3rd Largest Health Insurer Will Likely Pullout Of ACA

[Dekster]

Does anyone have an idea of how much a universal healthcare system in America would cost every taxpayer compared to what we're paying for the ACA costs now?

2 years ago total us healthcare spending was $3T or a little less than $10K per person....except where the other posters live because I am sure people pay patients to let them treat them the way their versions of reality have been flowing

However, that's in a perfect world. Not everyone is taxed evenly, nor would it be the case if we were to implement UHC in this country. I'm wondering if UHC would actually break the average person's budget to implement such a program. If I make $14/hour and have to pay $6,000 a year towards the ACA, that's an extra $115 a week out of a net pay of $440.

The fundamental problem with UHC in the US is that there are so many for profit providers. To be sustainable, we would essentially additionally have to buy up the hospitals/HMO's, etc to save money and still have care. That way we could negotiate for band aids in large bulk instead of depending on for profits negotiating and then marking them up and then expecting the gubbermint to pay for them.

 

[Slashsnake]

Does anyone have an idea of how much a universal healthcare system in America would cost every taxpayer compared to what we're paying for the ACA costs now?

2 years ago total us healthcare spending was $3T or a little less than $10K per person....except where the other posters live because I am sure people pay patients to let them treat them the way their versions of reality have been flowing

However, that's in a perfect world. Not everyone is taxed evenly, nor would it be the case if we were to implement UHC in this country. I'm wondering if UHC would actually break the average person's budget to implement such a program. If I make $14/hour and have to pay $6,000 a year towards the ACA, that's an extra $115 a week out of a net pay of $440.

The fundamental problem with UHC in the US is that there are so many for profit providers. To be sustainable, we would essentially additionally have to buy up the hospitals/HMO's, etc to save money and still have care. That way we could negotiate for band aids in large bulk instead of depending on for profits negotiating and then marking them up and then expecting the gubbermint to pay for them.

Don't forget the amount of research and development goes into making medicinal products. I work for a pharmaceutical company (which I won't name for privacy and non-libel purposes), and well indeed the people that work there have went to college and worked hard to get where they are, the amount of $$$ it takes for these companies to employee people is an outrageously large sum. When you have to pay employees billions of dollars every year, a capitalist society will tell the company to charge an arm and a leg to whoever buys these innovative drugs that help reduce the effects of cancer, disease, etc. You're completely right about the profit part too... Although I'm not talking about HMO's here, but businesses that come up with the drugs in the first place to fix the issues people have with their health and also need to return a profit to their shareholders.

 

[Arianrhod]

Does anyone have an idea of how much a universal healthcare system in America would cost every taxpayer compared to what we're paying for the ACA costs now?

2 years ago total us healthcare spending was $3T or a little less than $10K per person....except where the other posters live because I am sure people pay patients to let them treat them the way their versions of reality have been flowing

However, that's in a perfect world. Not everyone is taxed evenly, nor would it be the case if we were to implement UHC in this country. I'm wondering if UHC would actually break the average person's budget to implement such a program. If I make $14/hour and have to pay $6,000 a year towards the ACA, that's an extra $115 a week out of a net pay of $440.

If you make less than 400% of the federal poverty line, you are eligible for a subsidy.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Does anyone have an idea of how much a universal healthcare system in America would cost every taxpayer compared to what we're paying for the ACA costs now?

2 years ago total us healthcare spending was $3T or a little less than $10K per person....except where the other posters live because I am sure people pay patients to let them treat them the way their versions of reality have been flowing

However, that's in a perfect world. Not everyone is taxed evenly, nor would it be the case if we were to implement UHC in this country. I'm wondering if UHC would actually break the average person's budget to implement such a program. If I make $14/hour and have to pay $6,000 a year towards the ACA, that's an extra $115 a week out of a net pay of $440.

The fundamental problem with UHC in the US is that there are so many for profit providers. To be sustainable, we would essentially additionally have to buy up the hospitals/HMO's, etc to save money and still have care. That way we could negotiate for band aids in large bulk instead of depending on for profits negotiating and then marking them up and then expecting the gubbermint to pay for them.

Don't forget the amount of research and development goes into making medicinal products. I work for a pharmaceutical company (which I won't name for privacy and non-libel purposes), and well indeed the people that work there have went to college and worked hard to get where they are, the amount of $$$ it takes for these companies to employee people is an outrageously large sum. When you have to pay employees billions of dollars every year, a capitalist society will tell the company to charge an arm and a leg to whoever buys these innovative drugs that help reduce the effects of cancer, disease, etc. You're completely right about the profit part too... Although I'm not talking about HMO's here, but businesses that come up with the drugs in the first place to fix the issues people have with their health and also need to return a profit to their shareholders.

And, since other countries like Canada have price controls on drugs, the pharmacy industry simple feel that it is fine if the USA consumers pay the entire R&D costs of drugs, that they sell all over the world!

Thanks a lot!

 

[Vandalshandle]

Anything that the government buy's, from paperclips to stealth bombers, is put out for competitive bids, EXCEPT pharmaceuticals for medicare. Their lobbyists have made it illegal for the government to negotiate those prices. This even applies to Glaxo, which is a British company.

 

[Dekster]

Does anyone have an idea of how much a universal healthcare system in America would cost every taxpayer compared to what we're paying for the ACA costs now?

2 years ago total us healthcare spending was $3T or a little less than $10K per person....except where the other posters live because I am sure people pay patients to let them treat them the way their versions of reality have been flowing

However, that's in a perfect world. Not everyone is taxed evenly, nor would it be the case if we were to implement UHC in this country. I'm wondering if UHC would actually break the average person's budget to implement such a program. If I make $14/hour and have to pay $6,000 a year towards the ACA, that's an extra $115 a week out of a net pay of $440.

The fundamental problem with UHC in the US is that there are so many for profit providers. To be sustainable, we would essentially additionally have to buy up the hospitals/HMO's, etc to save money and still have care. That way we could negotiate for band aids in large bulk instead of depending on for profits negotiating and then marking them up and then expecting the gubbermint to pay for them.

Don't forget the amount of research and development goes into making medicinal products. I work for a pharmaceutical company (which I won't name for privacy and non-libel purposes), and well indeed the people that work there have went to college and worked hard to get where they are, the amount of $$$ it takes for these companies to employee people is an outrageously large sum. When you have to pay employees billions of dollars every year, a capitalist society will tell the company to charge an arm and a leg to whoever buys these innovative drugs that help reduce the effects of cancer, disease, etc. You're completely right about the profit part too... Although I'm not talking about HMO's here, but businesses that come up with the drugs in the first place to fix the issues people have with their health and also need to return a profit to their shareholders.

I am not sure that nationalizing research would be a bad thing. A lot of these research project are for maintenance drugs, not cures, which is why we are behind the curve on antibiotic research. Just as a tangent (that would be totally not true to some people because it is totally not true in their area), our only local hospital is for-profit. Several years ago it got is a pissing match with the largest insurer in the sate over reimbursements among other things such as their bad bounce-back rates and they got dropped. The two largest factories in our city had that company as a carrier. About half the people insured in the city were caught up in this feud. The insurer would still pay something directly to the insured if the insured submitted bills themselves as a non-participating hospital but not nearly what the charges were. A lot of people got screwed. The only way a NHS system could not create that situation again would be if they bought the hospital.

 

[dblack]

Does anyone have an idea of how much a universal healthcare system in America would cost every taxpayer compared to what we're paying for the ACA costs now?

2 years ago total us healthcare spending was $3T or a little less than $10K per person....except where the other posters live because I am sure people pay patients to let them treat them the way their versions of reality have been flowing

However, that's in a perfect world. Not everyone is taxed evenly, nor would it be the case if we were to implement UHC in this country. I'm wondering if UHC would actually break the average person's budget to implement such a program. If I make $14/hour and have to pay $6,000 a year towards the ACA, that's an extra $115 a week out of a net pay of $440.

If you make less than 400% of the federal poverty line, you are eligible for a subsidy.

huzzah

 

[Arianrhod]

Does anyone have an idea of how much a universal healthcare system in America would cost every taxpayer compared to what we're paying for the ACA costs now?

2 years ago total us healthcare spending was $3T or a little less than $10K per person....except where the other posters live because I am sure people pay patients to let them treat them the way their versions of reality have been flowing

However, that's in a perfect world. Not everyone is taxed evenly, nor would it be the case if we were to implement UHC in this country. I'm wondering if UHC would actually break the average person's budget to implement such a program. If I make $14/hour and have to pay $6,000 a year towards the ACA, that's an extra $115 a week out of a net pay of $440.

If you make less than 400% of the federal poverty line, you are eligible for a subsidy.

huzzah

Do you know what the federal poverty line is?

 

[dblack]

Does anyone have an idea of how much a universal healthcare system in America would cost every taxpayer compared to what we're paying for the ACA costs now?

2 years ago total us healthcare spending was $3T or a little less than $10K per person....except where the other posters live because I am sure people pay patients to let them treat them the way their versions of reality have been flowing

However, that's in a perfect world. Not everyone is taxed evenly, nor would it be the case if we were to implement UHC in this country. I'm wondering if UHC would actually break the average person's budget to implement such a program. If I make $14/hour and have to pay $6,000 a year towards the ACA, that's an extra $115 a week out of a net pay of $440.

If you make less than 400% of the federal poverty line, you are eligible for a subsidy.

huzzah

Do you know what the federal poverty line is?

Do I care?

 

[Arianrhod]

Do I care?

Obviously not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Single-payer is inevitable.

I'd much rather see healthcare insurance forced into non-profit.

It could be the same--something like a single payer post office type entity. They have to be able to operate at a surplus and those surpluses invested into reserve accounts. If not, it will never be properly funded in a way that takes the political fingers out of the pudding.

What has our government done effectively.

If someone says Social Security, I'll be ROTFLMAO.

In 2015, over 59 million Americans received almost $870 billion in Social Security benefits.

And that makes it efficient ?

Got it.

Of course it does, because you can't show it does not.

 

[dblack]

I'd much rather see healthcare insurance forced into non-profit.

It could be the same--something like a single payer post office type entity. They have to be able to operate at a surplus and those surpluses invested into reserve accounts. If not, it will never be properly funded in a way that takes the political fingers out of the pudding.

What has our government done effectively.

If someone says Social Security, I'll be ROTFLMAO.

In 2015, over 59 million Americans received almost $870 billion in Social Security benefits.

And that makes it efficient ?

Got it.

Of course it does, because you can't show it does not.

LOL

 

[JakeStarkey]

LOL

 

[Arianrhod]

What I find interesting is that dblack's fellow travelers post things like "My premiums went up like a thousand percent" and "MY deductible is like a thousand times higher than it was"...without offering any proof, but not one of them can offer proof that they're paying more taxes.

Interesting, considering that income taxes are lower than they have been since the Reagan administration.

The only conclusion is that, like my neighbor's three-year-old, they're just howling because they're enamored of their own voices.

Wail on, dblack, wail on.

 

[dblack]

What I find interesting is that dblack's fellow travelers post things like "My premiums went up like a thousand percent" and "MY deductible is like a thousand times higher than it was"...without offering any proof, but not one of them can offer proof that they're paying more taxes.

Interesting, considering that income taxes are lower than they have been since the Reagan administration.

The only conclusion is that, like my neighbor's three-year-old, they're just howling because they're enamored of their own voices.

Wail on, dblack, wail on.

??? fellow travelers ???

Wow.... you're blaming me for what other people say?

 

[JakeStarkey]

What I find interesting is that dblack's fellow travelers post things like "My premiums went up like a thousand percent" and "MY deductible is like a thousand times higher than it was"...without offering any proof, but not one of them can offer proof that they're paying more taxes.

Interesting, considering that income taxes are lower than they have been since the Reagan administration.

The only conclusion is that, like my neighbor's three-year-old, they're just howling because they're enamored of their own voices.

Wail on, dblack, wail on.

??? fellow travelers ???

Wow.... you're blaming me for what other people say?

Wail on, you running dog of the whiners.

 

[Arianrhod]

What I find interesting is that dblack's fellow travelers post things like "My premiums went up like a thousand percent" and "MY deductible is like a thousand times higher than it was"...without offering any proof, but not one of them can offer proof that they're paying more taxes.

Interesting, considering that income taxes are lower than they have been since the Reagan administration.

The only conclusion is that, like my neighbor's three-year-old, they're just howling because they're enamored of their own voices.

Wail on, dblack, wail on.

??? fellow travelers ???

Wow.... you're blaming me for what other people say?

No, I'm watching you try to pretend your opinions are unique all the world while simultaneously cozying up to anyone who cites the RW manifesto. Your best opinion is no opinion at all.

 

[dblack]

What I find interesting is that dblack's fellow travelers post things like "My premiums went up like a thousand percent" and "MY deductible is like a thousand times higher than it was"...without offering any proof, but not one of them can offer proof that they're paying more taxes.

Interesting, considering that income taxes are lower than they have been since the Reagan administration.

The only conclusion is that, like my neighbor's three-year-old, they're just howling because they're enamored of their own voices.

Wail on, dblack, wail on.

??? fellow travelers ???

Wow.... you're blaming me for what other people say?

No, I'm watching you try to pretend your opinions are unique all the world while simultaneously cozying up to anyone who cites the RW manifesto. Your best opinion is no opinion at all.

Alrighty then.

???

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Anything that the government buy's, from paperclips to stealth bombers, is put out for competitive bids, EXCEPT pharmaceuticals for medicare. Their lobbyists have made it illegal for the government to negotiate those prices. This even applies to Glaxo, which is a British company.

Competative bids....you really don't buy that do you (pardon the pun).

You have to qualify as a bidder which takes a great many of the potential suppliers out of the picture. Next, you have the cost associated with bidding (all the paperwork) which runs up the price of the bids. Finally, bidders know when to actually compete and when to just provide a "courtesy bid" (a bid that is so stupidly high they know they will never get it).

Then there is the strategy that many large bidders follow which is to bid low and then make it up using change orders.

Then there is the fact that nobody is reviewing if there was even a need for what was being bid in the first place.

Sometimes this cost more than single sourcing.

BTW: How did lobbyists "make it illegal" ? Just curious. Probably know the answer, but I'll wait for your response.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What I find interesting is that dblack's fellow travelers post things like "My premiums went up like a thousand percent" and "MY deductible is like a thousand times higher than it was"...without offering any proof, but not one of them can offer proof that they're paying more taxes.

Interesting, considering that income taxes are lower than they have been since the Reagan administration.

The only conclusion is that, like my neighbor's three-year-old, they're just howling because they're enamored of their own voices.

Wail on, dblack, wail on.

??? fellow travelers ???

Wow.... you're blaming me for what other people say?

No, I'm watching you try to pretend your opinions are unique all the world while simultaneously cozying up to anyone who cites the RW manifesto. Your best opinion is no opinion at all.

Alrighty then.

???

Can't see what you are posting against...so I'll just proceed.

I find it interesting that Obamacare is not an issue in the current presidential race (from what I've paid attention to).

Nobody believes we have arrived at a good conclusion. Some what it out, some what it changed, some want universal health care.

It isn't working.

Not because it is Obamacare, but because nobody has addressed the fundamental issue.

We have a country with a shrinking middle class. People like Hillary, Trump, Lizzy Warren (all 1%ers) are talking about what they will do to help this out. Our federal government has done little to change that.

And yet we still spend 8,500 per person per year on health care (that has not changed at all).

So, it is no wonder these co-ops are failing. They were build on the premise of working within an extremely flawed system.