PDA

View Full Version : Democrats see skimpy insurance as the next health care issue



Peter1469
05-23-2015, 10:09 AM
Dems see "skimpy" insurance as next issue. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_SKIMPY_INSURANCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-23-08-33-10)

This article makes it seem (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_SKIMPY_INSURANCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-23-08-33-10) as if the dems complaint is the coverage under Obamacare- high costs before insurance kicks in fully. Well, they made that system. Before Obamacare, many people chose high up front cost policies that fully covered costs after a certain point, like $10K a year. Obamacare killed these catastrophic insurance policies- for no good reason. People likely them.

Now under Obamacare, you have a high monthly fee and high deductibles -- makes no sense, except as a scheme to redistribute money.


After paying premiums, many low- and middle-income patients still face high costs when trying to use their coverage. There's growing concern that the value of a health insurance card is being eaten away by rising deductibles, the amount of actual medical costs that patients pay each year before coverage kicks in.


"I think it's going to be the next big problem," said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., a congressional leader on health care.


"We've got some 17 million more people covered ... but they can't access the care they seem to be entitled to," McDermott said. "It costs too much to use the care. That's the deceptive part about it."

Ravens Fan
05-23-2015, 10:12 AM
Dems see "skimpy" insurance as next issue. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_SKIMPY_INSURANCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-23-08-33-10)

This article makes it seem (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_SKIMPY_INSURANCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-23-08-33-10) as if the dems complaint is the coverage under Obamacare- high costs before insurance kicks in fully. Well, they made that system. Before Obamacare, many people chose high up front cost policies that fully covered costs after a certain point, like $10K a year. Obamacare killed these catastrophic insurance policies- for no good reason. People likely them.

Now under Obamacare, you have a high monthly fee and high deductibles -- makes no sense, except as a scheme to redistribute money.

Wait... You mean the Affordable Care Act isn't affordable? Who would've ever guessed?

Peter1469
05-23-2015, 10:36 AM
It was not designed to control costs, but to increase access.

IMPress Polly
05-23-2015, 12:23 PM
I agree that the skimpy coverage poorer people are often getting is a real and serious issue that should be taken up!

However, I don't think you guys are the right messengers here, considering that the alternative you seem to prefer is going back to no coverage at all for 50 million+ people. At least we presently have the lowest uninsured rate in our history! Let's take that and move forward to address this problem on the basis of that foundation rather than "solving" it by kicking tens of millions of people off their existing insurance rolls. Seriously: when your idea of a solution is worse than the problem, maybe it should just be abandoned.

GrassrootsConservative
05-23-2015, 12:29 PM
Thanks Obama, for skimpy insurance I have to pay a tax for not buying. Wonderful president, Liberals.

Common
05-23-2015, 11:08 PM
It was not designed to control costs, but to increase access.

Thats exactly right, you cant cover millions of people for free

Common
05-23-2015, 11:12 PM
I agree that the skimpy coverage poorer people are often getting is a real and serious issue that should be taken up!

However, I don't think you guys are the right messengers here, considering that the alternative you seem to prefer is going back to no coverage at all for 50 million+ people. At least we presently have the lowest uninsured rate in our history! Let's take that and move forward to address this problem on the basis of that foundation rather than "solving" it by kicking tens of millions of people off their existing insurance rolls. Seriously: when your idea of a solution is worse than the problem, maybe it should just be abandoned.

Polly the problem is that if the people that actually supported the ACA and its premise to cover americans with no healthcare get to a point their insurance is far less than what they had, they will change their opinion. Some of that has already begun.

The savings from emergency room visits an the bloated hospital bills for the sniffles should have ate up much of the cost but it hasnt.

Another big problem is that congress wont work together to try and fix it or make it better. One side just wants to get rid of it entirely the other side cant do it alone.

Its going to get worse before it gets better.

Hal Jordan
05-23-2015, 11:57 PM
Thanks Obama, for skimpy insurance I have to pay a tax for not buying. Wonderful president, Liberals.

Don't forget those that have to pay a tax for not being able to afford the skimpy insurance.

Mac-7
05-24-2015, 06:51 AM
Thats exactly right, you cant cover millions of people for free

With government having so much free money to spend from those money trees growing along the Potomac, you have to wonder why congress does not stop piddling around and fully fund socialize medicine for all, huh?

lynn
05-24-2015, 11:57 AM
I agree that the skimpy coverage poorer people are often getting is a real and serious issue that should be taken up!

However, I don't think you guys are the right messengers here, considering that the alternative you seem to prefer is going back to no coverage at all for 50 million+ people. At least we presently have the lowest uninsured rate in our history! Let's take that and move forward to address this problem on the basis of that foundation rather than "solving" it by kicking tens of millions of people off their existing insurance rolls. Seriously: when your idea of a solution is worse than the problem, maybe it should just be abandoned.

You are confusing having health insurance with being able to get healthcare. Insurance with high deductibles prevents people from getting healthcare.

Ravens Fan
05-24-2015, 12:01 PM
You are confusing having health insurance with being able to get healthcare. Insurance with high deductibles prevents people from getting healthcare.

Exactly. The original problem was healthcare costs. They completely changed the system to the betterment of the insurance companies, forced everyone into it, but didn't do anything to help cut costs. And then tout it as if they did something good.

IMPress Polly
05-24-2015, 12:42 PM
I find all these arguments cynical, coming from people who are opposed to the whole idea of universal health care.

The new system has, in fact, ensured that some 90% of the population has some form of coverage, tens of millions for the first time ever. It's just not ENOUGH coverage for everyone. Some is still better than none, however, so let's not start with repeal! What I propose instead is that we build on this by moving toward a more streamlined, cost-effective, socialized system of health care.

Peter1469
05-24-2015, 10:45 PM
We need more free market in the insurance / healthcare industry, not less.

Captain Obvious
05-24-2015, 10:50 PM
I find all these arguments cynical, coming from people who are opposed to the whole idea of universal health care.

The new system has, in fact, ensured that some 90% of the population has some form of coverage, tens of millions for the first time ever. It's just not ENOUGH coverage for everyone. Some is still better than none, however, so let's not start with repeal! What I propose instead is that we build on this by moving toward a more streamlined, cost-effective, socialized system of health care.

...by forcing people to buy their insurance.

Let's force them to buy life insurance also, and comprehensive auto. Food insurance, that's good too, let's force everyone to buy that. Or pay a tax... er, penalty.

That way everyone is covered and we can all blow pixie dust up each others asses.

Tahuyaman
05-24-2015, 11:00 PM
We need more free market in the insurance / healthcare industry, not less.


Absolutely!

Tahuyaman
05-24-2015, 11:03 PM
The new system has, in fact, ensured that some 90% of the population has some form of coverage, tens of millions for the first time ever.

Id be interested to know where you came up with that? The administration doesn't even make those claims. No one on planet earth has made claims close to that.

gamewell45
05-25-2015, 01:02 AM
Thanks Obama, for skimpy insurance I have to pay a tax for not buying. Wonderful president, Liberals.

So buy insurance. Then you won't have to pay tax for not buying.

gamewell45
05-25-2015, 01:05 AM
We need more free market in the insurance / healthcare industry, not less.

As long as we have insurance companies gaming the American people, nothing good is going to happen. The Canadians (who have socialized medicine) sit back and laugh at the American's getting ripped off by insurance companies because lets face it, its all about money.

zelmo1234
05-25-2015, 06:55 AM
I agree that the skimpy coverage poorer people are often getting is a real and serious issue that should be taken up!

However, I don't think you guys are the right messengers here, considering that the alternative you seem to prefer is going back to no coverage at all for 50 million+ people. At least we presently have the lowest uninsured rate in our history! Let's take that and move forward to address this problem on the basis of that foundation rather than "solving" it by kicking tens of millions of people off their existing insurance rolls. Seriously: when your idea of a solution is worse than the problem, maybe it should just be abandoned.

There are not 50 million people on the system? though the real number was about 48 million.

That represented about 15.5% of the population. The ACA only effected this number a by a little over 2.5% and it is hovering around 13%

many if not most of the people using the ACA fall into one of 2 categories. #1 they make so little that they are no the expanded Medicaid program, #2 they lost the insurance that the had and liked and are now paying more for insurance that they are forced to have, they were not uninsured in the first place.

So right now we are spending trillions to insure 2.5% of the population.

Mac-7
05-25-2015, 07:07 AM
As long as we have insurance companies gaming the American people, nothing good is going to happen. The Canadians (who have socialized medicine) sit back and laugh at the American's getting ripped off by insurance companies because lets face it, its all about money.

They laugh until they need better care than their socialized medicine has to offer.

Then they either come to America or they die.

gamewell45
05-25-2015, 07:15 AM
They laugh until they need better care than their socialized medicine has to offer.

Then they either come to America or they die.

99% of all medical issues are treated in Canada; the 1% are treated in the US and Canada pays whatever expenses are incurred if they come over to America. Can we say that about America??? We could learn from them.

Peter1469
05-25-2015, 07:34 AM
The US's main problem is cost control.

Stan Brock shows us how to get health care to people who can't pay for it at low costs. He has adapted his Remote Area Medical program for rural America and urban inner cities. This can get lots of people basic coverage fast and cheap compared to the current system. It would resemble the way military units get health care prior to deployments.

Those that can afford private insurance should be allowed to do so.

There are other problems as well. The US has a shortage of primary care docs.

Captain Obvious
05-25-2015, 08:45 AM
The US's main problem is cost control.

Stan Brock shows us how to get health care to people who can't pay for it at low costs. He has adapted his Remote Area Medical program for rural America and urban inner cities. This can get lots of people basic coverage fast and cheap compared to the current system. It would resemble the way military units get health care prior to deployments.

Those that can afford private insurance should be allowed to do so.

There are other problems as well. The US has a shortage of primary care docs.

These symptoms point to a cause.

"Low cost" insurance means it takes less money in (cost of the insurance) so it pays less out for services. The reason primary care docs are becoming scarce is because it doesn't pay to be a primary care doc. When office visits were reimbursed at a hundred bucks and now are thirty bucks cheaper because the plan is a "low price plan" fuck it, who wants to go to school for 10 years to break even? Medical students are moving toward specialty practices because they pay better for one thing. Especially with Medicare/Medicaid who pays generally crappy (unless you hospital-base bill or get a rural health clinic status if you can qualify).

Plus, not talked about much in the press but the system is moving toward hospital owned primary care practices. The old model was that primary care docs set up shop in town, saw patients and billed for their services. Paid their employees and practice costs out of reimbursement and what was left over they kept for themselves. So if they did a good job at containing costs and saw a lot of patients, they made a lot of money. Or they could have a light load and make enough money to get by if they want. Eat what you kill thing. Now the trend is moving toward hospitals employing these practices. Hospitals pay a fixed salary, pay for the practice costs and staff and bills and keeps the reimbursement for the docs services. I saw a figure the other day that the average hospital owned practice loses $190k per year and that's consistent with what my practices do. Actually my practices lose on average $100k per year, they do better because I make sure they do better.

I was talking with my CEO the other day, my guess is that Medicare/Medicaid will take notice of this and decide that hospitals have deeper pockets than private practices and will squeeze reimbursement more, so that $190k per year average loss is likely to go up.

Captain Obvious
05-25-2015, 08:48 AM
One more note in case anyone is interested, the reason the system is moving toward hospital owned practices is that hospitals are becoming increasingly competitive due to the shrinking reimbursement market, margins are lean so market share is vital. Hospitals who employ a provider can basically tell them "you refer your business here, you admit here" where if they tried to influence an independent doc to admit and refer to that hospital they would be in violation of STARK laws and be subject to criminal prosecution.