My health insurance just got cancelled

1RTK1 said:
Let me clarify, I already have dental coverage for my employees.

This is an extra tax added through obammmcare to cover the required pediatric dental whether you have a pediatric or not........

My company pays this without any means of utilization. Goes back to what you said about purchasing the insurance that fits ones needs.
Click to expand...

Oh, misunderstood.

Makes no sense to force someone to buy pediatric dental regardless of need.
 
Here's the thing... people who bought the so-called "junk" policies but couldn't afford something like a broken arm because it didn't hit the high deductible were getting screwed. People who couldn't afford any plan were totally screwed.

For those of us who could afford to cover that broken arm though, the "junk" plans were the smartest choice financially. Many of us made that choice with eyes wide open and were happy with it. After all if I consume less than $300 in health care in an average year, why pay an extra $100/mo to cover part of that in a "what if" scenario? I just need something to kick in if one of us has some many hundreds of thousands of $ illness/injury befalls us. Having to pay the first $10k of my health care on the off chance something does happen isn't a big deal and not worth the higher coverage costs for us.

What the ACA did was force me to pay for all that extra crap I don't really need.... as well as all the rest of us in order to subsidize those who can't pay for those emergencies. The administration sold it as "cheaper health care for everyone" but really it's only cheaper for the poor, lower middle class, and people with expensive chronic conditions. For the rest of us... well someone has to pay for all that. Not to mention the cost for the health insurance companies to administrate all that :rolleyes2:

I guess one can argue the wisdom of this and the morality of it but this is what it is. Something needed to be done.... I think given the realities of how this is all playing out we may be on the road to single payer now. Single payer is certainly a more logical system on paper. Then again if it gets run like the VA hospitals or medicare maybe not :hairraise: I'm really not fond of rolling the dice on something like that and hoping the government gets it right.
 
weilke said:
Oh, misunderstood.

Makes no sense to force someone to buy pediatric dental regardless of need.
Click to expand...

What about the extra 2.8% or is it 3.8% tax on capital gains that goes to the new ACA healthcare plan. It's all a sham...
 
JoseCuervo said:
So, how is a pricing model efficient that only has been used 1 time in the last 5 years?


You don't see the problem with that system?
Click to expand...

How often I get paid full-fare price has nothing to do with whether the reimbursement model is efficient or not.

I would prefer a system where I got paid my top-line charge by all patients at the time of service and leave it to the patient to seek reimbursement from his insurer. This would allow the patient to price-shop and seek services at the price level they can afford.



As long as this is the system, I'll work with it. Of course, as is, from a purely financial perspective I rather had the waiting room full of kuweiti diplomats than the usual mix of government and private payors.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget tanning bed tax............

Amounts paid for tanning services are subject to a 10 percent excise tax under the Affordable Care Act
 
1RTK1 said:
Don't forget tanning bed tax............

Amounts paid for tanning services are subject to a 10 percent excise tax under the Affordable Care Act
Click to expand...

Now the tanning bed tax brings money into the healthcare market from the cosmetics and wellness side.

The real nuttiness is adding a tax to medical devices like pacemakers or hip implants. So you try to reduce the price of something by charging a 2.3% gross receipts tax on it. To boot, the federal government is one of the largest purchasers of those devices and becomes one of the major payors of the tax :loco: . Only in the federal government taking money from your left pocket to your right pocket is considered income.
Raising the price of devices hasn't dissuaded a single cardiologist from recommending implantation of a pacemaker or stent. All it has done is to jack up the price.
 
Just a way to squeeze more taxes out of the public without many even realizing it............ It also increases the costs of health insurance........Wait a minute, where is my $2500 dollars savings a year on average... LOL
 
weilke said:
Now the tanning bed tax brings money into the healthcare market from the cosmetics and wellness side.

The real nuttiness is adding a tax to medical devices like pacemakers or hip implants. So you try to reduce the price of something by charging a 2.3% gross receipts tax on it. To boot, the federal government is one of the largest purchasers of those devices and becomes one of the major payors of the tax :loco: . Only in the federal government taking money from your left pocket to your right pocket is considered income.
Raising the price of devices hasn't dissuaded a single cardiologist from recommending implantation of a pacemaker or stent. All it has done is to jack up the price.
Click to expand...

That tax was sold as a way to capitalize on the windfall that device manufacturers would see because of O'Care. More people with coverage means more people able to buy medical devices means more sales, so the manufacturers had to pay their fair share. That tax is on gross sales, not just profits.

I wonder why a $28B company like Medtronic moved its headquarters from Minnesota to Ireland?
 
Matthew said:
That tax was sold as a way to capitalize on the windfall that device manufacturers would see because of O'Care. More people with coverage means more people able to buy medical devices means more sales, so the manufacturers had to pay their fair share. That tax is on gross sales, not just profits.

I wonder why a $28B company like Medtronic moved its headquarters from Minnesota to Ireland?
Click to expand...

But their intent was good.:rolleyes2:
 
weilke said:
How often I get paid full-fare price has nothing to do with whether the reimbursement model is efficient or not.

I would prefer a system where I got paid my top-line charge by all patients at the time of service and leave it to the patient to seek reimbursement from his insurer. This would allow the patient to price-shop and seek services at the price level they can afford.



As long as this is the system, I'll work with it. Of course, as is, from a purely financial perspective I rather had the waiting room full of kuweiti diplomats than the usual mix of government and private payors.
Click to expand...


What other tasks do you waste time on that you only need to worry about every 5 years?


If you want all patients to pay your top line, why do you discount your services and agree to the lower amounts?
 
paflyer said:
Right, like forced maternity coverage for a 55 year-old couple ...
Click to expand...

Yea, kinda like a 22 year old woman being forced coverage for hypertension, , heart disease, arthritis, prostate/testicular cancer, enlarged prostate and erectile dysfunction. What are people thinking.
 
Last edited:
Matthew said:
They were thinking of the children.
Click to expand...

No, they weren't.

The ACA is the largest wealth redistribution scheme yet devised, to take money away from children and young adults, and pass it on to aging baby-boomers. By mandating that young, healthy, people buy insurance they don't want is a way to subsidize older people who would otherwise have to pay more.
 
JeffDG said:
No, they weren't.

The ACA is the largest wealth redistribution scheme yet devised, to take money away from children and young adults, and pass it on to aging baby-boomers. By mandating that young, healthy, people buy insurance they don't want is a way to subsidize older people who would otherwise have to pay more.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mesh with all the people whining about not being able to buy insurance because of pre-existing conditions.
 
JoseCuervo said:
why do you discount your services and agree to the lower amounts?
Click to expand...

I'll answer this in my case

I have a set number of employees, they can only do a certain amount of work in any given time.

When business increases past their ability to take care of their duties I start cutting the poorer plans.....
If there isn't enough business I might start to accept "some" of the less desirable plans...

In this day and age anyone with their weight in salt (in my area) has no need to take these ACA plans because most are to busy to take care of the people on good reimbursing plans.

It still is a business, not a charity...............
 
Bob Noel said:
That doesn't mesh with all the people whining about not being able to buy insurance because of pre-existing conditions.
Click to expand...

That too was kind of a misnomer. In my case I had no pre-existing exemption for conditions on my employees plan before ACA, it just cost more in the long run.............
Not sure if this holds true, cost wise, now or not..
 
1RTK1 said:
I'll answer this in my case

I have a set number of employees, they can only do a certain amount of work in any given time.

When business increases past their ability to take care of their duties I start cutting the poorer plans.....
If there isn't enough business I might start to accept "some" of the less desirable plans...

In this day and age anyone with their weight in salt (in my area) has no need to take these ACA plans because most are to busy to take care of the people on good reimbursing plans.

It still is a business, not a charity...............
Click to expand...

Kind of market forces of supply and demand. Just like we should all support.

Seems like the real solution is to increase the number of seats in medical schools and offer a supply of Drs that will drive down the costs that everyone seems to whine about.
 
Matthew said:
That tax was sold as a way to capitalize on the windfall that device manufacturers would see because of O'Care. More people with coverage means more people able to buy medical devices means more sales, so the manufacturers had to pay their fair share. That tax is on gross sales, not just profits.
Click to expand...

The people who came up with that idea banked on people being really really bad at math.

The people who devised a system to pay for the Minnesota medicaid expansion suffered from the same brain damage.

I wonder why a $28B company like Medtronic moved its headquarters from Minnesota to Ireland?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's probably just a run of the mill tax inversion not necessarily related to ACA. For the gross receipts tax, it makes no difference where they are headquartered.
 
JoseCuervo said:
What other tasks do you waste time on that you only need to worry about every 5 years?


If you want all patients to pay your top line, why do you discount your services and agree to the lower amounts?
Click to expand...

It's like talking to a blind man about the colors.
 
1RTK1 said:
What about the extra 2.8% or is it 3.8% tax on capital gains that goes to the new ACA healthcare plan. It's all a sham...
Click to expand...

Matthew said:
There is also the extra 2.3% tax on medical devices.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fight-over-affordable-care-act-turns-to-medical-device-tax-1436209691

You'll have to Google "Fight Over Affordable Care Act Turns to Medical-Device Tax" and then click on the first result.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymi...edical-device-industry-in-critical-condition/
Click to expand...

None of the taxes (or the penalty paid by employers who opt not to buy insurance, or the penalty paid by individuals who choose not to buy insurance) are in any way set aside or reserved for health-care. They all go into general revenue.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Kind of market forces of supply and demand. Just like we should all support.

Seems like the real solution is to increase the number of seats in medical schools and offer a supply of Drs that will drive down the costs that everyone seems to whine about.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it doesn't work that way. Educational time/effort involved vs personal fulfillment vs monetary rewards etc., Would you go to school for 8-10 years to make what a union sanitary engineer (garbage man) makes????
 
SCCutler said:
None of the taxes (or the penalty paid by employers who opt not to buy insurance, or the penalty paid by individuals who choose not to buy insurance) are in any way set aside or reserved for health-care. They all go into general revenue.
Click to expand...

Doesn't everything go into the general fund now, look what happened to SSI, etc............
 
weilke said:
It's like talking to a blind man about the colors.
Click to expand...


:yeahthat:

That awkward rebuttal when a poster realizes they waste a good chunk of their time making imaginary prices up that nobody pays.....
 
1RTK1 said:
Sometimes it doesn't work that way. Educational time/effort involved vs personal fulfillment vs monetary rewards etc., Would you go to school for 8-10 years to make what a union sanitary engineer (garbage man) makes????
Click to expand...


Seems like record numbers of people want to become Drs since the passage of Obamacare.

Washington, D.C., October 24, 2013—A record number of students applied to and enrolled in the nation’s medical schools in 2013, according to data released today by the AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges).

The total number of applicants to medical school grew by 6.1 percent to 48,014, surpassing the previous record set in 1996 by 1,049 students. First-time applicants, another important indicator of interest in medicine, increased by 5.8 percent to 35,727. The number of students enrolled in their first year of medical school exceeded 20,000 for the first time (20,055), a 2.8 percent increase over 2012.
Click to expand...
 
The problem is that Companies do not compete in a total market. Let them compete across state lines, or go single payer.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Seems like record numbers of people want to become Drs since the passage of Obamacare.
Click to expand...

More people are going to college period because their are no jobs to be had. The next shoe will drop with student loans as did with housing loans.
 
And just to stir the pot, let's look at the required prescription benefit.

Contraceptives are covered, 100%, which benefits women of childbearing age. Yes, it keeps some medical expenses down and controls unwanted childbirth (assuming those women actually use contraceptives which is well beyond the scope of this discussion.

At the same time, generic drugs that control blood pressure and cholesterol (like diuretics, statins, CCBs, and ACE-inhibitors) are covered in the same way as other drugs - maybe a fixed copay or a percentage of cost after deductible is met. Those drugs - which are proven to reduce heart disease and heart attacks - are not covered 100% even though the conditions that they treat potentially affect all persons of all ages and all sexes. If these were covered, there would potentially be a very high rate of return for medical costs. At the cost of less than $100/year for generics, it seems to be a pretty high rate of return.

Fully 30% of Americans have hypertension. Per the CDC.

Certain other preventative medications for other conditions would fall into the same bucket.

Yes, I get the politics. Yes, I fully understand the issues. And no, I am not suggesting that contraceptives be removed from 100% coverage. I am suggesting that as long as we have 100% coverage of some drugs, these other drugs be placed on the 100% coverage list with the goal of saving lives and medical complications. Not going to happen, though, as there's no political will to do so. :mad2:
 
Last edited:
1RTK1 said:
More people are going to college period because their are no jobs to be had. The next shoe will drop with student loans as did with housing loans.
Click to expand...

I can understand that for Community College, Trade Schools, Dental Technician, Cosmetology, etc.... (and all the student loans associated with them.)

Not sure I believe that kids are fighting for Med School seats because they have no other options for employment.

My kid just graduated with a biology degree and some of her classmates are trying for Med School. Mind didnt, as there were other offers available, and, discovered while working as a volunteer EMT that helping patients is annoying.

Record numbers want into Med School. A path to ????
 
I think car loans will be the next item the financial sector will stub it toe on. Underwater on a fast depreciation schedule. Oye.
 
wsuffa said:
And just to stir the pot, let's look at the required prescription benefit.

Contraceptives are covered, 100%, which benefits women of childbearing age. Yes, it keeps some medical expenses down and controls unwanted childbirth (assuming those women actually use contraceptives which is well beyond the scope of this discussion.

At the same time, generic drugs that control blood pressure and cholesterol (like diuretics, statins, CCBs, and ACE-inhibitors) are covered in the same way as other drugs - maybe a fixed copay or a percentage of cost after deductible is met. Those drugs - which are proven to reduce heart disease and heart attacks - are not covered 100% even though the conditions that they treat potentially affect all persons of all ages and all sexes. If these were covered, there would potentially be a very high rate of return for medical costs. At the cost of less than $100/year for generics, it seems to be a pretty high rate of return.

Fully 30% of Americans have hypertension. Per the CDC.

Certain other preventative medications for other conditions would fall into the same bucket.

Yes, I get the politics. Yes, I fully understand the issues. And no, I am not suggesting that contraceptives be removed from 100% coverage. I am suggesting that as long as we have 100% coverage of some drugs, these other drugs be placed on the 100% coverage list with the goal of saving lives and medical complications. Not going to happen, though, as there's no political will to do so. :mad2:
Click to expand...

That is called the "Sandra Fluke " clause....:rolleyes:..

All your points are spot on....:thumbsup:
 
JoseCuervo said:
20% is a long ways from the "400%"...
Click to expand...

20% is also a long way from...

"Saving the typical American family $2,500 a year."

When Obama used this as a talking point, do you think he was just naïve or intentionally deceptive? I don't know, but hard to think of a third option.
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
20% is also a long way from...

"Saving the typical American family $2,500 a year."

When Obama used this as a talking point, do you think he was just naïve or intentionally deceptive? I don't know, but hard to think of a third option.
Click to expand...

Obama was mislead by the architects of the obamacare crapola.

Obama was stupid to believe the BS about the obamacare crapola.

Maybe it was a combination of all of the above.
 
FastEddieB said:
You do yourself no favors by calling forum members liars.
Click to expand...


You do yourself no favors by making up **** about what other forum members post.


#FactsMatter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
FastEddieB said:
You do yourself no favors by calling forum members liars.
Click to expand...

Its not malice, just lack of knowledge. Most people get it the first time around when you tell them how medical billing works. Some dont.
 
RJM62 said:
I've never had any luck getting base prices from hospitals. They seem to either not know (certainly the doctors don't), pretend not to know, conveniently overlook the costs for all the useless tests and other **** they tack on to pad the bills for simple procedures, or some combination of the above. It typically takes dozens of phone calls to the business offices of the hospital, the doctor(s), the insurance company, and the outside lab(s) if any; and you still don't get an accurate price at the end -- even assuming that everything goes exactly according to plan with no complications or other findings that result in extra costs (biopsies of polyps found during a colonoscopy, etc.).

The corruption that prevails in the hospital industry challenges my Libertarian sensibilities. It's the one essential service that is already conducted in such a despicable manner that even the government would have a hard time making it worse. That's not to say that wouldn't in the end, but they'd have to work at it.

I love doctors, nurses, and other health care providers, by the way. I just hate hospitals. I rate their business practices and ethics slightly below those of mobsters and loan sharks. At least a Shylock will tell you up front how much a loan is going to cost you in the end.

Rich
Click to expand...

This is about as mild as it gets - but serves to confirm the allegations of hospital shennanigans: A few years ago my wife visited a doctor for a routine exam. It happened that there was some issue with the HVAC or plumbing in their facility that day, so they "borrowed" a similar office that belonged to the big hospital down the street. You guessed it: I subsequently got a bill from said hospital for "miscellaneous services". I wrote them a letter directing them to properly code the "services" provided - and submit them to my insurance carrier for payment. Never heard from them again.

Dave
 
N801BH said:
Kinda like throwing a grenade over your shoulder as you leave the room...:mad2::mad:
Click to expand...


Planned.


JoseCuervo said:
Then smart consumers should flock to 'second lowest silver plan'.
Click to expand...

Smart consumers don't have that option. Smart consumers are employed and the employer chooses three or four plans that they'll subsidize, if they're lucky.

The vast majority of workers not working at entry level jobs, don't qualify for the tax credits nor do they shop the exchanges because that would be stupid. They'd be paying typically double what they'd get via the employer.

It's not a truly competitive market, so don't try to act like it is.

cowman said:
What the ACA did was force me to pay for all that extra crap I don't really need.... as well as all the rest of us in order to subsidize those who can't pay for those emergencies. The administration sold it as "cheaper health care for everyone" but really it's only cheaper for the poor, lower middle class, and people with expensive chronic conditions. For the rest of us... well someone has to pay for all that. Not to mention the cost for the health insurance companies to administrate all that :rolleyes2:



I guess one can argue the wisdom of this and the morality of it but this is what it is. Something needed to be done.... I think given the realities of how this is all playing out we may be on the road to single payer now. Single payer is certainly a more logical system on paper. Then again if it gets run like the VA hospitals or medicare maybe not :hairraise: I'm really not fond of rolling the dice on something like that and hoping the government gets it right.
Click to expand...


It's cheaper for their voter base. That's all it is.

There's no reason to be "on the road to single payer" if interstate competition and disconnection completely from the employer was to happen. Employer agrees to a dollar amount, insurers compete nationwide, fixes a whole lot of things.

Note that Jose had to ask for someone's zip code to figure their numbers.

Mike Strader said:
The problem is that Companies do not compete in a total market. Let them compete across state lines, or go single payer.
Click to expand...


There you go.

wsuffa said:
And just to stir the pot, let's look at the required prescription benefit.



Contraceptives are covered, 100%, which benefits women of childbearing age. Yes, it keeps some medical expenses down and controls unwanted childbirth (assuming those women actually use contraceptives which is well beyond the scope of this discussion.



At the same time, generic drugs that control blood pressure and cholesterol (like diuretics, statins, CCBs, and ACE-inhibitors) are covered in the same way as other drugs - maybe a fixed copay or a percentage of cost after deductible is met. Those drugs - which are proven to reduce heart disease and heart attacks - are not covered 100% even though the conditions that they treat potentially affect all persons of all ages and all sexes. If these were covered, there would potentially be a very high rate of return for medical costs. At the cost of less than $100/year for generics, it seems to be a pretty high rate of return.



Fully 30% of Americans have hypertension. Per the CDC.



Certain other preventative medications for other conditions would fall into the same bucket.



Yes, I get the politics. Yes, I fully understand the issues. And no, I am not suggesting that contraceptives be removed from 100% coverage. I am suggesting that as long as we have 100% coverage of some drugs, these other drugs be placed on the 100% coverage list with the goal of saving lives and medical complications. Not going to happen, though, as there's no political will to do so. :mad2:
Click to expand...

Cheapest way to buy 50% of the voter base and simultaneously make anyone who disagrees with covering it, evil. Wouldn't want to actually make a dent in the largest profit makers for the pharmacy company donors, in a nation where your chances of dying of heart disease are above 1 in 2.

Note you hear a lot of political fluff about how good single payer would be, but never private national pools. Doesn't make the insurance company money, and doesn't give the politicians more power. A total non-starter because of those two things. Also no talk of keeping employer matching dollars but removing the employer's forced choices of plans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top