Military Pricing comes to Healthcare

[FluffyMcDeath]

It used to be a joke: the $600 hammers, the $2000 toilet seats. The military contractors would gouge and the tax payer would write the checks.

Healthcare gouges like that too but if you are lucky you won't be sick and uninsured because the bill can be horrific.

(Of course, insurance doesn't really help. Insurers hate paying out and will do anything to avoid covering really expensive procedures.)

 

[Glaucus]

Part of the problem is that every piece of hospital equipment has to factor in the cost of a possible malpractice litigation. If the machine malfunctioned and someone dies the manufacturer gets nailed with a lawsuit. The quick remedy is to simply jack up the price to cover those losses. It basically boils down to: Blame the lawyers.

 

[redrumloa]

Umm, from your link.

Our system is completely and totally broken, and Obamacare is going to make things far worse.

Gee, what Whyzzat member told you this years ago?

One correction though, things are ALREADY far worse. I told you lefties years ago that Obamacare had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with helping people get healthcare and EVERYTHING to do with being a powergrab aimed at destroying the middle class. We are well on the way there. I only have to look at my own situation and the working class people I call friends. I've always paid for the best healthcare plan my company offers. It was a fairly good PPO 80/20 plan with reasonable co-pays, deductable and a somewhat livable annual max out of pocket. Thanks to changes already implemented for Obamacare, my plan has essentially become a catastrophic health insurance. Health care costs are killing me and may end up bankrupting me in the end. My friends are seeing the same thing.

Obama's Hope and Change. What a {bleep} bastard People still worship this false idol?!?!?

 

[faethor]

Part of the problem is that every piece of hospital equipment has to factor in the cost of a possible malpractice litigation.

Sure that's definitely part of the cost. A minor part of the cost. Why would I say that? Because around 2.4% of healthcare spending is for malpractice If you're worried about spending that doesn't return a benefit a far better choice will be to cut out the 30% middleman that moves money about. The healthcare insurance industry doesn't return benefits to either patients nor doctors.

 

[faethor]

One correction though, things are ALREADY far worse. I told you lefties years ago that Obamacare had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with helping people get healthcare and EVERYTHING to do with being a powergrab aimed at destroying the middle class. We are well on the way there. I only have to look at my own situation and the working class people I call friends. I've always paid for the best healthcare plan my company offers. It was a fairly good PPO 80/20 plan with reasonable co-pays, deductable and a somewhat livable annual max out of pocket. Thanks to changes already implemented for Obamacare, my plan has essentially become a catastrophic health insurance. Health care costs are killing me and may end up bankrupting me in the end. My friends are seeing the same thing.

I have the opposite story. My employer's insurance was 15% down in 2012 compared to 2011. It will be about 12% down in 2013 compared to the height in 2011. That increase was the smallest increase we've seen in over a decade for healthcare costs. The coveraged care increased and the families with 20 year olds see their kids still able to be on their insurance, if they so choose. OTOH Dental care, left mostly untouched, is increasing 15%.

The problem with Obamacare is it didn't go far enough. We should scrap the insurance industry that takes about 30% of the healthcare spending and returns no benefits to the clients or providers.

Only in the USA is a party that's anti-healthcare, anti-education spending, anti-childcare spending, anti-equal rights, anti-equal pay, anti-worker, pro-death penality and pro-environmental pollutions labeled "pro-life".

 

[cecilia]

Only in the USA is a party that's anti-healthcare, anti-education spending, anti-childcare spending, anti-equal rights, anti-equal pay, anti-worker, pro-death penality and pro-environmental pollutions labeled "pro-life".

I'm going to steal this

 

[Glaucus]

I'm going to steal this

Ya, that is a keeper. Sums it up rather nicely. He probably could have added pro-military as well.

 

[redrumloa]

I have the opposite story. My employer's insurance was 15% down in 2012 compared to 2011. It will be about 12% down in 2013 compared to the height in 2011. That increase was the smallest increase we've seen in over a decade for healthcare costs. The coveraged care increased and the families with 20 year olds see their kids still able to be on their insurance, if they so choose. OTOH Dental care, left mostly untouched, is increasing 15%.

Are you the 1%? Must be, because even my local lefty friends are getting killed in health care costs.

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

I'm going to steal this

Mold is life as well.

 

[faethor]

Are you the 1%? Must be, because even my local lefty friends are getting killed in health care costs.

Doesn't matter what I earn as every fulltime employee can choose the same benefits. We have about 8 different plans to pick from and that # was the per-plan average savings if everyone picked the same thing. Actually I did a bit better as my wife's new job has even less expensive Healthcare than I do. Our insurer for 2013 told us the US average increase in 2012 was just under 7% which is the least amount since 1997. The average increase since 1997 is nearly 10%. They are expecting increases in 2013, across the USA, to be about the same if not just slightly less to the 2012 figure. Really we haven't seen Obamacare kick in. We've seen healthcare companies raising prices early in fear of what may be.

Perhaps some of the plus in Minnesota is we're a not-for-profit Health Insurance State. Meaning the companies have to run things a bit tighter else risk into falling into a for profit category which would be financially negatively impacting on them overall. They can, and do, still make a profit, of course. Just not as much. And there are ways to get around the 'not for profit' for example United Healthcare is here and they made 21% profit last quarter.

But, yeah I'll agree with you that Obamacare didn't tighten things up enough to prevent the client raking the industry is used to doing for the last couple of decades. Which is why we're still seeing 20% per quarter profits in the healthcare insurer industry.

There's really two options - tighten the free market more, and the other get rid of insurance companies. I perfer the later

 

[cecilia]

Mold is life as well.

NO MORE MOLD!!!!

I'm sick of mold!

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Gee, what Whyzzat member told you this years ago?

I read that too, and it's completely insane. The idea that people pay high costs to cover the low costs that Medicare pays is not true. People pay high costs because the health industry has them over a barrel. The government can just get much better deals than you can. And the idea that expanding Medicare will mean that the prices paid by those outside Medicare will go up to cover the difference is similarly wrong. The reason the prices are so high outside Medicare is that the hospitals can charge whatever they want and the little guy can't do a thing about it.

What Obama should have done is put EVERYONE on Medicare. Then everyone is covered, employers don't have to pay for health care. Hospital bills would be a fraction of what they are now which means that overall healthcare costs per capita would be cut in half. That's how the maths work. You seem to like paying more - (and if the insurers are screwing you for more that is because they feel like it and they can - it really doesn't have anything to do with Obamacare because their profits are so high they can eat the costs. However, they can also jack up the cost to make Obama look bad. It's like the only gas station in town which can jack up the price and blame it on the middle east -whether or not it's true.

Health care costs are killing me and may end up bankrupting me in the end.

They'd do that anyway because if you really needed expensive interventions your insurer has a good chance of finding a way to get out of paying. They hire teams of people to look for any loophole rather than pay out.

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

I read that too, and it's completely insane. The idea that people pay high costs to cover the low costs that Medicare pays is not true. People pay high costs because the health industry has them over a barrel. The government can just get much better deals than you can. And the idea that expanding Medicare will mean that the prices paid by those outside Medicare will go up to cover the difference is similarly wrong. The reason the prices are so high outside Medicare is that the hospitals can charge whatever they want and the little guy can't do a thing about it.

What Obama should have done is put EVERYONE on Medicare. Then everyone is covered, employers don't have to pay for health care. Hospital bills would be a fraction of what they are now which means that overall healthcare costs per capita would be cut in half. That's how the maths work. You seem to like paying more - (and if the insurers are screwing you for more that is because they feel like it and they can - it really doesn't have anything to do with Obamacare because their profits are so high they can eat the costs. However, they can also jack up the cost to make Obama look bad. It's like the only gas station in town which can jack up the price and blame it on the middle east -whether or not it's true.


They'd do that anyway because if you really needed expensive interventions your insurer has a good chance of finding a way to get out of paying. They hire teams of people to look for any loophole rather than pay out.

Indeed, profit maximization straight out of your and mine pocket. I can think of better things to do with my money thankyouverymuch.

 

[Speelgoedmannetje]

NO MORE MOLD!!!!

I'm sick of mold!

In Sweden the mold was lovely, that is, in the form of chanterelles. *sigh*
(speel's just back from Sweden)

 

[cecilia]

In Sweden the mold was lovely, that is, in the form of chanterelles. *sigh*
(speel's just back from Sweden)

yeah, well, that kind is great but my mother's mold was the kind that went up her nose and aggravated her sinuses.


Not FUN!!

 

[cecilia]

and to get back on topic, the republican party is like mold: it makes people sick and clogs up their nose so they have difficulty breathing the Free Air

 

[redrumloa]

and to get back on topic, the republican party is like mold: it makes people sick and clogs up their nose so they have difficulty breathing the Free Air

Obama passed NDAA.

 

[faethor]

Obama passed NDAA.

So why are you against economic sanctions on Iran? Why do you think military assessments of China, Iran and Russia are bad ideas? Afterall 2 and perhaps all 3 are nuclear powers. Perhaps you thought our military doesn't need pay raises? Soon aftewards the courts banned the use of indefinite detention on US Citizens. I'd agree a very bad idea. Though I think my sig says it all - I'd love a 3rd party but would be happy if we even had a 2nd one.

 

[redrumloa]

Though I think my sig says it all - I'd love a 3rd party but would be happy if we even had a 2nd one.

I still haven't made the jump officially, but my heart is now with the Libertarians.

 

[the_leander]

Looked at Libertarianism, on the face of it it's quite appealing, but when applied practically to my mind it would appear to offer those who aren't well off a pretty raw deal.

I don't think any one philosophy gets it right though, I think for instance that things like core infrastructure (roads, rail, water, electricity) should be in the hands of government, at the same time though, I think private companies might be better for handling what runs on it, so for instance the government would operate and maintain the track, but itt'd be private enterprise that operated trains, telecoms - government laying the fibre and maintaining the backbone, with phone companies effectively handling billing and last mile issues. At least in that last example, it wouldn't be all that different to how things are now.

I think that not only does the government have a duty to protect it's population (IE armed forces, emergency services) but a duty of care - I believe that whilst people should have the option to choose who provides their healthcare, the government should offer a comprehensive system. Maybe extending Medicare across the board.

I think that as well as a clear separation between church and state, that there should be a clear separation between state and business. Corporate personhood needs to go.

I think the tax system desperately needs to be simplified, so as to stop all the tax dodges that are available at present.

I also think there needs to be an end to private schools being eligible for public funding at the expense of public schools. On education, I think that having a full time independent body responsible for what goes into the curriculum is a must. Perhaps made up of experts in the various subjects. There is simply too much temptation (and I consider this true in both our countries) for politicians to meddle for cheap points at the expense of the students.

Yes, the above is going to up your tax bill, but it will also improve quality of life. I guess it's a tradeoff, like everything else.

I dunno about you, but having the worry in the back of my mind of "will my insurance pay out on this" is not something I'd want on top of everything else.