• filter:

Another insurance co. likely to pull out in 2018 hope you are not in Colorado, Kentucky, Missouri and Ohio

  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
Voting History
rated:

Moderator Comment: This thread had been placed under moderation to keep thread on topic. — Apr. 2, 2017 @ 11:02am
Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
Billion. Not million.

Employer health insurance in CA runs around 100 billion

jerosen (Aug. 07, 2017 @ 9:57a) |

That's one mans proposal. What matters is, however it's financed, the NET cost to everyone would be way, way, less.

HBaxx (Aug. 07, 2017 @ 1:26p) |

Yep.

I was too lazy to go back and cut & paste.

Thanks.

HBaxx (Aug. 07, 2017 @ 1:29p) |

Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

rated:
They are losing money, people who had no insurance for decades now have it due to aca, and they have many health problems.
Opioid crisis in USA, 3weeks rehab are billed at $30K (not sure how much is actually paid) with only a 20% success rate, so going in 5 times could cost insurance company $100K.
It will take a major effort from all different angles to reduce that so many people in USA are sick, from eating right to stop being on drugs.
​Before ACA health insurance company could cherry-pick people out of a Corporate America pool, now they get Joe blow and Wally world shoppers.
.

rated:
Hopefully, Congress will try to work on a bipartisan way forward, to stabilize the market. Much could be done: For example, strengthening the mandate, but giving people a once-in-a-lifetime choice to opt out and then be subject to medical underwriting like the pre-ACA days.
However, I'm not optimistic. My guess is that nothing would make the GOP happier than to see the markets collapse. They'll blame the Dems, and then leave it as-is to draw maximum political capital. The AHCA clearly showed that most of them really don't care if most of the people lose insurance. They have other priorities.

rated:
News media says folks are happy with their $6000/year deductible health insurance policies. I'm not happy with the increases that have occurred to my non-AHCA policy. I thought I heard a promise that premiums would go down?

rated:
The danger is that people are getting reactive care at 10x the cost when it could have been a lot cheaper to deal with if addressed proactively.  People know they can get medical help for nothing if they have nothing to lose using and abusing programs if they need to.  It would be best to make health visits compulsory to get a tax refund, paycheck, foodstamps or whatever.  If you show no care for your health then you opt out of any coverage and a hospital can refuse service.  Too many 600lb lives and people willing to risk it all with the taxpayers money. 

rated:
Ohio still got at least 4 in every county and my county (Hamilton) got 9. And also why anthem still selling TODAY

rated:
Insurance companies make profits NOT by paying claims
but by DENYING claims...they did fine under BushCare...denying cancer costs etc...now they actually
have to pay claims of policy holders and they dont like it...

rated:
Premiums went up for eight of eight years of Bush term.

rated:
JewJec said:   Ohio still got at least 4 in every county and my county (Hamilton) got 9. And also why anthem still selling TODAY
  I am sorry that the article is wrong ... But that is good for Ohio.

rated:
wolfgangdieter said:   News media says folks are happy with their $6000/year deductible health insurance policies. I'm not happy with the increases that have occurred to my non-AHCA policy. I thought I heard a promise that premiums would go down?
  I assume you get subsidies? You would have lost those under the AHCA.
If you're older, your premiums would have almost doubled if you were unsubsidized (since they want to change the premium ratio from 3:1 to 5:1 for older people).
For subsidized (poor) elderly, premiums would have jumped by almost a factor of 10!
THEN you would have a real reason to complain about premium increases. Particularly if you're poor & elderly.

Instead of constantly whining the same tired, old complaints, how about coming up with a constructive solution? And no, throwing everyone off health insurance is not a solution.

rated:
canoeguy1 said:   
wolfgangdieter said:   News media says folks are happy with their $6000/year deductible health insurance policies. I'm not happy with the increases that have occurred to my non-AHCA policy. I thought I heard a promise that premiums would go down?
  I assume you get subsidies? You would have lost those under the AHCA.

Everybody who got subsidies under the ACA would get subsidies under the AHCA. Not only that, the AHCA would give subsidies to people who failed to qualify for subsidies under the ACA.

Please stop spreading fake news.

 

rated:
There is always going to be someone disenfranchised (we can't fix everything).
I am not saying we should not try!
But I am privy to a situation were I know someone that is getting subsidized ACA and that person was not feeling well (for sometime) so a relative took that person to the emergency room... An the results was to increase some of the heart related medicine and set an appointment with the heart specialist. He made the appointment but didn't go? Some are just helpless?

rated:
JepJepJep said:   
canoeguy1 said:   
wolfgangdieter said:   News media says folks are happy with their $6000/year deductible health insurance policies. I'm not happy with the increases that have occurred to my non-AHCA policy. I thought I heard a promise that premiums would go down?
  I assume you get subsidies? You would have lost those under the AHCA.

Everybody who got subsidies under the ACA would get subsidies under the AHCA. Not only that, the AHCA would give subsidies to people who failed to qualify for subsidies under the ACA.

Please stop spreading fake news.

 

  Huh???
AHCA Subsidies would have been capped at $2000 for younger people, and $4000 for older people. That's a joke, when insurance policies cost $12-$15K.

Current subsidies for the poor are at least 4x higher. CBO estimates show a poor  ($23K income)  64 year old would have gone from paying $1700/year to $14700 per year. The payments on a Lamborghini would be less. Nobody making less than $100K/year could afford this. Imagine the premiums for an older, poor couple making $23K? Premiums of $30k/year is far higher than their gross income You think that makes sense?

There's a reason even many moderate Republicans refused to go along with this. It would have forced almost every poor person off insurance.

So, do you simply not know this, or were you deliberately trying to deceive people with your hairsplitting?

rated:
Let's try to keep the subject off politics as much as possible. While it's okay to speculate what impact future legislation could have on the issue, please refrain insulting and belittling one another.

rated:
SummerSoFar said:   
JepJepJep said:   
canoeguy1 said:   
wolfgangdieter said:   News media says folks are happy with their $6000/year deductible health insurance policies. I'm not happy with the increases that have occurred to my non-AHCA policy. I thought I heard a promise that premiums would go down?
  I assume you get subsidies? You would have lost those under the AHCA.

Everybody who got subsidies under the ACA would get subsidies under the AHCA. Not only that, the AHCA would give subsidies to people who failed to qualify for subsidies under the ACA.

Please stop spreading fake news.

 

  
We know you are ultra conservative Jep, but please do not counter fake news with more fake news.

  I am not an ultra conservative.  I am a lifelong Democrat who voted for a republican for the first time in my life in November because of Obamacare.

Please tell me what is fake about the statement I made:  Everybody who got subsidies under the ACA would get subsidies under the AHCA. Not only that, the AHCA would give subsidies to people who failed to qualify for subsidies under the ACA.

rated:
canoeguy1 said:   
JepJepJep said:   
SummerSoFar said:   
JepJepJep said:   
canoeguy1 said:   
wolfgangdieter said:   News media says folks are happy with their $6000/year deductible health insurance policies. I'm not happy with the increases that have occurred to my non-AHCA policy. I thought I heard a promise that premiums would go down?
  I assume you get subsidies? You would have lost those under the AHCA.

Everybody who got subsidies under the ACA would get subsidies under the AHCA. Not only that, the AHCA would give subsidies to people who failed to qualify for subsidies under the ACA.

Please stop spreading fake news.

 

  
We know you are ultra conservative Jep, but please do not counter fake news with more fake news.

  I am not an ultra conservative.  I am a lifelong Democrat who voted for a republican for the first time in my life in November because of Obamacare.

Please tell me what is fake about the statement I made:  Everybody who got subsidies under the ACA would get subsidies under the AHCA. Not only that, the AHCA would give subsidies to people who failed to qualify for subsidies under the ACA.


 

  As discussed in many threads, I got this way because I was price out of the health care marketplace bacause of the ACA and I do not currently have insurance for my family.  And I want insurance.

 

rated:
canoeguy1 said:   
wolfgangdieter said:   News media says folks are happy with their $6000/year deductible health insurance policies. I'm not happy with the increases that have occurred to my non-AHCA policy. I thought I heard a promise that premiums would go down?
 how about coming up with a constructive solution
 

  
Future legislation could, every year, lower the eligibility age for Medicare by 5 years. This would help the citizens hurting most first, while removing the highest risks from the insurance pool making costs go down for everyone else. Over time we'd eventually end up with universal healthcare, join the rest of the developed word, and free American businesses from the burden of buying insurance (?!) for their employees. Ford don't build cars in Canada because Canadians are better with a wrench, it's because Ford's costs are lower. Let us compete on a level playing field!

BTW, I already fervently hope that in 2018 I am not in Kentucky, Missouri or Ohio

rated:
ganda said:   
canoeguy1 said:   
wolfgangdieter said:   News media says folks are happy with their $6000/year deductible health insurance policies. I'm not happy with the increases that have occurred to my non-AHCA policy. I thought I heard a promise that premiums would go down?
 how about coming up with a constructive solution

  
Future legislation could, every year, lower the eligibility age for Medicare by 5 years. This would help the citizens hurting most first, while removing the highest risks from the insurance pool making costs go down for everyone else. Over time we'd eventually end up with universal healthcare, join the rest of the developed word, and free American businesses from the burden of buying insurance (?!) for their employees. Ford don't build cars in Canada because Canadians are better with a wrench, it's because Ford's costs are lower. Let us compete on a level playing field!

BTW, I already fervently hope that in 2018 I am not in Kentucky, Missouri or Ohio

  The only problem is the cost. Who would pay? If the government does all the paying, then taxes have to go up. Substantially. Medicare is much more comprehensive than Medicaid (and much more expensive), so essentially you're upgrading the insurance for poor people.
Vermont tried a version of this and backed out because of the cost.

I don't think that Medicare for all is the answer, without substantial changes to the pricing side. The nation simply can't afford it. There has to be some sort of rationing.
The US rations by ability to pay, other nations like Canada ration by need (you have to go through an HMO-like primary-care doctor "gatekeeper" to see specialists, and you wait for a long time if you don't really need the care, but you get it relatively quickly in an emergency).
If we give everyone the healthcare they want, we''ll easily double our tax rates. It's not sustainable.

rated:
tonysavealot said:   They are losing money, people who had no insurance for decades now have it due to aca, and they have many health problems.
Opiate crisis in USA, 3weeks rehab are billed at $30K (not sure how much is actually paid) with only a 20% success rate, so going in 5 times could cost insurance company $100K.
It will take a major effort from all different angles to reduce that so many people in USA are sick, from eating right to stop being on drugs.
​Before ACA health insurance company could cherry-pick people out of a Corporate America pool, now they get Joe blow and Wally world shoppers.
.

  
Is it a mandate to cover opiate / drug rehab after ACA was implemented? Interesting to say the least.

rated:
A dentist I called wanted $1200.00 for a half hr of deep cleaning my teeth....and thats just to start things out.

I think I see the real problem with healthcare here.

rated:
justignoredem said:   
tonysavealot said:   They are losing money, people who had no insurance for decades now have it due to aca, and they have many health problems.
Opiate crisis in USA, 3weeks rehab are billed at $30K (not sure how much is actually paid) with only a 20% success rate, so going in 5 times could cost insurance company $100K.
It will take a major effort from all different angles to reduce that so many people in USA are sick, from eating right to stop being on drugs.
​Before ACA health insurance company could cherry-pick people out of a Corporate America pool, now they get Joe blow and Wally world shoppers.
.

  
Is it a mandate to cover opiate / drug rehab after ACA was implemented? Interesting to say the least.

  One of the Essential Benefits.
  It's actually a significant reason why some moderate Republicans objected to the modified AHCA (which stripped out the Essential Benefits). The opiod epidemic is rapidly getting worse, and removing this benefit from poor communities would see it go out of control. 
Interestingly, these communities are most often found in Republican areas (poor whites in Appalachia, for example), which is why Republicans fought to keep this benefit.
I guess you could say it's peoples' own fault that they got addicted, so why should others pay to help them? Which is true (just like diabetes from obesity). However, letting a drug problem go out of control is in nobody's best interest. You'll pay with more cops, home invasions, jails etc.

rated:
canoeguy1 said:   
justignoredem said:   
tonysavealot said:   They are losing money, people who had no insurance for decades now have it due to aca, and they have many health problems.
Opiate crisis in USA, 3weeks rehab are billed at $30K (not sure how much is actually paid) with only a 20% success rate, so going in 5 times could cost insurance company $100K.
It will take a major effort from all different angles to reduce that so many people in USA are sick, from eating right to stop being on drugs.
​Before ACA health insurance company could cherry-pick people out of a Corporate America pool, now they get Joe blow and Wally world shoppers.
.

  
Is it a mandate to cover opiate / drug rehab after ACA was implemented? Interesting to say the least.

  One of the Essential Benefits.
  It's actually a significant reason why some moderate Republicans objected to the modified AHCA (which stripped out the Essential Benefits). The opiod epidemic is rapidly getting worse, and removing this benefit from poor communities would see it go out of control. 
Interestingly, these communities are most often found in Republican areas (poor whites in Appalachia, for example), which is why Republicans fought to keep this benefit.
I guess you could say it's peoples' own fault that they got addicted, so why should others pay to help them? Which is true (just like diabetes from obesity). However, letting a drug problem go out of control is in nobody's best interest. You'll pay with more cops, home invasions, jails etc.

  
Media was making it out to be that the AHCA wasn't conservative enough and that it was "Obamacare Light". Indicating that if they stripped MORE away that it would have been more likely to pass.... 

Curious if it would have actually passed, or if moderates would have kept it in check. 

As someone that has an opiate addicted sister, I can definitely vouch that it is a serious issue. 

rated:
Wouldn't it just be cheaper to give them a supply of generic opiates rather than expensive inpatient rehab?

rated:
TravelerMSY said:   Wouldn't it just be cheaper to give them a supply of generic opiates rather than expensive inpatient rehab?
  Yes....except what would you do with all the drug addicts on the streets then? They don't work or contribute to society. They need housing, they get into fights and need cops, etc. etc.

 

rated:
True, but most of them are already here.

rated:
canoeguy1 said:   
TravelerMSY said:   Wouldn't it just be cheaper to give them a supply of generic opiates rather than expensive inpatient rehab?
  Yes....except what would you do with all the drug addicts on the streets then? They don't work or contribute to society. They need housing, they get into fights and need cops, etc. etc.

 

  Australia 

rated:
TravelerMSY said:   Wouldn't it just be cheaper to give them a supply of generic opiates rather than expensive inpatient rehab?
  
Well then wouldn't be much cheaper for the insurance companies to deny treatment to everybody for everything and just let everyone eventually expire.

Just think of the profits we could make the insurance companies .

rated:
TravelerMSY said:   True, but most of them are already here.
  No. It's like watching wind drive burning embers out of a campfire, and saying: why put them out? All the embers that will burn are already burning.
Then, you end up with a forest fire.
Treating drug addicts and vaccinating people against infectious disease has many things in common.
 

rated:
Above said: TravelerMSY said:
Wouldn't it just be cheaper to give them a supply of generic opiates rather than expensive inpatient rehab?


Well then wouldn't be much cheaper for the insurance companies to deny treatment to everybody for everything and just let everyone eventually expire.

Just think of the profits we could make the insurance companies .




That's not really the same thing. Opiates are a cure for opiate withdrawal, at least in the short term.

rated:
pietromoon said:   
canoeguy1 said:   
TravelerMSY said:   Wouldn't it just be cheaper to give them a supply of generic opiates rather than expensive inpatient rehab?
  Yes....except what would you do with all the drug addicts on the streets then? They don't work or contribute to society. They need housing, they get into fights and need cops, etc. etc.

 

  Australia 

 The only small problem is that Australia is full of Australians. And unlike two hundred years ago, they tend to object.

rated:
TravelerMSY said:   That's not really the same thing. Opiates are a cure for opiate withdrawal, at least in the short term.
  Yes. And alcohol is a cure for alcohol withdrawal. Doesn't do much for the underlying problem, though.

rated:
I brought it up in jest, but it's something to think about if we end up with a single-payer system, where everyone will be covered.

rated:
kingdoodler said:   A dentist I called wanted $1200.00 for a half hr of deep cleaning my teeth....and thats just to start things out.

I think I see the real problem with healthcare here.

  
The issue is you need a new dentist.  Mine charges $200 a quarter (or 800 total) for deep cleaning.  It also takes a LOT longer than 30 minutes.  (it is the hygienist and not the doctor doing it - he just applies the shots)  This was a few years ago, even if it is $1200 (not that bad, really) -- you are talking hours.  And a lot of xylocaine.

rated:
ganda said:   
canoeguy1 said:   
wolfgangdieter said:   News media says folks are happy with their $6000/year deductible health insurance policies. I'm not happy with the increases that have occurred to my non-AHCA policy. I thought I heard a promise that premiums would go down?
 how about coming up with a constructive solution

  
Future legislation could, every year, lower the eligibility age for Medicare by 5 years. This would help the citizens hurting most first, while removing the highest risks from the insurance pool making costs go down for everyone else. Over time we'd eventually end up with universal healthcare, join the rest of the developed word, and free American businesses from the burden of buying insurance (?!) for their employees. Ford don't build cars in Canada because Canadians are better with a wrench, it's because Ford's costs are lower. Let us compete on a level playing field!

BTW, I already fervently hope that in 2018 I am not in Kentucky, Missouri or Ohio

 You mean except for the increased Medicare taxes they'll be paying to enable this.

rated:
Expanded coverage via ACA/Obamacare is great if we can find $$ to pay for this new entitlement. It is currently projected to add $1 trillion to the National debt for 10 yrs of ACA.
This endless accumulation of national debt is not sustainable. Our for profit healthcare model & traditional fee for service payment, lucrative union contracts, malpractice threats & unhealthy lifestyle all guaranteed accelerated healthcare premium increase.
Our pay to play political system encourage a growing "army" of lobbyists to keep the status quo.
The above factors give us some idea of the challenge of fixing our broken healthcare system.

rated:
RedWolfe01 said:   
kingdoodler said:   A dentist I called wanted $1200.00 for a half hr of deep cleaning my teeth....and thats just to start things out.

I think I see the real problem with healthcare here.

  
The issue is you need a new dentist.  Mine charges $200 a quarter (or 800 total) for deep cleaning.  It also takes a LOT longer than 30 minutes.  (it is the hygienist and not the doctor doing it - he just applies the shots)  This was a few years ago, even if it is $1200 (not that bad, really) -- you are talking hours.  And a lot of xylocaine.

  I've had it done many times. It DOES NOT TAKE hours. With your aditude and giving these people what ever price they can make up things will just get worse. So a hygienist time is worth $1200.00 or more per hour? Other countries can deliver proper healthcare efficently because they take the insane profits out of it. The USA's system is inefficent  and probably corrupt.  

FOLLOW THE MONEY>>>>>>>>>>>>

rated:
ganda said:   
canoeguy1 said:   
wolfgangdieter said:   News media says folks are happy with their $6000/year deductible health insurance policies. I'm not happy with the increases that have occurred to my non-AHCA policy. I thought I heard a promise that premiums would go down?
 how about coming up with a constructive solution

  
Future legislation could, every year, lower the eligibility age for Medicare by 5 years. This would help the citizens hurting most first, while removing the highest risks from the insurance pool making costs go down for everyone else. Over time we'd eventually end up with universal healthcare, join the rest of the developed word, and free American businesses from the burden of buying insurance (?!) for their employees. Ford don't build cars in Canada because Canadians are better with a wrench, it's because Ford's costs are lower. Let us compete on a level playing field!

BTW, I already fervently hope that in 2018 I am not in Kentucky, Missouri or Ohio

  I would prefer that the Government raise the Medicare tax from 1.45% to 5.00% (or whatever) and give Medicare to all.  That way everybody is covered, no one can not pay (except unemployed) and everyone is taxed to their ability to pay.

The employer part would also increase to 5.00%.

I would be very happy with this. 

rated:
canoeguy1 said:   
ganda said:   
canoeguy1 said:   
wolfgangdieter said:   News media says folks are happy with their $6000/year deductible health insurance policies. I'm not happy with the increases that have occurred to my non-AHCA policy. I thought I heard a promise that premiums would go down?
 how about coming up with a constructive solution

  
Future legislation could, every year, lower the eligibility age for Medicare by 5 years. This would help the citizens hurting most first, while removing the highest risks from the insurance pool making costs go down for everyone else. Over time we'd eventually end up with universal healthcare, join the rest of the developed word, and free American businesses from the burden of buying insurance (?!) for their employees. Ford don't build cars in Canada because Canadians are better with a wrench, it's because Ford's costs are lower. Let us compete on a level playing field!

BTW, I already fervently hope that in 2018 I am not in Kentucky, Missouri or Ohio

  The only problem is the cost. Who would pay? If the government does all the paying, then taxes have to go up. Substantially. Medicare is much more comprehensive than Medicaid (and much more expensive), so essentially you're upgrading the insurance for poor people.
Vermont tried a version of this and backed out because of the cost.

I don't think that Medicare for all is the answer, without substantial changes to the pricing side. The nation simply can't afford it. There has to be some sort of rationing.
The US rations by ability to pay, other nations like Canada ration by need (you have to go through an HMO-like primary-care doctor "gatekeeper" to see specialists, and you wait for a long time if you don't really need the care, but you get it relatively quickly in an emergency).
If we give everyone the healthcare they want, we''ll easily double our tax rates. It's not sustainable.

  
As the citizens all get cover under Medicare they can speak with one voice to the healthcare industry about the out of control costs. We The People will no longer pay $100 for a Tylenol, etc. Access to care and the cost of care both need to be addressed.

One of the biggest challenges we face is changing the mindset that our sick and vulnerable citizens are profit centers. Other developed nations have managed that, they spend much less on health care, and in many cases live longer than us too. We pay too much and get poor results, what suckers. 

rated:
This post is a political troll from a doomsday prepping foil-hat wearer. No, really.

Those railing for/against ACA got suckered in and you're giving him exactly what he wants. Evidence:

1) Only two words in the post and one is spelled wrong. Also problems with capitalization and commas.
OP's other posts:
2) My aluminum hat is not helping because I have 2 Visio TVs
3) Emergency go phone $4.98 Target (appears it is just for emergency)
4) Delete your antivirus ??? Says ExFoxfire developer.
5) Bamboo shades clearance Home Depot - from $4 marked down from$20.xx YMMV B&M
6) Does anyone know the durability and quality of the Goodyear "classic" tires for $6
7) 5.5x20 inch boat fenders $5 at WalMart B&M YMMV
8) Barbie Career Pilot Doll- WalMart $2
9) [my] Rent checks late or disappears for 2.5 months. Alternatives please
10) Free I will pray for America bumper sticker and post card

The narrative of a reclusive paranoid troll who can't pay his rent on time emerges. His cheap shades are drawn, and so he's playing with his pilot Barbie and dreaming of grabbing his "go phone" and driving his cheap-tired car held together by clusters of "I will pray for America" stickers. He'll get lost because he couldn't search for directions on his virus-laden computer, but will eventually reach his tiny boat to escape the landlord kicking him out for being a deadbeat.

I hope anyone supporting the politically charged title of this thread pauses for a moment to ask themselves if this is the kind of person you really want to get behind, and whose ideas you really want to support. By the way, and importantly, all of these posts were created in the last 2 months or so, so we know fairly specifically what's going on in his mind right now.

This country has plenty of problems, but you're not fixing them on Fatwallet arguing with a shades-drawn, Barbie-loving troll. Whether you're supporting this theory or opposing it, talk to your Congresspeople instead. I have.

Skipping 223 Messages...
rated:
jerosen said:   
HBaxx said:   The adoption of Single Payer in Cali would save JUST the employers and employees statewide between $50 million and $100 million annually.

Billion. Not million.

Employer health insurance in CA runs around 100 billion

Yep.

I was too lazy to go back and cut & paste.

Thanks.
 

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017