Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

As I stated, insurance exchanges in the form proposed do not exist and have not been tested. We have bet the whole Goose on an unproven fantasy of how Obama and his cronies want it to work. That is a failure from the beginning.

The FEHB program is a pretty good model. It covers 4-5 million govt employees, with 15-20 private insurance companies offering over 200 different plans, so I certainly wouldnt call a program based on this model a fantasy.

We didnt test the major environmental regulatory programs in the 70s, with new required standards that had never been tried before; there was no guarantee they would work. Hell, many conservative opponents claimed it would lead to the economic downfall of the US. It didnt. The new regulatory programs werent perfect and needed tweeking along the way, but they worked to the country's benefit.

We didnt test the major welfare reform program in the 90s. Liberal opponents of the reform who never forgave Clinton and claimed it would lead to a return to poverty levels from 50 years ago. It didnt.

To call a program a failure because it is untested seems a bit premature. We have a history of trying untested programs that we think are good for the country- "to the moon, alice!"

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

The FEHB program is a pretty good model. It covers 4-5 million govt employees, with 15-20 private insurance companies offering over 200 different plans, so I certainly wouldnt call a program based on this model a fantasy.

It is a total fantasy. There are no true Insurance Exchanges anywhere in the US. Dream on.... Fail.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

To date there are none of these Exchanges that exist in the form propsed. None. The thought that competition will in some way lower costs is false as evident by the run away increases occuring everyday since Obamacare was first imposed on the people. So basically this whole plan is based on an unproven premise and assumption that it will work. So far no good.

Whose costs are you talking about?

One party's costs is another party's benefit.

To reduce an insurer's costs, you have lots of options, like any business. Competition is not one of them. As a for profit going concern, their reason to exist is to make money, as in profit. Reduced costs, everything else being equal, mean increased profit. Since profit is the primary motivation for the insurer, this is some incentive for them to decrease costs. But there are other ways to decrease costs, one very direct way is to reduce claims payments. This is not in my interest if it means I don't get the care I feel I'm entitled to. The aspect of the PPACA I mentioned earlier that some large base percentage of the insurer's cash flow must be dedicated to patient care will provide a check against such arithemetically easy but unfair "cost reduction" measures.

To reduce the consumer's costs, there are also a lot of options, and chief among them is competition. If two companies are vying for my business, a lower price to me is a strong factor influencing my decision. These exchanges represent a good way to present the products and information about the consumer's "costs". The insurance companies are still going to have customers, but they'll now be able to communicate their offer to the consumer, not just to the employer.

[TheMercenary]

Wonder where I have heard this before?

Doctors representing small physician practices gave Congressional representatives on the House Small Business Committee's Healthcare and Technology subcommittee an earful as they spoke of the significant barriers to the adoption of health information technology (IT) and the potential consequences that this could have on the healthcare sector. These barriers include regulations, financial penalties, an unpredictable marketplace, and concerns over interoperability between different IT systems, and the most prominent barrier of all--costs.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/.../EMR/230500066

[classicman]

Thank you - I was wrong -
It increased less than 4% as a percentage of the total cost
Do the math -
2000 total cost - $6438 ee contribution $1619 ... 25.14%
2010 total cost - $13,770 ee contribution $3997 ... 29.02%

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

Thank you - I was wrong -
It increased less than 4% as a percentage of the total cost
Do the math -
2000 total cost - $6438 ee contribution $1619 ... 25.14%
2010 total cost - $13,770 ee contribution $3997 ... 29.02%

Employee contributions increased by 128% as opposed to the total premium increase of 131%

This just addresses premiums.

Many employers have tried to keep employee share of premiums from increasing more dramatically by cutting benefits, making it more costly for employees on the other side-- higher deductables, higher co-pays, etc.

[infinite monkey]

Thank you - I was wrong -
It increased less than 4% as a percentage of the total cost
Do the math -
2000 total cost - $6438 ee contribution $1619 ... 25.14%
2010 total cost - $13,770 ee contribution $3997 ... 29.02%

You know how on old cartoons some character will get hit on the head with a shovel or an anvil or something and its head will be all flat and then it makes that funny noise and shakes its head really really fast and its head reinflates?

I just did that.

[classicman]

Could you please explain where mine was incorrect?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by classicman

Could you please explain where mine was incorrect?

Do not start adding all the rest in - You quoted numbers in your chart - I converted to %'s -
Lets try again - Could you please explain where my math was incorrect?


ETA - for years 1999 to 2009 the % DECREASED .3 % as a percentage of the total cost

[Fair&Balanced]

Think of it this way.

On average, employees are paying more than twice as much in premiums today ($3515 in '09) as they were 10 years earlier ($1543 in 99) AND also paying higher deductables, higher co-pays (my Rx co-pay has gone from $2 to $30 in the last 8-10 years), more limits or exclusions.....

[Fair&Balanced]

I dont know you want to hear.

Average employee premium contributions have more doubled in the last 10 years.

As a percentate of total contributions, they have not increased as much as overall premium cost as a result of employers limiting increases on the employee side by reducing beneifts instead.

I dont know any other way to say it.

Originally Posted by classicman

ETA - for years 1999 to 2009 the % DECREASED .3 % as a percentage of the total cost

I'll try again.

Employee share has been relatively contained by employers finding benefit reductions on the other side...even as employee premiums costs doubled in that 10 years.

Average employees are paying a helluva lot more for their insurance (higher premiums, higher co-pays, higher deductables,...) than 10 years ago.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by classicman

Could you please explain where mine was incorrect?

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

I don't know you want to hear.

for 2000 compared to 2010
Employee contribution as a percentage has only increased 6% in a decade.

or for 1999 compared to 2009
Employee contribution % DECREASED .3 % as a percentage of the total cost

Compare that to the price of milk, food, gas and a million other things...
Lets see how they stack up.

My point is that the employee contribution as a % is relatively static/moderately increasing.
Your lil chart has no relevance other than to disprove or distract from the actual problem.
The real issue is the FUCKING OVERALL COST!

[infinite monkey]

ffs

[Fair&Balanced]

I give up.

I see a classic digging in of the heels and a "Syrian Lives Are Worth Less" argument again.

[infinite monkey]

That's never going to change.