Someone said something along the lines that who knew 50 Cent was a healthcare expert when he named his album "get rich or die trying"
Yep, I am old. Carry on
http://www.latimes.com/business/healthcare/la-fi-medical-prices-20120527-story.html
Another story in there is:
"In perhaps the most interesting reaction to cash discounts, a patient who was unaware of the discounted cash pricing last month filed a lawsuit against Blue Shield of California for unfair business practices, breach of good faith and misrepresentation over her medical bills after she was charged $2,336 for a CT scan that would have cost her $1,054 in cash.
Blue Shield said it “cannot promise or represent that there could not be providers who will charge someone less out-of-pocket cost for a service than she would pay if the Blue Shield contract rate applies.” '
The whole article states that the total bill was $6700, of which her copay was $2336, then the hospital has a cash price of $1054 for the same thing! Not to mention her monthly premium would have probably covered most, if not all, of that cash bill to begin with. So even after having what most would consider expensive medical bills for that month, she still would have saved over $2,000 by not having insurance. Isn't insurance suppose to be helpful when you use it? That's what car insurance is for, don't need it most of the time, but in your one accident youre glad you had it. Health insurance is the opposite, you don't want it, and when you use it you got screwed even worse.
Ridiculous. What is the point of insurance then?
I realize that article is 5 years old, but that has been common practice for years. And if there is a new law that prevents the cash discount, that just means hospitals are forced to overcharge everyone, making the insurer super rich, and that law is just wrong. But I've had the same experience on a smaller scale. Every time I get a prescription filled I ask about the cash price, and far too many times the cash price is $11 while my copay is $30, as recent as just a couple months ago. And even though they have my insurance info on file, they let me pay cash.
Billing and coding is a nightmare when it comes to negotiated services, you have dozens of providers with handfuls of different rules on what services and procedures can be combined and billed in given situations.
Single payer is the only fix.
The same person with bc/bs, the carrier pays a "negotiated" price of around $400, hospital eats the rest
The same person on Medicaid, state pays about $200, hospital eats the rest.
Obviously they are earning off the $400 price or they wouldn't have agreed to it, right?
Only in the united states where the AMA, big pharma and Hospital Assoc. run shit, would the person who needs the biggest break, be charged 500% more than the guy who can afford private insurance.
#RIPOFFS
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/08/kennedy-rips-gop-health-plan/IWpUdBxaIrjA50ooQ1z43J/story.html
Just found out he has the same birthday and year of birth as me which is nice. Surreal that someone my age is considered for 2020.