dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Mar 2, 2017 11:17:56 GMT -5
Dudes it's not worth a conversation because 80 % of you here are not interested in a conversation. You are interested in a monologue or talking to your echo chamber. hmmmmm...been here for 84 posts...less then a month posting...already discusted with us all....[sad]
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2017 11:18:10 GMT -5
again, this thread is supposed to be about what replaces the ACA.
if it is such a good idea to do so, what does the replacement look like?
shouldn't be that hard, given that the GOP has been talking about this moment for at least (4) years.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 2, 2017 11:19:25 GMT -5
Just replicate the very messed up VA and anyone can walk in and get care at no cost. Transition all Medicare and Medicaid people to that plan and us rich people can still buy insurance and go to private doctors and hospitals. Big companies will still offer insurance to attract workers. I'm pretty sure that will make just about everyone unhappy, that is the only equitable solution. given issues with the care some received under the VA - I'm not sure that is a good answer. aj seemed to have a reasonable outline there, a place to start perhaps. What was in John McCain's health care plan? I know it was portable, and I thought it was good at the time. I wasn't sure if it would work as I felt we had gone too far down one avenue already with sprialling costs, and such, but I was willing to give it a try. But I think we are headed for single payer eventually, and now - I think that may be not only inevitable, but for the best. We need to work in a manner that is going to maintain the standards for patient care, and medical innovation. And that may be the tough part. I agree that the VA is messed up, but so is every part of our system. The only reason I suggest this is that "single payer" means that we still have all the paperwork and submissions and whatever from providers to the government, which is costly and has to be paid for by someone. Then there are all the fraud issues that are costly. And the government will have an army of negotiators that have to figure out the cost of all these things and work with companies, making sure that the private sector still gets a profit. I believe cutting out the for-profit part and cutting out the additional organization/cost of B to B part will be less costly. And the focus can be on care (and improving care) rather than on administration. Or, it will be a total disaster. I really don't see any end game where we get an awesome outcome. We want every single person to have something that is very expensive, and we want to do it very cheaply. It really isn't possible.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,086
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Mar 2, 2017 11:22:56 GMT -5
with the employer part - I was asking if it changed for people who had the traditional, employer provided plans.
DS was previously "uninsurable" at age 16/17 for hx asthma and his BMI index - not even his real BMI index because he has huge bones and was not solid but not much fat/overweight, but the application just asks for height and weight, and he uses an inhaler 1-2 times per month. But - no insurance. I did speak with someone and they said that I could take him in to get his actual BMI done and they would reconsider, but it seemed pretty doubtful, and I felt there'd just be another reason and it would take months and money and still no insurance. As he was still a minor, I got him on the illinois allkids insurance, but it is basically you pay for medicaid. Since I was making fairly good money - I got to pay full price and for him to be treated by facilities and doctors as a medicaid patient.
After ACA, I got him a private policy with BCBS. I don't think it really has anything to do with ACA except he couldn't be excluded anymore, we just pay full price as he is still in school another year.
And - I do pay a pretty penny for it, but I am glad to do so. Sure - I'd rather pay less, but the alternative is much worse.
The ACA would have worked much better if there had not been so much obstruction going on, and if their had been more of a bipartisan effort in crafting it.
Rather than get with the zeitgeist that no one is going to be allowed to die at the ER entrance because they can't pay for medical care, the dedication to making obama a 1 term president and derailing the ACA by any means necessary was the focus. It's actually pretty impressive that the ACA did as well as it did.
We can hope that something better comes through now. Trump has promised health care for everyone, and better than they have now for those who do have health care/insurance. Let's see what is done.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2017 11:25:50 GMT -5
just as Obama was measured by the ACA, his successor will be measured by "THIS". i look forward to it.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,086
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Mar 2, 2017 11:29:50 GMT -5
That seems unfortunate. Why did the other insurers pull out? and can you explain why no insurers is better than one? (no ACA) Is that one insurer only for ACA? If someone is buying private insurance - are there more options? And what kind of employer plans are still available? no. AZ had very low participation rates, and therefore no insurers wanted to step in under the ACA. private insurance is robust, and costs have risen less dramatically than at any decade in (recorded) history. but none of these facts matter to those that have no interest in fixing the system or supporting modest reform. oh - so people can get private policies?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 2, 2017 11:30:15 GMT -5
just as Obama was measured by the ACA, his successor will be measured by "THIS". i look forward to it. I have a feeling no matter what the Republicans do they will say the phrase "The damage was done by Obamacare" over and over. Instead of acknowledging that there is no perfect solution, they will just continue to blame the ACA.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,373
|
Post by Tiny on Mar 2, 2017 11:31:27 GMT -5
Dudes it's not worth a conversation because 80 % of you here are not interested in a conversation. You are interested in a monologue or talking to your echo chamber. Well, yes, because the conversation always go: Get rid of it, without any sort of ideas or brainstorming or anything on how to provide insurance to people who are NOT covered by insurance from their employer, their parents, or their spouse.
Yes, get rid of the ACA - but what then happens to the millions of people that were USING IT!!
I'm wondering if repealing the ACA will also bump the age of coverable dependents back down to 18 (or in school of some sort) versus being able to keep your kids on your employer's insurance until they are 26.... OR if they are just going to repeal PARTS of the ACA.
I would think that since Trump is saying how awful the unemployment is (94 MILLION!!!!) that the next wave of college graduates aren't going to be able to find jobs that provide insurance so there will be even more people without health insurance - beyond the 20 million using the ACA directly.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2017 11:34:35 GMT -5
no. AZ had very low participation rates, and therefore no insurers wanted to step in under the ACA. private insurance is robust, and costs have risen less dramatically than at any decade in (recorded) history. but none of these facts matter to those that have no interest in fixing the system or supporting modest reform. oh - so people can get private policies? they certainly can through employers. i can't imagine why they couldn't individually, also.
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Mar 2, 2017 11:35:03 GMT -5
given issues with the care some received under the VA - I'm not sure that is a good answer. aj seemed to have a reasonable outline there, a place to start perhaps. What was in John McCain's health care plan? I know it was portable, and I thought it was good at the time. I wasn't sure if it would work as I felt we had gone too far down one avenue already with sprialling costs, and such, but I was willing to give it a try. But I think we are headed for single payer eventually, and now - I think that may be not only inevitable, but for the best. We need to work in a manner that is going to maintain the standards for patient care, and medical innovation. And that may be the tough part. I agree that the VA is messed up, but so is every part of our system. The only reason I suggest this is that "single payer" means that we still have all the paperwork and submissions and whatever from providers to the government, which is costly and has to be paid for by someone. Then there are all the fraud issues that are costly. And the government will have an army of negotiators that have to figure out the cost of all these things and work with companies, making sure that the private sector still gets a profit. I believe cutting out the for-profit part and cutting out the additional organization/cost of B to B part will be less costly. And the focus can be on care (and improving care) rather than on administration. Or, it will be a total disaster. I really don't see any end game where we get an awesome outcome. We want every single person to have something that is very expensive, and we want to do it very cheaply. It really isn't possible. If single pay means all insurence would be handled by the federal government...federal employees, federal burocracy...no more private insurance companies except for secondary insurence...My son works for a very, very major health insurence company in Connecticut...he is in a supervisory role..for me makes very big $..over $...so while I can't relate to what is considered good wages today vs my working days..feel he is very well compensated.. In speaking to him...one of his top responsibilities is cost containment...he has over 500 under him with supervisors etc...company is making very good profits..and still always looking to contain costs which means layoffs...As he said...when has government ever been interested in coming under budget...looking to contain costs...willing to lay people off.. He has a point there...
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,373
|
Post by Tiny on Mar 2, 2017 11:40:07 GMT -5
Because some folks really believe they'll keep more of their income because less will be going to taxes ... after all its not like we are going to build a big expensive wall, try to fight ISIS ourselves(new war to be funded) or build up the world's largest military compared to capita .....
Are you sure you got enough popcorn?
ISIS? Isn't that a thing of the past yet? Didn't dt promise to rid the world of ISIS within his first 30 days on the job? We should have plenty of money now, so of course cancelling 20M people's healthcare insurance will mean that I can keep a big chunk of money that previously went to taxes. Alternative math tells me so No, he's making sure ISIS becomes an even bigger problem (by cutting aide to foreign countries) and by ranting about Muslims and Banning them from America... which will INSURE that our military spending continues to balloon - which will line the pockets of his cronies who are invested in the military. ISIS (and any other group that wants to 'hurt America' will have a bigger pool of recruits,more financial backers,more access to weapons, and plenty of places to "hide" or to train troops (as America alienates it's allies). There won't be any 'attacks' here in America from these groups... but we will need to continue to spend money keeping them at bay...
The scariest thing is that all of this... takes the heat off our own homegrown "terrorists" and "hate mongers" - which gives them more power and access to arms and means they don't have to hide in the shadows... we're already seeing an increase in violence and crime from them...
I've never really worried about "foreign Extremist" attacks here in the US -even though I live in a place that is a potential target... I am currently MUCH more worried about being attacked by local WHITE 'terrorist' or 'hatemonger'.... What happens when one of them decides to make a statement? I live in a place that is a potential target for THEM... and they've gotten the 'green light' from our current government. I actually feel LESS safe - since Trump was elected. I feel less safe from my 'fellow Americans'.
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Mar 2, 2017 11:40:14 GMT -5
Dudes it's not worth a conversation because 80 % of you here are not interested in a conversation. You are interested in a monologue or talking to your echo chamber. Well, yes, because the conversation always go: Get rid of it, without any sort of ideas or brainstorming or anything on how to provide insurance to people who are NOT covered by insurance from their employer, their parents, or their spouse.
Yes, get rid of the ACA - but what then happens to the millions of people that were USING IT!!
I'm wondering if repealing the ACA will also bump the age of coverable dependents back down to 18 (or in school of some sort) versus being able to keep your kids on your employer's insurance until they are 26.... OR if they are just going to repeal PARTS of the ACA.
I would think that since Trump is saying how awful the unemployment is (94 MILLION!!!!) that the next wave of college graduates aren't going to be able to find jobs that provide insurance so there will be even more people without health insurance - beyond the 20 million using the ACA directly.
You do know that that figure the Donald stated was out of context...another lie given at his address..12 of them...listed and explained in threads here..though to be quick..in that 95 million...large amount folks not looking for work...seniors...students...folks taking care of kids and home and yes the unemployable..sick...addicks...homeless.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 2, 2017 11:42:44 GMT -5
I agree that the VA is messed up, but so is every part of our system. The only reason I suggest this is that "single payer" means that we still have all the paperwork and submissions and whatever from providers to the government, which is costly and has to be paid for by someone. Then there are all the fraud issues that are costly. And the government will have an army of negotiators that have to figure out the cost of all these things and work with companies, making sure that the private sector still gets a profit. I believe cutting out the for-profit part and cutting out the additional organization/cost of B to B part will be less costly. And the focus can be on care (and improving care) rather than on administration. Or, it will be a total disaster. I really don't see any end game where we get an awesome outcome. We want every single person to have something that is very expensive, and we want to do it very cheaply. It really isn't possible. If single pay means all insurence would be handled by the federal government...federal employees, federal burocracy...no more private insurance companies except for secondary insurence...My son works for a very, very major health insurence company in Connecticut...he is in a supervisory role..for me makes very big $..over $...so while I can't relate to what is considered good wages today vs my working days..feel he is very well compensated.. In speaking to him...one of his top responsibilities is cost containment...he has over 500 under him with supervisors etc...company is making very good profits..and still always looking to contain costs which means layoffs...As he said...when has government ever been interested in coming under budget...looking to contain costs...willing to lay people off.. He has a point there... He is containing cost on paperwork and adminiatration, not on care, as insurance companies don't provide any care, they just move money around.
|
|
buystoys
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 4:58:12 GMT -5
Posts: 5,650
|
Post by buystoys on Mar 2, 2017 11:46:10 GMT -5
I agree that there isn't an end game where we get an awesome outcome. Too many people have an unrealistic expectation for healthcare in our country. There are TONS of solutions out there but a lot of people need to adjust their view of what acceptable care is. We can go to a single payer/nationalized/universal health system. That means that EVERYONE has to pay into it, though. That means that care can be refused if someone doesn't have coverage. That means that we need to also have tort reform so doctors can actually stay in business since they won't have horrendous malpractice premiums to pay. Side note: Did you know that the average salary of a VP of Sales is $150K and the average salary of a Family Physician is $170K? I don't know that a Sales VP has nearly the responsibility a Family Physician does, but I do know that malpractice insurance can run around $15-20K per year. (Links are given below for those interested.) As a society, we have to accept that twisting your knee while roller blading means that you can receive emergency care to address the swelling but you'll have to wait three to six months for the MRI to see what the damage was. Emergency rooms need to be able to turn away non-emergent patients, i.e. I've had a sore throat for three days and am coming here for treatment because I don't have insurance. These are just a couple of barriers people don't want to deal with or set into place, so we continue to flounder with what we have. There are some simple answers but those answers don't meet our (collective) approval. link 1link 2link 3
|
|
buystoys
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 4:58:12 GMT -5
Posts: 5,650
|
Post by buystoys on Mar 2, 2017 11:49:26 GMT -5
oh - so people can get private policies? they certainly can through employers. i can't imagine why they couldn't individually, also. I will repeat again in case you missed it earlier: I have done the research for my county. I cannot get a private policy through any insurer who is NOT on Healthcare.gov. That may not be true in all counties, but it is for mine. I have one HMO policy available to me off or on Healthcare.gov. You can only buy something if it is offered, you know?
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Mar 2, 2017 11:49:37 GMT -5
If single pay means all insurence would be handled by the federal government...federal employees, federal burocracy...no more private insurance companies except for secondary insurence...My son works for a very, very major health insurence company in Connecticut...he is in a supervisory role..for me makes very big $..over $...so while I can't relate to what is considered good wages today vs my working days..feel he is very well compensated.. In speaking to him...one of his top responsibilities is cost containment...he has over 500 under him with supervisors etc...company is making very good profits..and still always looking to contain costs which means layoffs...As he said...when has government ever been interested in coming under budget...looking to contain costs...willing to lay people off.. He has a point there... He is containing cost on paperwork and adminiatration, not on care, as insurance companies don't provide any care, they just move money around. cost of paperwork and administration is hugh....as far as costs of medical care itself...don't see how ins can contain that...government does with medicare and medicaid..medicaid so low so many Doctors not interested in handling these patients...on medicare...the doctors, hospitals have to be acceptable to the fees that gov't will pay for procedures...some Doctors don't even want to cover those patients...as far as those not covered by those two programs..not sure how it works..if in HMO I guess those charges are covered in network...but limits on patients as to who to see and what kind of treatment..I think.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Mar 2, 2017 11:50:31 GMT -5
ACA (aka) Obamacare... Do you remember, this was shoved thru as a cure all for "ALL" ills,,,, Now that has done exactly what the Repos said would happen,,, it is the Repos fault! Now that all the pressure is being put on this administration to create the next thing that will most likely fail! As long as there are no measures to control medical cost, nothing will work! Open the borders to proscription drug sales, If you need surgery, allow your medical dollars to be spent in places like India. Where you can stay in a hospital that resemble a five star hotel with American trained Dr.s! When the American medical and drug sales gets some competition the prices will drop. I still think standardizing plans across insurance companies would also help increase competition and decrease premiums. Right now, it's really not easy to find your exact plan and compare what you are paying with what it would cost at another company....but if the plans were numbers and you could easily compare that same number plan; it makes it extremely simple to figure out if you could get the same coverage for cheaper at another company. Making it that easy would also mean insurance companies would have to be more price conscious in the premiums they charge. It's like going into a grocery store and seeing I can buy the same thing from a competitor for cheaper.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 2, 2017 11:56:40 GMT -5
ACA (aka) Obamacare... Do you remember, this was shoved thru as a cure all for "ALL" ills,,,, Now that has done exactly what the Repos said would happen,,, it is the Repos fault! Now that all the pressure is being put on this administration to create the next thing that will most likely fail! As long as there are no measures to control medical cost, nothing will work! Open the borders to proscription drug sales, If you need surgery, allow your medical dollars to be spent in places like India. Where you can stay in a hospital that resemble a five star hotel with American trained Dr.s! When the American medical and drug sales gets some competition the prices will drop. I still think standardizing plans across insurance companies would also help increase competition and decrease premiums. Right now, it's really not easy to find your exact plan and compare what you are paying with what it would cost at another company....but if the plans were numbers and you could easily compare that same number plan; it makes it extremely simple to figure out if you could get the same coverage for cheaper at another company. Making it that easy would also mean insurance companies would have to be more price conscious in the premiums they charge. It's like going into a grocery store and seeing I can buy the same thing from a competitor for cheaper. I thought provisions of mandatory coverage was one of the problems. 60 year old women paying for maternity coverage and what-not. I know people are clamoring for more flexibility on coverage. It makes comparing difficult, but stops you from having to pay for products you will never use.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2017 12:03:27 GMT -5
good posts, people. but too much on ACA and not enough on it's replacement. if you have objections to the ACA, stating clearly what the alternative is would be appreciated. TYIA.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Mar 2, 2017 12:10:20 GMT -5
I still think standardizing plans across insurance companies would also help increase competition and decrease premiums. Right now, it's really not easy to find your exact plan and compare what you are paying with what it would cost at another company....but if the plans were numbers and you could easily compare that same number plan; it makes it extremely simple to figure out if you could get the same coverage for cheaper at another company. Making it that easy would also mean insurance companies would have to be more price conscious in the premiums they charge. It's like going into a grocery store and seeing I can buy the same thing from a competitor for cheaper. I thought provisions of mandatory coverage was one of the problems. 60 year old women paying for maternity coverage and what-not. I know people are clamoring for more flexibility on coverage. It makes comparing difficult, but stops you from having to pay for products you will never use. djAdvocate this is for you too. The problem is that without standardization and easily understood plans....it makes it hard to figure out exactly what you have and increasing difficult to compare if you can get a better price or coverage. If you had a set number of standardized plans, you could follow the Medicare Supplement model and have just one book with all the plans in it each year. There would be no need for insurance companies to spend as much as they do advertising different plans or having brochures with what they offer because it would all be the same and available in that one book. You could then pick the plan that makes the most sense for you, and compare them across companies. Each plan would cover more things as the numbers got higher, so you could go from there on what you think is worth having coverage for and what you don't think is worth it. Personally I'd let people pick their deductible, if it's for single or family plan, and then have separate riders for dental/vision and medication. If dental/vision and medication riders had 3 levels....a person could then compare what they want as easily as they could order off a value menu. I want a number 20 family plan, with a $5000 deductible, along with level 2 dental/vision and a number 1 medication rider. Whenever you go into the doctor, you tell them exactly what you have and if the medication they want to give you isn't covered, then they can more easily determine if there is a replacement that was covered because of the standardization. I'd also attach HSA's to all plans so people could save to cover their deductibles.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2017 12:18:09 GMT -5
your post was great, PI. just what i am hoping for on this thread. thanks!!!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:13:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 12:20:43 GMT -5
Well, yes, because the conversation always go: Get rid of it, without any sort of ideas or brainstorming or anything on how to provide insurance to people who are NOT covered by insurance from their employer, their parents, or their spouse.
Yes, get rid of the ACA - but what then happens to the millions of people that were USING IT!!
I'm wondering if repealing the ACA will also bump the age of coverable dependents back down to 18 (or in school of some sort) versus being able to keep your kids on your employer's insurance until they are 26.... OR if they are just going to repeal PARTS of the ACA.
I would think that since Trump is saying how awful the unemployment is (94 MILLION!!!!) that the next wave of college graduates aren't going to be able to find jobs that provide insurance so there will be even more people without health insurance - beyond the 20 million using the ACA directly.
You do know that that figure the Donald stated was out of context...another lie given at his address..12 of them...listed and explained in threads here..though to be quick..in that 95 million...large amount folks not looking for work...seniors...students...folks taking care of kids and home and yes the unemployable..sick...addicks...homeless. I'm not sure it even matters why so many are out of the work force, demographics- fine. It still means less money coming in . Bottom line = less money.
|
|
buystoys
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 4:58:12 GMT -5
Posts: 5,650
|
Post by buystoys on Mar 2, 2017 12:21:52 GMT -5
I've offered some potential replacement ideas, but here's the real question: Will Americans be willing to concede that we cannot have it all? That has to be answered before an effective plan can be hammered out and put into place. I honestly don't expect any replacement plan to be robust. It can't be until/unless we as a society are willing to make concessions. It is impossible to offer immediate total care to everyone at any time of the day or night. If it WAS possible, someone, somewhere in this world would already be doing it.
My personal feelings on repealing ACA are based on what I personally have been dealing with since November 2013. I understand that not everyone has had the same experience. If the replacement gives me a CHOICE in my coverage, I will feel that it's a win. If the replacement gives me a choice AND cost savings, I'll be smiling for days.
So, my personal alternative suggestions? Stop setting the insurance offerings at a county level and make them state level. You'll increase the pool size and be able to spread the costs amongst a larger group. Don't require a one-size-fits all policy for all coverage. Let's go back to selecting some specifics on policies, i.e. birth control? Yes or no. DME? Yes or no. Psychiatric? Yes or no. There are a lot of "extras" that could become elective. The extras may not cost much alone, but I wouldn't gripe about spending $1K less per year on coverage either.
Why not require all insurance companies with an offering in the state to offer individual policies as well? If the insurance can create a participating provider group for an employer, that same provider group can be used for individual policies. (But that whole idea kind of goes back to making the offerings state level rather than county.)
Allow individuals to join a recognized group for coverage. Maybe all members of Baptist churches in Texas could be a group and then receive group rates. Maybe all people who make charitable contributions to Planned Parenthood could be a group and then receive group rates. Acceptable group definitions would need to be established, but why should group rates only go to employers and certain professional groups? And, yes, I understand that there are requirements for coverage. I'm just throwing some ideas on the table to substantiate my earlier statement that there are a TON of answers available.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,612
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 2, 2017 12:26:42 GMT -5
You do know that that figure the Donald stated was out of context...another lie given at his address..12 of them...listed and explained in threads here..though to be quick..in that 95 million...large amount folks not looking for work...seniors...students...folks taking care of kids and home and yes the unemployable..sick...addicks...homeless. I'm not sure it even matters why so many are out of the work force, demographics- fine. It still means less money coming in . Bottom line = less money. I am retired. I receive social security. I also receive a pension. I pay taxes on both. Retired Baby Boomers are contributing their fair share to the government through taxes.
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Mar 2, 2017 12:30:09 GMT -5
I've offered some potential replacement ideas, but here's the real question: Will Americans be willing to concede that we cannot have it all? That has to be answered before an effective plan can be hammered out and put into place. I honestly don't expect any replacement plan to be robust. It can't be until/unless we as a society are willing to make concessions. It is impossible to offer immediate total care to everyone at any time of the day or night. If it WAS possible, someone, somewhere in this world would already be doing it. My personal feelings on repealing ACA are based on what I personally have been dealing with since November 2013. I understand that not everyone has had the same experience. If the replacement gives me a CHOICE in my coverage, I will feel that it's a win. If the replacement gives me a choice AND cost savings, I'll be smiling for days. So, my personal alternative suggestions? Stop setting the insurance offerings at a county level and make them state level. You'll increase the pool size and be able to spread the costs amongst a larger group. Don't require a one-size-fits all policy for all coverage. Let's go back to selecting some specifics on policies, i.e. birth control? Yes or no. DME? Yes or no. Psychiatric? Yes or no. There are a lot of "extras" that could become elective. The extras may not cost much alone, but I wouldn't gripe about spending $1K less per year on coverage either. Why not require all insurance companies with an offering in the state to offer individual policies as well? If the insurance can create a participating provider group for an employer, that same provider group can be used for individual policies. (But that whole idea kind of goes back to making the offerings state level rather than county.) Allow individuals to join a recognized group for coverage. Maybe all members of Baptist churches in Texas could be a group and then receive group rates. Maybe all people who make charitable contributions to Planned Parenthood could be a group and then receive group rates. Acceptable group definitions would need to be established, but why should group rates only go to employers and certain professional groups? And, yes, I understand that there are requirements for coverage. I'm just throwing some ideas on the table to substantiate my earlier statement that there are a TON of answers available. Actually if the "Baptist" plan was a much better plan for me...do u think they would allow this Jew into the plan..if real big deal.. would be willing to have a dunking in some stream....even show up for pot luck dinners some times..
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:13:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 12:32:54 GMT -5
ACA (aka) Obamacare... Do you remember, this was shoved thru as a cure all for "ALL" ills,,,, Now that has done exactly what the Repos said would happen,,, it is the Repos fault! Now that all the pressure is being put on this administration to create the next thing that will most likely fail! As long as there are no measures to control medical cost, nothing will work! Open the borders to proscription drug sales, If you need surgery, allow your medical dollars to be spent in places like India. Where you can stay in a hospital that resemble a five star hotel with American trained Dr.s! When the American medical and drug sales gets some competition the prices will drop. I still think standardizing plans across insurance companies would also help increase competition and decrease premiums. Right now, it's really not easy to find your exact plan and compare what you are paying with what it would cost at another company....but if the plans were numbers and you could easily compare that same number plan; it makes it extremely simple to figure out if you could get the same coverage for cheaper at another company. Making it that easy would also mean insurance companies would have to be more price conscious in the premiums they charge. It's like going into a grocery store and seeing I can buy the same thing from a competitor for cheaper. What about apple to apple shopping for procedures. Hysterectomy here or hospital across town might be less expensive and just as effective. Show me what you can do , how much it will cost me and let me compare.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Mar 2, 2017 12:35:32 GMT -5
I still think standardizing plans across insurance companies would also help increase competition and decrease premiums. Right now, it's really not easy to find your exact plan and compare what you are paying with what it would cost at another company....but if the plans were numbers and you could easily compare that same number plan; it makes it extremely simple to figure out if you could get the same coverage for cheaper at another company. Making it that easy would also mean insurance companies would have to be more price conscious in the premiums they charge. It's like going into a grocery store and seeing I can buy the same thing from a competitor for cheaper. What about apple to apple shopping for procedures. Hysterectomy here or hospital across town might be less expensive and just as effective. Show me what you can do , how much it will cost me and let me compare. When DH was in excruitating pain and needed back surgery, there is no way, he'd have gone around from one surgeron to another shopping. He needed surgerry asap. Healthcare isn't like buying tires.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:13:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 12:35:54 GMT -5
I'm not sure it even matters why so many are out of the work force, demographics- fine. It still means less money coming in . Bottom line = less money. I am retired. I receive social security. I also receive a pension. I pay taxes on both. Retired Baby Boomers are contributing their fair share to the government through taxes. I'm not saying you are not paying your fair share. I'm saying most in retirement are not paying what they were when they were working. Always exceptions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:13:48 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 12:36:47 GMT -5
What about apple to apple shopping for procedures. Hysterectomy here or hospital across town might be less expensive and just as effective. Show me what you can do , how much it will cost me and let me compare. When DH was in excruitating pain and needed back surgery, there is no way, he'd have gone around from one surgeron to another shopping. He needed surgerry asap. Healthcare isn't like buying tires. In some cases it is.
|
|
buystoys
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 4:58:12 GMT -5
Posts: 5,650
|
Post by buystoys on Mar 2, 2017 12:39:00 GMT -5
I've offered some potential replacement ideas, but here's the real question: Will Americans be willing to concede that we cannot have it all? That has to be answered before an effective plan can be hammered out and put into place. I honestly don't expect any replacement plan to be robust. It can't be until/unless we as a society are willing to make concessions. It is impossible to offer immediate total care to everyone at any time of the day or night. If it WAS possible, someone, somewhere in this world would already be doing it. My personal feelings on repealing ACA are based on what I personally have been dealing with since November 2013. I understand that not everyone has had the same experience. If the replacement gives me a CHOICE in my coverage, I will feel that it's a win. If the replacement gives me a choice AND cost savings, I'll be smiling for days. So, my personal alternative suggestions? Stop setting the insurance offerings at a county level and make them state level. You'll increase the pool size and be able to spread the costs amongst a larger group. Don't require a one-size-fits all policy for all coverage. Let's go back to selecting some specifics on policies, i.e. birth control? Yes or no. DME? Yes or no. Psychiatric? Yes or no. There are a lot of "extras" that could become elective. The extras may not cost much alone, but I wouldn't gripe about spending $1K less per year on coverage either. Why not require all insurance companies with an offering in the state to offer individual policies as well? If the insurance can create a participating provider group for an employer, that same provider group can be used for individual policies. (But that whole idea kind of goes back to making the offerings state level rather than county.) Allow individuals to join a recognized group for coverage. Maybe all members of Baptist churches in Texas could be a group and then receive group rates. Maybe all people who make charitable contributions to Planned Parenthood could be a group and then receive group rates. Acceptable group definitions would need to be established, but why should group rates only go to employers and certain professional groups? And, yes, I understand that there are requirements for coverage. I'm just throwing some ideas on the table to substantiate my earlier statement that there are a TON of answers available. Actually if the "Baptist" plan was a much better plan for me...do u think they would allow this Jew into the plan..if real big deal.. would be willing to have a dunking in some stream....even show up for pot luck dinners some times.. Why not? There are several very large groups I can think of off the top of my head that might be able to benefit their members with group insurance rates, right? Or, if it's easier for you, maybe your synagogue could be a group?
|
|