Florida Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

[Flopper]

Add to my above list reinstatement of tax free medical savings accounts from which folks could pay for those runny noses, sore throats, etc. and roll over into a tax free savings account if all the medical savings account wasn't needed.

If people are actually paying their own bill for this stuff they WILL look at the charges, question any that don't look right or are out of line, and be more proactive in what is prescribed or charged to them.

If people were actually paying their own hospital bill, they would not check it because they wouldn't go into the hospital to begin with.

Bypass surgery $100,000
Knee replacement $40,000
Prostate Surgery $30,000

 

[Liability]

Add to my above list reinstatement of tax free medical savings accounts from which folks could pay for those runny noses, sore throats, etc. and roll over into a tax free savings account if all the medical savings account wasn't needed.

If people are actually paying their own bill for this stuff they WILL look at the charges, question any that don't look right or are out of line, and be more proactive in what is prescribed or charged to them.

If people were actually paying their own hospital bill, they would not check it because they wouldn't go into the hospital to begin with.

Bypass surgery $100,000
Knee replacement $40,000
Prostate Surgery $30,000

Hm. And yet, they ARE paying for it themselves because they choose to buy insurance or accept it from their employers in lieu of additional wages. And the insurance companies distribute the risks around (that's why they call it gambling) which is part of the deal. And as long as they are free to do that, obviously people are willing to plunk down their money to get such insurance. Oh, and here's a cool part: the insurance companies DESPITE paying shitloads for knee replacements, etc., STILL MANAGE to MAKE MONEY.

Isn't that remarkable?

What do you call it again when a system is created by virtue of bargaining between consumers and purchasers -- shaped in part by healthy competition -- and both the vendors and the purchasers end up deriving the very "benefits of the bargain" which they originally had sought to obtain?

I just know that there's a word for that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Add to my above list reinstatement of tax free medical savings accounts from which folks could pay for those runny noses, sore throats, etc. and roll over into a tax free savings account if all the medical savings account wasn't needed.

If people are actually paying their own bill for this stuff they WILL look at the charges, question any that don't look right or are out of line, and be more proactive in what is prescribed or charged to them.

If people were actually paying their own hospital bill, they would not check it because they wouldn't go into the hospital to begin with.

Bypass surgery $100,000
Knee replacement $40,000
Prostate Surgery $30,000

If they didn't have insurance they might or might not go to the hospital to begin with, that is true. And if they had to have insurance in order to go to the hospital, that would be a powerful incentive to forego a new car or big screen TV or that cruise to Alaska and buy the damn insurance. IF insurance can be made affordable.

So IF say the first one or two thousand or at least a few hundred of the first medical costs incurred was out of pocket - you actually pay the bill for your flu shot or the kids vaccination or to get the busted finger splinted or whatever - you WILL look at the bill. And you WILL question any unusual charge that appears on it.

Okay you need that prostate surgery that will cost more than the initial large deductible. That's where your private insurance kicks in.

But they find cancer and it has metasticized and you're looking at an expensive course of treatment that exceeds your private insurance coverage.

That's when a catastrophic insurance policy, perhaps managed by the federal government, would kick in. So few people need that kind of coverage, however, that if pretty much everybody participates, it shouldn't put a heavy burden on the taxpayer.

Do this, plus tort reform and bring insurance companies under anti trust laws so that they are allowed to compete across state lines anywhere, and you will have insurance that pretty much everybody can afford......again.

Those that can afford it and don't, will still get healthcare. They'll also have a huge bill to pay off and they will be required to set up a plan to pay it. That is another powerful incentive to bite the bullet and buy the insurance.

And the taxpayer will need to contribute very little to the government to accomplish all that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Of interest this morning, I was listening to a medical professional explain that people on Medicaid--that is people WITH government furnished insurance--use the emergency room more than twice as often as uninsured people use the emergency room.

I wonder if there are any statistics available on that because I found that a very interesting fact if true.

 

[DiveCon]

Of interest this morning, I was listening to a medical professional explain that people on Medicaid--that is people WITH government furnished insurance--use the emergency room more than twice as often as uninsured people use the emergency room.

I wonder if there are any statistics available on that because I found that a very interesting fact if true.

the real comparison to make is those on medicaid vs those on PRIVATE insurance
people with NO insurance at all, are less likely to use any medical service

 

[Flopper]

And the best way to make the regulations the same in each state is for there to be NO regulation. The best thing you can do to get premium prices to come down and improve society in general is to give people a reason to be more responsible for themselves.

Instead all government knows how to do is tell insurance companies what they have to offer, employers what they offer, and people what they have to purchase. That make things WORSE, not better.

Surely you jest.

Most people get there healthcare through their employer. A summary of benefits is provide to employees but usually not the policy nor any contracts between the employer and the insurance company. I have seen the complete policy of my last employer. It was several hundred pages loaded with fine print, medical mumbo jumbo, with liberal sprinkling of legal language. I can say with certainty, very few people including my employer would be able to read that policy and determine it there were serious coverage exclusions or limitation not included in the Summary of Benefits. Employers can contract for insurance plans and employees can sign up for them knowing that the insurance company cannot offer worthless plans or plans that contain language in the policy that unfairly limit claims.
For example, most all states will have rules that require plans be renewable, portability to COBRA, ability to add dependents, etc.. Also state regulations provide protection for the insurance company.

I don't jest at all. healthcare is a HUGE expense for an employer. Can you imagine the productivity a company, and growth to the economy and jobs if business wasn't saddled with that expense? But instead government has decided to make the lives of business that much more burdensome by tell them what types of plans they must purchase for their employees. The fact that 700+ business have been granted waivers because the increased burden it will put on them is only more evidence of what a wholly illogical solution to the problem obamacare is.

There are 92 major milestones in the law. I think you are disregarding 90 of them and concentrating on the provision to extend Medicaid coverage to individuals that have incomes up to 133% of FPL which is about $30,000 a year for a family of 4 and a combination of tax credits and subsidies for employees with incomes up to 4 times the poverty level to purchase insurance on the exchanges.

Employers can continue to offer group insurance plans of their choosing just as they do now, purchase insurance off the insurance exchange, issues vouchers to employees to purchase off the exchanges, or do nothing. One of the major purposes of the insurance exchanges is to create larger market of insurance providers increasing the competition.

Most of the cost saving in the law comes from increase utilization of medical facilities, elimination of unpaid medical bills, elimination of duplicate services in Medicaid and Medicare, and reduction in overhead of health insurance companies.


In all the cost analysis, the most important benefits can not be itemized. How do put a value on a healthier America, 35 million people that can afford to go to doctor when they are sick?. Unpaid healthcare bills will no longer be the leading cause of bankruptcy. Thousands of homes will not go into foreclosure because the owner spent ever cent paying for healthcare of a family member. People with communicably disease can get treatment. Small business owners will be able to provide health insurance to it's employers.


I guess I am overly sensitive to this issue as I have seen a close friend, father of 2 kids, and an asset to the communality pass away because he could not afford an operation and cancer treatments.

 

[Flopper]

Of interest this morning, I was listening to a medical professional explain that people on Medicaid--that is people WITH government furnished insurance--use the emergency room more than twice as often as uninsured people use the emergency room.

I wonder if there are any statistics available on that because I found that a very interesting fact if true.

the real comparison to make is those on medicaid vs those on PRIVATE insurance
people with NO insurance at all, are less likely to use any medical service

I can relate to that. Last year, I went to doctor had a few tests ended up in the hospital with an operation. The total cost was about $50,000. There are not a lot of people that don't have that kind of money.

Having spent hundreds of hours in emergency rooms, doctors offices, and hospital waiting rooms, I don't go along with the idea that people will overuse medical facilities just because someone else is paying for it. I can think of about thousands things I would rather do, than spent 8 sitting in the emergency room waiting for a doctor to poke, probe, and stick needles in me.

 

[Trajan]

Surely you jest.

Most people get there healthcare through their employer. A summary of benefits is provide to employees but usually not the policy nor any contracts between the employer and the insurance company. I have seen the complete policy of my last employer. It was several hundred pages loaded with fine print, medical mumbo jumbo, with liberal sprinkling of legal language. I can say with certainty, very few people including my employer would be able to read that policy and determine it there were serious coverage exclusions or limitation not included in the Summary of Benefits. Employers can contract for insurance plans and employees can sign up for them knowing that the insurance company cannot offer worthless plans or plans that contain language in the policy that unfairly limit claims.
For example, most all states will have rules that require plans be renewable, portability to COBRA, ability to add dependents, etc.. Also state regulations provide protection for the insurance company.

I don't jest at all. healthcare is a HUGE expense for an employer. Can you imagine the productivity a company, and growth to the economy and jobs if business wasn't saddled with that expense? But instead government has decided to make the lives of business that much more burdensome by tell them what types of plans they must purchase for their employees. The fact that 700+ business have been granted waivers because the increased burden it will put on them is only more evidence of what a wholly illogical solution to the problem obamacare is.

There are 92 major milestones in the law. I think you are disregarding 90 of them and concentrating on the provision to extend Medicaid coverage to individuals that have incomes up to 133% of FPL which is about $30,000 a year for a family of 4 and a combination of tax credits and subsidies for employees with incomes up to 4 times the poverty level to purchase insurance on the exchanges.

Employers can continue to offer group insurance plans of their choosing just as they do now, purchase insurance off the insurance exchange, issues vouchers to employees to purchase off the exchanges, or do nothing. One of the major purposes of the insurance exchanges is to create larger market of insurance providers increasing the competition.

Most of the cost saving in the law comes from increase utilization of medical facilities, elimination of unpaid medical bills, elimination of duplicate services in Medicaid and Medicare, and reduction in overhead of health insurance companies.


In all the cost analysis, the most important benefits can not be itemized. How do put a value on a healthier America, 35 million people that can afford to go to doctor when they are sick?. Unpaid healthcare bills will no longer be the leading cause of bankruptcy. Thousands of homes will not go into foreclosure because the owner spent ever cent paying for healthcare of a family member. People with communicably disease can get treatment. Small business owners will be able to provide health insurance to it's employers.


I guess I am overly sensitive to this issue as I have seen a close friend, father of 2 kids, and an asset to the communality pass away because he could not afford an operation and cancer treatments.

this one caught ,my eye, how does this get accomplished?

elimination of unpaid medical bills

...

incomes up to 133% of FPL which is about $30,000 a year for a family of 4

question that hit me out of nowhere, what happens if we eliminate the tax credit that provides sending money to non net payers that puts them above the poverty line? if they drop back below that could mean oh, 10-15 million people...

 

[Flopper]

I don't jest at all. healthcare is a HUGE expense for an employer. Can you imagine the productivity a company, and growth to the economy and jobs if business wasn't saddled with that expense? But instead government has decided to make the lives of business that much more burdensome by tell them what types of plans they must purchase for their employees. The fact that 700+ business have been granted waivers because the increased burden it will put on them is only more evidence of what a wholly illogical solution to the problem obamacare is.

There are 92 major milestones in the law. I think you are disregarding 90 of them and concentrating on the provision to extend Medicaid coverage to individuals that have incomes up to 133% of FPL which is about $30,000 a year for a family of 4 and a combination of tax credits and subsidies for employees with incomes up to 4 times the poverty level to purchase insurance on the exchanges.

Employers can continue to offer group insurance plans of their choosing just as they do now, purchase insurance off the insurance exchange, issues vouchers to employees to purchase off the exchanges, or do nothing. One of the major purposes of the insurance exchanges is to create larger market of insurance providers increasing the competition.

Most of the cost saving in the law comes from increase utilization of medical facilities, elimination of unpaid medical bills, elimination of duplicate services in Medicaid and Medicare, and reduction in overhead of health insurance companies.


In all the cost analysis, the most important benefits can not be itemized. How do put a value on a healthier America, 35 million people that can afford to go to doctor when they are sick?. Unpaid healthcare bills will no longer be the leading cause of bankruptcy. Thousands of homes will not go into foreclosure because the owner spent ever cent paying for healthcare of a family member. People with communicably disease can get treatment. Small business owners will be able to provide health insurance to it's employers.


I guess I am overly sensitive to this issue as I have seen a close friend, father of 2 kids, and an asset to the communality pass away because he could not afford an operation and cancer treatments.

this one caught ,my eye, how does this get accomplished?

elimination of unpaid medical bills

...

incomes up to 133% of FPL which is about $30,000 a year for a family of 4

question that hit me out of nowhere, what happens if we eliminate the tax credit that provides sending money to non net payers that puts them above the poverty line? if they drop back below that could mean oh, 10-15 million people...

Insurance coverage eliminates unpaid medical bills because they are paid by the insurance company. Only co-pays and deductibles are collected from the patient, often at the time of service. The additional revenue received by medical service providers due to elimination of unpaid bills and the increase in revenue due to higher utilization is the basis for reducing Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates. These funds are used to partially support the healthcare law. Some see this as a cut in Medicare and Medicaid but it really isn't. What's happening is medical service providers receive more revenues due to implementation of law. Those revenues are taken back by the government by reducing reimbursement rates providing some of the funds to operate the system.


I am no sure how the different states handle Medicaid eligibility. If you are on Medicaid because of low income, you must qualify each year. Part of the qualification is supplying your tax return from the previous year. If your income rises above the threshold, you lose Medicaid assistance but I think there is a gradual reduction in benefits. This may differ from state to state. Most people think Medicaid is run by the Feds. Actually, it's a state program run by each state. If the program meets federal guidelines, then states get matching federal funds.

 

[urdrwho]

I agree with some of what you said.

I need to steer you from the anti-trust exemption so that you can speak to the problem without someone attacking you.

I looked into the history of anti-trust and insurance. All it means is that insurance companies can share underwriting information. Sharing underwriting information actually adds to competition. If each insurance company had to underwrite every area of the country themselves , the only companies that have the deep pockets to do so are the very, very large companies. The Anti-trust exemption means, if you want to go into the insurance business you can buy the underwriting data that was already supplied by other insurance companies. No anti-trust exception and they could not share the information about claims. The small insurance companies would not be able to go into an area that has no claims history and the small companies would disappear. The same would be true for car insurance, home insurance, company insurance, etc. Only the very large would survive and that is not good for competition. The Blues would probably like it to be dropped because they are the big dog.

At a town hall meeting I had the chance to bring the anti-trust exemption before a politician. He had no idea why anti-trust was given or what it did. Ignorance of politicians is no excuse and they all act like little parrots, singing the same song.

Government run catastrophic insurance. I lived in a State that tried it with car insurance and it was a financial disaster. The State rather quickly quashed the entire plan. From what my friends show me, years later that State is still trying to pay off the debt of the Cat. program. Back in 1990 - "The unfunded liability of the Pennsylvania automobile Catastrophic Loss Benefits Continuation Fund has declined $30 million since last May, according to state officials.

Actuaries estimate the fund's current unfunded liability at $334.8 million, noted Insurance Commissioner Constance B. Foster and Budget Secretary Michael H. Hershock"

I 1000% agree that people need to start paying for their own small expenses. Those small expenses aren't so small once people need to pay them for you. Just like everyone else, those people that pay your invoices for you want to be paid, they want vacations, they want retirement funds and that costs money.

I disagree. The support of single payer is even less than the current law and the same goes for those in the Congress. Plus, as long as Republicans control at least one house of Congress or the presidency single payer is DOA.

That's true. I'm not sure what the poll numbers are exactly, but it's definitely not a buzz phrase politicians will use in a positive way. But what other alternatives are there, besides leave the system as is? --which seems to be just as unpopular a solution.

The alternatives are applying anti trust laws to insurance companies prohibiting them from forming monopolies and thereby taking competition out of the process.

The alternatives are enacting meaningful tort reform to bring down malpractice premiums for doctors, nurses, hospitals, and other healthcare providers.

The alternatives are an affordable government medical catastrophe program similar to flood and earthquake insurance that would take care of the mega expensive illnesses or injuries. That would bring costs of private insurance down dramatically.

The alternatives are going back to large deductibles with people paying out of pocket for the flu shot, vaccinations, sore throat, busted finger, routine doctor's visit. If people use the emergency room for this, they will receive a bill and a payment plan to pay it off with insurance not kicking in until a reasonable threshhold was reached. This alone would save hundreds of millions in healthcare costs as people would not abuse the system and they would also be challenging every dime on that bill including the $100 aspirin. People can't afford that you say? Well we used to. Just like we afford a plumber when a water pipe breaks or a mechanic when the car is on the fritz or new tires or oil changes or a replaement TV when the old one dies.

The alternatives are restoring tax sheltered medical savings plans in which people can set aside a reasonable amount to use exclusively for out of pocket medical expenses. Whatever they don't need for medical expenses can be rolled over into a retirement account or some such after a reasonable time.

 

[urdrwho]

How or why would someone spend hundereds of hours in the emergency rooms, doctors offices, and hospital waiting rooms? I am very close to retirement age and haven't spent that much time in facilities. I guess my neighbor with multiple instances of cancer has spent such time in facilities. He said that he has gone through about $300,000 in money and most all was paid by insurance. Which really means it was paid by the other people that had insurance with his insurance company.

Of interest this morning, I was listening to a medical professional explain that people on Medicaid--that is people WITH government furnished insurance--use the emergency room more than twice as often as uninsured people use the emergency room.

I wonder if there are any statistics available on that because I found that a very interesting fact if true.

the real comparison to make is those on medicaid vs those on PRIVATE insurance
people with NO insurance at all, are less likely to use any medical service

I can relate to that. Last year, I went to doctor had a few tests ended up in the hospital with an operation. The total cost was about $50,000. There are not a lot of people that don't have that kind of money.

Having spent hundreds of hours in emergency rooms, doctors offices, and hospital waiting rooms, I don't go along with the idea that people will overuse medical facilities just because someone else is paying for it. I can think of about thousands things I would rather do, than spent 8 sitting in the emergency room waiting for a doctor to poke, probe, and stick needles in me.

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree with some of what you said.

I need to steer you from the anti-trust exemption so that you can speak to the problem without someone attacking you.

I looked into the history of anti-trust and insurance. All it means is that insurance companies can share underwriting information. Sharing underwriting information actually adds to competition. If each insurance company had to underwrite every area of the country themselves , the only companies that have the deep pockets to do so are the very, very large companies. The Anti-trust exemption means, if you want to go into the insurance business you can buy the underwriting data that was already supplied by other insurance companies. No anti-trust exception and they could not share the information about claims. The small insurance companies would not be able to go into an area that has no claims history and the small companies would disappear. The same would be true for car insurance, home insurance, company insurance, etc. Only the very large would survive and that is not good for competition. The Blues would probably like it to be dropped because they are the big dog.

At a town hall meeting I had the chance to bring the anti-trust exemption before a politician. He had no idea why anti-trust was given or what it did. Ignorance of politicians is no excuse and they all act like little parrots, singing the same song.

Government run catastrophic insurance. I lived in a State that tried it with car insurance and it was a financial disaster. The State rather quickly quashed the entire plan. From what my friends show me, years later that State is still trying to pay off the debt of the Cat. program. Back in 1990 - "The unfunded liability of the Pennsylvania automobile Catastrophic Loss Benefits Continuation Fund has declined $30 million since last May, according to state officials.

Actuaries estimate the fund's current unfunded liability at $334.8 million, noted Insurance Commissioner Constance B. Foster and Budget Secretary Michael H. Hershock"

I 1000% agree that people need to start paying for their own small expenses. Those small expenses aren't so small once people need to pay them for you. Just like everyone else, those people that pay your invoices for you want to be paid, they want vacations, they want retirement funds and that costs money.

That's true. I'm not sure what the poll numbers are exactly, but it's definitely not a buzz phrase politicians will use in a positive way. But what other alternatives are there, besides leave the system as is? --which seems to be just as unpopular a solution.

The alternatives are applying anti trust laws to insurance companies prohibiting them from forming monopolies and thereby taking competition out of the process.

The alternatives are enacting meaningful tort reform to bring down malpractice premiums for doctors, nurses, hospitals, and other healthcare providers.

The alternatives are an affordable government medical catastrophe program similar to flood and earthquake insurance that would take care of the mega expensive illnesses or injuries. That would bring costs of private insurance down dramatically.

The alternatives are going back to large deductibles with people paying out of pocket for the flu shot, vaccinations, sore throat, busted finger, routine doctor's visit. If people use the emergency room for this, they will receive a bill and a payment plan to pay it off with insurance not kicking in until a reasonable threshhold was reached. This alone would save hundreds of millions in healthcare costs as people would not abuse the system and they would also be challenging every dime on that bill including the $100 aspirin. People can't afford that you say? Well we used to. Just like we afford a plumber when a water pipe breaks or a mechanic when the car is on the fritz or new tires or oil changes or a replaement TV when the old one dies.

The alternatives are restoring tax sheltered medical savings plans in which people can set aside a reasonable amount to use exclusively for out of pocket medical expenses. Whatever they don't need for medical expenses can be rolled over into a retirement account or some such after a reasonable time.

Good post friend, but a gentle suggestion. If you will put your remarks BELOW the quotation you're responding to, it will be easier for others to track and follow your line of reasoning.

I disagree that antitrust laws are not applicable in the insurance process. Right now states set up sweetheart deals with certain health insurance companies that pretty well effectively prevent other companies from competing in that state. So unlike auto and property insurance companies that like to spread their risk over broad areas, the health insurance companies don't benefit so much from that so they try to corner the market in a smaller area. Make the right campaign contributions or know the right people and it's a done deal.

Antitrust law definition:
Legislation enacted by the federal and various state governments to regulate trade and commerce by preventing unlawful restraints, price-fixing, and monopolies, to promote competition, and to encourage the production of quality goods and services at the lowest prices, with the primary goal of safeguarding public welfare by ensuring that consumer demands will be met by the manufacture and sale of goods at reasonable prices.
Antitrust Law

If we can manage to make the system conducive to the individual owning his/her policy instead of his/her employer, competition across state lines becomes attractive even to the insurance companies.

 

[Flopper]

Add to my above list reinstatement of tax free medical savings accounts from which folks could pay for those runny noses, sore throats, etc. and roll over into a tax free savings account if all the medical savings account wasn't needed.

If people are actually paying their own bill for this stuff they WILL look at the charges, question any that don't look right or are out of line, and be more proactive in what is prescribed or charged to them.

If people were actually paying their own hospital bill, they would not check it because they wouldn't go into the hospital to begin with.

Bypass surgery $100,000
Knee replacement $40,000
Prostate Surgery $30,000

If they didn't have insurance they might or might not go to the hospital to begin with, that is true. And if they had to have insurance in order to go to the hospital, that would be a powerful incentive to forego a new car or big screen TV or that cruise to Alaska and buy the damn insurance. IF insurance can be made affordable.

So IF say the first one or two thousand or at least a few hundred of the first medical costs incurred was out of pocket - you actually pay the bill for your flu shot or the kids vaccination or to get the busted finger splinted or whatever - you WILL look at the bill. And you WILL question any unusual charge that appears on it.

Okay you need that prostate surgery that will cost more than the initial large deductible. That's where your private insurance kicks in.

But they find cancer and it has metasticized and you're looking at an expensive course of treatment that exceeds your private insurance coverage.

That's when a catastrophic insurance policy, perhaps managed by the federal government, would kick in. So few people need that kind of coverage, however, that if pretty much everybody participates, it shouldn't put a heavy burden on the taxpayer.

Do this, plus tort reform and bring insurance companies under anti trust laws so that they are allowed to compete across state lines anywhere, and you will have insurance that pretty much everybody can afford......again.

Those that can afford it and don't, will still get healthcare. They'll also have a huge bill to pay off and they will be required to set up a plan to pay it. That is another powerful incentive to bite the bullet and buy the insurance.

And the taxpayer will need to contribute very little to the government to accomplish all that.

I don’t see catastrophic insurance reducing healthcare cost for several reasons:

1. The patient’s incentive to keep cost low ends when the deductible is met. The cost of the average hospital visit is about $20,000. If I have a $5,000 deductible, I doubt I would even look at the bill since my costs are fixed at $5,000 or less. 33% of our medical cost is for hospitals. 22% is for doctors of which just over half is spend in hospitals. So catastrophic coverage would do little or nothing to lower almost half of our health care cost.
2. Catastrophic insurance would presumably reduce the cost of routine healthcare. However, that may not be the case. We are all aware of the value of life saving and cost saving preventive medical care, early diagnosis, and maintenance drugs, yet high deductibles encourages people to eliminate these services. This is exactly what we should not be doing.

Patients will never be a major force in reducing healthcare cost. It is difficult and in some case impossible to compare the cost of various healthcare providers. Call a doctor and ask how much to get rid of your hemorrhoids or your dizzy spells. You know what you’re going to hear. You have to see the doctor. He has to run tests and come up with a treatment plan that may or may not work. Ask a doctor how much he charges to see you. There are 3 rates doctors charge for an office visit, an introductory rate, intermediate, and advance. The charges are determined after you visit. If he draws blood and sends it to a lab. The cost will depend on which lab and which tests. If you really want to waste your time try to compare what an operation will cost you in various hospitals.

Most patients lack the knowledge, the information, and sometimes the emotion stability to make informed healthcare choices so they depend on their doctor to help them make those choices, which may or may not be the best care for the money.

I have had a number of serious illnesses in my immediate and extended family. Sometimes there was good insurance and sometimes there was none. I can never remember a time when medical care was chosen based on the cost. It was always,” Doctor where can we get the best care for my wife or son.”

 

[thereisnospoon]

If people were actually paying their own hospital bill, they would not check it because they wouldn't go into the hospital to begin with.

Bypass surgery $100,000
Knee replacement $40,000
Prostate Surgery $30,000

If they didn't have insurance they might or might not go to the hospital to begin with, that is true. And if they had to have insurance in order to go to the hospital, that would be a powerful incentive to forego a new car or big screen TV or that cruise to Alaska and buy the damn insurance. IF insurance can be made affordable.

So IF say the first one or two thousand or at least a few hundred of the first medical costs incurred was out of pocket - you actually pay the bill for your flu shot or the kids vaccination or to get the busted finger splinted or whatever - you WILL look at the bill. And you WILL question any unusual charge that appears on it.

Okay you need that prostate surgery that will cost more than the initial large deductible. That's where your private insurance kicks in.

But they find cancer and it has metasticized and you're looking at an expensive course of treatment that exceeds your private insurance coverage.

That's when a catastrophic insurance policy, perhaps managed by the federal government, would kick in. So few people need that kind of coverage, however, that if pretty much everybody participates, it shouldn't put a heavy burden on the taxpayer.

Do this, plus tort reform and bring insurance companies under anti trust laws so that they are allowed to compete across state lines anywhere, and you will have insurance that pretty much everybody can afford......again.

Those that can afford it and don't, will still get healthcare. They'll also have a huge bill to pay off and they will be required to set up a plan to pay it. That is another powerful incentive to bite the bullet and buy the insurance.

And the taxpayer will need to contribute very little to the government to accomplish all that.

I don’t see catastrophic insurance reducing healthcare cost for several reasons:

1. The patient’s incentive to keep cost low ends when the deductible is met. The cost of the average hospital visit is about $20,000. If I have a $5,000 deductible, I doubt I would even look at the bill since my costs are fixed at $5,000 or less. 33% of our medical cost is for hospitals. 22% is for doctors of which just over half is spend in hospitals. So catastrophic coverage would do little or nothing to lower almost half of our health care cost.
2. Catastrophic insurance would presumably reduce the cost of routine healthcare. However, that may not be the case. We are all aware of the value of life saving and cost saving preventive medical care, early diagnosis, and maintenance drugs, yet high deductibles encourages people to eliminate these services. This is exactly what we should not be doing.

Patients will never be a major force in reducing healthcare cost. It is difficult and in some case impossible to compare the cost of various healthcare providers. Call a doctor and ask how much to get rid of your hemorrhoids or your dizzy spells. You know what you’re going to hear. You have to see the doctor. He has to run tests and come up with a treatment plan that may or may not work. Ask a doctor how much he charges to see you. There are 3 rates doctors charge for an office visit, an introductory rate, intermediate, and advance. The charges are determined after you visit. If he draws blood and sends it to a lab. The cost will depend on which lab and which tests. If you really want to waste your time try to compare what an operation will cost you in various hospitals.

Most patients lack the knowledge, the information, and sometimes the emotion stability to make informed healthcare choices so they depend on their doctor to help them make those choices, which may or may not be the best care for the money.

I have had a number of serious illnesses in my immediate and extended family. Sometimes there was good insurance and sometimes there was none. I can never remember a time when medical care was chosen based on the cost. It was always,” Doctor where can we get the best care for my wife or son.”

Let's cut to the chase...After reading all this doom and gloom on this issue one question never gets answered......Is a government takeover of the health insurance of 310 million people(Obamacare) a good idea?
No one who supports socialized medicine can explain how it is the federal government will be able to administer such a gargantuan program. The numbers thrown about by the Obama administration are so far on the low side it doesn't reach the level of humorous.
Fair warning.....Obamacare or any other government run program that replaces the private market will be so expensive that none of us will be able to afford the premiums and the necessary tax increases to pay for it. Socialized medicine will force all medical professionals to become government employees because it is the government that will be dictating salaries and wages. Under a socialized system care MUST be rationed. Death panels which are given such euphemisms as "end of life care and consultation" coupled with groups of bureaucrats who look at raw numbers to help them make decisions as to who gets to live and who they decide who dies.
Government run insurance for all? No way. It's unrealistic and unaffordable.
And most importantly, for now at least, it's unconstitutional. Hopefully it will stay that way.

 

[Flopper]

If they didn't have insurance they might or might not go to the hospital to begin with, that is true. And if they had to have insurance in order to go to the hospital, that would be a powerful incentive to forego a new car or big screen TV or that cruise to Alaska and buy the damn insurance. IF insurance can be made affordable.

So IF say the first one or two thousand or at least a few hundred of the first medical costs incurred was out of pocket - you actually pay the bill for your flu shot or the kids vaccination or to get the busted finger splinted or whatever - you WILL look at the bill. And you WILL question any unusual charge that appears on it.

Okay you need that prostate surgery that will cost more than the initial large deductible. That's where your private insurance kicks in.

But they find cancer and it has metasticized and you're looking at an expensive course of treatment that exceeds your private insurance coverage.

That's when a catastrophic insurance policy, perhaps managed by the federal government, would kick in. So few people need that kind of coverage, however, that if pretty much everybody participates, it shouldn't put a heavy burden on the taxpayer.

Do this, plus tort reform and bring insurance companies under anti trust laws so that they are allowed to compete across state lines anywhere, and you will have insurance that pretty much everybody can afford......again.

Those that can afford it and don't, will still get healthcare. They'll also have a huge bill to pay off and they will be required to set up a plan to pay it. That is another powerful incentive to bite the bullet and buy the insurance.

And the taxpayer will need to contribute very little to the government to accomplish all that.

I don’t see catastrophic insurance reducing healthcare cost for several reasons:

1. The patient’s incentive to keep cost low ends when the deductible is met. The cost of the average hospital visit is about $20,000. If I have a $5,000 deductible, I doubt I would even look at the bill since my costs are fixed at $5,000 or less. 33% of our medical cost is for hospitals. 22% is for doctors of which just over half is spend in hospitals. So catastrophic coverage would do little or nothing to lower almost half of our health care cost.
2. Catastrophic insurance would presumably reduce the cost of routine healthcare. However, that may not be the case. We are all aware of the value of life saving and cost saving preventive medical care, early diagnosis, and maintenance drugs, yet high deductibles encourages people to eliminate these services. This is exactly what we should not be doing.

Patients will never be a major force in reducing healthcare cost. It is difficult and in some case impossible to compare the cost of various healthcare providers. Call a doctor and ask how much to get rid of your hemorrhoids or your dizzy spells. You know what you’re going to hear. You have to see the doctor. He has to run tests and come up with a treatment plan that may or may not work. Ask a doctor how much he charges to see you. There are 3 rates doctors charge for an office visit, an introductory rate, intermediate, and advance. The charges are determined after you visit. If he draws blood and sends it to a lab. The cost will depend on which lab and which tests. If you really want to waste your time try to compare what an operation will cost you in various hospitals.

Most patients lack the knowledge, the information, and sometimes the emotion stability to make informed healthcare choices so they depend on their doctor to help them make those choices, which may or may not be the best care for the money.

I have had a number of serious illnesses in my immediate and extended family. Sometimes there was good insurance and sometimes there was none. I can never remember a time when medical care was chosen based on the cost. It was always,” Doctor where can we get the best care for my wife or son.”

Let's cut to the chase...After reading all this doom and gloom on this issue one question never gets answered......Is a government takeover of the health insurance of 310 million people(Obamacare) a good idea?
No one who supports socialized medicine can explain how it is the federal government will be able to administer such a gargantuan program. The numbers thrown about by the Obama administration are so far on the low side it doesn't reach the level of humorous.
Fair warning.....Obamacare or any other government run program that replaces the private market will be so expensive that none of us will be able to afford the premiums and the necessary tax increases to pay for it. Socialized medicine will force all medical professionals to become government employees because it is the government that will be dictating salaries and wages. Under a socialized system care MUST be rationed. Death panels which are given such euphemisms as "end of life care and consultation" coupled with groups of bureaucrats who look at raw numbers to help them make decisions as to who gets to live and who they decide who dies.
Government run insurance for all? No way. It's unrealistic and unaffordable.
And most importantly, for now at least, it's unconstitutional. Hopefully it will stay that way.

For the 10th millionth time, government is not taking over health insurance companies, although I certainly wish they were. The government is delivering millions of new customers to them. The health insurance companies increase our health care cost. They add their overhead, about 10% and their profits, about 15% to the cost of healthcare.

The healthcare law does not include government operations of any medical facilities, hiring of doctors, or delivery of any healthcare service. There are some additional regulations on insurance companies, and the requirement for mandatory coverage.

The health insurance companies collect the premiums, manage the claims process, and pay the claims just as they do now. The states via Medicaid manage and pay the claims for those on Medicaid, just as before the healthcare law. The most important roll of the federal government is to assist the states in setting up the state insurance exchanges, collect fees and taxes and see that the law is enforced.

Your comment seem to indicate that you are not very familiar with the law. I suggest you read what the law actually does instead of the ramblings of right wing politicos.

Implementation Timeline - Kaiser Health Reform

 

[Bern80]

For the 10th millionth time, government is not taking over health insurance companies, although I certainly wish they were. The government is delivering millions of new customers to them. The health insurance companies increase our health care cost. They add their overhead, about 10% and their profits, about 15% to the cost of healthcare.

For the 10 millionth time. Prices of services WILL go up if government takes it over as well. That's basic economics. The less incentive someone one has to be frugal with their money, the more costs will rise. You aren't addressing the price of services by simply saying 'eh, let government handle it'. You're simply subsdizing individual's expenses. And when you subsidize the cost of something, the price of that somethings goes UP, not down.

 

[Greenbeard]

For the 10 millionth time. Prices of services WILL go up if government takes it over as well. That's basic economics. The less incentive someone one has to be frugal with their money, the more costs will rise.

Haven't you been arguing in the "death panel" threads that public insurance would entail spotty insurance coverage, necessitating great out-of-pocket spending (i.e. death panels)? I was under the impression that shifting great financial responsibility for health care onto consumers was actually a fear of yours.

 

[Foxfyre]

For the 10th millionth time, government is not taking over health insurance companies, although I certainly wish they were. The government is delivering millions of new customers to them. The health insurance companies increase our health care cost. They add their overhead, about 10% and their profits, about 15% to the cost of healthcare.

For the 10 millionth time. Prices of services WILL go up if government takes it over as well. That's basic economics. The less incentive someone one has to be frugal with their money, the more costs will rise. You aren't addressing the price of services by simply saying 'eh, let government handle it'. You're simply subsdizing individual's expenses. And when you subsidize the cost of something, the price of that somethings goes UP, not down.

That is precisely what happened when Medicare and Medicaid went into effect. Up until then medical costs rose pretty much at the overall rate of inflation in general and basic healthcare was affordable for almost everybody. If you look at the history of rising medical costs you see a sharp spike almost immediately after Medicare and Medicaid went into effect and that has continued unabated since. Before Medicare/Medicaid, the uninsured paid off their medical debts in installments. The few who couldn't afford an operation or treatments even with time payments were usually handled as charity cases or the community took up collections.

The fact that every entitlement implemented by the federal government has cost far more than its initial advertisement and every entitlement that has run for any time is currently broke and draining the national treasury should be our first clue. Why anybody is naive enough to think a new entitlement would be any different is beyond me.

 

[Bern80]

For the 10 millionth time. Prices of services WILL go up if government takes it over as well. That's basic economics. The less incentive someone one has to be frugal with their money, the more costs will rise.

Haven't you been arguing in the "death panel" threads that public insurance would entail spotty insurance coverage, necessitating great out-of-pocket spending (i.e. death panels)? I was under the impression that shifting great financial responsibility for health care onto consumers was actually a fear of yours.

I believe you're thinking of someone else. I have always and continue to advocate that individuals should take MORE responsibility for their health care finances.

I believe in that thread what I have been arguing is that government would be forced to ration care, if it were provided by them, hence the term 'death panels'.

 

[Oddball]

For the 10th millionth time, government is not taking over health insurance companies, although I certainly wish they were. The government is delivering millions of new customers to them. The health insurance companies increase our health care cost. They add their overhead, about 10% and their profits, about 15% to the cost of healthcare.

No, they're merely implementing polices that will tend to drive them out of business....Which is the end game in order to force everyone into a gubmint-run scheme.