Obamanuts: Are you happy about the Obamacare delay?

[Kondor3]

GOP to White House: ObamaCare delay for businesses unfair to everyone else

Published July 09, 2013 - FoxNews.com

House Republican leaders on Tuesday urged the Obama administration to grant everybody a reprieve from the ObamaCare insurance mandate, suggesting the recent decision to delay only the requirement on businesses would be unfair to everyone else.

"We agree with you that the burden was overwhelming for employers, but we also believe American families need the same relief," House Speaker John Boehner and several other top Republicans wrote in a letter to President Obama.

They addressed what is becoming a mounting concern over the administration's decision to delay, until 2015, a requirement that large employers provide health insurance to workers.

The administration, in announcing the change, kept in place the requirement on individuals -- known as the individual mandate -- to obtain insurance. Critics argue that the selective delay will force even more people -- who would have otherwise gotten insurance through their jobs -- to go in search of insurance on the individual market or face a fine.

The delay potentially means more people will be buying insurance out of their own pocket, buying insurance with the help of additional taxpayer subsidies or just opting out and being charged with a hefty fine by the government.

Republicans asked Obama for a detailed breakdown on how the delay of the employer mandate would affect all these aspects -- how it would increase the cost of subsidies, and how it would increase the number of individuals expected to pay a fine.

"We recognize that the decision to delay the employer mandate was likely not a decision you made in only a day and necessarily required substantial review by analysts" at various departments, they wrote. "Your decision to delay one part of the law affecting employers and leave in place provisions regulating individual and family health care creates many new questions and concerns."

The lawmakers also called a press conference to urge Obama to address the issue.

"The president's actions on ObamaCare last week were stunning," House Republican Leader Eric Cantor said. "I never thought I'd see the day when the White House, the president, came down on the side of big business but left the American people out in the cold as far as this health care mandate is concerned."

...

GOP to White House: ObamaCare delay for businesses unfair to everyone else | Fox News

==============================

Concern for the Little Guy, or Obstructionism?

 

[dblack]

Everybody gets a different deal.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Holy shit....You and Obama think alike. You both think the American people are stupid.

The American people are stupid.

Liberalism shows it's true colors..Thanks...
BTW, if what you claim is true, is it any wonder how a community organizer/junior Senator who has never held a real job in his life was elected president....Twice...

 

[thereisnospoon]

Insurance makes sense as a hedge against risk. But as a means of financing the regular expenses of life it's not rational and not sustainable. It distorts consumer demand and fuels inflation in the markets where it operates, and adds unnecessary overhead to every transaction it touches. Yet we have propped up and subsidized this practice in the health care market with misguided public policy for many decades.

Even with such support, the group health insurance business model is ultimately dysfunctional and doomed.

This is an excellent post. As a health care provider who is now moving in the direction of getting involved with corporate wellness, my experience and research have led me to several conclusions:

1. Private health insurance is not a sustainable system for the masses for the reasons given above. That doesn't mean it couldn't have a place in the health care arena like private schools do in the education arena, but it isn't sustainable in it's current form for most people.

2. Single payer care is the only way to effectively guarantee that health care is available for anywhere near 100% of Americans. However, it will come at the price of reduced services provided or reduced quality of services provided, or both. Public single payer care could also be a part of the HC landscape, just like public schools are part of the education landscape.

3. We have never had a singularly important national conversation in the U.S. in which we state clearly whether we as a civil society feel obligated to make sure that all citizens have access to health care. We very badly need to have this conversation, as in the absence of it we have one side who assumes that the answer is "yes," and the other who assumes the answer is "no," but who, for political reasons will not say so.

4. There are three aspects to health care:

1. Quality
2. Quantity
3. Cost

There is no way to increase quantity without also increasing cost or decreasing quality or both. It's a fantasy to think that there is. Those who favor an exclusive government system will not admit this.

5. Those who argue that a cash system would tame health care costs are correct. However, what they don't seem to understand is that it would also reduce the amount of money available for high technology in medicine. Places that might be able to afford an MRI machine, for example, for a million and a half dollars with insurance reimbursement coming in will no longer be able to afford the equipment and facilities, let alone the staff. A cash system would work and it would effectively reduce costs, but the landscape would look very different than the wise access to technological resources we have now.

6. The biggest problem we have is not any of this. These are all problems, but they're not the biggest problem we have. The biggest problem we have is that Americans are too unhealthy (and getting worse) and need too damn much health care, period. If we don't do something about that I truly believe that none of the rest of this stuff will matter.

Discussing points 5 and 6..
A cash system for routine medical care would work.
Routine.....Checkups, physical exams, regular doctor visits for minor ailments, etc. Those could be paid in cash. Heck most policies we have now require deductibles so we are paying cash for those anyway. Just paying A LOT more than we would without the insurance policy.
Now, for more serious care, the simple solution would be to buy a catastrophic policy that has a high deductible that covers hospitalization.
In the past, we had coverage for 'major medical'...We could easily go back to this type of coverage. Force insurance companies to compete across state lines for customers.

On point 6....You may be correct in that many people are unhealthy. However, it's the laziness or simple lack of caring about one's self that makes these people unhealthy. There are those who claim the poor are unhealthy because they allegedly cannot afford healthy food. That's a load of crap. Convenience foods and fast foods which are a regular staple of many so called poor people, are actually more expensive than buying a week's worth of groceries and preparing reasonably healthy meals.
I cannot begin to count the number of times I have been in the homes of low income people to of all things install a satellite tv system which ironically could cost over $100 per month and find fast food bags, potato chips, soft drinks and other not very healthy stuff.
The problem I have with your idea is that those who do the correct thing will end up paying a hefty price for the poor eating habits and behavior of the poor and low income.
In other words, we the producers will end up subsidizing bad habits and poor behavior.

 

[Oddball]

Holy shit....You and Obama think alike. You both think the American people are stupid.

The American people are stupid.

Progressive/lolberal arrogance and conceit in full flower.

Outstanding job, Corky.

 

[Flopper]

Insurance makes sense as a hedge against risk. But as a means of financing the regular expenses of life it's not rational and not sustainable. It distorts consumer demand and fuels inflation in the markets where it operates, and adds unnecessary overhead to every transaction it touches. Yet we have propped up and subsidized this practice in the health care market with misguided public policy for many decades.

Even with such support, the group health insurance business model is ultimately dysfunctional and doomed.

This is an excellent post. As a health care provider who is now moving in the direction of getting involved with corporate wellness, my experience and research have led me to several conclusions:

1. Private health insurance is not a sustainable system for the masses for the reasons given above. That doesn't mean it couldn't have a place in the health care arena like private schools do in the education arena, but it isn't sustainable in it's current form for most people.

2. Single payer care is the only way to effectively guarantee that health care is available for anywhere near 100% of Americans. However, it will come at the price of reduced services provided or reduced quality of services provided, or both. Public single payer care could also be a part of the HC landscape, just like public schools are part of the education landscape.

3. We have never had a singularly important national conversation in the U.S. in which we state clearly whether we as a civil society feel obligated to make sure that all citizens have access to health care. We very badly need to have this conversation, as in the absence of it we have one side who assumes that the answer is "yes," and the other who assumes the answer is "no," but who, for political reasons will not say so.

4. There are three aspects to health care:

1. Quality
2. Quantity
3. Cost

There is no way to increase quantity without also increasing cost or decreasing quality or both. It's a fantasy to think that there is. Those who favor an exclusive government system will not admit this.

5. Those who argue that a cash system would tame health care costs are correct. However, what they don't seem to understand is that it would also reduce the amount of money available for high technology in medicine. Places that might be able to afford an MRI machine, for example, for a million and a half dollars with insurance reimbursement coming in will no longer be able to afford the equipment and facilities, let alone the staff. A cash system would work and it would effectively reduce costs, but the landscape would look very different than the wise access to technological resources we have now.

6. The biggest problem we have is not any of this. These are all problems, but they're not the biggest problem we have. The biggest problem we have is that Americans are too unhealthy (and getting worse) and need too damn much health care, period. If we don't do something about that I truly believe that none of the rest of this stuff will matter.

Discussing points 5 and 6..
A cash system for routine medical care would work.
Routine.....Checkups, physical exams, regular doctor visits for minor ailments, etc. Those could be paid in cash. Heck most policies we have now require deductibles so we are paying cash for those anyway. Just paying A LOT more than we would without the insurance policy.
Now, for more serious care, the simple solution would be to buy a catastrophic policy that has a high deductible that covers hospitalization.
In the past, we had coverage for 'major medical'...We could easily go back to this type of coverage. Force insurance companies to compete across state lines for customers.

On point 6....You may be correct in that many people are unhealthy. However, it's the laziness or simple lack of caring about one's self that makes these people unhealthy. There are those who claim the poor are unhealthy because they allegedly cannot afford healthy food. That's a load of crap. Convenience foods and fast foods which are a regular staple of many so called poor people, are actually more expensive than buying a week's worth of groceries and preparing reasonably healthy meals.
I cannot begin to count the number of times I have been in the homes of low income people to of all things install a satellite tv system which ironically could cost over $100 per month and find fast food bags, potato chips, soft drinks and other not very healthy stuff.
The problem I have with your idea is that those who do the correct thing will end up paying a hefty price for the poor eating habits and behavior of the poor and low income.
In other words, we the producers will end up subsidizing bad habits and poor behavior.

You say "Now, for more serious care, the simple solution would be to buy a catastrophic policy that has a high deductible that covers hospitalization." The problem is you never know when disaster will strike. Even with the new healthcare law, it can take a month or more to get a policy. I just receive word today that my nephew was diagnosed with a brain tumor and will require surgery. You can bet he will have $50,000 to $100,000 in medical costs within a month. Luckily he has insurance. Waiting for a catastrophe to get health insurance is not a good idea, even with the new healthcare law.

If we have social welfare, those who "have" will always sacrifice for those who "have not" even thou the "have nots" are in their wretched state because of their own poor choices. You can't deliver social welfare services to only the deserving for two reasons. First, it would require a subjective decision. Whether a person is considered deserving depends on who makes the decision. There are always extenuating circumstances. Secondly, the cost of such investigations, handling of reviews of decisions, and lawsuits would be huge. So we do the only thing we can do, we grant welfare to those that meet certain objective criteria. It is the best of several bad choices.

 

[dblack]

You say "Now, for more serious care, the simple solution would be to buy a catastrophic policy that has a high deductible that covers hospitalization." The problem is you never know when disaster will strike. Even with the healthcare law, it can a month or more to get a policy. I just receive word today that my nephew was diagnosed with a brain tumor and will require surgery. You can bet he will have $50,000 to $100,000 in medical costs within a month. Luckily he has insurance. Waiting for a catastrophe to get health insurance is not a good idea, even with the new healthcare law.

You seem to have a rather serious misconception about catastrophic health insurance. You don't wait until you get sick to get it. It's no different than any other insurance in that regard.

 

[Flopper]

You say "Now, for more serious care, the simple solution would be to buy a catastrophic policy that has a high deductible that covers hospitalization." The problem is you never know when disaster will strike. Even with the healthcare law, it can a month or more to get a policy. I just receive word today that my nephew was diagnosed with a brain tumor and will require surgery. You can bet he will have $50,000 to $100,000 in medical costs within a month. Luckily he has insurance. Waiting for a catastrophe to get health insurance is not a good idea, even with the new healthcare law.

You seem to have a rather serious misconception about catastrophic health insurance. You don't wait until you get sick to get it. It's no different than any other insurance in that regard.

That's what I said.

 

[dblack]

You say "Now, for more serious care, the simple solution would be to buy a catastrophic policy that has a high deductible that covers hospitalization." The problem is you never know when disaster will strike. Even with the healthcare law, it can a month or more to get a policy. I just receive word today that my nephew was diagnosed with a brain tumor and will require surgery. You can bet he will have $50,000 to $100,000 in medical costs within a month. Luckily he has insurance. Waiting for a catastrophe to get health insurance is not a good idea, even with the new healthcare law.

You seem to have a rather serious misconception about catastrophic health insurance. You don't wait until you get sick to get it. It's no different than any other insurance in that regard.

That's what I said.

Uhh..ok. I'm confused. It seemed you were offering a counter to the suggestion of paying cash for regular expenses and relying on catastrophic insurance for the major expenses. I guess I'm not sure what your point was.

- also, sorry to hear about your nephew.

 

[Flopper]

You seem to have a rather serious misconception about catastrophic health insurance. You don't wait until you get sick to get it. It's no different than any other insurance in that regard.

That's what I said.

Uhh..ok. I'm confused. It seemed you were offering a counter to the suggestion of paying cash for regular expenses and relying on catastrophic insurance for the major expenses. I guess I'm not sure what your point was.

- also, sorry to hear about your nephew.

No, I was quoting, thereisnospoon. He said, "Now, for more serious care, the simple solution would be to buy a catastrophic policy that has a high deductible that covers hospitalization." I said, "Waiting for a catastrophe to get health insurance is not a good idea"

I'm will aware of catastrophic healthcare policies. I had one for 5 years.

 

[dblack]

That's what I said.

Uhh..ok. I'm confused. It seemed you were offering a counter to the suggestion of paying cash for regular expenses and relying on catastrophic insurance for the major expenses. I guess I'm not sure what your point was.

- also, sorry to hear about your nephew.

No, I was quoting, thereisnospoon. He said, "Now, for more serious care, the simple solution would be to buy a catastrophic policy that has a high deductible that covers hospitalization." I said, "Waiting for a catastrophe to get health insurance is not a good idea"

Ah, Ok. I don't think he was suggesting waiting to get the policy. I think the suggestion was offered as an alternative to PPACA, and in that case you wouldn't be covered by health insurance you buy after the fact anyway.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Insurance makes sense as a hedge against risk. But as a means of financing the regular expenses of life it's not rational and not sustainable. It distorts consumer demand and fuels inflation in the markets where it operates, and adds unnecessary overhead to every transaction it touches. Yet we have propped up and subsidized this practice in the health care market with misguided public policy for many decades.

Even with such support, the group health insurance business model is ultimately dysfunctional and doomed.

This is an excellent post. As a health care provider who is now moving in the direction of getting involved with corporate wellness, my experience and research have led me to several conclusions:

1. Private health insurance is not a sustainable system for the masses for the reasons given above. That doesn't mean it couldn't have a place in the health care arena like private schools do in the education arena, but it isn't sustainable in it's current form for most people.

2. Single payer care is the only way to effectively guarantee that health care is available for anywhere near 100% of Americans. However, it will come at the price of reduced services provided or reduced quality of services provided, or both. Public single payer care could also be a part of the HC landscape, just like public schools are part of the education landscape.

3. We have never had a singularly important national conversation in the U.S. in which we state clearly whether we as a civil society feel obligated to make sure that all citizens have access to health care. We very badly need to have this conversation, as in the absence of it we have one side who assumes that the answer is "yes," and the other who assumes the answer is "no," but who, for political reasons will not say so.

4. There are three aspects to health care:

1. Quality
2. Quantity
3. Cost

There is no way to increase quantity without also increasing cost or decreasing quality or both. It's a fantasy to think that there is. Those who favor an exclusive government system will not admit this.

5. Those who argue that a cash system would tame health care costs are correct. However, what they don't seem to understand is that it would also reduce the amount of money available for high technology in medicine. Places that might be able to afford an MRI machine, for example, for a million and a half dollars with insurance reimbursement coming in will no longer be able to afford the equipment and facilities, let alone the staff. A cash system would work and it would effectively reduce costs, but the landscape would look very different than the wise access to technological resources we have now.

6. The biggest problem we have is not any of this. These are all problems, but they're not the biggest problem we have. The biggest problem we have is that Americans are too unhealthy (and getting worse) and need too damn much health care, period. If we don't do something about that I truly believe that none of the rest of this stuff will matter.

Discussing points 5 and 6..
A cash system for routine medical care would work.
Routine.....Checkups, physical exams, regular doctor visits for minor ailments, etc. Those could be paid in cash. Heck most policies we have now require deductibles so we are paying cash for those anyway. Just paying A LOT more than we would without the insurance policy.
Now, for more serious care, the simple solution would be to buy a catastrophic policy that has a high deductible that covers hospitalization.
In the past, we had coverage for 'major medical'...We could easily go back to this type of coverage. Force insurance companies to compete across state lines for customers.

On point 6....You may be correct in that many people are unhealthy. However, it's the laziness or simple lack of caring about one's self that makes these people unhealthy. There are those who claim the poor are unhealthy because they allegedly cannot afford healthy food. That's a load of crap. Convenience foods and fast foods which are a regular staple of many so called poor people, are actually more expensive than buying a week's worth of groceries and preparing reasonably healthy meals.
I cannot begin to count the number of times I have been in the homes of low income people to of all things install a satellite tv system which ironically could cost over $100 per month and find fast food bags, potato chips, soft drinks and other not very healthy stuff.
The problem I have with your idea is that those who do the correct thing will end up paying a hefty price for the poor eating habits and behavior of the poor and low income.
In other words, we the producers will end up subsidizing bad habits and poor behavior.

You say "Now, for more serious care, the simple solution would be to buy a catastrophic policy that has a high deductible that covers hospitalization." The problem is you never know when disaster will strike. Even with the new healthcare law, it can take a month or more to get a policy. I just receive word today that my nephew was diagnosed with a brain tumor and will require surgery. You can bet he will have $50,000 to $100,000 in medical costs within a month. Luckily he has insurance. Waiting for a catastrophe to get health insurance is not a good idea, even with the new healthcare law.

If we have social welfare, those who "have" will always sacrifice for those who "have not" even thou the "have nots" are in their wretched state because of their own poor choices. You can't deliver social welfare services to only the deserving for two reasons. First, it would require a subjective decision. Whether a person is considered deserving depends on who makes the decision. There are always extenuating circumstances. Secondly, the cost of such investigations, handling of reviews of decisions, and lawsuits would be huge. So we do the only thing we can do, we grant welfare to those that meet certain objective criteria. It is the best of several bad choices.

Sorry about your nephew. May he get well soon.
Yes, buy a policy BEFORE one needs the policy.
Who said anything about waiting until catastrophe strikes? That's not smart at all.
As for the rest of your post regarding social welfare, I have no clue as to why you brought up the subject.
I will say this....The "oh well what are ya gonna do" approach our government currently uses to approve social entitlements is the very reason why many Americans object to social spending. It's ludicrous how many people are gaming the system.

 

[Flopper]

Uhh..ok. I'm confused. It seemed you were offering a counter to the suggestion of paying cash for regular expenses and relying on catastrophic insurance for the major expenses. I guess I'm not sure what your point was.

- also, sorry to hear about your nephew.

No, I was quoting, thereisnospoon. He said, "Now, for more serious care, the simple solution would be to buy a catastrophic policy that has a high deductible that covers hospitalization." I said, "Waiting for a catastrophe to get health insurance is not a good idea"

Ah, Ok. I don't think he was suggesting waiting to get the policy. I think the suggestion was offered as an alternative to PPACA, and in that case you wouldn't be covered by health insurance you buy after the fact anyway.

Ok.

From my personal experience, catastrophic plans; that is those plans with $3,000 to $10,000 deductibles are not good for most people for two reason. First, most families don't manage their money well enough to handle sudden expenses. Secondly, there is a tenancy to put off those trips to the doctor to check out a chest pain, a lump, or nagging cough. The kids need braces, the car need serious work, and you're short money on the mortgage payment. So the trip to the doctor just keeps getting put off.

From the standpoint of reducing the nation's healthcare bill, catastrophic plans should do it. However, for the average family, they can be disastrous. If someone has the discipline to save a little money so they can handle the smaller healthcare costs and can realistic determine when they need to go to the doctor and do so even thou costs are all out of pocket, a catastrophic plan is fine. However, I don't think most people will do this.

 

[dblack]

From the standpoint of reducing the nation's healthcare bill, catastrophic plans are great. For the average family, they can be disastrous. If someone has the discipline to save a little money so they can handle the smaller healthcare costs and can realistic determine when they need to go to the doctor and do so even thou costs are all out of pocket, a catastrophic plan is fine. However, I don't think most people will do this.

It would require a different attitude toward health care - but that's exactly what's needed. When people are spending their own money they're going to demand more for it, and they'll have a stronger incentive to stay healthy. I have a hard time seeing that as a bad thing.

The most promising trend, at least before PPACA came along, was the move by many employers to offering catastrophic plans paired with fully funded HSAs to cover the out of pocket expenses. This assured that the money was there when needed, but restored the incentive for health care consumers to look for bargains - because if they stayed healthy and didn't need to use the HSA, the money was theirs to keep. I had one of these with a previous employer and it worked great.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No, I was quoting, thereisnospoon. He said, "Now, for more serious care, the simple solution would be to buy a catastrophic policy that has a high deductible that covers hospitalization." I said, "Waiting for a catastrophe to get health insurance is not a good idea"

Ah, Ok. I don't think he was suggesting waiting to get the policy. I think the suggestion was offered as an alternative to PPACA, and in that case you wouldn't be covered by health insurance you buy after the fact anyway.

Ok.

From my personal experience, catastrophic plans; that is those plans with $3,000 to $10,000 deductibles are not good for most people for two reason. First, most families don't manage their money well enough to handle sudden expenses. Secondly, there is a tenancy to put off those trips to the doctor to check out a chest pain, a lump, or nagging cough. The kids need braces, the car need serious work, and you're short money on the mortgage payment. So the trip to the doctor just keeps getting put off.

From the standpoint of reducing the nation's healthcare bill, catastrophic plans should do it. However, for the average family, they can be disastrous. If someone has the discipline to save a little money so they can handle the smaller healthcare costs and can realistic determine when they need to go to the doctor and do so even thou costs are all out of pocket, a catastrophic plan is fine. However, I don't think most people will do this.

Then education is paramount. People do not prioritize their finances properly.
They view needs as a lower priority to wants.
I do not accept your premise.
People must be educated to the point where they are convinced to put money away for their medical needs. If they can and do not, the burden should not be shifted to those who do the right thing.
Creating a multi trillion dollar entitlement program is not the answer.

 

[Flopper]

It would require a different attitude toward health care - but that's exactly what's needed. When people are spending their own money they're going to demand more for it, and they'll have a stronger incentive to stay healthy. I have a hard time seeing that as a bad thing.

I'm not saying catastrophic plans are a bad idea when it comes to reducing the nations healthcare cost. I'm saying it's not a good idea for most families because they can't manage it. People just don't manage their money that well.

There are two groups of people that buy most of catastrophic plans, young singles who are never going to be seriously ill, those that can't afford anything else, and people with serious money. The rest of us buy plans with a deductible based on how large a medical expense we think we stand, probably $300 to $1,000.

 

[thewanderer]

I agree with a lot of the points made over the past couple of pages, including but not limited to:

1. Health insurance becoming actual insurance again can have a place in a new landscape of health care. That's what catastrophic coverage is, actual insurance. What we have now is a co-op. Instead of high deductible plans, however, I suggest limited coverage plans. So you can't use the insurance for routine stuff, but if it's something that pertains to something that the policy covers, you should be able to use it with little or even no deductible. Why?

2. Because high deductible plans will discourage people from seeking care and small problems won't be caught while they're small. They'll end up becoming big and expensive before they're dealt with. Not a cost saver.

There are a few points that have been made that I would comment on further:

1. The health of the nation continues to decline and a few comments have been made as to how to deal with it. A couple of people have discussed education. Education is of no value whatsoever. I dare say you couldn't find an adult in America who doesn't already know that they should be eating more fruits and vegetables and less processed food and exercising on a regular basis. Knowing more about why you should won't make people do it.

Food companies know exactly how much sugar, salt, and fat to put into your food to make your brain crave it. This is a fact. They go so far as to conduct brain scans while people eat (an interesting bit of trivia: they look for what they call a "bliss point," which is the exact amount of sugar they can put into a product that makes the same part of your brain light up in a brain scan as if you had done a line of cocaine).

In order to get anywhere with this problem we're going to have to treat Nabisco and Kraft's products the same way we treat R. J. Reynold's products, and deservedly so. Both produce habit-forming products that destroy your health. The FDA is going to have to be cleaned up and grow a pair and start doing their job. Yes, i realize that means a lot of government involvement, but A LOT more people are dying from the effects of this stuff than they are the effects of cocaine or even heroin, which we see fit to criminalize to protect our citizens from.

2. There has been at least one post who referred to "my idea," by which I am assuming he meant my statement that we could have both public and private health care systems just like we have both public and private schools in our education system. Anyway, the criticism was that it still means that people who take care of themselves still have to subsidize those who don't. My response is that the only system in which that is not true is a completely cash system. Even catastrophic insurance is going to respond to the entire pool of people paying in and an increasing number of sicker people is going to jack rates up.

3. The idea that routine services can be paid for with cash is fine, as long as you're o.k. seeing a mid-level practitioner (nurse practitioner, PA) instead of a doctor, because that's what you're going to get with that model. It costs many times more to get through medical school than NP or PA school, and the cost of school isn't going to go down just because the economics of the market outside school changes. When your routine exam goes from $85 to $45, who do you think is going to be giving it, an employee who costs the company $38 per hour or an employee who costs the company $125 an hour?

More to type, but no more time to type...

 

[thereisnospoon]

I agree with a lot of the points made over the past couple of pages, including but not limited to:

1. Health insurance becoming actual insurance again can have a place in a new landscape of health care. That's what catastrophic coverage is, actual insurance. What we have now is a co-op. Instead of high deductible plans, however, I suggest limited coverage plans. So you can't use the insurance for routine stuff, but if it's something that pertains to something that the policy covers, you should be able to use it with little or even no deductible. Why?

2. Because high deductible plans will discourage people from seeking care and small problems won't be caught while they're small. They'll end up becoming big and expensive before they're dealt with. Not a cost saver.

There are a few points that have been made that I would comment on further:

1. The health of the nation continues to decline and a few comments have been made as to how to deal with it. A couple of people have discussed education. Education is of no value whatsoever. I dare say you couldn't find an adult in America who doesn't already know that they should be eating more fruits and vegetables and less processed food and exercising on a regular basis. Knowing more about why you should won't make people do it.

Food companies know exactly how much sugar, salt, and fat to put into your food to make your brain crave it. This is a fact. They go so far as to conduct brain scans while people eat (an interesting bit of trivia: they look for what they call a "bliss point," which is the exact amount of sugar they can put into a product that makes the same part of your brain light up in a brain scan as if you had done a line of cocaine).

In order to get anywhere with this problem we're going to have to treat Nabisco and Kraft's products the same way we treat R. J. Reynold's products, and deservedly so. Both produce habit-forming products that destroy your health. The FDA is going to have to be cleaned up and grow a pair and start doing their job. Yes, i realize that means a lot of government involvement, but A LOT more people are dying from the effects of this stuff than they are the effects of cocaine or even heroin, which we see fit to criminalize to protect our citizens from.

2. There has been at least one post who referred to "my idea," by which I am assuming he meant my statement that we could have both public and private health care systems just like we have both public and private schools in our education system. Anyway, the criticism was that it still means that people who take care of themselves still have to subsidize those who don't. My response is that the only system in which that is not true is a completely cash system. Even catastrophic insurance is going to respond to the entire pool of people paying in and an increasing number of sicker people is going to jack rates up.

3. The idea that routine services can be paid for with cash is fine, as long as you're o.k. seeing a mid-level practitioner (nurse practitioner, PA) instead of a doctor, because that's what you're going to get with that model. It costs many times more to get through medical school than NP or PA school, and the cost of school isn't going to go down just because the economics of the market outside school changes. When your routine exam goes from $85 to $45, who do you think is going to be giving it, an employee who costs the company $38 per hour or an employee who costs the company $125 an hour?

More to type, but no more time to type...

The assumption that prices we pay or at least the amounts insurance companies are billed, would remain as they are now.
Not true.
If insurance is taken out of the equation for simple basic care and routine visits for which the patient pays in cash, the administrative costs all but disappear. The labor the doctors have to fund is gone. Therefore the prices will fall. The other influence on prices will occur when the "out of network" caveat goes away. Medical professionals will then have to compete for customers.

 

[dblack]

I agree with a lot of the points made over the past couple of pages, including but not limited to:

1. Health insurance becoming actual insurance again can have a place in a new landscape of health care. That's what catastrophic coverage is, actual insurance. What we have now is a co-op. Instead of high deductible plans, however, I suggest limited coverage plans. So you can't use the insurance for routine stuff, but if it's something that pertains to something that the policy covers, you should be able to use it with little or even no deductible. Why?

2. Because high deductible plans will discourage people from seeking care and small problems won't be caught while they're small. They'll end up becoming big and expensive before they're dealt with. Not a cost saver.

There are a few points that have been made that I would comment on further:

1. The health of the nation continues to decline and a few comments have been made as to how to deal with it. A couple of people have discussed education. Education is of no value whatsoever. I dare say you couldn't find an adult in America who doesn't already know that they should be eating more fruits and vegetables and less processed food and exercising on a regular basis. Knowing more about why you should won't make people do it.

Food companies know exactly how much sugar, salt, and fat to put into your food to make your brain crave it. This is a fact. They go so far as to conduct brain scans while people eat (an interesting bit of trivia: they look for what they call a "bliss point," which is the exact amount of sugar they can put into a product that makes the same part of your brain light up in a brain scan as if you had done a line of cocaine).

In order to get anywhere with this problem we're going to have to treat Nabisco and Kraft's products the same way we treat R. J. Reynold's products, and deservedly so. Both produce habit-forming products that destroy your health. The FDA is going to have to be cleaned up and grow a pair and start doing their job. Yes, i realize that means a lot of government involvement, but A LOT more people are dying from the effects of this stuff than they are the effects of cocaine or even heroin, which we see fit to criminalize to protect our citizens from.

2. There has been at least one post who referred to "my idea," by which I am assuming he meant my statement that we could have both public and private health care systems just like we have both public and private schools in our education system. Anyway, the criticism was that it still means that people who take care of themselves still have to subsidize those who don't. My response is that the only system in which that is not true is a completely cash system. Even catastrophic insurance is going to respond to the entire pool of people paying in and an increasing number of sicker people is going to jack rates up.

3. The idea that routine services can be paid for with cash is fine, as long as you're o.k. seeing a mid-level practitioner (nurse practitioner, PA) instead of a doctor, because that's what you're going to get with that model. It costs many times more to get through medical school than NP or PA school, and the cost of school isn't going to go down just because the economics of the market outside school changes. When your routine exam goes from $85 to $45, who do you think is going to be giving it, an employee who costs the company $38 per hour or an employee who costs the company $125 an hour?

More to type, but no more time to type...

The assumption that prices we pay or at least the amounts insurance companies are billed, would remain as they are now.
Not true.
If insurance is taken out of the equation for simple basic care and routine visits for which the patient pays in cash, the administrative costs all but disappear. The labor the doctors have to fund is gone. Therefore the prices will fall. The other influence on prices will occur when the "out of network" caveat goes away. Medical professionals will then have to compete for customers.

Exactly. And even more importantly, when health care consumers are paying for their own health care they'll have ample incentive to look for bargains, and providers will have equal incentive to offer them. That pressure is virtually non-existent in the current health care market.

 

[thewanderer]

I agree with a lot of the points made over the past couple of pages, including but not limited to:

1. Health insurance becoming actual insurance again can have a place in a new landscape of health care. That's what catastrophic coverage is, actual insurance. What we have now is a co-op. Instead of high deductible plans, however, I suggest limited coverage plans. So you can't use the insurance for routine stuff, but if it's something that pertains to something that the policy covers, you should be able to use it with little or even no deductible. Why?

2. Because high deductible plans will discourage people from seeking care and small problems won't be caught while they're small. They'll end up becoming big and expensive before they're dealt with. Not a cost saver.

There are a few points that have been made that I would comment on further:

1. The health of the nation continues to decline and a few comments have been made as to how to deal with it. A couple of people have discussed education. Education is of no value whatsoever. I dare say you couldn't find an adult in America who doesn't already know that they should be eating more fruits and vegetables and less processed food and exercising on a regular basis. Knowing more about why you should won't make people do it.

Food companies know exactly how much sugar, salt, and fat to put into your food to make your brain crave it. This is a fact. They go so far as to conduct brain scans while people eat (an interesting bit of trivia: they look for what they call a "bliss point," which is the exact amount of sugar they can put into a product that makes the same part of your brain light up in a brain scan as if you had done a line of cocaine).

In order to get anywhere with this problem we're going to have to treat Nabisco and Kraft's products the same way we treat R. J. Reynold's products, and deservedly so. Both produce habit-forming products that destroy your health. The FDA is going to have to be cleaned up and grow a pair and start doing their job. Yes, i realize that means a lot of government involvement, but A LOT more people are dying from the effects of this stuff than they are the effects of cocaine or even heroin, which we see fit to criminalize to protect our citizens from.

2. There has been at least one post who referred to "my idea," by which I am assuming he meant my statement that we could have both public and private health care systems just like we have both public and private schools in our education system. Anyway, the criticism was that it still means that people who take care of themselves still have to subsidize those who don't. My response is that the only system in which that is not true is a completely cash system. Even catastrophic insurance is going to respond to the entire pool of people paying in and an increasing number of sicker people is going to jack rates up.

3. The idea that routine services can be paid for with cash is fine, as long as you're o.k. seeing a mid-level practitioner (nurse practitioner, PA) instead of a doctor, because that's what you're going to get with that model. It costs many times more to get through medical school than NP or PA school, and the cost of school isn't going to go down just because the economics of the market outside school changes. When your routine exam goes from $85 to $45, who do you think is going to be giving it, an employee who costs the company $38 per hour or an employee who costs the company $125 an hour?

More to type, but no more time to type...

The assumption that prices we pay or at least the amounts insurance companies are billed, would remain as they are now.
Not true.
If insurance is taken out of the equation for simple basic care and routine visits for which the patient pays in cash, the administrative costs all but disappear. The labor the doctors have to fund is gone. Therefore the prices will fall. The other influence on prices will occur when the "out of network" caveat goes away. Medical professionals will then have to compete for customers.

I didn't say that the prices would stay the same. I said the opposite, in fact.

For the first 6 years I was in practice I ran a cash out-of-network practice. Insurance administration does increase overhead, but so does "having to compete for patients." That means marketing, which is expensive.

I took home as much or even more when I was a cash practice (that was pre-2008, though. The economy isn't as good now). However, I didn't gross nearly as much money and couldn't afford the expensive equipment like I can now, and that's what I see as the major flaw in a cash system. Managing equipment and inventory (medicine on hand) with the decreased cash flow of being a cash practice.