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.
Many of those plans had lots of exclusions and exemptions to coverage including pre-existing conditions, requirements for referrals and advance approvals for many services. In essence, there were more ways for insurance companies to not pay for care which kept prices low. You also didn't have as many specialist and specialties that commanded higher cost for a single targeted service. However, it was not such a political football as it is today. Once politics became a part of health care, it went to hell.
Yes, this. The ACA disallowed those poor coverage plans. I had a plan for a couple of years, and then was shocked to discover when I was looking something else up in the in the book, that it did not cover chemotherapy. And then looked up the cost of chemotherapy, and at that time it was $16,000 a session. Boy did I get rid of that policy quickly! People often found out why their policies were so inexpensive when they actually got sick, but then it was too late. The ACA required basic things to be covered, including things like chemotherapy.
Policies prior to ACA were also allowed to have lifetime limits, usually $1 million. Spent a couple of weeks in intensive care, and you’ll already be halfway to that figure. I read stories about parents whose children had cancer, and had reached their lifetime insurance limit at age 6 or seven. One family who this happen too, their childs cancer came back, and they had no options to get it treated without mortgaging their home and eventually going bankrupt.
Babies born with heart defects, spina bifida, or other issues were uninsurable for life because of pre-existing conditions.
All these things allowed Insurance to be cheaper, but at a great price.
ACA was doomed from the start because they were never any cost controls included in it. They were told that before it even passed, but they passed it anyway. That's what happens when the insurance industry writes the law.
The cost controls are provided by the insurance company. Under the ACA, I have the exact same plan this year that I’ve had for the last 10 years. This year I am unemployed, so I qualify for subsidies. That is the only thing that is different I still have the exact cost restraints, copays and deductibles from Blue Cross Blue Shield that I did before I qualified for subsidies. ACA insurance is from regular normal private insurance companies it’s not health insurance provided by the government.
Thank God for it, because I could not have a afforded the $700 a month I was paying. This year I’m paying $323 a month and it’s the only reason I can still afford to have insurance while I’m not working. The exact same limits apply that have applied to me every other year with this policy. Again exact same policy, I’m just getting help to pay for it. I don’t know what you’re talking about in terms of cost controls. Maybe you can clarify.
Think of it this way: Young, healthy (or even old, healthy) people pay out of pocket for all the little stuff. You decide if you can afford to go to the doc for a routine winter cold, a minor sprain at the company softball game, etc You won't go if it comes out of your pocket. You do go if "insurance" ie- the rest of us- is paying for it.....Money saved due to diminished demand. Your insurance premiums are very low.
Now the cost of that unexpected appendectomy, ER visit after an accident, complication of pregnancy,etc is still covered even by the low insurance premiums.
The pts who create a problem for insurance are the ones who have problems that require prolonged, expensive care: injuries causing paralysis, burn victims, etc. That's not all that common in the greater scheme of things. An adequately funded (via taxes) program would cover that. Your lower premiums plus taxes would be less of a burden on the citizens than a single program covering it all-- because that would create higher demand.
I don't want to sound hard hearted, but cancer victims and cardiac cases and such don't cost the system all that much--They don't live that long. Smokers (our favorite Whipping Boy) actually cost the system less-- They die young.
I just looked up average monthly premium: $440. Cost of CABG surgery is $75,000, ie- your first 14 yrs of paying premiums pays for a CABG. The monthly premiums you'd pay over an average adult lifetime is ~$320,000. … Each of us "Makers" is paying for ourselves plus three other "Takers."
I object to your “Makers vs Takers” term. I paid full price for my insurance my entire adult life. Now I am laid off and I need some help with it. That does not make me a taker. I have contributed more than my share of taxes to this country.
You would think the coronavirus scare would be enough to convince people that insurance is important. When we get some sort of epidemic here, and people do not go to the doctor because they can’t afford it, you will see how people not having insurance affects all of us.
Very much mistaken about smokers dying young. I’ve worked in nursing homes for over 20 years. There are plenty of nursing home residents that are in their 70’s on oxygen and still going out to smoke. People with unhealthy lifestyles cost more in the long run, because they end up in nursing homes in their 50s rather than their 80s and 90s like it used to be.
Diabetes is probably the most expensive disease in this country currently. Look up statistics about how much we pay for dialysis in this country and how many more people are getting dialysis than ever before in our history. You can’t even get an open slot in dialysis clinics anymore.
Maybe instead of taking people’s health care away we stop giving corn subsidies so they stop putting high fructose corn syrup in everything ( if you read anything about it, it became a “thing“ due to the massive amounts of extra corn that was grown due to the subsidies) and put that money to preventative care and better nutrition to the poor. It would be far cheaper in the long run. We will never give up that kind of socialism though. That’s the ridiculous thing. People act so threatened by socialism, but we are already have many socialist policies, it’s just the top-tier and corporate America that benefits from them.
I don't understand why anyone says fructose is worse then sugar created from other sources. If you drink soda with Sugarcane in it going to get the same high dose just as bad.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sugar-h...r-your-health/
"The science is pretty clear that normal household sugar doesn't differ from high-fructose corn syrup," said Kratz, who specializes in nutrition and metabolism. "They are equally bad when consumed in sugar-sweetened beverages."
The real problem is the high carbohydrate diets made from corn, and soybeans that's where the problems are. If you eat plant based diet with lot less carbs won't gain the extra weight.
I don't understand why anyone says fructose is worse then sugar created from other sources. If you drink soda with Sugarcane in it going to get the same high dose just as bad.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sugar-h...r-your-health/
"The science is pretty clear that normal household sugar doesn't differ from high-fructose corn syrup," said Kratz, who specializes in nutrition and metabolism. "They are equally bad when consumed in sugar-sweetened beverages."
The real problem is the high carbohydrate diets made from corn, and soybeans that's where the problems are. If you eat plant based diet with lot less carbs won't gain the extra weight.
The difference is we don’t subsidize sugar the way we do corn (although we spend about $4 billion a year propping up sugar prices artificially). There is no reason for it. 77% of the subsidies go to the top 10% of big agra companies. Again, a socialist policy that mostly benefits the super wealthy.
“Between 2001 and 2006, farm subsidies tapered off a bit, averaging $19 billion a year. Of this, about 15% was wasteful, unnecessary, or redundant.
Between 1995 and 2010, farm subsidies had ballooned to $52 billion a year on average. Of this, more than 6% went toward four "junk food" components: corn syrup, high-fructose corn syrup, corn starch, and soy oils. Many people wondered why the federal government was subsidizing food that contributed to America's obesity problem.”
It’s unnecessary. $52 billion could provide healthcare, better nutrition and reduce healthcare costs across-the-board for all of us. Instead they give it away to the already wealthy for no gain to the rest of us, but actual harm because they have to find a place to use all that corn, and it results in massive overgrowing of obesity causing products and high fructose corn syrup being injected into everything even cough syrup. I guarantee those “Harvest boxes” Trump wants to provide instead of food stamps will all be subsidy-heavy food products that will only increase health care costs and make us sicker than we already are.
I remember having what I thought was high deductible private health insurance in the early 90's it was BCBS with $1000 deductible. It also paid for office visits $20 and medication was mostly no cost. The premiums were $80-90 a month. I was around 22 I lived on my own by then I remember my fathers group insurance plan no deductible and was virtually free for entire family. I know younger people will end up with lower cost plans I never went to the doctor was just in case. I made $6-7 an hour was able to pay my bills without a problem.
What caused healthcare cost in America to rise so much if what we had was so bad why did it work back then?
It didn't work back then. In the 90's in WA State, individual health insurance started out costing $150/mo., but it suddenly doubled in cost to $300, and the next year it doubled again to $600! Finally, it got so expensive, that the state scrapped it, and I don't know what they came up with to replace it; I moved away at that point. Part of the problem was, that people were allowed to sign up for it only when they needed health care, and then drop it. That was one thing causing the cost to skyrocket.
It didn't work back then. In the 90's in WA State, individual health insurance started out costing $150/mo., but it suddenly doubled in cost to $300, and the next year it doubled again to $600! Finally, it got so expensive, that the state scrapped it, and I don't know what they came up with to replace it; I moved away at that point. Part of the problem was, that people were allowed to sign up for it only when they needed health care, and then drop it. That was one thing causing the cost to skyrocket.
The insurance I had was not sold by the state. It was private insurance I lived in California it was Blue Cross I think. It worked for me I was able to pay it the price went up about $10 a year I had it from 1989-1995 when I moved to Arizona there I got group insurance. I do remember if you let insurance laps or had a gap they won't cover anything which you might have had before the policy was purchased. I always kept a policy even if I didn't use it much.
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.
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.
