Healthcare, as I experience it

[MickintheHam]

This may be old news to everyone here, but I have been meeting with our Company's Healthcare provider about what is new on HC reform or Obamacare. Begining in July we will pay a new tax on each employee enrolled in the plan, $1/employee/year. In 2014 it goes to $2. Also Beginning January 1 2014, we will pay $63/enrolled member/yr. Enrolled member being employees and their covered family members. So if you have 100 employees and average 3 covered dependents per employee you are looking an additional tax of $18,900. That's a lot of money.

Some carriers will call this levy a premium increase. Our carrier indicates they will do all they can to list it for what it is, an additional tax. The craziness we have been talking about for 3 years is now coming into reality. If these costs are passed on to the employee, you will see an immediate impact on the economy. If they pass through only to the employers, it will have a slower but equally as deep of an impact. Folks, we are getting hosed.

[KeithKSR]

Obamacare will price the middle class out of healthcare.

[suncat05]

Obamacare will price the middle class out of healthcare.

That was the plan all along. And now that the SCOTUS has taken sides against the American people on this(THANK YOU, TRAITOR CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS!!)Congress will do nothing to correct or alleviate this problem. So we're stuck with legislation that should never have been passed because it truly is outside the scope of the government's authority, contrary to what traitor Roberts believes, and which will decimate the American economy in untold ways.

[jazyd]

Sad what has happened to us but of course those that voted this piece of garbage i isn't affected by this because many don't work and many of the rest make just enough to keep from going off the free ride. And the rest were just plain stupid for not truly paying attention to what is happening. I hope they are affected by this in a big waway and yes Roberts put a big screw in our backs

That was the plan all along. And now that the SCOTUS has taken sides against the American people on this(THANK YOU, TRAITOR CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS!!)Congress will do nothing to correct or alleviate this problem. So we're stuck with legislation that should never have been passed because it truly is outside the scope of the government's authority, contrary to what traitor Roberts believes, and which will decimate the American economy in untold ways.

[bigsky]

Liberals have become the new Calvinists when it comes to health care. If you're sick, it's because of some sin like "thou shalt not drink big gulps".

[CattyWampus]

"We have to pass it, to see what's in it".

[BigBlueBrock]

Obamacare will price the middle class out of healthcare.

You say that as if the middle class could afford healthcare without heavy employer subsidies to begin with. That's not a defense of Obamacare as its a **** bill that just sent more people and money to private health insurers that deserve dismantling and replacement, not more of our money, but still. The idea that health care is "affordable" to anyone other than the rich or those on Medicare/Medicaid is false. The entire system needs MASSIVE reform, but all we got was a Heritage Foundation insurance mandate rebilled as Obamacare.

[badrose]

You say that as if the middle class could afford healthcare without heavy employer subsidies to begin with. That's not a defense of Obamacare as its a **** bill that just sent more people and money to private health insurers that deserve dismantling and replacement, not more of our money, but still. The idea that health care is "affordable" to anyone other than the rich or those on Medicare/Medicaid is false. The entire system needs MASSIVE reform, but all we got was a Heritage Foundation insurance mandate rebilled as Obamacare.

We agree. Tort reform would help a lot but that has never been close to getting the support needed to make it happen.

[BigBlueBrock]

Tort reform would be a necessary, albeit small, part of the solution. But health care needs bottom-up reform. It starts with why it costs so much at the provider and ends with for-profit insurance companies built to NOT pay out.

[badrose]

Tort reform would be a necessary, albeit small, part of the solution. But health care needs bottom-up reform. It starts with why it costs so much at the provider and ends with for-profit insurance companies built to NOT pay out.

They could start by allowing providers to compete including across state lines.

[BigBlueBrock]

They could start by allowing providers to compete including across state lines.

The problem with that is that there isn't (or hasn't been) a national standard for what a health insurance company should cover with its policies. Allowing across-state insurance purchasing would eventually have all or most insurance companies located in a few small population states where the companies would promise X amount of jobs and Y amount of taxes as long as they (the insurance companies) could have a hand in writing the insurance regulations. So we'd end up with insurance policies that covered very little, were really cheap for healthy people, but would price those with chronic illness into financial destitution. I believe the existence of for-profit health insurance is, in and of itself, immoral. Health insurance companies being answerable to shareholders and not, ya know, sick people is just crazy to me. They make money, not by providing, but by denying coverage and payment of benefits. Hence my advocation of dismantling the industry entirely.

I'm sure I'm going to be raked over the coals for that belief and statement, but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

[bigsky]

Health care worked for me, because I've worked for it. For most of my life I've thought about it, what job I took, what job opportunity I didn't take, when my wife and I began trying to have kids, etc. I've exercised, I don't smoke and I drink in moderation.

Now, not only will I wait in line behind the people who didnt give a flip about insurance or their lifestyle until they got sick, but my benefits are cut and my options limited to pay for their treatments.

So you bet you're gonna hear it.

[BigBlueBrock]

Healthcare "working for you" being a reason for why the system is "OK" is anecdotal nonsense and ignores the fact that there are thousands, maybe millions, who've paid their premiums and been cheated out of coverage because their health insurance company's team of well-paid lawyers found some loophole that allowed them out of paying benefits due. Normal, hard-working, goodhearted Americans are swindled out of health care coverage every day because the insurance companies are set up to find a way to deny benefits because that is what suits their bottom line. And those people end up bankrupt because a procedure or illness that thought they'd paid premiums to cover was denied payout due to some legal loophole. It's BS and it's categorically wrong.​

[bigsky]

I have not heard of that happening to anyone I know. Ever. Could it happen? Sure. But as little as I know of fraud by insurers, I know of plenty of insurance fraud by people, and abuse of their health insurance for their imagined chiropractic and needle poking and wholistic and naturopathic and Psychiatric and chemical indulgences.

So, since you've shown nothing in your bet
On the millions who have been cheated by blue cross blue shield,et al, I'll see your bet and raise you bureaucratic waste by the billions.

[BigBlueBrock]

I have not heard of that happening to anyone I know. Ever. Could it happen? Sure. But as little as I know of fraud by insurers, I know of plenty of insurance fraud by people, and abuse of their health insurance for their imagined chiropractic and needle poking and wholistic and naturopathic and Psychiatric and chemical indulgences.

So, since you've shown nothing in your bet
On the millions who have been cheated by blue cross blue shield,et al, I'll see your bet and raise you bureaucratic waste by the billions.

People are denied coverage all the time because of "pre-existing conditions." And I'm not just talking about someone who was uninsured, found out they were sick, and then tried to get insurance. People who've had insurance for years, but because some medical condition (like high blood pressure or asthma) predates the start of their coverage by X amount, they're denied benefits. That's completely bogus.

I agree with you on bureaucratic waste by the billions. Another great reason to reform the system, IMO. We have no shortage of reasons for why the current system by which Americans are provided health care should be massively reformed. Personally, I think we should start with why it's so damned expensive at the provider level.

[BigBlueBrock]

By the way, as far as my experience with health insurance goes, my monthly premium is $24, my copays are $10 or $15 depending on the kind of doctor, UK covers 100% of a great many procedures and 80% of almost all others. I'm really healthy and rarely see a doctor, so the plights and pitfalls of the health care and insurance industry isn't something I have to deal with personally. But that doesn't mean I can't sympathize with people that can't afford coverage or who have been denied benefits for a procedure and/or who've gone bankrupt because of an expensive procedure that saved their life or the life of a loved one. You'll excuse me for believing life-saving procedures shouldn't leave people financially destitute.

[bigsky]

What is worth spending every dime you can beg borrow or steal on, if not yours or your kids or spouses life?

I guess that's where we differ; I do think you get what you pay for.

[BigBlueBrock]

What is worth spending every dime you can beg borrow or steal on, if not yours or your kids or spouses life?

I guess that's where we differ; I do think you get what you pay for.

Yes, obviously we differ in that I believe health care for a premature baby shouldn't bankrupt a family, whereas you think it's OK.

[bigsky]

So I'll say it again, isn't that the one thing worth spending every dime on? Of course, you don't have to answer, you can continue to duck the question. And the truth is, even with insurance, these kinds of emergencies, cancer, accidents, etc, bankrupt families. Government isn't intended to eliminate all the risks of this mean ole world.

[BigBlueBrock]

Sure, if anything is worth spending every red cent you could ever scrape up, then the life of a loved one is certainly "worth it." But it shouldn't require it. That you think it's peachy keen is, quite frankly, appalling.

[bigsky]

Sure, if anything is worth spending every red cent you could ever scrape up, then the life of a loved one is certainly "worth it." But it shouldn't require it. That you think it's peachy keen is, quite frankly, appalling.

And I'm appalled that you think government exists to take care of everyone's every need from cradle to grave.

[badrose]

And I'm appalled that you think government exists to take care of everyone's every need from cradle to grave.

That's the whole thing in a nutshell, isn't it?

[BigBlueBrock]

And I'm appalled that you think government exists to take care of everyone's every need from cradle to grave.

I think the government exists to provide for the common defense and general welfare of it's people, so long as both things are properly paid for by Congress.

[CitizenBBN]

The problem with that is that there isn't (or hasn't been) a national standard for what a health insurance company should cover with its policies. Allowing across-state insurance purchasing would eventually have all or most insurance companies located in a few small population states where the companies would promise X amount of jobs and Y amount of taxes as long as they (the insurance companies) could have a hand in writing the insurance regulations. So we'd end up with insurance policies that covered very little, were really cheap for healthy people, but would price those with chronic illness into financial destitution. I believe the existence of for-profit health insurance is, in and of itself, immoral. Health insurance companies being answerable to shareholders and not, ya know, sick people is just crazy to me. They make money, not by providing, but by denying coverage and payment of benefits. Hence my advocation of dismantling the industry entirely.

I'm sure I'm going to be raked over the coals for that belief and statement, but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

There would be no good insurance without 50 states regulating it to be so? Yeah, open competition always leads to a market bereft of any products.

If you find me that right to health insurance we can discuss morality. I have no intention of debating this as not the time nor patience to start far enough back to address that position either from a market or morality perspective. In short if you want to provide something to people, create a market driven by profit motive to do it. The moral choice is to provide for people's needs, nothing does that more completely or efficiently than a free market.

I do agree a lot of the insurance business needs to be dismantled, but not by government. Bring market forces back to health care providing and the massive costs and bureaucracy that necessitates massive insurance systems will dwindle, taking a lot of the insurance business with it.

[CitizenBBN]

I think the government exists to provide for the common defense and general welfare of it's people, so long as both things are properly paid for by Congress.

It's to provide for the common defense, to PROMOTE the general welfare, not provide it. All the difference in the world.

[CitizenBBN]

I think the government exists to provide for the common defense and general welfare of it's people, so long as both things are properly paid for by Congress.

Oh, and NOTHING is paid for by Congress. It's paid for by the People, they just decide who pays and who doesn't and whose welfare is promoted and whose isn't.

[bigsky]

"General welfare" relieves no one of their own responsibilities. It's not a guaranty of a free ride; not food, not shelter, not health care. The government has no resources of its own. Your interpretation, that government exist to provide, really means that I should provide for you. Your point of view makes me your slave.

[BigBlueBrock]

It's to provide for the common defense, to PROMOTE the general welfare, not provide it. All the difference in the world.

Article I Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

That's from the transcript taken directly from www.archives.gov.

[badrose]

From your link:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[BigBlueBrock]

From your link:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Keep scrolling down until you reach Article I, Section 8.