Health Insurance
- Thread starter TigerDroppings843
- Start date
Rates definitely not going back down with the gov't reopening and no concessions made WRT the subsidies.
the rates aren't going down even if the subsidies are extended. In fact it's estimated rates could go up by 20%
Gone down? No, you're right. Increased at a smaller rate than what we're getting now? Yeah, most likely.
Eat healthy, exercise, address vitamin deficiencies though supplementation, get good sleep, get the flu shot, get your annual physical…. That’s the only way you will minimize your HC expenses.
So does that mean he can't get back in if he takes a foreign trip? If so, I'm all for it!
Immigrants with health conditions may be denied visas under new Trump administration guidance
People seeking visas to live in the U.S. might be rejected if they have certain medical conditions, including diabetes or obesity, under a new directive from the Trump administration.
www.cbsnews.com
All the reason why just extending subsidies is not the right answer to our healthcare, and neither is Medicare for all. Smart people need to throw away their democrat or republican biases and work together on a health care plan that works and that people can afford.
If you do the above , you dont need a flu shot
My suggestion would be to vote for whoever supports single payer healthcare in the future
The rising rates are a long term phenomenon that is going to get worse until there is some major insurance and medical reforms
From AI
Single-payer has never “brought costs down” in absolute or GDP terms—it has slowed cost growth relative to the U.S. and lowered per-person out-of-pocket costs, but total national spending rises after implementation and stabilizes at high levels. The lowest-cost universal systems (e.g., Netherlands, Switzerland) use regulated multi-payer competition, not pure single-payer.
If the goal is cost reduction, single-payer is a tool for containment, not reversal.
Single-payer has never “brought costs down” in absolute or GDP terms—it has slowed cost growth relative to the U.S. and lowered per-person out-of-pocket costs, but total national spending rises after implementation and stabilizes at high levels. The lowest-cost universal systems (e.g., Netherlands, Switzerland) use regulated multi-payer competition, not pure single-payer.
If the goal is cost reduction, single-payer is a tool for containment, not reversal.
What makes me think the elimination of for profit insurance companies will lower cost of health insurance premiums?
Even the President seems advocating for socialized healthcare.
I’ve always suggested we pay for it by phasing out social security and reallocating some of the military budget. Will that cover all of it? Probably not, but any tax increase would likely be less than the premiums people pay today plus the elimination of most out of pocket costs.
This would be a net positive, even if taxes increased.
In single payer there is no competition. In a for profit model there is competition.
I’m not claiming I know the answer, but I don’t think it’s as simple as “single payer”. There is no incentive to reduce costs in single payer.
There’s also no incentive to increase costs. There’s no incentive to find any little reason to deny claims.
We’re the wealthiest country in the history of the known universe, our citizens shouldn’t have to use gofundme to pay their medical bills.
Obamacare was supposed to take of this. How come when govt gets involved in anything, prices go up.
Because they are not for solutions, only causes and victims to raise money on and also to get elected( and Re-elected).
There will never be any solution to this without TORT reform, which will never pass because of all the lawyers making laws and the law lobby. Every one of these lawsuits that are brought forward, WE pay for, ALL of us.
Until our system is loser pays in civil court, we create more lawyers and then more lawsuits, which drive up costs for everything
Because they are not for solutions, only causes and victims to raise money on and also to get elected( and Re-elected).
There will never be any solution to this without TORT reform, which will never pass because of all the lawyers making laws and the law lobby. Every one of these lawsuits that are brought forward, WE pay for, ALL of us.
Until our system is loser pays in civil court, we create more lawyers and then more lawsuits, which drive up costs for everything
You might be right. We could sign up for euthanasia like Canadians do. LMFAO!!!
It would depend who you are on whether or not it would be a net positive. The people supporting single payer won’t raise taxes on lower and middle classes, or even upper middle and probably a bit above that. That leaves a relatively small percentage of people to pay for all Americans to have universal coverage. Many of those people will pay far more in extra taxes than they save in insurance premiums.
Yes, by definition, net positive means it is not necessarily a positive for all individual people.
Though I think your opining on the plight of, I don’t know, the upper, upper middle class is a bit shortsighted. I can imagine there are many scenarios in which it would be good for someone who makes a large income to have universal healthcare.
NOTHING is gonna bring health care costs down. The best you can hope for is a development that slows the inexorable increase in health care costs.
We know who pushed it up.
The OBAMA administration was making so many unauthorized payments to PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES participating in OBAMACARE that they couldn't even keep up to cover their own tracks.
A government watchdog has determined the Obama administration is violating its own health care law by illegally diverting up to $5 billion to private insurance companies participating in Obamacare.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office is the nonpartisan federal watchdog that determines whether federal officials are spending taxpayer dollars in accordance with the law. In a legal opinion issued last week, the GAO accused the Obama administration of illegally diverting billions of taxpayer dollars to private insurance companies.
The opinion concerned the administration’s implementation of Obamacare’s “reinsurance” program, one of several insurer bailouts designed to prop up Obamacare’s rickety finances.
Generally speaking, the reinsurance program taxes consumers in non-Obamacare plans to subsidize insurers who sell Obamacare plans.
The program collects $25 billion from consumers, with $20 billion going to Obamacare-participating insurers and $5 billion to the federal treasury.
The law is specific: the amount that each health insurance issuer pays toward the $5 billion designated for the U.S. Treasury “may not be used for the [reinsurance] program.”
But once insurance companies participating in Obamacare’s Exchanges started suffering huge losses and heading for the exits, the administration began funneling them the money that was supposed to go to the Treasury. The administration has so far diverted $3 billion — and counting.
The administration was making so many unauthorized payments to private insurance companies participating in Obamacare that it’s hard to keep them straight.
Both the administration and the Supreme Court acknowledge that the operative text of the Affordable Care Act forbids certain payments to insurers participating in federally-run exchanges. The administration is paying tens of billions of dollars to such insurers because it was able to convince the court to bless those payments anyway.
It is making payments to insurers on behalf of exchange enrollees who are categorically ineligible for subsidies because they have incomes below the poverty line. It is paying insurers tens of billions of dollars in illegal “cost-sharing” payments that a federal judge ruled “violate the Constitution.”
It is attempting to skirt a congressional ban on $2.5 billion in “risk corridor” payments to insurers that President Obama himself signed into law. It is even making illegal payments to insurance companies on behalf of members of Congress and their staff — giving Congress its own special exemption from Obamacare.
Consistent with past practice, the Obama administration is thumbing its nose at the nonpartisan GAO by announcing it will continue to divert these taxpayer funds to insurance companies.
If the rule of law means anything, it is that the government is as bound by law, as are the people. If the people come to believe that the government is not, they will rightly conclude neither are they.
isn't that why Obamacare was passed? So people could buy affordable health care/
Specifically those without insurance, yes. And obviously it has helped millions of people, otherwise the expiration of the subsidies wouldn’t be a big deal.
The ACA was far from perfect, and the version that passed was very much watered down from the original plan presented by the President. It also helped insurance companies, which the current President has pointed out in his recent posts that seem to actually support socialized healthcare.
Successful people with employer sponsored health coverage … having a hard time seeing the financial upside for those folks. Many of whom carry an outsized portion of the country’s tax burden as it is
Beyond that, look at the wait times people in the UK or Canada face to receive care. Why would I want to introduce that dynamic for my family?
For all of our faults in healthcare, is there anywhere else in the world that you would want to go to receive care?
The privatized nature of our system has led to high physician compensation, which in turn attracts the best talent. It’s led to highly profitable medical device and pharmaceutical endeavors, which is why we lead the world in innovation in both areas.
Do we really want to hand off healthcare to the government, which is quite clearly dysfunctional?
Our problem is lifestyle and diet. Obesity being double that of our EU counterparts is a clear barometer of this. Instead of blowing up a system that produces the highest quality care in the world, let’s direct all of our energy and resources into getting people to eat right, exercise and address everything within their control to avoid medical issues. That brings down costs for everyone and will make insurance more affordable over time.
Simply changing who pays for it does absolutely nothing to fix the foundational issues.
Worth keeping in mind that if we hand single payer, employers wouldn't have to to cover so much of the insurance premiums and salaries should increase. But yeah, really well off people would be "losers" in this and I'm totally ok with that.
here's my problem with your argument. Yes, the ACA was sold with subsidies an integral part. On that we agree. With COVID, the subsidies were expanded to make healthcare more affordable/attractive to a larger segment of the population. I don't think there was a necessity to increase subsidies for those already on the system. Healthcare costs didn't increase just because of COVID. IMO.
So, the Congress determined that the expanded subsidies would expire at the conclusion of the COVID emergency. At that expiration everything would go back to the way it was pre COVID. That makes sense. Now though, it seems that what democrats were holding out for was not maintaining the expanded subsidies just for those on ACA pre COVID, but everybody who signed up for ACA when the expanded subsidies were created. So, going back to pre COVID subsidies, maybe with an inflation adjustment is the better way.
But, having said that, I still think that we need to go back to maybe square 3 or 4, keep the good parts of ACA and jettison/ fix/upgrade the rest
And as for the points around wait times, stifled innovation, physician talent, etc?
I've never suggested that we should move to a single provider system and find it annoying that the only two systems that are brought up are Canada and the UK. I've pretty consistently maintained that something like France or Germany is a better match for our country. I just point out bad arguments where I see them.
I have no idea what innovation you're hoping to see from "competition" in insurance. I guess you could claim that the government insurance could decide to overstaffed vs private insurers. The only problem is that's not what's born out in reality, anywhere.
Wait times shouldn't go up just because of the government being the insurer for everyone.
Physician talent is a really issue. The biggest driver in our overall costs is hospitals and physicians are a huge part of that. It's going to be difficult to make a dent in overall costs without touching salaries and there are tradeoffs that come with that, obviously.
And to reiterate, I don't want a UK system or necessarily single payer. I would love a public option, though.
If that happened you would lose your entire party.Extradite all fatties now!
