Health Insurance

[Startraveler]

So, it is time to pick my healthcare plan for next year. Intel has like 8 options and many are very good. Not sure if they are Cadilac or not in scope, but I did notice that each and every plan has increased in yearly price by about 5 to 7% over what it was this last year ... Maybe costs on the supplier end or the provider end will go down, but that will only make those people richer, as they're not going to be doing me any favors and dropping my premium prices. Maybe that is cynical, or maybe it is realistic??

I'm also wondering why my wife goes in for a dental cleaning/checkup and we have to pay $25, and then I go in 4 weeks later and I end up paying $50 for the same service? This was back last summer. It is like they almost randomly come up with some number to charge you, or maybe that they scrimp and fudge every glove, tool used and minute into their bill.

Intel's a big employer so I would assume they're offering self-insured plans (Blue Cross might be acting as a third party administrator for Intel). So if you don't like the benefits or co-insurance or you think savings aren't being reflected in the premiums you're paying, that may well be on Intel.

The ACA is designed to crash the insurance industry to pave the way to a single payer system.

If that were the case, there would never have been an individual mandate. There's no reason to take unpopular but necessary steps to stabilize the market if your goal is to destabilize the market.

Also, Massachusetts would probably have a single-payer system by now, one would think.

[Rut Roh]

no it's really not. The tort cases amount to less than one percent of what we spend on healthcare.

Yup, 1 to 5 percent of the spend depending on your source. That is actually the cases that go to jury. That is not considering that 95 percent of cases do not see the inside of a court or a jury. Those impact bottom lines as well, my friend.

[MissMelsWell]

i've spent the evening reading an international forum for folks who have to have the surgery I'll need next month. There are a TON of members and it's an extremely active forum. One of the rotating topics they have is a weekly one. Everyone who has had their surgery logs on and talks about their recovery in that thread.

the one glaring things i've noticed is that the folks in the UK, Germany, Australia and Scandanavia are ALL hospitalized for no fewer than three days so teh doctors can verify that are their vital systems are working as they should be after the surgery. The folks in the USA almost always go home SAME day after MAJOR surgery. From what I've gathered... of the US patients, well over half of of them wind up back in the ER or Urgent Care. This scares the CRAP out of me.. I need to be stable when I come home for a lot of reasons.

The other thing I have noticed is that the US patients wait a TON longer to have their surgery done becaue they're trying to save up the money they need to meet their deductables, co-pays and to get the time off of work. In the UK and other single payer systems, the patient might wait 4 months to get on the surgery schedule, but in reality the US patents are waiting a LOT longer. The US patient waits so much longer because they're trying to work out the financial portion, and then their condition worsens exponentially often creating new conditions.

My apologies to Oversword here, I love him, he's family to me... but bring on the single-payer system in the USA (I'll get ya a job where I work, you'd like it lol). I'm ready for it. I should not be looking at a 10K bill when I HAVE insurance I've already paid a lot for over the last 30 years and have never used. Well except for the few years when I was out of work entirely and had no insurance at all... that's part of the reason Im facing this monumental surgery and bill ... no medical care for years. Cant afford a doctor when you can't find a job and don't quality for assistance because you own a house you just barely afford on your savings.

Edited January 9, 2013 by MissMelsWell

[+DieChecker]

The other thing I have noticed is that the US patients wait a TON longer to have their surgery done becaue they're trying to save up the money they need to meet their deductables, co-pays and to get the time off of work. In the UK and other single payer systems, the patient might wait 4 months to get on the surgery schedule, but in reality the US patents are waiting a LOT longer. The US patient waits so much longer because they're trying to work out the financial portion, and then their condition worsens exponentially often creating new conditions.

I thought the usual method was to just have the surgery. Then get the bill. Pay a little on it. Then eventually go bad on the bill. Then bankrupt out from under it. I've never met anyone except Dave Ramsey true believers who try to pay for their surgerys up front.

[MissMelsWell]

I thought the usual method was to just have the surgery. Then get the bill. Pay a little on it. Then eventually go bad on the bill. Then bankrupt out from under it. I've never met anyone except Dave Ramsey true believers who try to pay for their surgerys up front.

Which does happen for those with no insurance... but for those that do have insurance, from the antedotal evidence i'm reading, they tend to put it off and put it off until it gets the point where they can't any longer.

[+OverSword]

Intel's a big employer so I would assume they're offering self-insured plans (Blue Cross might be acting as a third party administrator for Intel). So if you don't like the benefits or co-insurance or you think savings aren't being reflected in the premiums you're paying, that may well be on Intel.

If that were the case, there would never have been an individual mandate. There's no reason to take unpopular but necessary steps to stabilize the market if your goal is to destabilize the market.

Also, Massachusetts would probably have a single-payer system by now, one would think.

Read the newsletter I linked, consider all of the extra fees that business' with under 50 employee's that don't provide health insurance are going to be subject to and then tell me that the ACA will not force many small business owners to close thier doors. While the Massachusetts may be similar to the ACA it's not identical especially where IRS taxes errr I mean fees are involved.

[Startraveler]

Read the newsletter I linked, consider all of the extra fees that business' with under 50 employee's that don't provide health insurance are going to be subject to and then tell me that the ACA will not force many small business owners to close thier doors. While the Massachusetts may be similar to the ACA it's not identical especially where IRS taxes errr I mean fees are involved.

I don't see anything about businesses with under 50 employees in your newsletter. A quick skim shows it talks about:

1. The pay-or-play requirements for employers to offer insurance coverage, but it notes that this applies to "employers with at least 50 full-time employees."

2. The additional Medicare tax, but again it notes that unlike the existing Medicare tax this new portion "is imposed only on employees" (with incomes over $250,000 for the married/$200,000 for others).

3. The $1/person funding comparative effectiveness research, which it says is borne "by the insurer of fully insured plans (including retiree only plans) and the employer/plan sponsor of self-insured plans." A business with less than 50 employees is unlikely to be self-insured and, per #1, isn't required to offer health insurance at all.

4. The fee for the 3-year temporary reinsurance program, which is basically distributed the same was as #3.

In other words, businesses with less than 50 employees aren't required under the law to pay any of those.

Anyway, I was responding to your assertion that the law was intended to "crash the insurance industry," which isn't the same as asking how it affects small businesses. The fact is that plenty of provisions in it, including the unpopular individual mandate, and the temporary reinsurance program brought up in your newsletter are pretty clearly designed to protect the stability of insurance markets. Why protect them if the goal is to crash them?