U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-24-2017, 05:52 AM
 
1,721 posts, read 806,233 times
Reputation: 1034

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Dale View Post
They no longer act as health insurance companies. They are facilitators, clearing houses, etc...nothing more. They are not reserving for the risks. The risks are not being funded for. The system is insolvent, and it is not because one entity is in debt to another. It is just a matter of time in which they will need to ask the public to pay up.
You have insurance companies CEOs making millions and pharmaceutical companies charging thousands of dollars for medicine half of people don't really need. The healthcare industry is a billion dollar industry. Ideally the issues with healthcare could be solved mostly by universal healthcare, will it be perfect no but it will be better than what we have now. The public should pay up for better system, not one focused on profit first, health 2nd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-24-2017, 07:16 AM
 
10,519 posts, read 8,464,629 times
Reputation: 5055
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheyenne2134 View Post
You have insurance companies CEOs making millions and pharmaceutical companies charging thousands of dollars for medicine half of people don't really need. The healthcare industry is a billion dollar industry. Ideally the issues with healthcare could be solved mostly by universal healthcare, will it be perfect no but it will be better than what we have now. The public should pay up for better system, not one focused on profit first, health 2nd.
Yes, CEOs in general make a lot of money. That is nothing new.

If pharma is driving the accelerated inflation rates in healthcare, they should tackle that one first. They are supposed to be regulators, aren't they? Not business operators as they have become to be. And expensive inefficient operators that is.

I disagree that universal healthcare is the solution. It will not stop the inflation, it will just temporarily mask the underlying issues. Similiar to how RMBS masked the underlying issues in the real estate and mortgage industries, until that one blew up. Government is creating most of the inflation.

They are not getting to the root cause.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2017, 07:32 AM
 
Location: Manhattan
21,418 posts, read 28,240,716 times
Reputation: 9702
Under the system desired by the Republicans, John McCain would be uninsurable from the moment he had his first melanoma biopsied.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2017, 07:36 AM
 
6,993 posts, read 9,509,447 times
Reputation: 2952
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Dale View Post
I disagree that universal healthcare is the solution.

They are not getting to the root cause.

Then there is no solution because the root cause of it is that universal health care (meaning the kind that addresses the needs of everyone) is simply unaffordable for most people to pay out of their own pockets.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedog2 View Post
Too many people spending decades in nursing homes at tax payer expense after either giving all their assets to their kids or setting up trusts to protect the assets.

Those "eithers" you stated are two very different things, and the most common reason for draining savings is the former in very legitimate ways - a lifetime paying high home ownership taxes, property values that don't rise at the same rate as inflation, college expenses, sports/activities, and the simple fact that old people are living much longer than expected and being diagnosed with chronic illnesses that are more expensive to treat. If they had to set aside even more money for their old age then they will need to dramatically reduce spending elsewhere much earlier in life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2017, 07:46 AM
 
70,984 posts, read 71,317,886 times
Reputation: 48563
one of the reasons insurers had trouble setting ltc premiums is usage was grossly understated .

the stats were based on a generation ago . current boomers are not yet in the sweet spot . but what insurers failed to realize is those with insurance tend to use insurance .

a generation ago more people burdened their family with their care . that usually broke up families and ended in divorce as one kid stepped up to the plate and the siblings stepped back . one family took a social , financial or career hit trying to care for an aging parent while the others sacrificed nothing .

i wish i had a dollar for every family destroyed by this .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2017, 02:47 PM
 
10,519 posts, read 8,464,629 times
Reputation: 5055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest_Hills_Daddy View Post
Then there is no solution because the root cause of it is that universal health care (meaning the kind that addresses the needs of everyone) is simply unaffordable for most people to pay out of their own pockets.
Having more middle men isn't going to make it more affordable. Nor will removing all competition from the marketplace.

We need to address the root cause as to why it is so unaffordable. We're just wrapping bandages on it until its a mummy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2017, 02:53 PM
 
10,519 posts, read 8,464,629 times
Reputation: 5055
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
one of the reasons insurers had trouble setting ltc premiums is usage was grossly understated .

the stats were based on a generation ago . current boomers are not yet in the sweet spot . but what insurers failed to realize is those with insurance tend to use insurance .

a generation ago more people burdened their family with their care . that usually broke up families and ended in divorce as one kid stepped up to the plate and the siblings stepped back . one family took a social , financial or career hit trying to care for an aging parent while the others sacrificed nothing .

i wish i had a dollar for every family destroyed by this .
Insurers should really have those demographic trends accounted for in their longevity tables.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2017, 02:58 PM
 
70,984 posts, read 71,317,886 times
Reputation: 48563
what they didn't have is the fact people who have insurance use it . so usage was far more prevalent .

the baby boomers who will live longer than the previous generation who was studied has not even come up on the radar yet as a group . they are still to young .

there was also a lot of under estimating . in 1990 the medicaid budget for snf was cut and so folks were put in homes that were not skilled nursing facilities if they did not need that level . since it was not considered a snf the statistic for snf usage appeared far lower than it really was .

our first year we got a 10% premium increase . so far the last 2 years we have seen not a penny increase so hopefully they finally got usage and premiums matched .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2017, 04:33 PM
 
6,993 posts, read 9,509,447 times
Reputation: 2952
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Dale View Post
Having more middle men isn't going to make it more affordable. Nor will removing all competition from the marketplace.

We need to address the root cause as to why it is so unaffordable. We're just wrapping bandages on it until its a mummy.
If HC were affordable for everyone, then nobody would be thinking of making it universal. That is the root cause. It is simply not affordable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2017, 05:04 PM
 
10,519 posts, read 8,464,629 times
Reputation: 5055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest_Hills_Daddy View Post
If HC were affordable for everyone, then nobody would be thinking of making it universal. That is the root cause. It is simply not affordable.
So just let it continue to be unaffordable? Whether universal or not? How does making a service uniform make it more affordable other then rationing from those that can afford it or from the provider?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top