thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,755
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 9, 2012 11:02:55 GMT -5
The funny part of cme's pricing structure is that it doesn't make any sense.
The company wants you to pay $2279 to insure yourself. Okay, that is reasonable.
For your wife, they want $6344 (8623-2279) - that is actually a reasonable amount, that probably puts the average total burden on you.
For your kids, they want $7494 (9774-2279) - even that makes sense, I'm sure each kid costs them $2500 on average - if not more.
But if you add those three numbers together you get $16,117. But to cover your whole family, they want $28,460. How do they get an extra $12k added on there?
LOL
Blue Cross Blue Sheild offers pretty decent family coverage for $14k per year in my state. You could check that out.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,755
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 9, 2012 11:04:08 GMT -5
I thought the democrats hated big business and were fighting for the people. Oh yes, that's right, this was originally a republican concept.
Bah-ha ha haw. I hate politics.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Nov 9, 2012 11:04:50 GMT -5
My wife and I work for the same company and I am on my own because the cost for her & kids + cost for me is less than the cost for one of us to pay family rate. Makes no sense to me either.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 3, 2024 16:28:11 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2012 11:09:08 GMT -5
Absolutly unreasonable for a family...and if this is what it is now throughout the country...then Obamacare if it can reduce these amounts is a blessing...IMHO Read the Law all 2700 pages of it. It does nothing to reduce the cost. Just hopes that opening the rlls will bring down costs. Obamacare was nothing more than a payout to health insurers many are hoping that the costs will go down..... i think many are also hoping that the employer will just accept the new costs as part of doing business yeah...good luck with that
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,755
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 9, 2012 11:10:01 GMT -5
Well - that kind of makes sense. I understand why companies cover a larger portion of the employee's share, but cover less for their family. It makes it sort of nuetral to hire someone who is single vs. someone with a wife and 10 kids. If they take on the burden of paying for their family's coverage, then there wouldn't be a disincentive to hire people with families.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,755
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 9, 2012 11:11:42 GMT -5
The theory is that doctors and hospitals won't have to overcharge people with health insurance to cover the people who do not have health insurance. So, the same costs, just spread out over more people. I don't buy it.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Nov 9, 2012 11:19:05 GMT -5
Like most businesses, doctors and hospitals will look at their bottom lines. While they may not have to overcharge to cover the uninsured, they've been getting away with overcharging for some time now and will continue to do so unless mandated to cease and desist. They're not going to lower their charges and will raise them if they believe the consumer will pay it. The business owner wants to continue his/her standard of living. If that means several people have to be laid off, those people's standard of living is looked upon as "their problem". Same will be true of doctors and hospitals. It's every man/woman for him/herself. I'm not going to opine on the right, or wrong of this. It's the way it is.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,444
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Nov 9, 2012 11:22:08 GMT -5
Isn't part of the theory also that expanding the pool will help dilute individual risk? I mean insurance companies use that model currently, the larger the employer the more people, the better the rates.
Do I think this is going to help with health insurance costs? No, for the most part I think the ACA is a giant steaming pile.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Nov 9, 2012 11:26:54 GMT -5
Isn't part of the theory also that expanding the pool will help dilute individual risk? I mean insurance companies use that model currently, the larger the employer the more people, the better the rates. Do I think this is going to help with health insurance costs? No, for the most part I think the ACA is a giant steaming pile. That's the thing it is theory no fact. Just because more people are required o sign up nothing says that insurers are required to lower prices. Its just not going to happen. Roughly 50m do not have health insurance, they go on the rolls and we all still pay the same rate.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,755
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 9, 2012 11:36:09 GMT -5
What percentage of the un (or under) insured now are there for some underlying medical reason, like a pre-existing condition, or a family history that predicts high costs, or something? Expanding the pool only works if you bring in a bunch of people who don't need any care.
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,444
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Nov 9, 2012 11:43:40 GMT -5
I am not saying I agree with the premise, but I think the thought is also that it will force the under 30 set who MAY opt out of insurance coverage into the pool.
I know when I was in my early 20s and making about 10-12 bucks an hour I did not opt in to my employer offered health insurance. Could I technically afford to? Sure if I had cut cable and some other stuff, but I elected not to since in my mind I "couldn't afford it". I was young, healthy, and didn't see the point. If you add people like that to the pool it may help offset the others.
I don't know, I think it is for the most part a crap piece of legislation. We need real healthcare reform, not this bullshit half measure.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 3, 2024 16:28:11 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2012 11:44:16 GMT -5
At some point, I suppose the complexity of the affordable health care act will rival that of the US tax code, spawning an entire industry to use and understand it. Kind of like H&R block etc.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 3, 2024 16:28:11 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2012 11:53:26 GMT -5
What percentage of the un (or under) insured now are there for some underlying medical reason, like a pre-existing condition, or a family history that predicts high costs, or something? Expanding the pool only works if you bring in a bunch of people who don't need any care. Especially since the penalty for not having insurance is cheaper than buying it and you can't be turned down for a pre-existing condition. Break a leg, get cancer, and then get insurance and you will be saving money. In addition the new healthcare law requires that premiums for the old be only three times as much as premiums for the young, even though the older you get the more money you cost. So costs will rise for the young and go down for the elderly. It will be another incentive for young, healthy people to stay out of the insurance pool until they absolutely need it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 3, 2024 16:28:11 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2012 12:27:38 GMT -5
penalty for not signing up was at 1% of gross annual
35,000 annual salary
pay up to $ 3325 (9.5% of annual) to have insurance, or $ 350 not to
for a lot of people, this is going to be an easy decision
option a....15% option b....85%
the ones that will sign up will have diabetes, history of cancer, obesity, or other health problems
or they are some of the very few that believe that they "need" the insurance because they want to be protected
does this sound like it will be fiscally prudent?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Nov 9, 2012 12:28:34 GMT -5
FYI the law now requires companies to disclose what they are paying-W2 box 12 DD. Very good to know when discussing compensation.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Nov 9, 2012 12:39:45 GMT -5
penalty for not signing up was at 1% of gross annual 35,000 annual salary pay up to $ 3325 (9.5% of annual) to have insurance, or $ 350 not to for a lot of people, this is going to be an easy decision option a....15% option b....85% the ones that will sign up will have diabetes, history of cancer, obesity, or other health problems or they are some of the very few that believe that they "need" the insurance because they want to be protected does this sound like it will be fiscally prudent? Without insurence and one becomes ill..I would suggest listen to those who experience this and see if you like the results. Granted..you do get treatment in the ER..stabilizing..treatment to allow one to be allowed to go home...follow up care..being monitored, treated..I don't believe so..
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 3, 2024 16:28:11 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2012 13:25:43 GMT -5
penalty for not signing up was at 1% of gross annual 35,000 annual salary pay up to $ 3325 (9.5% of annual) to have insurance, or $ 350 not to for a lot of people, this is going to be an easy decision option a....15% option b....85% the ones that will sign up will have diabetes, history of cancer, obesity, or other health problems or they are some of the very few that believe that they "need" the insurance because they want to be protected does this sound like it will be fiscally prudent? Without insurence and one becomes ill..I would suggest listen to those who experience this and see if you like the results. Granted..you do get treatment in the ER..stabilizing..treatment to allow one to be allowed to go home...follow up care..being monitored, treated..I don't believe so.. but if something does happen to them, they can always go onto the insurance at that point no preexisting condition...remember so, no need to have to plan for the day when sickness or bad health does occur
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Nov 9, 2012 15:26:30 GMT -5
Without insurance and one becomes ill..I would suggest listen to those who experience this and see if you like the results. Granted..you do get treatment in the ER..stabilizing..treatment to allow one to be allowed to go home...follow up care..being monitored, treated..I don't believe so.. but if something does happen to them, they can always go onto the insurance at that point no preexisting condition...remember so, no need to have to plan for the day when sickness or bad health does occur If that becomes a problem..it is taken advantage of..misused..no one says that the law can't be tinkered with, tweaked a bit..adjusted..revisited..a bit of readjusting ...and I believe it would/will be..quickly.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 9, 2012 19:36:55 GMT -5
Without insurence and one becomes ill..I would suggest listen to those who experience this and see if you like the results. Granted..you do get treatment in the ER..stabilizing..treatment to allow one to be allowed to go home...follow up care..being monitored, treated..I don't believe so.. but if something does happen to them, they can always go onto the insurance at that point no preexisting condition...remember so, no need to have to plan for the day when sickness or bad health does occur Exactly. No exclusions or penalties for pre-existing conditions, so it'll be like being able to buy fire insurance after the blaze starts.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 9, 2012 19:39:19 GMT -5
but if something does happen to them, they can always go onto the insurance at that point no preexisting condition...remember so, no need to have to plan for the day when sickness or bad health does occur If that becomes a problem..it is taken advantage of..misused..no one says that the law can't be tinkered with, tweaked a bit..adjusted..revisited..a bit of readjusting ...and I believe it would/will be..quickly. There's no amount of tinkering that'll remotely fix the ObamaCare POS. Scrapping it and starting over with full choice, free market focused solutions is our only hope both individually and as a country. I hope the GOP will refuse to fund it.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Nov 9, 2012 19:45:31 GMT -5
It is market focused and offers a choice. Get private insurance or pay a fine. Pretty simple. There's no government option. Everyone will have to buy private insurance, and the companies competing for those customers will lead to the lowest cost, yadda, yadda.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 9, 2012 23:33:20 GMT -5
It is market focused and offers a choice. Get private insurance or pay a fine. Pretty simple. There's no government option. Everyone will have to buy private insurance, and the companies competing for those customers will lead to the lowest cost, yadda, yadda. If there's really a demand for insurance, then there's no need to "mandate" the purchase. The government has no real Constitutional authority to tax you for choosing not to buy a product or service, but an authority merely invented by a misguided Supreme Court.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Nov 10, 2012 11:42:30 GMT -5
If that becomes a problem..it is taken advantage of..misused..no one says that the law can't be tinkered with, tweaked a bit..adjusted..revisited..a bit of readjusting ...and I believe it would/will be..quickly. There's no amount of tinkering that'll remotely fix the ObamaCare POS. Scrapping it and starting over with full choice, free market focused solutions is our only hope both individually and as a country. I hope the GOP will refuse to fund it. If they do I expect that they will find themselves going the way of the Whig party...it is time to move on...that battle is over...for now anyway...
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Nov 10, 2012 14:26:59 GMT -5
There's no amount of tinkering that'll remotely fix the ObamaCare POS. Scrapping it and starting over with full choice, free market focused solutions is our only hope both individually and as a country. What would they replace it with? For all the complaining, I've yet to hear republicans come up with actual legislation. Why didn't they write up an alternative to the ACA? Then when you get down to the details they admit they would keep a good part of the ACA legislation. Had they cone up with a better plan, then I would have been all for it, but they didn't.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,755
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 16, 2012 14:56:23 GMT -5
10 days later - Paul was still wrong.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Nov 16, 2012 15:12:40 GMT -5
I just want to know if he actually fired all his staff.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,463
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 16, 2012 17:05:46 GMT -5
the ACA is here to stay. get over it.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 17, 2012 23:19:15 GMT -5
the ACA is here to stay. get over it. ObamaCare is here to stay, but we don't have to like it. And eventually, all this nonsense will come crashing down around us- so "stay" is relative.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Nov 17, 2012 23:31:51 GMT -5
Which doesn't work by the way, as anyone can tell you who's ever tried it. See the problem is it'll take you a lot longer to request a quote, receive the quote, sign the paperwork, return it to the insurane company, and finally have insurance than it will take for your house to burn down.
Same thing with getting health insurance after you need it. It might work if you have an ear infection, and want to sign up for insurance before making a doctor's appointment. If you get in a car accident, you'll be in the ambulance on your way to the hospital, and a six figure bill, long before you'll have time to call and request a health insurance quote, fill out the paperwork, schedule a checkup, return the paperwork, get it processed, and finally have insurance. If you started the process literally the second after you got in the car accident, you might have insurance around the time you were being discharged and told the bill will be mailed to you. Maybe.
But hey, there's no law against stupidity. You want to go without and hope you don't need emergency care knock yourself out.
The law saying they can't refuse to offer insurance due to pre-existing conditions doesn't mean they have to cover bills for services rendered before you got insurance.
I don't even think they have to pay for treatment of your pre-existing conditions going forward, they just can't refuse you insurance entirely. I might be wrong on that though.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,463
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 18, 2012 4:55:39 GMT -5
the ACA is here to stay. get over it. ObamaCare is here to stay, but we don't have to like it. And eventually, all this nonsense will come crashing down around us- so "stay" is relative. that is what they said about Social Security.
|
|