Today's the day the bomb goes off in Obamacare

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by freeny, Dec 6, 2011.

  1. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #2
    Sounds great. How are they going to enforce it ?
     
  2. renewed macrumors 68040

    renewed

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Location:
    Bemalte Blumen duften nicht.
    #3
    Just means insurance premiums are going up again.
     
  3. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #4
    So they can charge me $100 more a month provided they find a way to provide me $85 more in medical services? Fifteen bucks a month for an insurer who wants me to seek medical treatment (as opposed to one that tries to prevent me from having it) sounds like something I would volunteer to pay. Eagerly.
     
  4. freeny thread starter macrumors 68020

    freeny

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Location:
    Location: Location:
    #5
    When I go to the hospital they send me a bill itemizing the costs of services.
     
  5. MorphingDragon macrumors 603

    MorphingDragon

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    The World Inbetween
    #6
    America just became a slightly better place to live in... apart from any other western country... ever.
     
  6. renewed macrumors 68040

    renewed

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Location:
    Bemalte Blumen duften nicht.
    #7
    Hardly. I guarantee they will raise the premiums to offset the new law. If before they could provide their CEO all the way down to the person who mails out letters the wanted salary minus overhead for $400 per month per person and now to do the same they will have to charge $600 per month per person they will. They will get theirs one way or another.

    Currently we are paying $300 per month for three people for insurance. I guarantee it goes up to over $500 now.
     
  7. MorphingDragon, Dec 6, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2011

    MorphingDragon macrumors 603

    MorphingDragon

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    The World Inbetween
    #8
    Remember - what they don't provide in health care gets refunded to you. They can raise it as much as they like. The health ratio is required to be spent on your healthcare.

    The cost raise will have a beneficial effect either way - it will make the consumers rebel and demand a cheaper option through the government. Alternatively you could sue their arse. The American public has forgotten how to say no, this is just the kind of upset that you need.
     
  8. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #9
    how?

    Medical cost would have to go up. Since 85% must go to medical that kills the profit margins.

    Also the law I bet for large group insurance company oddly enough is not going to effect them much at all.

    I worked for a company and their insurance pay out every year was around 8 mil. and 1 mill in over head for it.

    That means they had 1/9 put to over head. Everything else was paid for in medical expenses.
     
  9. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #10
    That does rather depend on what they were allowed to class as medical expenses, though.
     
  10. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #11
    Will this lower my premiums every month or will they just not be able to deny care?
     
  11. freeny thread starter macrumors 68020

    freeny

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Location:
    Location: Location:
    #12
    I'm guessing your premiums will stay the same, you will just be getting a difference refund cheque at the end of the year
     
  12. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #13
    Well, of course the article suggested that the Department of Health and Human Services was being delightfully strict about this, but of course you are right. Eventually we will elect a President from the "party of fiscal responsibility" and two days later Ferraris for insurance company executives will be classed as vital medical treatment expenditures.
     
  13. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #14
    After seeing my wife go through two operations, one of my primary complaints with a hospital stay is getting what seems like dozens of bills from different entities. I do want a single itemized bill.
     
  14. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #15
    My fear is this will work like bank / finance regulation and ATM/account fees -- the instant you specify a rule-set, the insurance companies will be hard at work finding end-rounds to maintain their profit position and way of life. I like the idea of the LCR, but I wonder if it's going to work, and if there needs to be a much more comprehensive regulation of the way expenses work in the field (or, honestly, just a sane single payer system) in order to avoid the whac-a-mole situation.
     
  15. GermanyChris macrumors 601

    GermanyChris

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Here
    #16
    We'll get a sane single payer in 12-14 years..The Pres can't get it through anymore he's got 4 more years...then we'll elect someone from the right and there'll be no action, then someone from the left will be elected and single payer will come about in the first term
     
  16. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #17
    If the article has some incorrect information or information left out, you might be right, but it won't raise total premiums unless the actual cost of healthcare itself rises. I can't say for sure because the article is lacking a lot of details. It's meant as light reading rather than a truly in depth analysis. If you end up being right, it will be because of terms that we did not read here.

    I guess it's possible they could take on more high risk customers and those with pre-existing conditions, but that needed to happen anyway. I know people who have survived cancer that now pay over $1000 per month for terrible coverage, as they can't get regular insurance.

    Healthcare is pretty messed up in the US overall. This isn't going to completely fix it. It may not have much of an effect on your premiums anyway, as not all insurance companies operate on massive profit margins. It really is very silly. See if you are in critical condition, a hospital cannot deny you care, yet there isn't any real public coverage for preventive care, which could help offset some of these emergency costs that the hospital may or may not recover. The system there is broken on many levels.

    This is incorrect. Insurance doesn't work like that, and there's really no way to make such a system work. It's spread out over their total customer base, and it has to be that way to function. Say 100 people pay $1500 each that year. If they all had major surgeries, the insurance company be in the red. Basically insurance is there to cover expenses that you simply couldn't pay out of pocket if and when they happen. It doesn't function if everyone has the same problem at the same time.
     
  17. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #18
    Oh FFS. I meant on average across the customer base. Sorry, I thought that was more obvious, but I suppose you are right. That detail might need explicit clarification in case there are some five-year-olds reading.

    The major point was that with such a provision they can only turn more profit if they provide more treatment, not by (as renewed stated, and I still think he hasn't RTFA) just raising premiums. This could in principle cut right into the worst problem with the private insurance system, namely that it is a dysfunctional implementation of capitalist economics such that the financial incentive directs efforts away from quality service instead of towards it. If managed properly, this could reverse that trend. Managed correctly, the big scandal in ten years will be insurers and providers colluding to steer patients into unnecessary and expensive procedures, which will be a problem, but is a far sight better than denying treatment. It's still slightly broken capitalism -- the feedback loop for providing better service at lower prices is weak or absent -- but short of dismantling the whole industry it's a step in the right direction.
     
  18. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #19
    My dad knows one guy who is an heath care insurance agent and he has a deal that for every mistake bis clients spot in a bill and gets removed he gives them 50% of the savings. He said that deal greatly reduced his expenses in bills.
     
  19. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #20
    Just curious: is that $300 plus whatever your company pays for group insurance or is that completely on your own?
     
  20. renewed macrumors 68040

    renewed

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Location:
    Bemalte Blumen duften nicht.
    #21
    $300 is out of our pocket. Company pays for the rest of it for group.
     
  21. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #22
    Bleh sorry I had woken up recently before. It sounds like a step in the right direction. I'll reserve judgement until we see how it actually plays out. That article + the other stuff I've read really isn't enough information to cover all of the details. Even the author may not fully understand the scope of potential changes.

    I don't necessarily see them steering people toward extremely expensive healthcare items, but this may help prevent them from trying to deny treatment, and it may even out premiums a bit. If they're required to pay out a certain percentage, clients perceived as higher risk should have an easier time getting insurance. That in itself would help.
     
  22. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #23
    That is the tragic aspect of this provision.

    I would like to see health insurance companies regulated like public utility companies.

    If that happens, the health care system in this country will go broke in five years. The major problem, IMO, is that too much unnecessary care is already being provided. The health care IT initiative should help reduce accidental duplication but even then there's no incentive to reduce unnecessary care. Until that problem is solved there will be NO viable solution to our health care nightmare.
     

Share This Page