Workers’ Health Care Costs Are Surging While Their Wages Stagnate

[boutons_deux]

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/State_Premiums_2012_Infographic_v3_news.jpg


http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/12/12/1322681/study-workers-health-care-costs/

Human-Americans being sucked dry.

[coyotes_geek]

No worries. Obamacare will make everything better. Right?

[boutons_deux]

No worries. Obamacare will make everything better. Right?

Not at all, the health care industry and Repugs extorted a lot of $Bs out of ACA, but it's a step in the right direction.

[CosmicCowboy]

That's been happening with the cost of everything since 1971 when we went on a floating currency.

http://www.macrotrends.org/1307/lots-of-inflation-not-so-many-new-jobs

[boutons_deux]

health care costs, esp insurance, have been WAY AHEAD of inflation, 2x, 3x inflation rate, for a long time.

[TeyshaBlue]

In other news, Fire is fucking hot!

[Wild Cobra]

Costs will rise even higher with the extra mandated coverages by Obamacare.

[CosmicCowboy]

health care costs, esp insurance, have been WAY AHEAD of inflation, 2x, 3x inflation rate, for a long time.

Thats because health care has gotton geometrically better and subsequently more expensive. In 1970 if you had a heart attack you were just a dead sumbitch.

[coyotes_geek]

Thats because health care has gotton geometrically better and subsequently more expensive. In 1970 if you had a heart attack you were just a dead sumbitch.

That's certainly part. IMHO the real reason though is that we've become a nation of lazy, fat-fuck couch potatoes who prefer to lean on the healthcare system to spare us from the negative consequences of our lifestyle choices as opposed to making different lifestyle choices.

[Wild Cobra]

Well, I am generally not for what I am about to say, but if the government and people keep pushing for such mandatory health care, increasing the costs even more, then I want unhealthy food taxed by content.

[boutons_deux]

Thats because health care has gotton geometrically better and subsequently more expensive

bullshit.

[Wild Cobra]

bullshit.
ShazBot says Bullshit...

LOL...

[Xevious]

Healthcare is going to continue to increase in price to the point that the average Joe isn't going to be able to afford insurance for his family. I'm not suggesting that Obamacare is the answer, but something has to change.

One problem stems from the fact that hospitals have to treat every person that walks in their door, regardless if they have insurance or a job. So the folks that actually pay their bills have to absorb a lot of that cost. And hospitals are finding it harder and harder to get reimbursed for the services they do provide. Because especially in the case of medicare, hospitals are not going to be paid for services rendered, but for the outcomes they achieve. Which may sound good on paper, but it makes it very difficult for doctors and nurses to do their jobs. There is always some new requirement or new buzzword that needs to be documented, and healthcare workers are so bogged down and focused on paperwork already that they can hardly do what they are paid to do, take care of the sick people. And even though everything is done correctly and adequate education is given to people, some folks simply are not going to follow their diet or medication regimen correctly and are going to get sick again. And when they get readmitted to the hospital, that will on the hospital's dime. And who is going to have to suck that up?

Santa Rosa downtown already shut their doors to adults, because even though they are nonprofit, they couldn't financially keep treating these old people with chronic illnesses and not get paid for it.

[boutons_deux]

"the average Joe isn't going to be able to afford insurance for his family."

already true, and has been for years

median household income is less than $50K (and dropping).

Health insurance for family of 4 is $15K+ and climbing towards $20K+ in 2020.

[Latarian Milton]

health care is just one of the 37633453 pretexts the government uses to extract every possible penny from people's pockets tbh. you pay big $ for healthcare every year and when you really need it with some serious sickness, you have to wait in the long waiting queue which's gonna be more like a death row, and the "treatment" will all but worsen your condition and make the inevitable death come sooner

[Capt Bringdown]

health care is just one of the 37633453 pretexts the government uses to extract every possible penny from people's pockets tbh. you pay big $ for healthcare every year and when you really need it with some serious sickness, you have to wait in the long waiting queue which's gonna be more like a death row, and the "treatment" will all but worsen your condition and make the inevitable death come sooner

Private Health Insurance's business model is to deny health care when you need it most, and if you're lucky to make it past their profit-seeking death panels, to charge you through the nose for it.
Government can do a much better job of delivering health care at a lower cost. The rest of the civilized world knows this.

[ElNono]

Thats because health care has gotton geometrically better and subsequently more expensive. In 1970 if you had a heart attack you were just a dead sumbitch.


That's certainly part. IMHO the real reason though is that we've become a nation of lazy, fat-fuck couch potatoes who prefer to lean on the healthcare system to spare us from the negative consequences of our lifestyle choices as opposed to making different lifestyle choices.

There's a bit of everything. As much as health care has gotten geometrically better, technology has become geometrically cheaper, yet you don't really see all the savings from that area moved to customers.

We were just talking about this with a doctor friend of ours... The power supply for the PC running his Bone Densitometry machine died, and GE wanted $500 for the part + a couple hundred extra for sending a tech to change it. It's a $30 part you can buy off amazon, and it takes five screws and 20 mins (if that) to replace it. Sure, anecdotal, but we people that work in tech and medical see this kind of stuff all the time.

[Latarian Milton]

there may be a million things you can think of that are good or right with america but obamacare is definitely not one of them imho. when the government takes control of something like healthcare, it'd be impossible for it to have any sort of efficiency when you don't have no one to report to.

[TDMVPDPOY]

do public workers pay for their own healthcare or taxpayers foot the bill?

[boutons_deux]

"health care is just one of the 37633453 pretexts the government uses to extract every possible penny from people's pockets tbh"

tbh? :lol how about "to be rightwing ideological, allways-wrong dumbfuck

govt (fed and local) actually delivers very little health care, and that is mostly delivered free (county, university, Veterans Admin) and not-for-profit.

"Private Health Insurance's business model is to deny health care when you need it most". no, it's the same as any for-profit business, deliver the least product, the shittiest possible product for the highest possible price.

[angrydude]

its also called getting poorer.

[Wild Cobra]

I wonder what is increasing faster. Food prices, property prices, or health care. I think they probably increase at about the same rate, but people see other goods actually getting cheaper compared to their wages, so they are wages aren't stagnating.

Don't you people get it...

It's our currency that simply doesn't buy what it used to. Since probably the 80's, we have been increasing more and more, the number of imported good. How much do you think these goods would cost here in the states, if made here in the states. made by corporations that had to pay higher taxes and subject to our regulations?

[ElNono]

Don't you people get it...

It's our currency that simply doesn't buy what it used to. Since probably the 80's, we have been increasing more and more, the number of imported good. How much do you think these goods would cost here in the states, if made here in the states. made by corporations that had to pay higher taxes and subject to our regulations?

So you're saying wages should be adjusted to match the inflation rate?

[Wild Cobra]

So you're saying wages should be adjusted to match the inflation rate?
Not at all.

What is the point of you suggesting that idea? I am only saying that the real items of value have increased in cost also. Why are you people focusing only on health care as it is alone in inflation?

[LnGrrrR]

Well, I am generally not for what I am about to say, but if the government and people keep pushing for such mandatory health care, increasing the costs even more, then I want unhealthy food taxed by content.

You know, of all people, I figured you would just come up with this solution:

Why not force people that are on government health care systems to partake in mandatory fitness sessions? Obviously if someone has cancer or something similar, force them to quit smoking and give them advice from a nutrionist. If a person is morbidly obese, they need to show progress in losing weight or they will have the amount of coverage drop. etc etc. Seems fair to me.

[ElNono]

Not at all.

What is the point of you suggesting that idea? I am only saying that the real items of value have increased in cost also. Why are you people focusing only on health care as it is alone in inflation?

When you say 'our currency just doesn't buy what it used to' you're implying it has devalued, which is directly tied to inflation.

[ElNono]

I don't get how mandatory health care increases the costs even more... basic economy of scales simply tells you that more people paying into the system actually reduces cost.

It's double interesting because this is coming from the same person that advocates expanding the tax base to increase revenue without increasing rates, which is based on pretty much the same principle.

[Wild Cobra]

You know, of all people, I figured you would just come up with this solution:

Why not force people that are on government health care systems to partake in mandatory fitness sessions? Obviously if someone has cancer or something similar, force them to quit smoking and give them advice from a nutrionist. If a person is morbidly obese, they need to show progress in losing weight or they will have the amount of coverage drop. etc etc. Seems fair to me.
Your choice of words presents an inaccurate interpretation of my view. I think you know that.

There is no "force" involved. My ideas are to promote proper behavior. Not force it.

Consider the things I say as the requirement for the pay and benefits received by the government. They should not simply be free. Does someones employer force them to work for them to get the paycheck they receive? No. They can quit any time, and then they no longer have that check. Same thing with social benefits. We need to attach a proper compelling reason, or promote better behavior. Otherwise we are rewarding bad behavior, and we should expect to get generation after generation of bad behavior.

[Wild Cobra]

When you say 'our currency just doesn't buy what it used to' you're implying it has devalued, which is directly tied to inflation.
Yes, but you cannot raise wages to match inflation. What mystical magical theory do you have to do that?

[Wild Cobra]

I don't get how mandatory health care increases the costs even more... basic economy of scales simply tells you that more people paying into the system actually reduces cost.

It's double interesting because this is coming from the same person that advocates expanding the tax base to increase revenue without increasing rates, which is based on pretty much the same principle.
If it were only that simple, but the current legislation is far from that.

Now the simplistic aspect you are referring to has also been discussed in the past. The bottom line is that copays are not high enough. Since copays are so affordable, people start using the health care system as if that's all it costs.

[LnGrrrR]

Your choice of words presents an inaccurate interpretation of my view. I think you know that.

There is no "force" involved. My ideas are to promote proper behavior. Not force it.

Consider the things I say as the requirement for the pay and benefits received by the government. They should not simply be free. Does someones employer force them to work for them to get the paycheck they receive? No. They can quit any time, and then they no longer have that check. Same thing with social benefits. We need to attach a proper compelling reason, or promote better behavior. Otherwise we are rewarding bad behavior, and we should expect to get generation after generation of bad behavior.

I think you misread me. I meant "force" them to exercise, eat right etc etc if they wanted full coverage in the program.

[boutons_deux]

Like the banks, the health care sector raises the prices simply because they, can, do and will it continue as it has for decades.

Need more money for mgmt and investors? Just raise your prices. Has nothing to do with cost push. There's no competition, because pricing is completely opaque, and "in network" cartelization.

It's simply self-enrichment, and a redistribution/confiscation of wealth from the patients to the wealthy. But right-wingers are OK with that redistribution in the direction of the 99$ to the 1%.

[Wild Cobra]

I think you misread me. I meant "force" them to exercise, eat right etc etc if they wanted full coverage in the program.
I still disagree with the term "force." We simply obligate them to do certain activities in exchange for their government handouts. Force implies they have no choice. They have a choice not to participate in the social programs if they choose not to abide by the set conditions.

[boutons_deux]

but people taking "hand outs" from for-profit insurers are not "forced" to be healthy.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I still disagree with the term "force." We simply obligate them to do certain activities in exchange for their government handouts. Force implies they have no choice. They have a choice not to participate in the social programs if they choose not to abide by the set conditions.
I think what Ln is saying is they shouldn't have a choice if they want government handouts.

Too lazy to read the rest of the thread, but I also think that anyone who wants handouts shouldn't be able to smoke or drink. All it does is raise their healthcare costs.

[coyotes_geek]

You know, of all people, I figured you would just come up with this solution:

Why not force people that are on government health care systems to partake in mandatory fitness sessions? Obviously if someone has cancer or something similar, force them to quit smoking and give them advice from a nutrionist. If a person is morbidly obese, they need to show progress in losing weight or they will have the amount of coverage drop. etc etc. Seems fair to me.

:tu

I like it. If we're going to accept the premise that the taxpayers have an obligation to bear the financial burden of providing healthcare to those who can't afford it, those who can't afford it have an obligation to try and limit the taxpayer's costs.

[boutons_deux]

"taxpayers have an obligation to bear the financial burden of providing healthcare to those who can't afford it,"

why pick on them?

when you pay health insurance to a for-profit insurer, why should your premiums be hiked up annually well above inflation to cover people who smoke, are obese, have (self-inflicted) Type II diabetes, drive while drunk, engage in dangerous sports, etc?

[LnGrrrR]

I still disagree with the term "force." We simply obligate them to do certain activities in exchange for their government handouts. Force implies they have no choice. They have a choice not to participate in the social programs if they choose not to abide by the set conditions.

That's exactly what I mean. :tu I meant that if they want to be in the program, they're "forced" into doing what's necessary to stay in the program.

[LnGrrrR]

"taxpayers have an obligation to bear the financial burden of providing healthcare to those who can't afford it,"

why pick on them?

when you pay health insurance to a for-profit insurer, why should your premiums be hiked up annually well above inflation to cover people who smoke, are obese, have (self-inflicted) Type II diabetes, drive while drunk, engage in dangerous sports, etc?

You at least have (theoretically) a choice of going with a new provider if you think that yours is covering too many risky people.

If you have a ton of people who are opting for "free" health-care, as it were, then I should think that the amount of coverage a person can get should be reduced if that person isn't willing to take basic steps to improve their health. It's ridiculous to think that someone should be able to eat all the twinkies they want, and sit in front of a couch all day, and then American taxpayers will have to pay for their emergency room visit when they have a stroke at age 45.

[boutons_deux]

"(theoretically) a choice of going with a new provider"

in practice, a customer doesn't know which medical bills his insurer, or any insurer, pays.

And of course, insurers can also just hike the prices to increase their profits and enrich their investors (which include stock-compensated top execs).

[coyotes_geek]

"taxpayers have an obligation to bear the financial burden of providing healthcare to those who can't afford it,"

why pick on them?

when you pay health insurance to a for-profit insurer, why should your premiums be hiked up annually well above inflation to cover people who smoke, are obese, have (self-inflicted) Type II diabetes, drive while drunk, engage in dangerous sports, etc?

I'm all for insurers finding ways to shift more of those costs to those people. The insurance I'm on now has a program like that.

[LnGrrrR]

"(theoretically) a choice of going with a new provider"

in practice, a customer doesn't know which medical bills his insurer, or any insurer, pays.

And of course, insurers can also just hike the prices to increase their profits and enrich their investors (which include stock-compensated top execs).


Hence why I said, "theoretically". :lol If there ends up being a single payor system, I'm all for more transparency in the process.

[Wild Cobra]

I think what Ln is saying is they shouldn't have a choice if they want government handouts.

That may be what he means, but they are not forced. They have a choice to meet the requirements of the handouts, or not receive the handouts.