majorspark;544565 wrote:Employers should not be in the health or life insurance business. I would even include pension plans as well. They should do what they do best, manufacturing a good or providing a service to their customers. One of the main reasons these issues are in the hands of employers today is because of acts of the federal government.

Employer benefit plans proliferated in the 1940's. Government imposed wage freezes on employers during WWII accelerated the spread of employer provided health care. Employers unable by law to attract workers by paying more, instead were allowed to improve their benefit packages by adding health care. Today it is the expected norm.

The big question is how to transition health and life insurance, or any necessary benefit, out of the employers hands. Many in the federal government are seeking to monopolize any such transaction into the hands of the feds. I would argue the constitutionality of federal power in these issues but I will leave that for another day.

We need to find a way to transfer these liabilities into the individual's hands. Where the individual has the power to shop for benefits that best meets his needs. But the individual would have to be justly compensated by the employer for the cost of these liabilities for the service that they were providing via a large increase in wages.

Perhaps employers should do the opposite of what they did in the 40s: incentivize employees to get off of their plans. Offer them an increase in salary and other benefits if they agree to get their own health/life insurance.

QuakerOats;507842 wrote:Well stated. Most employers spend more time with regulation compliance, taxes, and trial attorneys, than they do making and selling their products. And some people wonder why we get whipped by foreign competition, and capital flows offshore.

This makes no sense at all. How are Socialist countries whipping our country? All the European countries are far more socialist than we are so how can a failed economic system like socialism ever whip our country?

I am not buying and will need to be convinced that 1. all the other countries in the world are NOT more socialist than us. And 2. If they are not socialists then why do they have universial healthcare?

I had a 92% increase in health insurance premiums this renewal

They are trying to increase my mom's insurance at her work up to 90%. So, no Obamacare doesn't lower insurance costs.

LJ;545271 wrote:I had a 92% increase in health insurance premiums this renewal

Insurers are just killing people who have individual and small business (a few people) type of plans because it is easier to push costs through to them than the big corporations who have much larger bargaining power. Also, if you have an individual plan and make even a few claims or get sick once you suddenly become prohibitive to insure so since I am not sure they can necessarily "drop you" anymore like they used to, they just make the renewal premiums so high that you can't afford it and deal with you that way.

I've had an individual plan for a while now, and it went from $139 to $455 a month over the course of 5 years before anyone even knew who Obama or what Obamacare was. The deck is stacked big time against those people who don't bring large numbers to the table of people needing to be insured as you can be priced out of the market in a heart beat with even a minor illness or pre-existing condition.

The conundrum facing the healthcare situation is that some people are fully functioning contributing citizens if they are able to continue treating a chronic condition (diabetes, mental illness, high blood pressure..ect.) but from a dollars and sense standpoint they aren't economical to insure if you are an insurance company trying to make a profit.

What do we do with those people as insurance companies don't want to insure them at an affordable rate, but they need coverage some how to avoid having a chronic condition become that much worse and a bigger problem than it already is. No one on any side of the debate has really produced a realistic solution on how to bridge that gap between not being the financial drag they are on a balance sheet vs. the human aspect of getting people treatment they need to continue living full and productive lives.

jhay78;545138 wrote:It's true alright. From the WSJ article posted by BoatShoes:

He said "most employers spend MORE time" dealing with certain types of administrative costs than running their business. That's not true. Do they spend a lot of time dealing with these costs? Sure. Can we work to have them spend less time? Certainly. But, let's not exaggerate as QuakerOats allllways does. It doesn't help the cause.

LJ;545271 wrote:I had a 92% increase in health insurance premiums this renewal

LJ are you in charge of your company's health insurance plan? If so how many covered employees do you have? I have also experienced over 90% increases before. I have 42 covered employees and been doing this game with the insurance carriers for the past 19 years. Your premiums go up and you reduce benefits and increase deductibles and require your employees to contribute more. The system was at the point where I was not going to be able to offer health insurance as a benefit. Everybody in Washington knew that this was going to become a major problem. The Republicans fucked up by not doing anything about it. I think what we have now can be tweaked and made better, but it's a start to try to get health care cost under control

Every study I ever read about all came to the same conclusion that the best way to address the problem was to spread the risk over more people by requiring everyone to be covered and managing the risk.

Bigdogg;545669 wrote:Every study I ever read about all came to the same conclusion that the best way to address the problem was to spread the risk over more people by requiring everyone to be covered and managing the risk.

I don't agree with that at all. In fact, it's downright WRONG!

How can that be justified?

Conservatives who voted for congressional candidates because they pledged to repeal and replace the health-care-reform law are in for a rude awakening. Once those newly elected members of Congress have a little talk with the insurance industry’s lobbyists and executives, they will back off from that pledge. They will go through the motions, of course. They’ll hold hearings and take to the floor of both Houses to rail against the new law, and they’ll probably even introduce a bill to repeal it with much fanfare—but it will all be for show. That’s because health insurers, one of Republican candidates’ biggest and most reliable benefactors—the industry contributed three times as much money to Republicans as to Democrats since January—can’t survive without it.

Despite all the attacks on “Obamacare,” the new law props up the employer-based system that insurers and large corporations benefit from so greatly. It also guarantees that private insurers will get billions of dollars in new revenue. And the insurers won’t have to share a penny of that windfall with a government-run public option the president once said was necessary “to keep insurers honest.”

Here is an excerpt from a Newsweek article (written by a former insurance exec) that lays out in great detail why Obamacare is here to stay.

It is kind of sickening the way he flaunts the power the insurance industry has wield that kind of influence in Congress as to get Tea Partiers and the rest of the repeal crowd to call off the dogs.

Sad part is I am sure he is 100% correct that after a good talking to by those lobbyists everyone will be falling in line and relegating any real repeal talk to a mere dog and pony show to make the base think they are listening.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/05/why-healthcare-reform-will-survive.html

I don't care what happens in Congress, I'm betting on the courts repealing at least the mandate that requires insurance. Of course the politicians are beholden to the insurance lobby, that's why they passed Obamacare in the first place.

tk421;545977 wrote:I don't care what happens in Congress, I'm betting on the courts repealing at least the mandate that requires insurance. Of course the politicians are beholden to the insurance lobby, that's why they passed Obamacare in the first place.

Keep dreaming about repeal. What are you going to say when the Republicans break every promise they made in this election? By the way you might want to look a little closer at the worlds greatest health care system.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/08/AR2010110804894.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Bigdogg;545669 wrote:Every study I ever read about all came to the same conclusion that the best way to address the problem was to spread the risk over more people by requiring everyone to be covered and managing the risk.

This is an interesting point, as it depends on what the "problem" is. To reduce the overall costs of insurance, spreading the risk among everyone works best, but it does so by penalizing the young and healthy who are lower risks.

Personally, I think getting employers to drop coverage altogether and having everyone buy it directly would be a good move, as would be increasing deductibles and out-of-pocket costs. Health insurance should be a way of dealing with unexpected and catastrophic costs, not a way of funding your day-to-day visits to the doctor. Make people pay a greater share of their expenses, and I'm willing to bet we'd see more bargain shopping. We see this already with elective procedures (LASIK, plastic surgery, etc.).

Bigdogg;551440 wrote:Keep dreaming about repeal. What are you going to say when the Republicans break every promise they made in this election? By the way you might want to look a little closer at the worlds greatest health care system.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/08/AR2010110804894.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

It was an opinion piece. But, the proof in the pudding is the fact that the CIA statistical factcheck doesn't take many things into account or how their factored in, such as life expectancy, infant mortality, and so on. Those facts have also been proven, I wonder those other facts didn't make it into Cohen's opinion editorial?
This has been talked about numerous times on this site alone.
Weren't you paying any attention?

CenterBHSFan;551472 wrote:It was an opinion piece. But, the proof in the pudding is the fact that the CIA statistical factcheck doesn't take many things into account or how their factored in, such as life expectancy, infant mortality, and so on. Those facts have also been proven, I wonder those other facts didn't make it into Cohen's opinion editorial?
This has been talked about numerous times on this site alone.
Weren't you paying any attention?

Yep, been paying more attention then you evidently. I think a fair question would be is our health care system in the US the best in the world and how do you measure it? Your biting comments at the end are becoming tired and worn out. You want to add something intelligent to the conversation instead of being an condescending arrogant ass, I am all ears.

It's Boehner's humble OPINION that the so called Obama Care will wreck the best health care system in the world. There are lots of quantitative analysis that refute what he claims.


http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/market-insight-top.pag?docid=120510625

Bigdogg;551599 wrote:Yep, been paying more attention then you evidently. I think a fair question would be is our health care system in the US the best in the world and how do you measure it? Your biting comments at the end are becoming tired and worn out. You want to add something intelligent to the conversation instead of being an condescending arrogant ass, I am all ears.

It's Boehner's humble OPINION that the so called Obama Care will wreck the best health care system in the world. There are lots of quantitative analysis that refute what he claims.


http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/market-insight-top.pag?docid=120510625

I think the point of most opponents of Obamacare is not that our current health system is perfect. One of my biggest problems with it (besides the whole freedom vs. buy-insurance-or-pay-a-fine thingy) is it sets itself up as another unfunded mandate that will break the back of the U.S. economy. More and more of the federal budget (now $13 Gazillion or Trillion or whatever) is consumed by the welfare state and entitlements, the large majority of which are unfunded (unless you want to count "funded by Americans 100 years from now").

Bigdogg;551599 wrote:Yep, been paying more attention then you evidently. I think a fair question would be is our health care system in the US the best in the world and how do you measure it? Your biting comments at the end are becoming tired and worn out. You want to add something intelligent to the conversation instead of being an condescending arrogant ass, I am all ears.

So, you're wanting something (what I bolded) that you have yet to set an example of yourself?

You're not even willing to see both sides to a story, your article, but you're demanding it from me/others?

yeah, um, ok!

Zombaypirate;545264 wrote:This makes no sense at all. How are Socialist countries whipping our country? All the European countries are far more socialist than we are so how can a failed economic system like socialism ever whip our country?

Read the post again ..... no where does it say socialist/european countries are whipping us.

fan_from_texas;551468 wrote:Personally, I think getting employers to drop coverage altogether and having everyone buy it directly would be a good move, as would be increasing deductibles and out-of-pocket costs. Health insurance should be a way of dealing with unexpected and catastrophic costs, not a way of funding your day-to-day visits to the doctor. Make people pay a greater share of their expenses, and I'm willing to bet we'd see more bargain shopping. We see this already with elective procedures (LASIK, plastic surgery, etc.).

Bingo

Bigdogg;551599 wrote:It's Boehner's humble OPINION that the so called Obama Care will wreck the best health care system in the world. There are lots of quantitative analysis that refute what he claims.

Would that "quantitative analysis" include the failed systems and lousy health care in, say UK and Canada?

fan_from_texas;551468 wrote:... as would be increasing deductibles and out-of-pocket costs. Health insurance should be a way of dealing with unexpected and catastrophic costs, not a way of funding your day-to-day visits to the doctor. Make people pay a greater share of their expenses, and I'm willing to bet we'd see more bargain shopping. We see this already with elective procedures (LASIK, plastic surgery, etc.).

I think these are all good points. But, as you suggest, a person who buys health insurance might expect it to cover "unexpected costs." Now, perhaps an annual physical examination might be an expected cost like say bi-annual dentist appointments. But, suppose I'm a young and healthy person and I get what appears to be strep throat. If I'm paying out of pocket we would see more competition between doctors and therefore lower prices. But, on the other hand, I think that a person could reasonably believe that, if they're going to insure themselves against unexpected illnesses, including perhaps things like strep, etc. that they ought to be able to have it covered by insurance.

Also, I think the question of "how much bargain shopping" in the context of health care is good? If a person cannot afford LASIK, even at its lowest available price, she will still, in most cases, continue to live a reasonably happy life. But, suppose a person who is, say, a waitress, purchases catastrophic health insurance and pays a lower premium for that but nonetheless, must in addition, pay for her doctor visit when she has the flu or strep (she doesn't know what it is because she's not a doctor but she genuinely is sick), and also for the medication she is prescribed to get over it.

She has done the responsible thing and gotten catastrophic health insurance, which she is unlikely to use, but that money she might have put towards the doctor visit and her prescription, for an illness that, at least most doctors would say (I think), warrants a doctor's visit. Instead of going to the doctor because she would bear those costs, she goes to work sick and not at her best, risks getting other people sick and perhaps contributes to inefficiency at her place of employment.

I'm not arguing with your general points as I think they are good...but I do think situations such as the one I've suggested at least warrant some consideration in the debate. What are we to consider an "unexpected" illness? Perhaps getting the flu once a year is a reasonable expectation, etc.

In the cases of unanticipated minor illnesses like the flu or strep and the patient does not have the money up front, they can set up payment plans with the doctor. Hospitals, doctors, and pharmacies are very accomadating. They will let you stretch out small payments over time. Also catastrophic insurance premiums will be less expensive, thus in the long run leaving more money in the patients pocket. The wise thing to do would be to set aside the savings in premiums for when these things occur.