1RTK1
Pattern Altitude
Correct me if I am wrong,,,, but doesn't the congress have a different or separate Cadillac insurance plan that the tax payers pay for and not any form of obammmarcare???
No, some don't.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Planned.
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.
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.
There you go.
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.
Profound - some people break the law? You've made that discovery? We should alert the media!!! You're sidetracking again. . .
Again. You freely chose to pick up the tab. If you can't compete because of that, it's on you. Try to understand that a competitor who makes a perfectly legal business decision to not do so is not your moral inferior.
Again. The ACA is a transfer payment, carried on the backs of us in the middle of the curve. I do not have a moral imperative to pay for other people's health insurance.
I guess I just have higher morals than you.
It happens. Keep your chin-up, and keep trying each day.
Correct me if I am wrong,,,, but doesn't the congress have a different or separate Cadillac insurance plan that the tax payers pay for and not any form of obammmarcare???
And there is no logical reason we insist on using employers to do the sorting and shopping for insurance for their employees.
The connection between employers and health insurance needs to be sent to the history bin.
Your very good at moving the goal posts and jumping off track. But I still don't think I've seen an answer to my question. For the last several years, my premiums have gone up, my deductibles have gone up, my copays have gone up, and my prescriptions have gone up. I don't get tax credits, and I can't choose my plan on the exchange because is offered by my employer. How am I better off?And there is no logical reason we insist on using employers to do the sorting and shopping for insurance for their employees.
The connection between employers and health insurance needs to be sent to the history bin.
You do realize that we got to the point of employers offering health care due to government price controls and tax breaks?
Your very good at moving the goal posts and jumping off track. But I still don't think I've seen an answer to my question. For the last several years, my premiums have gone up, my deductibles have gone up, my copays have gone up, and my prescriptions have gone up. I don't get tax credits, and I can't choose my plan on the exchange because is offered by my employer. How am I better off?
The government has overseen and regulated health insurance for at least 50 years. Any problems with health insurance are a direct result of government meddling. Only a liberal would think that more of the same will produce a different result.
Used to be that employers offered health insurance as a benefit, it was voluntary. Now ACA makes it mandatory. I don't remember the details - isn't it full time employees for companies with 50 or more? Then companies started putting more and more people on part time? After all, why should the company put itself into a situation where it is required to raise expenses when the Government exchanges have made sure there is an alternative?And there is no logical reason we insist on using employers to do the sorting and shopping for insurance for their employees.
The connection between employers and health insurance needs to be sent to the history bin.
We know that. But at some point, Jose is going to have to acknowledge that there will always be winners and losers, and he wants the government to pick them.You aren't.
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.
Even though I disagree with you about many things, I agree with this. But it has been that way ever since I had any kind of employer-sponsored plan. You have very little choice (I have a choice of two plans, at one time it was only one), but the employee share is much less than what I could get as an individual on the exchanges. It has always been that way, even when the market was less regulated. Even if the employer didn't subsidize, the plans are less expensive due to the fact they are a group policy. I have seen the total cost.
I'm guessing the company is 70-100 people. But I probably gave the average payout a big boost a couple years ago with a large claim. I would agree that the people being covered are probably healthier than the average for the general population, though.Much of the reason for those company group policies being cheaper is because they cover a smaller group - employees and families - that might be healthier than a general cross section of society. If you are with a small company, a couple of people having heart attacks or cancer treatments can cause premiums to rise the following year because of a higher than average claims history. People too sick to work get dropped from the group after a certain amount of time on disability coverage and no longer affect that group. The ACA exchange policies have to cover a larger group that includes those with pre-existing conditions.
What was interesting to me was that the hospital plays the game of charging large amounts but the insurance company gets a huge discount. That in itself makes it worth having insurance, because even the out-of-pocket charges are negotiated way down.
Yup, and I'm sure we'll hear from people who consider themselves great negotiators who are going to claim they could do better. But the insurance companies have more leverage, and do you really want to be doing that while you are sick? That is if you even have the ability.Yes. Even with a high deductible plan, the discounted charges make a big difference.
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.
Exactly.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.
What was interesting to me was that the hospital plays the game of charging large amounts but the insurance company gets a huge discount. That in itself makes it worth having insurance, because even the out-of-pocket charges are negotiated way down.
Further. most smart companies today don't subsidize spouses/family - it's employee only.
Same thing happened to a buddy, helping push his neighbor's car out of the snow on Christmas weekend. Ended up needing surgery and hit the deductibles for both years.Then add the ever increasing deductibles and out of pockets. When I had my issue two years back, it happened in December such that I had the pleasure of satisfying two years of max deductibles and out of pocket. Damn, why couldn't I have had that problem mid-year?
Unless it's changed very recently, Congress itself has it's own plans. Congressional staffers have to use the exchange. And Federal employees have a pretty competitive set of options offered through various carriers and employee unions - all of which are generally less expensive than the plans available to the general public.
https://www.apwuhp.com/our-plans/see-premiums/
Much of the reason for those company group policies being cheaper is because they cover a smaller group - employees and families - that might be healthier than a general cross section of society. If you are with a small company, a couple of people having heart attacks or cancer treatments can cause premiums to rise the following year because of a higher than average claims history. People too sick to work get dropped from the group after a certain amount of time on disability coverage and no longer affect that group. The ACA exchange policies have to cover a larger group that includes those with pre-existing conditions.
By the way, there's an excellent article on drug pricing in the WSJ today. Pretty clear that that the US is subsidizing the rest of the world. Including countries with lower labor costs that we import good from....
http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-u-s-pays-more-than-other-countries-for-drugs-1448939481
(note: subscription may be required)
And prepare now for the next benefits battle: https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...7f8ade-979a-11e5-94f0-9eeaff906ef3_story.html
Used to be that employers offered health insurance as a benefit, it was voluntary. Now ACA makes it mandatory. I don't remember the details - isn't it full time employees for companies with 50 or more? Then companies started putting more and more people on part time? After all, why should the company put itself into a situation where it is required to raise expenses when the Government exchanges have made sure there is an alternative?
Even though I disagree with you about many things, I agree with this.
I'm guessing the company is 70-100 people. But I probably gave the average payout a big boost a couple years ago with a large claim. I would agree that the people being covered are probably healthier than the average for the general population, though.
But I will say that I had no trouble with the claims process. I didn't need to fight with the insurance company for anything. I even got a few un-asked-for refunds from providers when I mistakenly paid them and they also got paid by insurance. When I reached my out of pocket for the year, which I think was around $4000, they covered everything.
What was interesting to me was that the hospital plays the game of charging large amounts but the insurance company gets a huge discount. That in itself makes it worth having insurance, because even the out-of-pocket charges are negotiated way down.
That's not entirely true any more. There is a huge and growing segment of the population that are entrepreneurs or independent contractors. Those folks have no employer subsidized plans.
Then add the ever increasing deductibles and out of pockets. When I had my issue two years back, it happened in December such that I had the pleasure of satisfying two years of max deductibles and out of pocket. Damn, why couldn't I have had that problem mid-year?
Yes, I did forget.You forgot that the definition of full time was established at more than 29 hours. This has served to create a new group of employees called the 29ers.
I wonder how many people will lose their UH coverage?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...it-should-have-stayed-out-of-obamacare-longer
Loss of half-a-billion on 540,000 people covered, or slightly less than $1000 per person. Not sure how many policies it covers, but it would work out be a loss of $85/month per person. The rest of their business is subsidizing the ACA exchanges business.