• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The unofficial Obamacare thread...

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
If you want the insurance companies to play more fair then they will cut corners at all costs just to make sure they are hitting their profits.

Yes, although they are constrained by bad faith claims. They don't want to get sued for breach of contract/covenant of good faith and fair dealing/or bad fair refusal to cover.

In order to control Healthcare costs we need to take out the middle man and put it in control of the doctors and the consumers.

So we kind of come full circle here. Because if the idea for cost controls is that consumers are going to be careful about how they spend, that necessarily implies a cost v. care tradeoff at some point, which means we're right back to violating the principle advanced by some that having enough money shouldn't determine the quality of care you receive.

I personally disagree with that principle, but as soon as you get away from the concept of a third party payor, financial means are going to impact care received.
 
Yes, although they are constrained by bad faith claims. They don't want to get sued for breach of contract/covenant of good faith and fair dealing/or bad fair refusal to cover.



So we kind of come full circle here. Because if the idea for cost controls is that consumers are going to be careful about how they spend, that necessarily implies a cost v. care tradeoff at some point, which means we're right back to violating the principle advanced by some that having enough money shouldn't determine the quality of care you receive.

I personally disagree with that principle, but as soon as you get away from the concept of a third party payor, financial means are going to impact care received.

Financial means can affect the quality of care you receive. However removing some of the red tape and could mean that you can still get really good care at a somewhat cheaper price. What I mean is having doctors set up contracts with other doctors and having Physician ran clinics. The point would be for a general family doctor to have a contract with 1 or more specialists for certain specialties. These doctors then negotiate prices (if I send you x patients they get a cost of 50 a visit but if I only send you y they get 100 per visit) and vice versa. This would also allow for more "charity work" where they can do "free" medical care and receive donations from a charity (the American Heart association can give some money to doctors that see patients "free of charge" and still give them access to the health care they need. I also am a firm believer in preventative care and if you give consumers access to the proper information on nutrition/smoking/drinking etc that they can make better decisions, keep themselves healthier and have to go to the doctor less often because of it.

Then the next issue is the pharmaceutical companies where the cost of medication is too high.

IF you are going the insurance route then you need some subisdy to make sure the cost of that insurance is lower and the benefits are offset by the cost (if I pay more I should get more).

Otherwise we need to change the system and figure out a better solution than the insurance model if the costs of said insurance are not going to be offset by something.
 
Financial means can affect the quality of care you receive. However removing some of the red tape and could mean that you can still get really good care at a somewhat cheaper price. What I mean is having doctors set up contracts with other doctors and having Physician ran clinics. The point would be for a general family doctor to have a contract with 1 or more specialists for certain specialties. These doctors then negotiate prices (if I send you x patients they get a cost of 50 a visit but if I only send you y they get 100 per visit) and vice versa. This would also allow for more "charity work" where they can do "free" medical care and receive donations from a charity (the American Heart association can give some money to doctors that see patients "free of charge" and still give them access to the health care they need. I also am a firm believer in preventative care and if you give consumers access to the proper information on nutrition/smoking/drinking etc that they can make better decisions, keep themselves healthier and have to go to the doctor less often because of it.

I have zero objection to any of that. Actually, I don't think there is much preventing that from happening right now. HMO's are one example of an attempt to reduce red tape, but a lot of people don't like them because they limit choice. Heck, we had one for awhile and I thought it was great.
 
Spoiler for future discussion; the key isn't restricting and forcing insurance companies to play ball. That's why, IMO, ACA won't work nor will the current bill proposal work.

Pressure on the wrong thing.
 
W.T.F.

This has to be a troll job. It has to be. No thinking person could string those two sentences together and believe they'd presented anything remotely approaching coherency.

I'm not taking the bait anymore -- it's just gotten too ridiculous. It's bad enough having to fight through the non-existent structure of your posts. But fighting through that for something like...this?

I'm done.

The Supreme court case in 2015 rules that the federal exchange could received the same subsidies as the state exchanges
Although this has been lauded as a victory for Obama care it circumvented a key long term component for what would be state exchanges.

The states themselves have proven inept at setting up websites. Implementing proper verification systems and

New Mexico does all their enrollment healthcare.gov and the state manages the plans available.

they are one of eight states who have at least one insurer covering every county in the state( New Mexico requires insurers to cover the entire state)


New Mexico average plan is about a 100 dollars less pre subsidy than the nation average.. They do expect to see a rate increase in 2018


Of great concern to insurers — and playing a significant role in potential rate increases for 2018 — is the long-term funding for the ACA’s cost-sharing subsidies. The Trump Administration has said that they’ll continue to provide funding, but lawmakers have not taken any steps to appropriate the money, and the House v. Price lawsuit (over the legality of the subsidies, given that they were never appropriated in the first place) is still pending.
Source: https://www.healthinsurance.org/new_mexico-state-health-insurance-exchange/Follow us: @EyeOnInsurance on Twitter | healthinsurance.org on Facebook


The current system of tax and payroll credit cost an estimated 260 billion a year. Also this system is to believe to have inflated health care cost. in itself.


State exchanges do not allow states to access their money and the employees of companies that offer employee insurance plans are not eligible to use the market.


this extremely limits the pool of subscribers for the state exchanges and the ratio of high risk to low risk is far more towards high risk than the average employer that offers health plan coverage.


Health care has been subsidized by the government since the 40's and the healthcare industry as a whole is a product of that.

This model though is outdated


Employers are shifting the cost to the employees . Insurance companies and Medical care providers have all grown fat from decades of plans that offered more value than they should have.

now its near the opposite. people are paying more for less.



Employers are wanting to keep those subsidies.


Meanwhile the current congress is doing everything to keep those ESI subsidies from going where they should in a national healthcare program..
 
Spoiler for future discussion; the key isn't restricting and forcing insurance companies to play ball. That's why, IMO, ACA won't work nor will the current bill proposal work.

Pressure on the wrong thing.
yeah the kind of changes that need to be done to the ACA or any replacement plan should allow all Americans to use the public exchanges and ESI needs to be converted to that program

small and medium sized companies were beginning to be priced out of healthcare before the ACA was introduced.. in fact that was one of the driving factors in its creation.


Those traditional business contributions need to either go to the employee or to the federal and state governments.
 
I have zero objection to any of that. Actually, I don't think there is much preventing that from happening right now. HMO's are one example of an attempt to reduce red tape, but a lot of people don't like them because they limit choice. Heck, we had one for awhile and I thought it was great.

My hmo has been helpful in getting things done for me involving things I can not get through medicaid. I was pretty skeptical when Medicaid first started the practice but really they have helped me navigate the system to find a solution that is acceptable to my current needs.

Before when things were denied that was it, you didn't get it. Now I have someone who gets what I need. Sometimes it's not ideal, but it works. Sorry I'm drunk and I hope I made sense. I can't get an opioid anymore with how many fuckers abuse them now, and beer helps.
 
My hmo has been helpful in getting things done for me involving things I can not get through medicaid. I was pretty skeptical when Medicaid first started the practice but really they have helped me navigate the system to find a solution that is acceptable to my current needs.

Before when things were denied that was it, you didn't get it. Now I have someone who gets what I need. Sometimes it's not ideal, but it works. Sorry I'm drunk and I hope I made sense. I can't get an opioid anymore with how many fuckers abuse them now, and beer helps.

HMOs were the way things were going to go in the initial phases of Obamacare. Hospitals were going to buy up insurance companies and give massive discounts if you had their insurance and went to their hospital. That was how it was when we had my first child Then the rules started changing and devolving.
 
Tell the rambler, the gambler, the backbiter.

Tell em that God's gonna cut em down.

View: https://twitter.com/darreldrowland/status/880151121335119872

You'd think the Public Affairs Editor for the Columbus Dispatch would at least be able to spell Representative Duffey's name correctly. Apparently, that's too much to expect when you're playing politics.

Given that, I'm going to assume that Rowland's failure to include any context around Duffey's alleged statement was deliberate.
 
You'd think the Public Affairs Editor for the Columbus Dispatch would at least be able to spell Representative Duffey's name correctly. Apparently, that's too much to expect when you're playing politics.

Given that, I'm going to assume that Rowland's failure to include any context around Duffey's alleged statement was deliberate.

And I thought the President of the United States could at least be able to not personally attack the wife of a newscaster who disagrees with his policy, but here we are. Fucking liberals, man...I tell ya.

"While it is very politically strong to say people will die, the reality is we will all die at some point"

Can you put it into more context?
 
And I thought the President of the United States could at least be able to not personally attack the wife of a newscaster who disagrees with his policy, but here we are.

Who is that?

"While it is very politically strong to say people will die, the reality is we will all die at some point" Can you put it into more context?

I can't -- I wasn't there. That was Rowland's job, which he clearly did not even attempt to perform. I'd point out that the whole ACA "death panel" debate (which I thought was dumb) was responded to by Democrats with essentially the argument that Duffey may have been making right here (although Rowland didn't give us the context) - all health care systems have to make decisions about cost versus care, and in some cases, there will be care that is simply too expensive to justify. Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance all do that right now.

Therefore, opposing a plan by saying "someone will die" is generic, and meaningless.
 
Last edited:

Entrepreneurs #PublicHealth
Robb Mandelbaum, CONTRIBUTOR
Feb 24, 2017 12:00 PM 2,839
Since the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010, health [+]
Can we all agree on one thing, that the Affordable Care Act is forcing small business owners to pay ever-higher costs for their employees’ health insurance? Right? Can’t we?

Certainly, Obamacare’s most ardent opponents have no trouble deploying a business owner devastated by premiums increases, usually described as “skyrocketing,” for an appearance in a news story or at a Congressional hearing. But even among people who are not dogmatically hostile to the health reform law, there is a widespread sense that it has made insurance plans for small businesses more expensive. The main argument is that the law’s requirements to cover certain “essential health benefits,” including some preventive care, as well as others to insure people with pre-existing conditions and abolish yearly or lifetime caps on benefits, are forcing many employers to buy insurance plans that are too generous for their employees, and therefore costlier.

Except that it doesn’t seem to be true. Health insurance premiums have been rising for decades, almost (though not quite) as stubbornly reliable as an eastern sunrise. And it turns out that these increases actually slowed after the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010. That’s according to data collected by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which tracks a range of topics around spending on health care in its Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. The survey tracks the health insurance offered by private firms big and small, and in all cases, the average rate of premium growth from the time the law passed in 2010 through 2015 was actually lower than from 2004 to 2010. And premium growth was lowest for firms with fewer than 50 employees.

A similar study, prepared every year by the Kaiser Family Foundation, shows a similar trajectory for premiums, and it continues into 2016. “Everything’s been slower because we had the recession and health care costs just haven’t been going up that much,” says Gary Claxton, who directs the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Health Care Marketplace Project. “That’s still true, though it’s wearing off a bit now.”



This stands in sharp contrast to the individual insurance market, where the requirements imposed by Obamacare are similar. There, premiums have gone up significantly in the last year, because it appears that initially, insurers misjudged the population who would buy individual insurance, says Sabrina Corlette, a professor who researches health insurance at Georgetown University. “In the individual market there is evidence emerging there was serious under-pricing in the first few years,” she says. The correction that began last year continued with steep premium hikes for 2017. According to the National Federation of Independent Business (which opposes Obamacare). 41 percent of business owners buy their own insurance rather than get coverage through a group policy they buy for their employees.

Meanwhile, back in the small group market, depending on the type of insurance plan, small firms have managed to hold steady, or even lower, employees’ contributions toward premiums. And among the smallest firms — those with fewer than ten workers — a majority of employees still pay no premium at all. In fact, the share of employees paying no premium at all for individual coverage has held steady at about 60 percent since 2009. (Incidentally, a secondary argument that the law increases compliance costs for even the smallest business owners is plainly not true. Businesses with fewer than 50 employees have almost no obligations under the law.)




Early on, Obama administration officials liked to suggest that reforms in the Affordable Care Act were responsible for the slower premium growth — average premiums for family coverage actually fell for larger small firms in 2013 — but Claxton says there is no evidence of that. But all this raises an interesting question: why haven’t all those rules in the Affordable Care Act raised premiums for the average small business? Why aren’t these rich plans full of gratuitous benefits digging deeper into owners’ pockets?

There are a couple reasons. First, all those mandated benefits are actually pretty standard for small business insurance plans. “The Affordable Care Act’s essential health benefits are modeled after the most popular small group plans,” says Claxton. And he said that the law allows for cheaper plans where employers can push more out-of-pocket costs to employees. “A wide range of cost-sharing practices were allowed — there’s a lot of difference between bronze and platinum plans,” he says. In general, deductibles are rising faster than premiums, though that was true in the years before the Affordable Care Act became law, too.

Overall, says Claxton, “changes to the group market were just not very big. Even the rating rules” — requirements that coverage be priced based not on a person’s health status but on age, gender, a couple other factors — “just moved groups around the average. Going from health status ratings to community ratings — some groups go up and some groups go down, but the average cost of heath insurance doesn’t change.”

But there’s something else: despite all the handwringing, many small business groups, perhaps most of them, have managed to cover their employees and still avoid most of those onerous benefit and coverage regulations.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top