Covered California Rate Increase 12.5% for 2018 (San Francisco, Brea: rent, utilities, price)

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by phantompilot

You overlooked the most obvious - that we are robbed to pay for free care to tens of millions of invaders from the Third World, who are all mooching "free" health care off our system. That's why your x-ray costs $600 instead of $60.

I understand your point. Respectfully, I request you re-read my post in its entirety, as I think it addresses your point.

Forget who pays for just a minute so we can focus on the totals.

Including the 12-ish million illegal aliens in the country, we consume about $10,000 to $12,000 per person in health care. If we were to wave a magic wand and all the illegal aliens were magically deported, and simultaneously secured our borders 100%, we would still as a nation consume about $10,000 to $12,000 per person in health care.

Both the numerator (total expenditures) and the denominator (total number of people) would decline after the magic deportation, but the end result would still be the same: $10,000 to $12,000 per person in health care.

[Ro2113]

Originally Posted by Independentthinking

Don't know anything about provoking an emotional response (feel free to point out any inaccuracies). I did notice you can't provide the proof on your claim.

Proof of what claim? I didn't disagree with you about higher taxes. I said people will rather raise the national debt. Work on your reading comprehension.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

The ear infection in the child is treated with antibiotics so he doesn't later begin to lose his hearing and require expensive medical treatment.

I understand your point, but I do wish to point out that the majority of childhood ear infections are viral rather than bacterial. Antibiotics are ineffective. Pediatricians know this, of course, but when they hand out prescriptions for antibiotics with no evidence of a bacterial infection, they are actually treating the parents rather than the child. Pediatricians know this too.

[Independentthinking]

Originally Posted by Ro2113

Proof of what claim? I didn't disagree with you about higher taxes. I said people will rather raise the national debt. Work on your reading comprehension.

Perhaps you should do the same.

You claimed that people want some kind of Universal Healthcare. And I said you wouldn't find anything to prove that which includes details of the cost (because as soon as they hear the costs, they won't want it). Try not to respond so quickly and actually read what was written.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by Ro2113

At the end of the day across party lines people are beginning to want some type of universal healthcare. Maybe not Obamacare but some type of universal healthcare.

Universal healthcare does not address the root cause of the problem which is that the underlying health care costs too much.

We consume on average $10,000 to $12,000 per person in healthcare costs, so to fund universal healthcare, every individual must pay an extra $10,000 to $12,000 per person in taxes -- plus administrative costs. If your tax bill goes up by $10,000 to $12,000, that really doesn't solve the problem.

[Crashj007]

Originally Posted by taimaishu

Thanks Trump! Way to stick it to your voters.
What's the reason for the increase? Cost increase for healthcare or more money to the Insurance Lobbyist that donated to the Trump admin?
More reason to modify ObamaCare to pay doctors directly instead of going through a Greedy Middlemen like these Insurance companies.

1. Trump has done a terrible job as Insurance Commissioner of Health and Human services in California. Oh. Wait. Nevermind.
2. In the long run if healthcare is 17% of the economy, you will have to spend 17% of your income on healthcare. Yes, I know math is hard.
3. Let the doctors (and hospitals) send their bills to somebody with money but no supervision. Who are these "Greedy Middlemen" of whom you speak? The companies that review claims for validity? Somebody has to check things out to see if the claims are legit, no?

[SportyandMisty]

Let me make an analogy. Sorry - this is going to be a bit long winded.

The US food distribution system is amazingly efficient. We have fresh food available to us in grocery stores year round. No one gets rich working in a grocery store or a food distributor. It is amazing when you think about it -- even in the dead of winter we can buy fresh produce that is imported from the southern hemisphere. Prices are amazingly affordable. Profit margins along the entire food chain are thin. Life is good.

Now imagine a bizarro world where we have "food insurance" to pay for our grocery store purchases instead of paying for it directly. When you walk into the grocery store, you have no idea what they will charge you for a banana or box of hamburger helper, gallon of milk, or loaf of bread. There might not even be a posted price. You load up your shopping cart, head to checkout counter and present your "food insurance" card, pay a $20 "co-pay" and head out to your car.

Behind the scenes, the grocery store employs people to fill out paperwork on your behalf to bill the food insurance company for your purchases. Months later, the food insurance company responds to the grocery store saying that the Kraft Macaroni & Cheese you bought is disallowed because there was an equivalent generic house brand. The grocery store contacts you that you owe for that Kraft Mac & Cheese -- and you owe $72.19 because that is the full-boat retail price, even though an insurance rate was only $4.89.

You would tell the grocery store to resubmit the bill, as you insurance policy has a rider allowing you to purchase the name brand Mac & Cheese and the insurance company clearly denied the claim by mistake.

The grocery store does this, but the result is the same, and the grocery store threatens to send the bill to collections.

You call the insurance company, spend 45 minutes on hold, and eventually talk to a billing clerk, plead your case, and the insurance company tells you your rider for name brand Mac & Cheese is only good at Kroger's and instead you shopped at Safeway.

Clearly the above scenario is ridiculous. Think about how inefficient it is -- armies of billing clerks at the grocery store to fill out paperwork to send to insurance companies, who in turn employ armies of clerks to deny food insurance claims.

The answer is not "universal food". The answer is to get all the administrative bloat out of the system and return it to what we actually have - an amazingly efficient food distribution network.

Returning to the real world, imagine if we made health care delivery as efficient as the food distribution system. Instead of consuming $10,000 to $12,000 per person in health care expenditures, we might only consumer $3,000 per person --with the same or better quality.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Please tell me about how costs have gone down since obamacare was implemented?

To date, evidence has shown health spending has slowed since the ACA’s passage in 2010. However, as ACA coverage expansion provisions are implemented, we are seeing an increase in overall spending, although to an extent, that is to be expected.

The long-term impact of the ACA on health care costs depends on several factors, chief among them whether the law is repealed or stripped down to its bare bones. If Congress continues to punt on the Cadillac Tax and repeals IPAB, the prospect of future cost containment may be bleak."

https://ldi.upenn.edu/brief/effects-...st-containment

"...the implementation of the ACA has coincided with another important development — a slowdown in the rate of increase in national health care spending. From 2010 through 2013, per capita U.S. health care expenditures increased at the historically low rate of 3.2% annually, as compared with 5.6% annually over the previous 10 years.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...sue&#t=article

[Independentthinking]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

To date, evidence has shown health spending has slowed since the ACA’s passage in 2010. However, as ACA coverage expansion provisions are implemented, we are seeing an increase in overall spending, although to an extent, that is to be expected.

The long-term impact of the ACA on health care costs depends on several factors, chief among them whether the law is repealed or stripped down to its bare bones. If Congress continues to punt on the Cadillac Tax and repeals IPAB, the prospect of future cost containment may be bleak."

https://ldi.upenn.edu/brief/effects-...st-containment

"...the implementation of the ACA has coincided with another important development — a slowdown in the rate of increase in national health care spending. From 2010 through 2013, per capita U.S. health care expenditures increased at the historically low rate of 3.2% annually, as compared with 5.6% annually over the previous 10 years.

MMS: Error

Nonsense!

It merely depends on what propaganda piece you choose to read.

Einsurance individual premiums the year before Obamacare came into effect had individual premiums at $197. In 2014, those premiums jumped to $271 and are now at $393. For families premiums, they had a price of $426 in 2013. In 2014, that price went to $667 and is now at $1021. The essential benefits BS ( which many people did not need) made sure those premiums got cranked up really nice. I'm still amazed at how much disingenuous information is out on the internet.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Independentthinking

Nonsense!

It merely depends on what propaganda piece you choose to read.

When you call the New England Journal of Medicine a "propaganda piece," you're really grasping at straws.

Originally Posted by Independentthinking

Einsurance individual premiums the year before Obamacare came into effect had individual premiums at $197. In 2014, those premiums jumped to $271 and are now at $393. For families premiums, they had a price of $426 in 2013. In 2014, that price went to $667 and is now at $1021.

Link? Or are you listing figures from your own personal experience?