Posts: 526
Threads: 11
Joined: Oct 2006
"1. The lack of reasonable free market choices."
Every health insurance plan on the exchanges or our connector is a "free market" offering. The government is not offering insurance outside of Medicaid/Quest, which is going well with thousands of signups. If you have a problem with the lack of "reasonable" plans go talk to the private health insurance providers, not the government.
"2. Government trying to act like a business which we all know is an utter train wreck."
One aspect of the ACA is simply a meeting place between private businesses and individuals, which isn't much of a business. This is the Heritage Foundation/Romneycare universal health care insurance model. (The other major aspect is basic standards for health insurance such as no refusals for previous conditions, more moderate annual and lifetime caps and others)
"How is it that the "ACA" prevents the private sector from charging you triple?"
It doesn't. Could be that they just might charge you triple if there is any way they think they can get away with it. The one and only reason they might not is that their prices are up there on the web page right next to their competitors.
"Can you think of ONE entity that screws with the economy only to make it worse?"
Sure, the private insurance companies. Do you have any idea how unsustainable the outrageously overpriced health care is in the U.S. because of the private health care insurance industry? They have run health care in the U.S. since WWII. It was the private insurance that raised your premium over 60%! The U.S. pays double for health care over what the rest of the industrial world pays. Only Medicare, "socialized" health care insurance, has any track record of driving down costs. And it would drive them down further except for the Congressional obstructionists.
"If someone has been turned down because of health issues, why do I have to pay for it?"
You have to pay for it because that's the way insurance works. Just like you have to pay for other people's auto accidents, with business insurance you have to pay for other businesses' liability problems, etc. etc. Since every single living human being either has, or will have, health issues, the only rational, and cheapest, health insurance pool is everybody, that is, single payer.
None of this is to excuse the very poor management of the software development for the federal or Hawai'i insurance web sites. Oh, that's right, these were products of private software companies, so maybe the "inefficiency" is just fine because it's private industry inefficiency.
Posts: 11,006
Threads: 749
Joined: Sep 2012
quote:
Originally posted by peteadams
You have to pay for it because that's the way insurance works.
I have had health insurance with HMSA (private insurance company) since 1990. Under the Affordable Care Act I now have insurance with... HMSA (private insurance company). I haven't had any problems with them in the past, and don't expect any in the future.
I HAD car insurance with AARP (private insurance company). That is, until I rented a car. I called first to find out whether my existing policy would cover the rental, and was told it would. A school bus kicked up a pebble and dinged the windshield of the rental. I called AARP to file a claim and was told, "Oh.... you're only covered if you rent the exact same style and model vehicle as you have under your policy. It took three call backs to get them to pay for the windshield. Later I talked to a friend who told me they knew someone who worked for AARP, and the claims adjusters were told to always deny the claim on the first call. The adjuster who could turn down the most claims won a free trip to the Caribbean.
My home owners insurance policy (private insurance company) is a nightmare. Every year they make up reasons to increase the premium. Construction costs goes up, your home value and premium goes up. Construction costs go down, your home value and premium still goes up. Your contents are considered to be 25% of the value of your home, no matter what the value actually is, but of course you must document and itemize everything or they pay nothing. If you itemize and the contents are 10% of the cost of your home, you still pay 25%. If your house is insured for $400,000 and you have a total loss, then you rebuild for $350,000 they keep the $50,000 even though they forced you to insure for the higher amount, and took your payment for that higher amount.
I could go on, but your best case scenario for health, car and home insurance is the same. You pay them a big pile of money, and if you are very, very fortunate, you never have to ask for any of it back.
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
calling the insurance industry we have now "free market" is laughable. That would be like saying the utilities, phone companies and cable companies exist in a free market. If you want to see what a free market looks like, take a look at the electronics industry. No "regulation"(another way of saying controlled by and benefiting the few), and the products get better every year while the prices fall. The whole point of the ACA is that the insurance companies are in bed with the government and "regulated" for their own benefit, just like the utilities. There is no true free market in the world today that I know of, so please quit misusing the term. There was once a free market in this country, or as close to one as ever has been and it made us the wealthiest and most prosperous country in the world, this is no longer the case.
Posts: 311
Threads: 15
Joined: Jun 2010
quote:
Originally posted by 4dognight
The problem is two fold:
1. The lack of reasonable free market choices.
2. Government trying to act like a business which we all know is an utter train wreck.
My premium went up from $198 to $324 in less than 2 years. I am NOT looking for subsidized insurance, I'm looking for a better deal. The fact that Kaiser themselves refers you to HHC for alternate, lower cost plans drastically limits my options. Their (Gov.) inefficiency just compounds the problem.
The ACA did not raise your premium. The private sector did. That same free market system that leaves us with exactly 3 choices here in Hawaii. For the record, I would gladly trade in the ACA for an actual honest to goodness single payer system.
quote:
Originally posted by 4dognight
If someone has been turned down because of health issues, why do I have to pay for it? You are bitter because of pre-existing conditions which I agree, sucks. So your answer is to make people like me that don't qualify for subsidies, PAY for SUBSIDIES! Am I bitching, damn right I am.
All I ask is that if the government wants to screw us, do it in a timely, efficient manner.
I don't feel bitter. I'm actually grateful that I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford quality insurance for myself and my wife. I only wish we could figure out a way to provide quality health care for everybody. I'd be willing to contribute to a system that did that. Aloha.
Posts: 2,490
Threads: 222
Joined: Dec 2005
quote:
Originally posted by dragon2k
The only way Obamacare ever had to succeed was to abolish private health insurance entirely. Now, we are more screwed then ever!
Nothing left to do but
Smile
Smile
Smile
You are living in a dream world. Do you know how much power and lobbyist the health insurance industry has? That would be impossible.
But you are RIGHT.... I think if it could have been an option that would have been the way to go. Sadly I think Obama had to pull a lot of strings to get us this far. Is it perfect? No... But maybe it will be better as time goes on, don't really know. One can hope I guess.
Sadly being a president doesn't really give you that much power to change anything. Especially when you got more money than god backing corporations that don't like what your selling.
Posts: 1,175
Threads: 12
Joined: Jun 2008
ericlp:
In 2008 Obama got 15 million from health insurance corps., not even counting the rest of the "health care" industry in "campaign contributions".
In 2009, we got ACA/Obamacare/Romneycare.
We would be better off with Medicare for all.
Obama represents Wall Street, then and now.
Our problem is more acute here in Hawaii due to no Medicare for all,
and the HMSA / Kaiser duopoly.
Posts: 2,490
Threads: 222
Joined: Dec 2005
Punaticbychoice. I guess... All I can say for me personally? I now have health insurance. That didn't happen when Bush was president.
So.... For me it worked out. Sorry about all the others that it didn't work out.
Greed is mans downfall. That is why they really should abolish the lobbyist that wall street backs. It's just a three ring circus that have no interest for the good of the people.
Posts: 75
Threads: 8
Joined: Jun 2003
This health care issue is a mess. But in my mind some things should be clear to all of us.
The cost of what we use as nation of individuals for healthcare is just that; the cost. How and who pays for it and who gets what and what's the best way to organize it is really what we are dealing with.
Does one pay after tax or through taxes before salary or after. For the employer portion is really part of our total compensation. The same is true for corporate taxation. The bottom line is that the total cost is now being paid by all of us in unequal amounts and for varying service levels that may or may not be related to our individual share of costs.
Pay as you go or insurance polices. Individual or group insurance. Single or multiple payers.
Should the wealthy pay more than the poorer. Should the old, students, children, handicapped, unemployed be subsidized. Do we get what we pay for. What should be covered. Do costs go down if we leave some people out of the system and do these costs really disappear or only reappear in higher taxes or premiums.
"Can you think of ONE entity that screws with the economy only to make it worse?" This statement is a common idealogy today but most would agree that we would be worse off without : parks, police, roads, airports, libraries, bridges, courts, etc.
This deals with opinions on techniques of organization and management and probably shouldn't be confused with healthcare. I think both government and corporate organization can use and need improvement and neither is a panacea. Who can't remember bad experience with dealing with either. Confusing the arguments doesn't help us deal with the healthcare issue facing us.
Can the cost be lowered? Maybe a more honest look at our healthcare fears, needs and wants. I do think that the more middlemen the worse it is for efficency and cost for either social or business organizations.
My bias is towards a single payer for efficiency and scale. And I do believe in social equity but also that all members of the nation need to contribute and that genuis and hard work should also be rewarded. This complexity requires a careful and informed discussion of the real issues to find the best solution without falling into the trap of our preconceived ideas and settled opinions.
Our society is fracturing under many confused idealogies and we need to cut through these to find real solutions for carefully defined issues. We also seem as a nation incapable of studying other models and learning from those who have been working through the same issue. We don't have to follow but we should at least build off the work.
Posts: 1,455
Threads: 148
Joined: Mar 2010
I believe the states have had the option of setting up a single payer system. Our President knew, in view of the other parties policy of trying to obstruct anything he tried to do, that he would never get it through, had to go to the ACA. I think he was right in that. The ACA barely squeaked through. The Republicans have had nothing to present to the American people concerning health care. The ACA is based on Mitt Romney's plan, which I believe is working well in his state.
My question is, when will Michelle Bachman's "Obamacare will KILL seniors. Will KILL women. Will KILL children" begin??
Jon in Keaau/HPP
Jon in Keaau/HPP
Posts: 14,101
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
1. ACA was originally supposed to include a single-payer option. I believe it was called "everyone can use Medicare if they want".
2. Extensive "documentation" requirement is to make sure that only US Persons (of appropriate income levels) benefit from the subsidy "tax credit". Exchange sites verify with IRS, DHS, and Experian -- obviously needed to provide "healthcare".
3. IRS cannot penalize you for refusing to pay the fine for not having insurance -- but if you're subject to withholding (as in "W2 paycheck") they will keep the money, good luck getting it back.
4. Cost: I'm quoted about $400/mo, not eligible for subsidy, so it would cost almost $5000/year to have -- plus another $6500 annual deductible if I actually use it, at which point the insurance company will start finding reasons to refuse my claims. (That $12K/year would also be my largest expense, beating out the mortgage, car, food, and taxes.)
|
