Author Topic: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative  (Read 38946 times)

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1374
  • Location: Denver
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #100 on: March 26, 2014, 12:22:10 PM »
Either you mean something different by socialized medical care, or this is wrong.  I thought it was pretty well established that Switzerland has the world's best healthcare, and that is most definitely not socialized.

I don't think it's well established that the Switzerland has the best healthcare...

France and Italy are typically at the top of the list. Switzerland is good, above the US, but even not in the top 5.

Switzerland's system is not socialized like France's, but it does mandate insurance (that sounds familiar...) and insurance companies cannot profit on the basic plans. Citizens are given subsidies if the premium is over 8% of income.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2840
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #101 on: March 26, 2014, 12:22:46 PM »
"Either you mean something different by socialized medical care, or this is wrong.  I thought it was pretty well established that Switzerland has the world's best healthcare, and that is most definitely not socialized. "

That all depends on what you mean by socialized but I am happy to use another term if you like. Let us just say that access to healthcare is guaranteed by the government.

Ah, okay.  In that case, we're getting there.  The ACA enabled coverage for practically everyone legally in the country.  There are still some holes - for example, in the states that didn't expand Medicaid there's a gap between being eligible for Medicaid and being eligible for subsidies on the exchange.  But if we fixed those holes, and increased the penalty for not having insurance to more than he insurance premium (like the Netherlands does), or automatically enrolled people (like Switzerland does), we'd get very close to their numbers.

P.S. Most of the time "socialized medicine" means systems in which either the government pays for all basic health care (Canada) or actually runs the whole health care system (the UK).  The term I'd be more comfortable with here is "universal health care"

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2840
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #102 on: March 26, 2014, 12:29:27 PM »
Either you mean something different by socialized medical care, or this is wrong.  I thought it was pretty well established that Switzerland has the world's best healthcare, and that is most definitely not socialized.

I don't think it's well established that the Switzerland has the best healthcare...

France and Italy are typically at the top of the list. Switzerland is good, above the US, but even not in the top 5.

Switzerland's system is not socialized like France's, but it does mandate insurance (that sounds familiar...) and insurance companies cannot profit on the basic plans. Citizens are given subsidies if the premium is over 8% of income.

Most of the systems that rank France #1 include cost as a consideration.  I thought I saw that Switzerlands system was best regardless of the cost, but I can't find a link right away.  I'll keep looking.  In any case, my point was that there are plenty of countries that provide universal health care without having socialized health care. 

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2840
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #103 on: March 26, 2014, 12:34:32 PM »
Here's a report that ranked the Netherlands #1 and Switzerland #2 in 2013:
http://www.healthpowerhouse.com/files/ehci-2013/ehci-2013-summary.pdf


MPAVictoria

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #104 on: March 26, 2014, 12:42:28 PM »
"P.S. Most of the time "socialized medicine" means systems in which either the government pays for all basic health care (Canada) or actually runs the whole health care system (the UK).  The term I'd be more comfortable with here is "universal health care""

Not to get into an argument about definitions of what "socialism" means but I think you are taking a very narrow view of the word here. However if you are more comfortable with the term universal healthcare I don't have a problem with that.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2840
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #105 on: March 26, 2014, 12:43:51 PM »
"P.S. Most of the time "socialized medicine" means systems in which either the government pays for all basic health care (Canada) or actually runs the whole health care system (the UK).  The term I'd be more comfortable with here is "universal health care""

Not to get into an argument about definitions of what "socialism" means but I think you are taking a very narrow view of the word here. However if you are more comfortable with the term universal healthcare I don't have a problem with that.

Perhaps, but I'm not alone: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialized%20medicine

MPAVictoria

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #106 on: March 26, 2014, 02:16:26 PM »
Oh please. There is a reason why most university classes don't allow citations from dictionaries when writing papers as they are, by their very nature, reductionist. However, like I said I have no urge to argue definitions with you. If you prefer universal healthcare that is fine with me.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2840
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #107 on: March 26, 2014, 02:54:15 PM »
Oh please. There is a reason why most university classes don't allow citations from dictionaries when writing papers as they are, by their very nature, reductionist. However, like I said I have no urge to argue definitions with you. If you prefer universal healthcare that is fine with me.

Really?  The dictionary isn't a good resource for someone perusing this forum who didn't know what someone meant by "socialized medicine?" 

Oh, and if this were a scholarly work, here you go:
1. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118410868.wbehibs479/abstract;jsessionid=1A8A47BAF42F1D67403AAE152FD5B2D5.f04t04?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

2. http://books.google.com/books?id=W5fvMTqCSywC&lpg=PA163&dq=uwe%20reinhardt%20socialized%20medicine&pg=PA163#v=onepage&q=uwe%20reinhardt%20socialized%20medicine&f=false

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4748
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #108 on: March 26, 2014, 07:17:48 PM »
As for not wanting to pay for someone else's health problems.  I am sorry that the charity you think is the most important is not the same as the charity I think is the most important.  I like helping others, but being called selfish because I don't want to subsidize health care... well that is a bit of an oversimplification isn't it?  After all, I do have finite resources, so every dollar that goes to healthcare...

By design, insurance has you paying for other people's health problems. That's how insurance works.

Yes, exactly (and vice versa--others pay for yours, when you need it).

If you don't want to pay for other people's medical care, don't get health insurance. If you don't want to pay for other peoples house fires, dog bites, lawsuits over falls on icy sidewalks, etc., don't get homeowner's insurance. If you don't want to pay for other people's car accidents, don't get car insurance. Paying for other people's problems is what insurance IS.
And if you don't want to get health insurance, then can we leave people by the side of the road and not force hospitals to treat you, if you can't pay and chose not to have insurance?  That would drop the costs in the hospital.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3286
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #109 on: March 26, 2014, 09:31:59 PM »
You really have 2 choices: revoke EMTALA, or accept that medicine is, for all practical purposes, already "socialized". You will get treatment at the ER (and elsewhere) regardless of ability to pay, which means that everyone else pays via insurance premiums and/or taxes. Socialized. But in a very dumb way.

So decide: do you want to leave people (including children/elderly/etc) to die if they can't pay, or do you want to reform the setup so that at least the "socialized" system is administered intelligently?

The whole socialized medicine argument is ridiculous. We have it now. But we do it very, very badly. The debate should be about how best to fix it, not whether society has an obligation to provide health care. That debate is, for all practical purposes, over.

-W
« Last Edit: March 26, 2014, 10:19:37 PM by waltworks »

SoCal

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #110 on: March 26, 2014, 09:59:01 PM »
You really have 2 choices: revoke EMTALA, or accept that medicine is, for all practical purposes, already "socialized". You will get treatment at the ER (and elsewhere) regardless of ability to pay, which means that if everyone else pay via insurance premiums and/or taxes. Socialized. But in a very dumb way.

So decide: do you want to leave people (including children/elderly/etc) to die if they can't pay, or do you want to reform the setup so that at least the "socialized" system is administered intelligently?

The whole socialized medicine argument is ridiculous. We have it now. But we do it very, very badly. The debate should be about how best to fix it, not whether society has an obligation to provide health care. That debate is, for all practical purposes, over.

-W

excellent post! damn near impossible to argue, though suppose the knuckle draggers will claim "repeal & replace" is better than the ACA, without ever feeling the need to vote on the "replace" legislation that taxes & funds care for the poor while reforming the insurance industry to prevent cherry-picking of genetic-lottery & health-good-luck winners.

Opposing the ACA without offering your specific, funded, scored solution that provides care to the same number of Americans as the ACA is pathetic. Truly pathetic. Can't see how such persons will not be forever embarrased to post at this site, knowing everyone can read their documented history of intellectual laziness.

MPAVictoria

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #111 on: March 27, 2014, 07:43:37 AM »
Oh betlim, betlim, betlim. Did you read the second of the two references you just put up? You really should have as it proves my point that "socialized medicine" can mean many different things to different people. To specifiy:

You said: " Most of the time "socialized medicine" means systems in which either the government pays for all basic health care (Canada) or actually runs the whole health care system (the UK).""

You say that Canada has socialized medicine (I would agree with that by the way). However your second references says this:
"...one would not call Canada's system "socialized medicine""

Thank you for demonstrating my point that people use the term socialism in different ways to mean different things. So can we stop arguing about this now?

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2840
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #112 on: March 27, 2014, 10:35:48 AM »
Oh betlim, betlim, betlim. Did you read the second of the two references you just put up? You really should have as it proves my point that "socialized medicine" can mean many different things to different people. To specifiy:

You said: " Most of the time "socialized medicine" means systems in which either the government pays for all basic health care (Canada) or actually runs the whole health care system (the UK).""

You say that Canada has socialized medicine (I would agree with that by the way). However your second references says this:
"...one would not call Canada's system "socialized medicine""

Thank you for demonstrating my point that people use the term socialism in different ways to mean different things. So can we stop arguing about this now?

Well, let's see.  I've given three sources.  You've intimated that the dictionary isn't a valid source for looking up definitions of words, and that one of my sources using an even more restrictive definition supports your usage of a broader definition.

Yes, I think we're done arguing about this.

Did you have any comments on my main point?

MPAVictoria

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #113 on: March 27, 2014, 11:21:53 AM »
You had a point? I just thought you were arguing (poorly) about definitions.

Exflyboy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6334
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Corvallis, Oregon
  • Expat Brit living in the New World..:)
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #114 on: March 27, 2014, 12:09:10 PM »
When people ask me why I will remain a UK Citizen while residing in the USA.... This conversation is exactly why.

My Dad sees a cardiologist evry couple of months for free.

NOBODY in the UK knows what medical bankruptcy is.. NO ONE!

Frank

Daleth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1201
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #115 on: March 29, 2014, 09:55:47 AM »
Insurance is not charity.  Insurance is something you buy (or not, as you choose) from a company who is looking to make a profit on your purchase. 

If you have a car, you don't have a choice about whether to buy car insurance.

If you have a mortgage, you don't have a choice about whether to buy homeowner's insurance.

Even renters may not have the option of not buying renter's insurance. I require my commercial tenants to have at least $1 million in renter's liability insurance naming me as additional insured--and that's not just me, it's very standard for commercial leases--and all my tenants, residential and commercial, sign a waiver spelling out that they can't come after me for any property damage that could've been covered by them getting renter's property insurance. Reading this waiver makes most of them get renter's insurance.

Long story short, there's nothing unusual about being required to have insurance.

PeachFuzzInVA

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #116 on: March 29, 2014, 10:17:19 AM »
Insurance is not charity.  Insurance is something you buy (or not, as you choose) from a company who is looking to make a profit on your purchase. 

If you have a car, you don't have a choice about whether to buy car insurance.

If you have a mortgage, you don't have a choice about whether to buy homeowner's insurance.

Even renters may not have the option of not buying renter's insurance. I require my commercial tenants to have at least $1 million in renter's liability insurance naming me as additional insured--and that's not just me, it's very standard for commercial leases--and all my tenants, residential and commercial, sign a waiver spelling out that they can't come after me for any property damage that could've been covered by them getting renter's property insurance. Reading this waiver makes most of them get renter's insurance.

Long story short, there's nothing unusual about being required to have insurance.

Those examples only translate to healthcare if the healthcare providers themselves were the ones requiring you to have insurance in order to be treated. Since that's not the case, you're comparing apples to oranges.

The sheer fact of the matter is that the concept of "insurance" has been completely distorted by those trying to force the ACA onto others. Insurance, by it's very definition, is a method of risk management. Being insured means that you're managing that risk by joining a pool of others who are also making an effort to manage the same risk in their lives. Just like you wouldn't want to share a risk pool with a pyromaniac when insuring your home, it would financially insane to want to share a risk pool with someone who is a far greater risk to incur major healthcare related expenses in your health insurance pool. The ACA attempts to defy the theories of risk management by forcing low risk people to pool their risk with high risk people. It was, and still is, doomed to fail from the get go. Then again, I think it was intentionally designed to fail in the first place so that a universal system could be forced onto the American people, which would be a moral tragedy in itself.

Daleth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1201
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #117 on: March 29, 2014, 10:32:17 AM »
Those examples only translate to healthcare if the healthcare providers themselves were the ones requiring you to have insurance in order to be treated. Since that's not the case, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Things do not have to be identical in order to be comparable, and in any case I don't see why the proper analogy here would be health insurance being required by healthcare providers. The government of your state is who requires you to have car insurance. It is not that big a stretch to say the government of your state or country could require you to buy some other kind of insurance, such as health insurance. That's what Massachusetts did under Governor Romney, after all.

And since my point was that buying insurance is not always a choice--it may be required--that point remains true.

Being insured means that you're managing that risk by joining a pool of others who are also making an effort to manage the same risk in their lives. Just like you wouldn't want to share a risk pool with a pyromaniac when insuring your home, it would financially insane to want to share a risk pool with someone who is a far greater risk to incur major healthcare related expenses in your health insurance pool. The ACA attempts to defy the theories of risk management by forcing low risk people to pool their risk with high risk people.

It would be financially insane for an insurance company NOT to pool higher-risk and lower-risk people together. If you put all the higher-risk people together the insurance company is looking at a major loss. If you put all the lower-risk people together, the insurance company would love that--you'd be making them rich by paying more than you should relative to the pool's overall risk--but fortunately the ACA took that option away from insurance companies because it harms both the low-risk people (by charging them more than they actually need to pay relative to the overall risk) and high-risk people (by not covering them at all, or only in different plans with exorbitant prices).

It was, and still is, doomed to fail from the get go. Then again, I think it was intentionally designed to fail in the first place so that a universal system could be forced onto the American people, which would be a moral tragedy in itself.

It was actually designed to be very similar to the Swiss system, which has been going strong for decades and has shown no sign of moving towards government-provided healthcare (which is what I assume you mean by "a universal system").

Here's a 2011 article from Forbes magazine: "Why Switzerland Has the World's Best Health Care System"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/04/29/why-switzerland-has-the-worlds-best-health-care-system/

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9555
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #118 on: March 29, 2014, 12:07:38 PM »
Here's a 2011 article from Forbes magazine: "Why Switzerland Has the World's Best Health Care System"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/04/29/why-switzerland-has-the-worlds-best-health-care-system/
Daleth, thanks for that link - it's a good read and worth the time.  Two paragraphs in particular that caught my eye:
"99.5% of Swiss citizens have health insurance. Because they can choose between plans from nearly 100 different private insurance companies, insurers must compete on price and service, helping to curb health care inflation. Most beneficiaries have complete freedom to choose their doctor, and appointment waiting times are almost as low as those in the U.S., the world leader."
"Indeed, the fact that both liberals and conservatives would find objectionable elements to Switzerland is a large part of its appeal. It achieves the policy priorities of liberals (universal coverage; regulated insurance market) and of conservatives (low government health spending; privately-managed health care). Both sides could declare victory, and yet also have plenty to complain about."

As for choice and comparisons to other forms of insurance ("If you have a car, you don't have a choice about whether to buy car insurance.  If you have a mortgage, you don't have a choice about whether to buy homeowner's insurance.  Even renters may not have the option of not buying renter's insurance."), there are a few things.
 -  Not all states require auto insurance.  More importantly, nobody is required to have a car.
 -  You aren't required to have a home, nor to have a mortgage if you do have a home.
 -  As noted, in many cases a renter does have a choice.  One can debate the options, but the choice is there.

Speaking of choice, and when it may or may not (side discussion: any difference between "may" vs. "may not"?) apply, I wish the ACA "was actually designed to be very similar to the Swiss system".  A big problem with the ACA is the lack of choice - people in many places have limited options and can't "choose between plans from nearly 100 different private insurance companies."


PeachFuzzInVA

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 171
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #119 on: March 29, 2014, 01:20:18 PM »
Those examples only translate to healthcare if the healthcare providers themselves were the ones requiring you to have insurance in order to be treated. Since that's not the case, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Things do not have to be identical in order to be comparable, and in any case I don't see why the proper analogy here would be health insurance being required by healthcare providers. The government of your state is who requires you to have car insurance. It is not that big a stretch to say the government of your state or country could require you to buy some other kind of insurance, such as health insurance. That's what Massachusetts did under Governor Romney, after all.

And since my point was that buying insurance is not always a choice--it may be required--that point remains true.

Being insured means that you're managing that risk by joining a pool of others who are also making an effort to manage the same risk in their lives. Just like you wouldn't want to share a risk pool with a pyromaniac when insuring your home, it would financially insane to want to share a risk pool with someone who is a far greater risk to incur major healthcare related expenses in your health insurance pool. The ACA attempts to defy the theories of risk management by forcing low risk people to pool their risk with high risk people.

It would be financially insane for an insurance company NOT to pool higher-risk and lower-risk people together. If you put all the higher-risk people together the insurance company is looking at a major loss. If you put all the lower-risk people together, the insurance company would love that--you'd be making them rich by paying more than you should relative to the pool's overall risk--but fortunately the ACA took that option away from insurance companies because it harms both the low-risk people (by charging them more than they actually need to pay relative to the overall risk) and high-risk people (by not covering them at all, or only in different plans with exorbitant prices).

It was, and still is, doomed to fail from the get go. Then again, I think it was intentionally designed to fail in the first place so that a universal system could be forced onto the American people, which would be a moral tragedy in itself.

It was actually designed to be very similar to the Swiss system, which has been going strong for decades and has shown no sign of moving towards government-provided healthcare (which is what I assume you mean by "a universal system").

Here's a 2011 article from Forbes magazine: "Why Switzerland Has the World's Best Health Care System"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/04/29/why-switzerland-has-the-worlds-best-health-care-system/

I don't think you understand how insurance works. Before the ACA, insurance companies had the option to NOT offer insurance to high risk people, or to offer it at a price that prevented a loss to the insurance company (which would likely have made it unaffordable to high risk patients). That made good business sense, as they're not a charity; they're in business to turn a profit. Low risk members want to share that risk with other low risk members so as to keep costs down. By introducing high risk members into the risk pool, you are always, always, always without a single outlier, failure, or anomaly, going to drive the cost of insurance up for those who are in the lower risk pool. This is quite clearly backed up by the increase in premiums that young and healthy individuals have experienced as a result of the ACA.

Penelope Vandergast

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 101
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #120 on: March 29, 2014, 08:09:08 PM »
Getting back to bronze vs silver. Did a little research and it appears that it IS the case that only silver plans are eligible for subsidies. I just read a university report on the ACA in Pennsylvania and they state very clearly there that bronze plans are NOT eligible for subsidy. Other sources:

https://www.healthcare.gov/will-i-qualify-to-save-on-out-of-pocket-costs/

http://www.healthsubsidy.net/Which_Plans_Eligible_For_Health_Subsidy.html#sthash.t7EqoVF2.dpbs

http://www.healthreformbeyondthebasics.org/cost-sharing-charges-in-marketplace-health-insurance-plans-part-2/
(Skim down to "Would it ever make sense for someone eligible for cost-sharing reductions to buy a bronze plan instead of a silver plan?")

Quote:
"If a person with income below 250 percent of the poverty line enrolls in a bronze plan instead of a silver plan, he would not be eligible for cost-sharing reductions.  He would have to pay whatever out-of-pocket charges are required under the bronze plan.  In most cases, it will make the most sense for people at the lower end of the income scale to pick a silver plan and receive cost-sharing reductions.  But the choice will depend on an individualís situation and preferences."




geekette

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1858
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #121 on: March 29, 2014, 08:31:03 PM »
You're conflating subsidies (lower premiums) with cost sharing (lower deductibles and out of pocket).

Yes, it's confusing.

beltim

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2840
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #122 on: March 29, 2014, 09:21:30 PM »
Yep, Geekette is right.  Go right to the source: https://www.healthcare.gov/will-i-qualify-to-save-on-monthly-premiums/

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4748
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #123 on: March 30, 2014, 01:43:45 AM »
Those examples only translate to healthcare if the healthcare providers themselves were the ones requiring you to have insurance in order to be treated. Since that's not the case, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Things do not have to be identical in order to be comparable, and in any case I don't see why the proper analogy here would be health insurance being required by healthcare providers. The government of your state is who requires you to have car insurance. It is not that big a stretch to say the government of your state or country could require you to buy some other kind of insurance, such as health insurance. That's what Massachusetts did under Governor Romney, after all.

And since my point was that buying insurance is not always a choice--it may be required--that point remains true.

Being insured means that you're managing that risk by joining a pool of others who are also making an effort to manage the same risk in their lives. Just like you wouldn't want to share a risk pool with a pyromaniac when insuring your home, it would financially insane to want to share a risk pool with someone who is a far greater risk to incur major healthcare related expenses in your health insurance pool. The ACA attempts to defy the theories of risk management by forcing low risk people to pool their risk with high risk people.

It would be financially insane for an insurance company NOT to pool higher-risk and lower-risk people together. If you put all the higher-risk people together the insurance company is looking at a major loss. If you put all the lower-risk people together, the insurance company would love that--you'd be making them rich by paying more than you should relative to the pool's overall risk--but fortunately the ACA took that option away from insurance companies because it harms both the low-risk people (by charging them more than they actually need to pay relative to the overall risk) and high-risk people (by not covering them at all, or only in different plans with exorbitant prices).

It was, and still is, doomed to fail from the get go. Then again, I think it was intentionally designed to fail in the first place so that a universal system could be forced onto the American people, which would be a moral tragedy in itself.

It was actually designed to be very similar to the Swiss system, which has been going strong for decades and has shown no sign of moving towards government-provided healthcare (which is what I assume you mean by "a universal system").

Here's a 2011 article from Forbes magazine: "Why Switzerland Has the World's Best Health Care System"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/04/29/why-switzerland-has-the-worlds-best-health-care-system/

I don't think you understand how insurance works. Before the ACA, insurance companies had the option to NOT offer insurance to high risk people, or to offer it at a price that prevented a loss to the insurance company (which would likely have made it unaffordable to high risk patients). That made good business sense, as they're not a charity; they're in business to turn a profit. Low risk members want to share that risk with other low risk members so as to keep costs down. By introducing high risk members into the risk pool, you are always, always, always without a single outlier, failure, or anomaly, going to drive the cost of insurance up for those who are in the lower risk pool. This is quite clearly backed up by the increase in premiums that young and healthy individuals have experienced as a result of the ACA.
Expect within large group plans, which is what the ACA plans are modeled after.  Yes, this means the price is higher on the open market but this means that people can get a similar plan as their employers and therefore not be tied to their employer.  I would think people who want to be FIRE would LIKE this.  ACA allowed my mother to retire years prior than she wold have been able to with out it.

Daleth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1201
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #124 on: March 30, 2014, 09:09:22 AM »
I don't think you understand how insurance works. Before the ACA, insurance companies had the option to NOT offer insurance to high risk people, or to offer it at a price that prevented a loss to the insurance company (which would likely have made it unaffordable to high risk patients). That made good business sense, as they're not a charity; they're in business to turn a profit. Low risk members want to share that risk with other low risk members so as to keep costs down. By introducing high risk members into the risk pool, you are always, always, always without a single outlier, failure, or anomaly, going to drive the cost of insurance up for those who are in the lower risk pool. This is quite clearly backed up by the increase in premiums that young and healthy individuals have experienced as a result of the ACA.

Are you seriously lamenting the lost golden age when Americans with health problems could not get insurance unless they had jobs that offered group insurance? If you have health problems, no self employment or early retirement for you--too bad, so sad, better luck next life?

If so, we have nothing further to discuss since our basic values are fundamentally different.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1374
  • Location: Denver
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #125 on: March 30, 2014, 04:16:09 PM »
If so, we have nothing further to discuss since our basic values are fundamentally different.

This is what it boils down to. There are seriously people who think if you don't have cash or insurance, then you should not get medical treatment. Or they're fine with the treatment, but they expect you to pay for it...I guess with imaginary dollars?

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3286
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #126 on: March 30, 2014, 05:04:38 PM »
I think it's more of a cognitive dissonance/low information issue. I can't imagine more than 5-10% of the US would really support repealing EMTALA (if they knew what it was), and once you've made that decision, you're pretty much stuck ending up at universal health care/mandated insurance of some kind unless you just want to flush money down the toilet treating people in the ER.

It's the same as asking people if the government is too big, then asking what they want to get rid of - it turns out they like 95% of it but would like to get rid of "waste" in the abstract.

-Walt

If so, we have nothing further to discuss since our basic values are fundamentally different.

This is what it boils down to. There are seriously people who think if you don't have cash or insurance, then you should not get medical treatment. Or they're fine with the treatment, but they expect you to pay for it...I guess with imaginary dollars?

CarDude

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • Location: Chicago, IL
  • Beep Beep!
    • The CCD
Re: ACA Sticker shock, give me an alternative
« Reply #127 on: March 30, 2014, 05:18:19 PM »
I don't think you understand how insurance works. Before the ACA, insurance companies had the option to NOT offer insurance to high risk people, or to offer it at a price that prevented a loss to the insurance company (which would likely have made it unaffordable to high risk patients). That made good business sense, as they're not a charity; they're in business to turn a profit

Yeah, those were bad days if you weren't an insurance company, or if you happened to be anything but young, rich, or healthy. And sooner or later, none of us are young, rich, and healthy any more.