IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family

[Big_Pete 0]

We need to just tear the damn band-aid off and either go all Germany with healthcare, or stick to American style healthcare. The epic fail here is that Obama and his cronies are trying to hybridize it. Well, that just doesn't work. You either have true nationalized healthcare, or you leave it completely alone.

 

I think what people who voted that moron into office a second time are forgetting is that your 1 time visit for a broken arm that cost you a few grand because you don't have insurance is a drop in the freaking bucket compared to higher taxes, imposed penalties for non-compliance, and forced adherence to new healthcare laws. Do they really think its a coincidence that in Europe where many countries have completely 100% healthcare coverage that their tax rate is over 70%? If these morons had 70% of their check taken away whether they had perfect health or broke their arm, they'd quickly find out that the way America has always operated is infinitely cheaper.

[penultimatestraw 473]

We need to just tear the damn band-aid off and either go all Germany with healthcare, or stick to American style healthcare. The epic fail here is that Obama and his cronies are trying to hybridize it. Well, that just doesn't work. You either have true nationalized healthcare, or you leave it completely alone.

 

I think what people who voted that moron into office a second time are forgetting is that your 1 time visit for a broken arm that cost you a few grand because you don't have insurance is a drop in the freaking bucket compared to higher taxes, imposed penalties for non-compliance, and forced adherence to new healthcare laws. Do they really think its a coincidence that in Europe where many countries have completely 100% healthcare coverage that their tax rate is over 70%? If these morons had 70% of their check taken away whether they had perfect health or broke their arm, they'd quickly find out that the way America has always operated is infinitely cheaper.

My link

It is reasonably well known that the United States spends more per capita on health care than other countries. What may be less well known is that the United States still has one of the highest growth rates in health care spending. Health care spending around the world is generally rising faster than overall economic growth, so almost all countries have seen health care spending increase as a percentage of their gross domestic product (GDP) over time. In the United States, which has both a high level of health spending per capita and a relatively high rate of real growth in spending, the share of GDP devoted to health care spending grew from 9% of GDP in 1980 to 16% of GDP in 2008. This 7 percentage-point increase in health spending as a share of GDP is one of the largest across the OECD.

...

Health Spending Per Capita:

Exhibit 1 shows per capita health expenditures for 2008 in U.S. dollars purchasing power parity. Health spending per capita in the United States is much higher than in other countries – at least $2,535 dollars, or 51%, higher than Norway, the next largest per capita spender. Furthermore, the United States spends nearly double the average $3,923 for the 15 countries.

[Chronic Husker 85]

This is a great thread and should be discussed until 2024, at least.

 

penultimate has the greatest understanding of health care as it has been and how it will be.

 

The fact that we're spending nearly double of every other first world country in the world is a major problem. Especially when you consider the worldly rates of sids and all the other measurables.

 

In the most recent presidential campaign, Romney beat to death the $750 billion in Medicare cuts. He always left out the fact that the $750 billion wasn't being taken out of patient care - IT WAS BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE PAYMENT FOR SAID PATIENT CARE. Seniors are smarter than your run of the mill fftoday poster and that's why they voted for Obama.

 

Even herpes mouth is right. The $20k is arbitrary and ridiculous. If anyone wants to bet the hard earned dollars their wife makes that we'll be paying $20k a year in health insurance in 2016, I'll put whatever amount you choose in paypal today to bet against that nonsense.

 

Otherwise, accept the 12 years of Obama and Hillary that is coming, stop with the BS scare tactics that don't work, and shut your collective ignorant mouf.

[drobeski 3,061]

This is a great thread and should be discussed until 2024, at least.

 

penultimate has the greatest understanding of health care as it has been and how it will be.

 

The fact that we're spending nearly double of every other first world country in the world is a major problem. Especially when you consider the worldly rates of sids and all the other measurables.

 

In the most recent presidential campaign, Romney beat to death the $750 billion in Medicare cuts. He always left out the fact that the $750 billion wasn't being taken out of patient care - IT WAS BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE PAYMENT FOR SAID PATIENT CARE. Seniors are smarter than your run of the mill fftoday poster and that's why they voted for Obama.

 

Even herpes mouth is right. The $20k is arbitrary and ridiculous. If anyone wants to bet the hard earned dollars their wife makes that we'll be paying $20k a year in health insurance in 2016, I'll put whatever amount you choose in paypal today to bet against that nonsense.

 

Otherwise, accept the 12 years of Obama and Hillary that is coming, stop with the BS scare tactics that don't work, and shut your collective ignorant mouf.

the scare tactics did work, its why the hack won office again. So tone down the irony, and shut your trap.

[Chronic Husker 85]

the scare tactics did work, its why the hack won office again. So tone down the irony, and shut your trap.

 

It's ok to dismiss the bet part of my post, drob. We know you have no expendable cash due to Obama.

 

[Phurfur 70]

 

Even herpes mouth is right. The $20k is arbitrary and ridiculous. If anyone wants to bet the hard earned dollars their wife makes that we'll be paying $20k a year in health insurance in 2016, I'll put whatever amount you choose in paypal today to bet against that nonsense.

 

 

How much do you think a family bronze insurance plan costs today? What does a bronze plan include? Why didn't they use $2000 OR $10,000 OR $30,000?

[Big_Pete 0]

The reason why the United States spends more per capita is because hospital services cost more here than in other places.

 

Did you ever investigate why I said "Go all Germany" when it comes to healthcare? It's because patient services are cheap as fock. Did you investigate why they are cheap as fock? It's because the country pays, yes, pays full ride to any and all med students. Because they do that, doctors, nurses, etc don't have half a million in debt right out of college. Because of that, they are paid a reasonable salary. Because of that, they keep costs down.

 

Another factor in America being so expensive is that an alarming amount of people skip out of paying hospitals. When I was in college, I can't even tell you how many liberals I met who had a few grand here, a few grand there in hospital bills that they are/were/will refuse to pay. They say that they will just declare bankruptcy to keep from paying them because they believe that those services should be a few hundred dollars, not several hundred or several thousand. It was their way of sticking it to the hospitals. Well, the hospitals have to make money somehow (or else there is no incentive for people to work in hospitals). So what does the hospital have to do? It has to raise premiums and prices across the board.

 

I'm willing to bet that if nobody in the history of America had ever skipped out of paying a hospital bill that premiums would be at a minimum of half of what they are today (thus rendering your retarded responses useless), if not cheaper. Why does a $10,000 heart surgery cost a quarter of a million? Because all the crapper busting fatties on welfare who eat McDonalds 4 times a day can't afford it. When you have 70,000 of those focktards stroking out and having surgery per year, the only way that it is worth the legally demanded time of the doctor to perform the surgery on them is if you take that $700 MILLION and average it out across the board, thus, raising everyone elses costs to astronomical levels.

 

Do us all a favor and *channeling his inner Mungwater*, Die in a pool of Aids before you open your ignorant mouth next time!

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

This is a great thread and should be discussed until 2024, at least.

 

penultimate has the greatest understanding of health care as it has been and how it will be.

 

The fact that we're spending nearly double of every other first world country in the world is a major problem. Especially when you consider the worldly rates of sids and all the other measurables.

 

In the most recent presidential campaign, Romney beat to death the $750 billion in Medicare cuts. He always left out the fact that the $750 billion wasn't being taken out of patient care - IT WAS BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE PAYMENT FOR SAID PATIENT CARE. Seniors are smarter than your run of the mill fftoday poster and that's why they voted for Obama.

 

Even herpes mouth is right. The $20k is arbitrary and ridiculous. If anyone wants to bet the hard earned dollars their wife makes that we'll be paying $20k a year in health insurance in 2016, I'll put whatever amount you choose in paypal today to bet against that nonsense.

 

Otherwise, accept the 12 years of Obama and Hillary that is coming, stop with the BS scare tactics that don't work, and shut your collective ignorant mouf.

 

Which part are you talking about the costs for? Total cost of insurance, including the employer portion or just the employee?

 

As I stated above, my health insurance for a family of 4 is over $26k a year.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

We get our coverage through the wife's company because it's a better deal, so I don't pay that much attention to what it would cost through mine. Got a letter with the weekly mail last week outlining it, so I decided to take a look.

 

Here is what it said:

 

There was a 12% premium increase last year. This year it is 16%...co picks up X of that.

 

Premiums for a Emp + Spouse + 3+ kids

 

Regular plan = $1570/month. Company contribues $3504. Total for the year = $22,344

 

High Dedectible = $1153/month. Company contributes $3504. Total for the year = $17,367

 

4 more years of 12-16% increases and that $20K looks like they are lowballing it to make it look better than what it actually will be.

 

Too many people here (Nikki), and around the country, have no clue what coverage actually costs.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

We get our coverage through the wife's company because it's a better deal, so I don't pay that much attention to what it would cost through mine. Got a letter with the weekly mail last week outlining it, so I decided to take a look.

 

Here is what it said:

 

There was a 12% premium increase last year. This year it is 16%...co picks up X of that.

 

Premiums for a Emp + Spouse + 3+ kids

 

Regular plan = $1570/month. Company contribues $3504. Total for the year = $22,344

 

High Dedectible = $1153/month. Company contributes $3504. Total for the year = $17,367

 

4 more years of 12-16% increases and that $20K looks like they are lowballing it to make it look better than what it actually will be.

 

Too many people here (Nikki), and around the country, have no clue what coverage actually costs.

 

Yet no one wants to look at the cost side of things. Hospitals have big lobbies, insurance carriers have big lobbies and lawyers have big lobbies. The free market with respect to Healthcare costs has failed miserably.

[Phurfur 70]

Yet no one wants to look at the cost side of things. Hospitals have big lobbies, insurance carriers have big lobbies and lawyers have big lobbies. The free market with respect to Healthcare costs has failed miserably.

 

Health Care has never been a free market, that is the problem!

[The Moz 69]

I read 2016 -- so hopefully the next GOP Prez can repeal the focking thing.

 

Americans might have voted for Obama -- but America did NOT want Obamacare

 

We would be better off with the plan Hillary had in 94 than this mess

[Phurfur 70]

I read 2016 -- so hopefully the next GOP Prez can repeal the focking thing.

 

Americans might have voted for Obama -- but America did NOT want Obamacare

 

We would be better off with the plan Hillary had in 94 than this mess

 

When America voted for Obama in 2012 they voted for Obamacare.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

The reason why the United States spends more per capita is because hospital services cost more here than in other places.

 

Did you ever investigate why I said "Go all Germany" when it comes to healthcare? It's because patient services are cheap as fock. Did you investigate why they are cheap as fock? It's because the country pays, yes, pays full ride to any and all med students. Because they do that, doctors, nurses, etc don't have half a million in debt right out of college. Because of that, they are paid a reasonable salary. Because of that, they keep costs down.

 

Another factor in America being so expensive is that an alarming amount of people skip out of paying hospitals. When I was in college, I can't even tell you how many liberals I met who had a few grand here, a few grand there in hospital bills that they are/were/will refuse to pay. They say that they will just declare bankruptcy to keep from paying them because they believe that those services should be a few hundred dollars, not several hundred or several thousand. It was their way of sticking it to the hospitals. Well, the hospitals have to make money somehow (or else there is no incentive for people to work in hospitals). So what does the hospital have to do? It has to raise premiums and prices across the board.

 

I'm willing to bet that if nobody in the history of America had ever skipped out of paying a hospital bill that premiums would be at a minimum of half of what they are today (thus rendering your retarded responses useless), if not cheaper. Why does a $10,000 heart surgery cost a quarter of a million? Because all the crapper busting fatties on welfare who eat McDonalds 4 times a day can't afford it. When you have 70,000 of those focktards stroking out and having surgery per year, the only way that it is worth the legally demanded time of the doctor to perform the surgery on them is if you take that $700 MILLION and average it out across the board, thus, raising everyone elses costs to astronomical levels.

 

Do us all a favor and *channeling his inner Mungwater*, Die in a pool of Aids before you open your ignorant mouth next time!

 

So what is your solution for people racking up hospital bills they can't afford to pay?

 

Obamacare tries to bring these people into the fold through the individual mandate.

 

The only other option I see, and I'm not being histrionic here, is to simply deny people any medical care they cannot afford. Having a heart attack but you don't have insurance or $20k in your pocket? Too bad, you die.

 

Is that a workable solution in your mind?

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Health Care has never been a free market, that is the problem!

 

Healthcare CAN'T be a free market, unless you are literally willing to watch people die in the streets because they can't afford care.

[cbfalcon 824]

Healthcare CAN'T be a free market, unless you are literally willing to watch people die in the streets because they can't afford care.

 

It just seems that the people arguing for a free market are thinking one of 2 things.

 

1. They blindly simply support the concept of total freedom/less government at any and all costs. Natural selection. "If he dies, he dies"

 

2. They selfishly just don't want to be personally affected, and they are willing to turn a blind eye to the realities out there. They choose to believe that since they have made their situation work, anyone else that can't simply isn't trying hard enough.

 

I believe both lines of thinking to be naive, but at least #1 is a real theory. At my worst, I suspect people touting themselves as #1 are truly #2. Keeping in mind, I don't necessarily like myself for believing others think this way.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

It just seems that the people arguing for a free market are thinking one of 2 things.

 

1. They blindly simply support the concept of total freedom/less government at any and all costs. Natural selection. "If he dies, he dies"

 

2. They selfishly just don't want to be personally affected, and they are willing to turn a blind eye to the realities out there. They choose to believe that since they have made their situation work, anyone else that can't simply isn't trying hard enough.

 

I believe both lines of thinking to be naive. At my worst, I suspect people touting themselves as #1 are truly #2. Keeping in mind, I don't necessarily like myself for believing others think this way.

 

I think they just don't understand what they are saying. They live in a fantasy world where healthcare could be a true free market system and yet somehow everyone would still have access to basic care regardless of their resources. It's a total fiction.

[The Moz 69]

People don't have insurance they wait at a free clinic. Get rid of the noone can be refused care at an ER whether they have ins or not if seriously wounded.

 

Would get the population down and Gangbanger and homeless eliminated.

 

yeah heartless -- but fock it I am likely headed to hell anyway

[cbfalcon 824]

I think they just don't understand what they are saying. They live in a fantasy world where healthcare could be a true free market system and yet somehow everyone would still have access to basic care regardless of their resources. It's a total fiction.

 

I guess.

 

In other businesses, the free market means a company creates a product and sets a price. Anyone that wants to buy it can. I'd be all for that type of free market system.

 

But with healthcare, a product is created and a price is set. Then certain people are told "You are not allowed to buy our product".

 

But one of the many reasons it doesn't work.

[Big_Pete 0]

So what is your solution for people racking up hospital bills they can't afford to pay?

 

Obamacare tries to bring these people into the fold through the individual mandate.

 

The only other option I see, and I'm not being histrionic here, is to simply deny people any medical care they cannot afford. Having a heart attack but you don't have insurance or $20k in your pocket? Too bad, you die.

 

Is that a workable solution in your mind?

My original post said "go all Germany" or leave it alone. Don't try to hybridize it. Tear the band-aid off and pick one or the other. If we go Germany and have 70% tax rate to cover all Americans from all illnesses and have 100% subsidized med students so that they only make $50-70k/year, then we'll all adjust after the momentary outrage.

 

If we leave it alone, we will all have to keep paying far less than 70% of our paychecks for healthcare. Either way, any administration needs to pick 1 distinct direction and stop trying to re-invent the wheel. I'd also have dedicated hospitals for all medicare/cade/welfare fockers under their own plan if we stay with the "American" system, that way we can all see our healthcare premiums go down (because we won't have to share those worthless fockers' heart surgery costs).

 

If you're a 23 year old high school dropout loser who breaks his arm on his skateboard and tries going to an ER that isn't a medicare/cade/welfare one, guess what? You either sign legalized documents to have your wages immediately garnished if payment isn't completed, or you get shipped to those 2nd rate hospitals and you can wait your turn behind the 400 pound fatty who stroked out on the bus from the local McDonalds.

[nikki2200 4]

My original post said "go all Germany" or leave it alone. Don't try to hybridize it. Tear the band-aid off and pick one or the other. If we go Germany and have 70% tax rate to cover all Americans from all illnesses and have 100% subsidized med students so that they only make $50-70k/year, then we'll all adjust after the momentary outrage.

 

If we leave it alone, we will all have to keep paying far less than 70% of our paychecks for healthcare. Either way, any administration needs to pick 1 distinct direction and stop trying to re-invent the wheel. I'd also have dedicated hospitals for all medicare/cade/welfare fockers under their own plan if we stay with the "American" system, that way we can all see our healthcare premiums go down (because we won't have to share those worthless fockers' heart surgery costs).

 

If you're a 23 year old high school dropout loser who breaks his arm on his skateboard and tries going to an ER that isn't a medicare/cade/welfare one, guess what? You either sign legalized documents to have your wages immediately garnished if payment isn't completed, or you get shipped to those 2nd rate hospitals and you can wait your turn behind the 400 pound fatty who stroked out on the bus from the local McDonalds.

 

First of all your numbers are way wrong. But I'll ignore that.

 

Second of all I can't remember what my point (and I originally came in here with a point) was but I'm sure it was something really smart. But you should re-focus on your numbers because they are a big pile of dog shiit.

[Big_Pete 0]

First of all your numbers are way wrong. But I'll ignore that.

 

Second of all I can't remember what my point (and I originally came in here with a point) was but I'm sure it was something really smart. But you should re-focus on your numbers because they are a big pile of dog shiit.

Care to correct them?

 

ETA: I was thinking of Sweden because it is so similar to Germany in their system, which has a 70% tax. Germany has a 45% tax.

[BudBro 117]

not to rebeat this horse, but from the linked communist news network article, it says this:

 

“Example 3. Family without minimum essential coverage.

 

"(i) In 2016, Taxpayers H and J are married and file a joint return. H and J have three children: K, age 21, L, age 15, and M, age 10. No member of the family has minimum essential coverage for any month in 2016. H and J’s household income is $120,000. H and J’s applicable filing threshold is $24,000. The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000.

 

"(ii) For each month in 2016, under paragraphs ((2)(ii) and ((2)(iii) of this section, the applicable dollar amount is $2,780 (($695 x 3 adults) + (($695/2) x 2 children)). Under paragraph ((2)(i) of this section, the flat dollar amount is $2,085 (the lesser of $2,780 and $2,085 ($695 x 3)). Under paragraph ((3) of this section, the excess income amount is $2,400 (($120,000 - $24,000) x 0.025). Therefore, under paragraph ((1) of this section, the monthly penalty amount is $200 (the greater of $173.75 ($2,085/12) or $200 ($2,400/12)).

 

"(iii) The sum of the monthly penalty amounts is $2,400 ($200 x 12). The sum of the monthly national average bronze plan premiums is $20,000 ($20,000/12 x 12). Therefore, under paragraph (a) of this section, the shared responsibility payment imposed on H and J for 2016 is $2,400 (the lesser of $2,400 or $20,000).”

 

so, what's with the fear porn from cnn and how does this differ from fox fear porn? am i reading that correctly or not? does it say the penalty would be $2400. not $20,000.

 

now, who in the hell would purchase insurance that costs $20,000 instead of pay the $2400 and go to the ER? why would a younger person, 25 to 40 years old, purchase insurance? or at the most, just purchase a catastrophic-type policy for $100 a month? is there any common sense built into any of this?

 

edit: the cnn article put all those emotes in there.

[Phurfur 70]

not to rebeat this horse, but from the linked communist news network article, it says this:

 

 

 

so, what's with the fear porn from cnn and how does this differ from fox fear porn? am i reading that correctly or not? does it say the penalty would be $2400. not $20,000.

 

now, who in the hell would purchase insurance that costs $20,000 instead of pay the $2400 and go to the ER? why would a younger person, 25 to 40 years old, purchase insurance? or at the most, just purchase a catastrophic-type policy for $100 a month? is there any common sense built into any of this?

 

edit: the cnn article put all those emotes in there.

 

This is only one thing wrong with this POS bill. If you want catastrophic insurance because you take care of yourself and you are healthy you will still be fined because ObamaCare states you have to have at least a "bronze" package. Look at the “bronze” package; it is overkill for many Americans and thus a huge waste of money.

 

America has spoken in the 2012 election and this is what they want. The land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE! What is wrong with the people of this country? There is a group of people that will make a ton of money off this, who do you think they are?

 

 

ETA: Wait until people find out that even with this great required insurance the insured will not be able to see a licensed physician like they could in the past. You had better get used to people with 2 or 4 year degrees probing your body.

[jerryskids 5,206]

I think they just don't understand what they are saying. They live in a fantasy world where healthcare could be a true free market system and yet somehow everyone would still have access to basic care regardless of their resources. It's a total fiction.

 

There is a difference between catastrophic care and everyday care. My real life example: a few weeks ago my podiatrist (checking my broken foot) noticed a mole on my shin. He thought it looked odd and that we should test it for cancer. Since I've had pre-cancerous moles before and I have greta insurance I said sure. Truth is that dermatologists had seen that mole for years and said it was nothing. But my insurance paid, what the heck?

 

I forget the exact cost of the test visit, but let's say it was $300. In a "free market" scenario somebody would say "hey, I can streamline a mole-check business and do it for half the price!" Now there is competition. My doc would bring his price down, perhaps not all of the way to the streamlined one, but low enough that I'd have to trade off the value of going to a new place vs. having my known doc do it.

 

Fast forward two weeks (two days ago), and I had my "followup visit." I hadn't received a call so I was a little nervous that they wanted to tell me bad news face to face. Nope, it's benign. That'll be $60 (I pay 10%). While I was relieved, I was pissed that $60 was going from me and the HC system for a completely unnecessary visit, not to mention the waste of 1/2 a day for me. But that is how our system works.

 

I don't know the exact answer, but I feel that we can address the above scenario without leaving someone bleeding with a ruptured artery to die at the hospital door.

[Phurfur 70]

There is a long list of people who do not have health insurance but will not face a penalty on non-financial grounds:

• between jobs and without insurance for up to three months

• have religious objections

• are an undocumented immigrant

• are in jail

• are a member of an Indian tribe

 

[IGotWorms 3,315]

There is a long list of people who do not have health insurance but will not face a penalty on non-financial grounds:

• between jobs and without insurance for up to three months

• have religious objections

• are an undocumented immigrant

• are in jail

• are a member of an Indian tribe

 

 

How the hell would you assess income tax penalties on an undocumented immigrant?

[Phurfur 70]

So what is your solution for people racking up hospital bills they can't afford to pay?

 

Obamacare tries to bring these people into the fold through the individual mandate.

 

The only other option I see, and I'm not being histrionic here, is to simply deny people any medical care they cannot afford. Having a heart attack but you don't have insurance or $20k in your pocket? Too bad, you die.

 

Is that a workable solution in your mind?

 

 

I thought you were a Social Libertarian? You sound just like a social socialist.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

I thought you were a Social Libertarian? You sound just like a social socialist.

 

Do you understand the difference between social and economic policy?

 

Senile old coot

[Phurfur 70]

Do you understand the difference between social and economic policy?

 

Senile old coot

 

Do you?

 

Like it or not ObamaCare is social reform and libertarians do not back it.

 

[Phurfur 70]

Yes. My position is that it was not a projection. If it was an actual projection and they made a mistake and released that, then they have a lot of work to do on the plan before it is rolled out, considering the median income in this country is somewhere around $30K.

 

The intention was supposed to be drive the cost of HC down. I don't think that will happen because Obamacare is a horrible solution. BUT it's a little early to start hyperventilating over this before we have all of the facts.

 

Unless there is some other announcement the government has made about how much the plans are going to cost besides plugging an number into an example of a word problem.

 

If you only make $30,000 a year your healthcare costs will be minimal or free. The problem lies in the fact that the minimum coverage is overkill for millions of Americans. That is why the minimum cost is projected at $20,000. If you look at what you get with a "bronze package" you will see why it is projected at $20.000.

 

Why can't an American citizen get catastrophic insurance and pay the other costs out of pocket?

[nikki2200 4]

There is a difference between catastrophic care and everyday care. My real life example: a few weeks ago my podiatrist (checking my broken foot) noticed a mole on my shin. He thought it looked odd and that we should test it for cancer. Since I've had pre-cancerous moles before and I have greta insurance I said sure. Truth is that dermatologists had seen that mole for years and said it was nothing. But my insurance paid, what the heck?

 

I forget the exact cost of the test visit, but let's say it was $300. In a "free market" scenario somebody would say "hey, I can streamline a mole-check business and do it for half the price!" Now there is competition. My doc would bring his price down, perhaps not all of the way to the streamlined one, but low enough that I'd have to trade off the value of going to a new place vs. having my known doc do it.

 

Fast forward two weeks (two days ago), and I had my "followup visit." I hadn't received a call so I was a little nervous that they wanted to tell me bad news face to face. Nope, it's benign. That'll be $60 (I pay 10%). While I was relieved, I was pissed that $60 was going from me and the HC system for a completely unnecessary visit, not to mention the waste of 1/2 a day for me. But that is how our system works.

 

I don't know the exact answer, but I feel that we can address the above scenario without leaving someone bleeding with a ruptured artery to die at the hospital door.

 

I basically have catastrophic care. I have a $5000 deductible so I pay every single doctor bill up to $5000 and then after that I'm 90% covered. My monthly premium is lower than what my employee contribution was at the last company I worked for for the pimped out HC plan. I like this one better and it is what "insurance" is supposed to be. Insuring yourself against an emergency (i.e. HC being greater than $5000/year. If everyone had insurance like this, like it used to be, prices would automatically go down because the doctors wouldn't have to fight with the insurance companies to get paid.

 

And yea... my plan is going to become illegal under Obamacare. I just hope they still offer these plans and they don't get rid of them. Because it would still probably be cheaper to pay the fine and get my catastrophic plan than get some souped up 'insurance' to insure me in case I get a cold.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

That's a fair question about catastrophic care. I believe the theory behind requiring greater coverage is that preventative care reduces occurrences of catastropic injury/illness, and as such reduces the overall aggregate cost of health care across the whole system. I do not whether research bears that out though, and its an interesting question.

[Phurfur 70]

That's a fair question about catastrophic care. I believe the theory behind requiring greater coverage is that preventative care reduces occurrences of catastropic injury/illness, and as such reduces the overall aggregate cost of health care across the whole system. I do not whether research bears that out though, and its an interesting question.

 

Just because you have catastrophic does not mean you don't go to the DR. In reality people that have catastrophic are more in tune with their bodies and live heaalthy life styles.

[Phurfur 70]

I basically have catastrophic care. I have a $5000 deductible so I pay every single doctor bill up to $5000 and then after that I'm 90% covered. My monthly premium is lower than what my employee contribution was at the last company I worked for for the pimped out HC plan. I like this one better and it is what "insurance" is supposed to be. Insuring yourself against an emergency (i.e. HC being greater than $5000/year. If everyone had insurance like this, like it used to be, prices would automatically go down because the doctors wouldn't have to fight with the insurance companies to get paid.

And yea... my plan is going to become illegal under Obamacare. I just hope they still offer these plans and they don't get rid of them. Because it would still probably be cheaper to pay the fine and get my catastrophic plan than get some souped up 'insurance' to insure me in case I get a cold.

 

The price would also go down because people would not go running to the DR. with every sniffle.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Just because you have catastrophic does not mean you don't go to the DR. In reality people that have catastrophic are more in tune with their bodies and live heaalthy life styles.

 

Are we just tossing out unfounded statements now?

 

I can do that too. Watch:

 

"In reality people that have catastrophic are less likely to see a doctor, so they end up with more serious illnesses and injuries that could have been prevented if they were detected earlier."

 

Which one seems more likely to you?

[Phurfur 70]

Are we just tossing out unfounded statements now?

 

I can do that too. Watch:

 

"In reality people that have catastrophic are less likely to see a doctor, so they end up with more serious illnesses and injuries that could have been prevented if they were detected earlier."

 

Which one seems more likely to you?

That is what you said in the post I replied to. The difference is that I have known dozens of people that went this route and my description fits them all. 100% They are all very health conscience. 100% of them.

 

Nikki since you are also included in this group what is your experience.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

That is what you said in the post I replied to. The difference is that I have known dozens of people that went this route and my description fits them all. 100% They are all very health conscience. 100% of them.

 

Nikki since you are also included in this group what is your experience.

 

Okay, let me just take Phurfur's word for it then :lol:

[cbfalcon 824]

The price would also go down because people would not go running to the DR. with every sniffle.

 

So your saying if Doctors had way less patients, they would charge less?

[Phurfur 70]

So your saying if Doctors had way less patients, they would charge less?

 

No we are all in a pool and people look at these visits to the DR as already being paid for. Unfortunately the more people go to the DR the more your rates will go up.

 

If there is $100 million in the insurance pot and the insured spend $150 million rates will go up next year. There are reports that say as many as 70% of Dr visits are unnecessary. Do the math.