Health care premiums will surpass median U.S. incomes by 2033: study

[JoeChalupa]

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2FdHek/www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/13/health-care-premiums-will-surpass-median-u-s-incomes-by-2033-study/

The cost of health care will surpass the price of a median income household in the United States by 2033 if current trends continue, according to a study published in the March/April issue of Annals of Family Medicine.

Researchers accumulated data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to compare Americans’ incomes and the premiums they’ve paid from 2000 to 2009. The cost of premiums rose by eight percent over that time period compared to just two percent of incomes.

If those trends continue, the average cost of a family premium will be half the income of a median household family, which was $49,800 in 2009, in 2021. Premium costs would exceed the median family’s income by 2033 if trends remain unchanged.

The study’s co-author Dr. Richard Young mentioned 2010 Affordable Care Act slowing the rise of cost and families spending less on health care because of the recession as slowing the trend. However, neither would have a significant impact on stopping the rise of premium costs.

“Even under optimal assumptions about how much the Affordable Care Act will affect the cost of health care, it’s still growing faster than the overall economy, meaning the cost of health related to everything else in the economy is getting worse and worse,” Young said, who is a director of research at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas. “If you look at what is being paid by employers for their employees, for an average-wage person, that cost is a huge percentage of their income. And that’s not even getting into the cost of Medicare and Medicaid on the tax side.”

~~What the hell!!? This is not good...not surprising though.

[CosmicCowboy]

Not really surprising. Health care keeps getting better and better and there is an obscenely expensive cure for anything that bothers you. People live longer and longer using more and more expensive health care. It's a vicious cycle.

[greyforest]

http://topforeignstocks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/oecd-health-expenditure-gdp-per-cpita.PNG

[spursncowboys]

RG was saying that we would save money under obamacare. It would cost less.

[spursncowboys]

http://topforeignstocks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/oecd-health-expenditure-gdp-per-cpita.PNG

How many of these countries with low cost universal healthcare have come up with any new innovative healthcare machines, cures or medicines?

[ElNono]

How many of these countries with low cost universal healthcare have come up with any new innovative healthcare machines, cures or medicines?

Really?

[jacobdrj]

How many of these countries with low cost universal healthcare have come up with any new innovative healthcare machines, cures or medicines?

Israel and Germany come to mind.

[Wild Cobra]

How many of these countries with low cost universal healthcare have come up with any new innovative healthcare machines, cures or medicines?
How many countries with low cost health care have as much money awarded in lawsuits as the USA I wonder.

[RandomGuy]

RG was saying that we would save money under obamacare. It would cost less.

Indeed.

Repeal it, and the target date would come sooner. Nothing here seems to be changing that.

You do understand the OP simply points out the depth of the problem we are facing, right?

The free market method of rationing scarce goods, i.e. price means that at some point, more than half the population will be unable to afford health insurance.

You do understand our current cost shifting structure, right?

[RandomGuy]

How many countries with low cost health care have as much money awarded in lawsuits as the USA I wonder.

Debunked. Sorry Cosmored. Saying it over and over doesnt' make it a primary cost driver the 99th time. A component, but certainly not a primary driver, as much as you seem to wish it was.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.kaiseredu.org/~/media/Images/EDU/Issue%20Modules/Health%20Expenditures.jpg

http://www.kaiseredu.org/Issue-Modules/US-Health-Care-Costs/Background-Brief.aspx

======

BigPharma charges Human-Americans 50% more than it charges "single buyer" countries.

The Repugs' rule that govt cannot negotiate as single buy is a key reason, along with Part D and subsidized "for profit" Medicare Advantage (12% more costly than govt Medicare), for "uncontrolled" health expenditure.

iow, the healthcare deficit is due very much to Repug POLICY DECISIONS, just like the sub-prime bubble was.

[RandomGuy]

How many of these countries with low cost universal healthcare have come up with any new innovative healthcare machines, cures or medicines?


Were you to read European newspapers, or magazines, you would probably be more familiar with what goes on, I would imagine.

Here is a place to start.
http://mtbeurope.info/news/2012/1203014.htm

Here is another:
Skin Factory: A Stuttgart Lab's Pioneering Effort to Cultivate Human Flesh


SPIEGEL Online International - 15.04.2011
Ever since American scientists grafted ear-shaped cartilage onto a mouse, Heike Walles has dreamed of cultivating human flesh -- and transforming the world of medicine. Though her lab has finally succeeded, EU laws are delaying the introduction of synthetic skin into clinical practice.

Technological Breakthrough: New Scanner Could Revolutionize Cancer Diagnosis


SPIEGEL Online International - 21.01.2011
Scientists in Germany have developed an innovative new scanner that could revolutionize cancer diagnosis. The technology carries out two different types of scans at the same time, making an examination quicker and exposing patients to less radiation. But whether the new device will ever be cost-effective is still an open question.


This week we head to the Cité des Sciences in Paris, Europe’s largest showcase of science that will shape our future.

First we look at how mobile phones are being used to fight malaria. Researchers in Israel are adapting the technology inside a cell phone to enable it to detect the mosquito-borne disease quickly and easily.

Next, we explore how virtual worlds can be used to treat patients with all types of phobias.

And finally, we head to Switzerland where a mini-robot has been built to perform a minor operation inside the eye.
http://www.france24.com/en/20110724-High-tech-medicine-sciences-malaria-smartphone-robot-eye-disease-phobias

Do you actualy read European news?

or did you just pull this out of your preferred ideological narrative?

More importantly, does the fact that innovation happens in these health systems support your belief that socialistic countries can't be innovative?

[boutons_deux]

America's gouging doctors have pushed up their prices so high (with help from the AMA that restricts places in medical schools to keep doctor supply down) that foreign doctors come to USA chasing health care riches.

America Is Stealing the World’s Doctors

In a globalized economy, the countries that pay the most and offer the greatest chance for advancement tend to get the top talent. South America’s best soccer players generally migrate to Europe, where the salaries are high and the tournaments are glitzier than those in Brazil or Argentina. Many top high-tech workers from India and China move to the United States to work for American companies. And the United States, with its high salaries and technological innovation, is also the world’s most powerful magnet for doctors, attracting more every year than Britain, Canada and Australia — the next most popular destinations for migrating doctors — combined.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/magazine/america-is-stealing-foreign-doctors.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&ref=health

[hater]

:lol USA has one of the worst health systems in the world.

no, not the quality of medicine/doctors. Just the overpricing, ripping off of customers, drug monopolies and bureaocracy make it a pretty shitty system overall.

[101A]

America's gouging doctors have pushed up their prices so high (with help from the AMA that restricts places in medical schools to keep doctor supply down) that foreign doctors come to USA chasing health care riches.

America Is Stealing the World’s Doctors

In a globalized economy, the countries that pay the most and offer the greatest chance for advancement tend to get the top talent. South America’s best soccer players generally migrate to Europe, where the salaries are high and the tournaments are glitzier than those in Brazil or Argentina. Many top high-tech workers from India and China move to the United States to work for American companies. And the United States, with its high salaries and technological innovation, is also the world’s most powerful magnet for doctors, attracting more every year than Britain, Canada and Australia — the next most popular destinations for migrating doctors — combined.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/magazine/america-is-stealing-foreign-doctors.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&ref=health

Very relevant data there.

Also, as Bouton's graph above illustrates, the VAST majority of healthcare dollars spent are spent an ACTUAL care. So, the thread title should be cost of "Healthcare", not "Premiums". Premiums are a reflection of the cost of the product/service they insure.

Also, RG, any healthy market function/dynamic has been long since removed from our healthcare system. There is so little (relative) out of pocket expense for services, that people don't even attempt to be motivated by what the provider's of service charge. If my copay is $20 for a doctor's visit; and doctor A charges $225, while doctor B charges $85 - I'm going to pick the doctor I like best; I will not be influenced by the cost; if I had a copay for a car, after all; hells yes I would drive a Ferrari!

So, IMO, the choices to start getting costs under control are either: Price controls for services (likely), OR figuring out a way so that people are spending THEIR OWN money on healthcare, and not routing it first through a third party payor (govt. or insurance co.) - damn near impossible at this point.

[Drachen]

Wtf? I didn't reply.

[boutons_deux]

"damn near impossible at this point"

"Messieurs, Mesdames", don't bother to "faites vos jeux" because the game is irretrievably rigged to suck $Ts out of Human-Americans pockets, forever. Any solutions are pure fantasy, other than "death panelling" Americans by forcing them into poverty if they try to get care (make them pay) or bypassing care. THAT's about the only was to "reduce (govt) costs". The health-care system certainly won't EVER reduce its prices.

btw, for innovations, it was the French who figured out how to make the training and learning curve for the laparoscopic surgery much simpler. Their techniques have been adopted by US docs.

[RandomGuy]

Very relevant data there.

Also, as Bouton's graph above illustrates, the VAST majority of healthcare dollars spent are spent an ACTUAL care. So, the thread title should be cost of "Healthcare", not "Premiums". Premiums are a reflection of the cost of the product/service they insure.

Also, RG, any healthy market function/dynamic has been long since removed from our healthcare system. There is so little (relative) out of pocket expense for services, that people don't even attempt to be motivated by what the provider's of service charge. If my copay is $20 for a doctor's visit; and doctor A charges $225, while doctor B charges $85 - I'm going to pick the doctor I like best; I will not be influenced by the cost; if I had a copay for a car, after all; hells yes I would drive a Ferrari!

So, IMO, the choices to start getting costs under control are either: Price controls for services (likely), OR figuring out a way so that people are spending THEIR OWN money on healthcare, and not routing it first through a third party payor (govt. or insurance co.) - damn near impossible at this point.

Copays industry-wide are rising, as are other out of pocket costs, at rates faster than inflation. That is the only thing keeping premiums from skyrocketing.

I know I have personally seen this.

We aren't going to get costs under control until the supply of doctors starts rising relative to demand.

That does not look to happen, which is why we are importing doctors, as already noted.

Demand is rising, and general practitioner supply is falling.

[ElNono]

So, IMO, the choices to start getting costs under control are either: Price controls for services (likely), OR figuring out a way so that people are spending THEIR OWN money on healthcare, and not routing it first through a third party payor (govt. or insurance co.) - damn near impossible at this point.

Hasn't the VA been doing price controls for a while now without the world ending or the vets getting more than adequate healthcare?

I completely agree with your assessment of the cost situation though. Nothing was addressed on Obamacare with regards to that.

[101A]

Copays industry-wide are rising, as are other out of pocket costs, at rates faster than inflation. That is the only thing keeping premiums from skyrocketing.

I know I have personally seen this.


Regardless of the actual copay charge; the fact that the copay IS (and that once paid, a patient is an open checkbook for a doctor) is the problem.

What is having the most positive (as in good) affect on premiums right now, IMO, are HRA's and HSA's (with their corresponding high deductible health plans). Our clients who are going that route (who don't offer a traditional plan that just begets adverse selection against both) - are seeing the most cost control success. Unfortunately, it appears Obamacare may end High Deductible Health Plans (year to year it will be tough, if not impossible, to meet the "80%" rule of premium dollars being spent healthcare by the insurance company).

[101A]

Hasn't the VA been doing price controls for a while now without the world ending or the vets getting more than adequate healthcare?

I completely agree with your assessment of the cost situation though. Nothing was addressed on Obamacare with regards to that.

Yes; but that is a relatively small subset of docs. Medicare does the same thing, to an extent. However, to truly control costs, schemes such as in Germany or Japan will have to be the rule of thumb. In those countries, doctors don't enjoy the automatic ascension to upper-middle, and truly upper classes our docs get.

Hell, allow an RN's with a couple of extra certifications to write Rx's, and see patients, and you could control costs rapidly! Docs not gonna let that happen. We've damn near deified them in this country - most people, certainly including the docs themselves, see doctors as a superior person "my daughters dating a DOCTOR!" "We have a DOCTOR in the family!" etc...etc...

[coyotes_geek]

Hell, allow an RN's with a couple of extra certifications to write Rx's, and see patients, and you could control costs rapidly! Docs not gonna let that happen.

Aren't we already doing this? Nurse practitioner, right? I know they exist because there's one on staff at my kid's ped clinic.

Just a Texas thing maybe?

[Drachen]

Aren't we already doing this? Nurse practitioner, right? I know they exist because there's one on staff at my kid's ped clinic.

Just a Texas thing maybe?

Yes, this already happens. I have literally never seen the doctor at my doctor's office (not that I go that often). It has been the NP all 3 times I have gone.

[Drachen]

Nursing schools are VERY backed up right now though (in the area of a 2 year wait), so making more NPs is a bit difficult.

[elbamba]

Aren't we already doing this? Nurse practitioner, right? I know they exist because there's one on staff at my kid's ped clinic.

Just a Texas thing maybe?

No my wife is a NP and she has been able to write prescriptions in the 4 states we have lived in, Texas being the current.

[ElNono]

Yes; but that is a relatively small subset of docs. Medicare does the same thing, to an extent. However, to truly control costs, schemes such as in Germany or Japan will have to be the rule of thumb. In those countries, doctors don't enjoy the automatic ascension to upper-middle, and truly upper classes our docs get.

It would need to be applied across the board, like most every country not named the US does. Including drugs, equipment, personnel, etc. I'm not sold you need to do this with high end medicine though. Just targeting basic care should result in substantial savings, and frankly, there's nothing magical in treating basic care needs: flu, cold, a fracture, asthma, allergies, etc. Yet we pay a disproportionate larger amount for common ailments like those than other countries do.


Hell, allow an RN's with a couple of extra certifications to write Rx's, and see patients, and you could control costs rapidly! Docs not gonna let that happen. We've damn near deified them in this country - most people, certainly including the docs themselves, see doctors as a superior person "my daughters dating a DOCTOR!" "We have a DOCTOR in the family!" etc...etc...

Take this for the anecdote it is, but I was shocked by the little time you actually spend with a doctor on a visit in this country. Interacting with an RN is actually a rarity too. The bulk of the work is done by PAs, then the doctor walks in and out. Since we work with doctors, I discussed this with some of them, and it boiled down to seeing as many patients as they can to keep up with the same earnings they used to have pre-HMO, etc.

[101A]

Aren't we already doing this? Nurse practitioner, right? I know they exist because there's one on staff at my kid's ped clinic.

Just a Texas thing maybe?



An NP needs a "supervising physician" behind them; that's not competition.

[ElNono]

My wife is an RN and she still needs a doctor's signature on a RX...

[101A]

It would need to be applied across the board, like most every country not named the US does. Including drugs, equipment, personnel, etc. I'm not sold you need to do this with high end medicine though. Just targeting basic care should result in substantial savings, and frankly, there's nothing magical in treating basic care needs: flu, cold, a fracture, asthma, allergies, etc. Yet we pay a disproportionate larger amount for common ailments like those than other countries do.

Most of the healthcare dollars spent by a person are spent in the last 6 months of their lives. "High End" or heroic, or experimental or whatever you wish to call it accounts for a great deal of the expenses in healthcare. Shoot people in the head diagnosed with terminal illnesses and you have solved the healthcare crisis. (not recommending, just saying)




Take this for the anecdote it is, but I was shocked by the little time you actually spend with a doctor on a visit in this country. Interacting with an RN is actually a rarity too. The bulk of the work is done by PAs, then the doctor walks in and out. Since we work with doctors, I discussed this with some of them, and it boiled down to seeing as many patients as they can to keep up with the same earnings they used to have pre-HMO, etc.

True; and more visits != better care. "follow ups" used to be in case they were needed, now docs schedule them for most everything automatically.

[Drachen]

An NP needs a "supervising physician" behind them; that's not competition.

Right, but you could have a practice with 5 NPs and 1 doctor. and the doctor never actually sees patients. It's like a medical multiplier effect. lol

[ElNono]

Most of the healthcare dollars spent by a person are spent in the last 6 months of their lives. "High End" or heroic, or experimental or whatever you wish to call it accounts for a great deal of the expenses in healthcare. Shoot people in the head diagnosed with terminal illnesses and you have solved the healthcare crisis. (not recommending, just saying)

Don't disagree, but at the same time I think a lot of that is exacerbated due to avoiding to see the doctor until it's too late. At the current cost (provided you don't have insurance) seeing the doctor for something like prevention or even a yearly checkup is literally a luxury, instead of what it should really be: a necessity.

But there's a lot of wrongs here. Medicare is basically stuck with this high risk group, instead of being able to negotiate in volume for the entire population. Heck, Medicare can't even negotiate with BigPharma, IIRC.
Just too many things going backwards, none addressed by Obamacare.

[101A]

Right, but you could have a practice with 5 NPs and 1 doctor. and the doctor never actually sees patients. It's like a medical multiplier effect. lol


FWIW, there is NO difference in charge whether the provider who saw the patient was the NP or the doc. Again, competition fail. Multiplier indeed.

[coyotes_geek]

FWIW, there is NO difference in charge whether the provider who saw the patient was the NP or the doc. Again, competition fail. Multiplier indeed.

I believe you, but I'm lost. So if not NP's, what's this (below) about?


Hell, allow an RN's with a couple of extra certifications to write Rx's, and see patients, and you could control costs rapidly!

[CosmicCowboy]

And this shit about "maintenance" type prescriptions only being good for three months max so you have to go back and pay your bribe to the doctor to get three more months is total bullshit.

[101A]

I believe you, but I'm lost. So if not NP's, what's this (below) about?


DON'T require them to have a doctor backing them; allow trained people with less than MD's or DO's to compete with primary care physicians - not just be a "multiplier" of PCP's. The nurses (willing to work for less than the docs), thus end up costing just as much, because the doc takes the difference.

[101A]

And this shit about "maintenance" type prescriptions only being good for three months max so you have to go back and pay your bribe to the doctor to get three more months is total bullshit.

esp. when each revisit requires some sort of test. Too many people on too many maintenance drugs.

[coyotes_geek]

DON'T require them to have a doctor backing them; allow trained people with less than MD's or DO's to compete with primary care physicians - not just be a "multiplier" of PCP's. The nurses (willing to work for less than the docs), thus end up costing just as much, because the doc takes the difference.

Gotcha. Makes sense.

[Drachen]

DON'T require them to have a doctor backing them; allow trained people with less than MD's or DO's to compete with primary care physicians - not just be a "multiplier" of PCP's. The nurses (willing to work for less than the docs), thus end up costing just as much, because the doc takes the difference.

so, in effect, lower the requirement and medical knowledge necessary to be a GP?

[101A]

so, in effect, lower the requirement and medical knowledge necessary to be a GP?

Yes - most things most of the time can be handled by a nurse - hell I can't remember the last time I went to a doctor and came out with a different diagnosis or treatment than what I figured I, or my children, were going to get when we went in.

I also don't subscribe to the belief that doctors are all that, or should be put on a pedestal. They are people who were educated in their mid to late twenties, and passed a test. Some have kept up with advances/changes in medicine - but many have not.

[ElNono]

And this shit about "maintenance" type prescriptions only being good for three months max so you have to go back and pay your bribe to the doctor to get three more months is total bullshit.

No shit. They actually will check your blood pressure and weight in order to be allowed to charge your insurance for an "office visit" even though you just needed a prescription...

[Winehole23]

Among the many hopes expressed for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was that it portended to slow the inexorable and exponential rise in health insurance premiums every year. Yet, in many states, it’s still business as usual. According to The New York Times, in California, Aetna proposed rate increases of as much as 22 percent, Anthem Blue Cross 26 percent and Blue Shield of California 20 percent in 2013—and there wasn’t a thing that the state insurance regulators could do about it. Other states have seen rates rise by at least 20 percent for some policyholders. These double-digit increases are hitting small businesses and the self-employed particularly hard.


This is happening even though, under the ACA, state insurance regulators are required to review any request for a rate increase of 10 percent or more. So what gives? It turns out that “reviewing” a request is not the same as being able to stop it, because that power was actually removed from the final ACA bill. And that’s the rub, according to California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, who said, “This is one of the critical missing pieces of national health care reform,” in his 2011 inaugural address.


Some advocates had hoped that the ACA would extend to all state insurance commissioners the power to kaibosh unreasonable increases in premiums. Rather, it left intact the current system, whereby state legislatures decide whether or not to hand that right to their commissioners.


Most states have chosen to do just that. However, in California and 14 other states, all insurance commissioners can do is review increases, but they can’t actually do anything about them. In contrast, New York State’s Insurance Department has the authority to reject excessive hikes, and so was able to keep rate increases in the individual and small group markets to below 10 percent in 2013.

http://www.governing.com/topics/health-human-services/gov-state-premium-increases.html

[boutons_deux]

venerate the "free market" and it screws you OVER AND OVER AND OVER for your entire life.

[Winehole23]

your fantasy, not mine

[boutons_deux]

your fantasy, not mine

not a fantasy, another simple statement of fact that you will not, cannot refute

[Winehole23]

why should I bother? you undermine yourself by arguing for your premises as given.

[boutons_deux]

why should I bother? you undermine yourself by arguing for your premises as given.

facts are facts, not premises or hypotheses

[FuzzyLumpkins]

venerate the "free market" and it screws you OVER AND OVER AND OVER for your entire life.

RISE THE PROLETARIAT!

[Winehole23]

facts are facts, not premises or hypothesesyour sweeping generalizations about the world at large are not facts. they are opinions.

[CosmicCowboy]

I can believe it. I'm paying over $16,000 a year per family on my group policy renewal. Of course $650 of that is my new obamacare tax for providing that family with insurance.

It's pretty fucked up when you get taxed for trying to do the right thing by your employees and don't get taxed for telling them to fuck off and get your own insurance.

[Winehole23]

that does seem a perverse incentive.

[Nbadan]

I'm paying over $16,000 a year per family on my group policy renewal.

Pffff....I was paying that before the ACA....

[TDMVPDPOY]

I can believe it. I'm paying over $16,000 a year per family on my group policy renewal. Of course $650 of that is my new obamacare tax for providing that family with insurance.

It's pretty fucked up when you get taxed for trying to do the right thing by your employees and don't get taxed for telling them to fuck off and get your own insurance.

wouldnt it be better if employers paid the employees the amount they would pay for their individual/family policy as a wage, and let the employee decide to use that income whether they want to go private or public system.....why should it be the burden of the employer to foot the bill of its employees health policys...

[boutons_deux]

ACA isn't causing the health insurance rates to go up. They were exploding for 25 years before ACA was passed. The HMO era was an attempt to get health care costs under control, but predatory, greedy health care and insurance provideres were, are still unstoppable. Health care + insurance is about the biggest wealth black hole for Human-Amreicans' $Ts. Human-Americans are defenseless ATMs for Corporate-Americans.

[CosmicCowboy]

wouldnt it be better if employers paid the employees the amount they would pay for their individual/family policy as a wage, and let the employee decide to use that income whether they want to go private or public system.....why should it be the burden of the employer to foot the bill of its employees health policys...

The US tax system encourages it. if I paid my employees what I paid for their health care it would be taxable income to them.

[CosmicCowboy]

ACA isn't causing the health insurance rates to go up. They were exploding for 25 years before ACA was passed. The HMO era was an attempt to get health care costs under control, but predatory, greedy health care and insurance provideres were, are still unstoppable. Health care + insurance is about the biggest wealth black hole for Human-Amreicans' $Ts. Human-Americans are defenseless ATMs for Corporate-Americans.

Of course ACA causes premiums to go up for some. The system is designed to provide free or subsidized health care for some by overcharging others. That is undeniable.

[Nbadan]

Of course ACA causes premiums to go up for some. The system is designed to provide free or subsidized health care for some by overcharging others. That is undeniable.

Well, the idea is to spread the risk of the ill among the un-ill, more like insurance than health-care...but greedy insurance companies are not offering policies in some areas so that other riskier insurance companies have to pick up the chronically ill, including the costly mentally ill and those who don't have private insurance or qualify for medicare..so when you get a riskier pool you get higher costs...this was a system designed by the industry itself thanks to Alex, and now the insurance industry is complaining about a system they helped design... go figure...

[CosmicCowboy]

Well, the idea is to spread the risk of the ill among the un-ill, more like insurance than health-care...but greedy insurance companies are not offering policies in some areas so that other riskier insurance companies have to pick up the chronically ill, including the costly mentally ill and those who don't have private insurance or qualify for medicare..so when you get a riskier pool you get higher costs...this was a system designed by the industry itself thanks to Alex, and now the insurance industry is complaining about a system they helped design... go figure...

That's bullshit. The idea is to spread the COST of the ill to the un-ill making the healthy pay more for insurance. Why do you think the administration is panicking and starting this huge media campaign trying to make signing up for Obamacare "cool"? Without the healthy twenty somethings signing up the numbers don't work.

[pgardn]

That's bullshit. The idea is to spread the COST of the ill to the un-ill making the healthy pay more for insurance. Why do you think the administration is panicking and starting this huge media campaign trying to make signing up for Obamacare "cool"? Without the healthy twenty somethings signing up the numbers don't work.

And this is something new? Large organizations have used the young to pay for the old for some time now. And an amazing phenomena occurs, the young become old and use the health care more as well, while a younger workforce pays for them. Shared risk always involves individuals who are a larger risk. Now actually identifying the high risk individuals and cutting them out while raising costs... $$$

[boutons_deux]

"The idea is to spread the COST of the ill to the un-ill making the healthy pay more for insurance."

well, duh, CC figured out insurance works.

taxpayers have already been paying for uninsured sick people cared for by university, public, county hospitals, and in for-profit hospital that don't get fully reimbursed by state and fed.
and ACA doesn't set, increase insurance rates, the for-profit rip-off insurance companies do. Insurance rates have been increasing annually in multiples of the inflation rate for decades before ACA, but now CC is upset. :lol

[pgardn]

"The idea is to spread the COST of the ill to the un-ill making the healthy pay more for insurance."

well, duh, CC figured out insurance works.

taxpayers have already been paying for uninsured sick people cared for by university, public, county hospitals, and in for-profit hospital that don't get fully reimbursed by state and fed.
and ACA doesn't set, increase insurance rates, the for-profit rip-off insurance companies do. Insurance rates have been increasing annually in multiples of the inflation rate for decades before ACA, but now CC is upset. :lol

If he lived in Bexar County he would have seen this in his taxes for the county hospitals.

[CosmicCowboy]

And this is something new? Large organizations have used the young to pay for the old for some time now. And an amazing phenomena occurs, the young become old and use the health care more as well, while a younger workforce pays for them. Shared risk always involves individuals who are a larger risk. Now actually identifying the high risk individuals and cutting them out while raising costs... $$$

You guys obviously haven't bought much health insurance over the years. Everyone was rated by age and health and billed accordingly. Yeah, a big company that had employees with ages from 18 - 70 maybe averaged out but now under the ACA age and health simply don't matter. A 64 year old diabetic pays the same as a 22 year old healthy male.

[CosmicCowboy]

"The idea is to spread the COST of the ill to the un-ill making the healthy pay more for insurance."

well, duh, CC figured out insurance works.

taxpayers have already been paying for uninsured sick people cared for by university, public, county hospitals, and in for-profit hospital that don't get fully reimbursed by state and fed.
and ACA doesn't set, increase insurance rates, the for-profit rip-off insurance companies do. Insurance rates have been increasing annually in multiples of the inflation rate for decades before ACA, but now CC is upset. :lol

Uhhh...I pay about 20K a year in property taxes and I haven't seen my bill for the University Health System go down any. Where are these savings you speak of?

[SnakeBoy]

You guys obviously haven't bought much health insurance over the years. Everyone was rated by age and health and billed accordingly. Yeah, a big company that had employees with ages from 18 - 70 maybe averaged out but now under the ACA age and health simply don't matter. A 64 year old diabetic pays the same as a 22 year old healthy male.

This is why the "you can keep your plan" promise is such bullshit. I kept my plan but my premium jumped way up because the insurance company can no longer use my personal health to determine my rate.

[Th'Pusher]

You guys obviously haven't bought much health insurance over the years. Everyone was rated by age and health and billed accordingly. Yeah, a big company that had employees with ages from 18 - 70 maybe averaged out but now under the ACA age and health simply don't matter. A 64 year old diabetic pays the same as a 22 year old healthy male.
Seems like that's an incentive for smaller businesses to discriminate against older employees.

[Jacob1983]

You should be allowed to pay for what you want. Plain and simple. If you don't get sick that much, shouldn't you be allowed to just risk it and/or maybe just have emergencies covered?

[boutons_deux]

CC assumes the insurance companies are FORCED to increase insurance rates because the poor things just can't make any money, he understands they gotta "put food on their family".

I KNOW the insurance companies are increasing rates due to the opportunity (they NEVER miss one) of disruption in US health care, with the insurance companies hiding behind their lie "that debbil Obamacare made me do it".

USA health care is still and will always be a wealth-sucking blackhole of a disaster for Human-Americans.

[pgardn]

You guys obviously haven't bought much health insurance over the years. Everyone was rated by age and health and billed accordingly. Yeah, a big company that had employees with ages from 18 - 70 maybe averaged out but now under the ACA age and health simply don't matter. A 64 year old diabetic pays the same as a 22 year old healthy male.

Wrong.

You see the idea is that 22 year old might become 64... And diabetic.

And I think the ACA is highly flawed.

[SnakeBoy]

Wrong.

You see the idea is that 22 year old might become 64... And diabetic.

And I think the ACA is highly flawed.

I thought the idea was that the 22 year old might become a 64 year old with a head injury caused by a frozen turd falling from the sky who then develops chronic constipation due to his fear of turds, thus requiring both medical and psychological treatment. Luckily his mom had the talk with him and he got covered.

[pgardn]

I thought the idea was that the 22 year old might become a 64 year old with a head injury caused by a frozen turd falling from the sky who then develops chronic constipation due to his fear of turds, thus requiring both medical and psychological treatment. Luckily his mom had the talk with him and he got covered.

OK

We got that covered as well...