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.
Still have yet to hear from anyone who had a $10K/year ($30K/family/year) plan prior to ACA who hates ACA.
The people who really hate ACA had the health equivalent of "The General" car insurance. And now are having conniptions over what real insurance plans actually cost.
Still have yet to hear from anyone who had a $10K/year ($30K/family/year) plan prior to ACA who hates ACA.
The people who really hate ACA had the health equivalent of "The General" car insurance. And now are having conniptions over what real insurance plans actually cost.
Not really. Have you looked at the premiums and deductibles on those plans?
The private payers said " OMG! This is a disaster. How can we make it profitable?" .... And they did.
You've got to admire the health insurance industry. They are incredibly inefficient ( Medicare, a government program fer cryin out loud, has less administrative burden and overhead costs ) universally hated, and yet incredibly profitable.
They provide nothing of value. Nothing. The providers do the work, the employers and patients pay the costs. The insurance company gets paid for complicating the transaction. They negotiate discounts for themselves and create nasty rules that are not patient centric.
The ACA turned into a payday for them. Especially here, where we already had an effective monopoly on healthcare.
You're preaching to the choir. I'm one of the "Medicare for Everyone" proponents.
But the fact remains that all of my friends who had their "most things are a $20 co-pay" health plan sorted out prior to ACA saw no changes at all. Life went on. No real hassle. They aren't grabbing pitchforks and torches and an effigy of Obama.
My friends who live more on the margins who had no insurance, or just catastrophic plans now see what the rest of us were paying all along. (I was self-employed for a long time before ACA. A good insurance plan was never $200/month. At least not without reaching back to my parent's era.) They're the ones making Obama effigies of paper mache.
And I'm tired of listening to them complain. Unrivet that wallet and pay up like the rest of us. Don't like it? Move to Panama or have surgery in Mexico with the rest of the medical tourists.
See? "Don't like it? Move!" works in the other direction, too!
I don't think that anyone would argue that trying to set up a system that would allow everyone access to health care was not going to cost more under our current system. Even with the taxes and provisions put in place to help pay for the expansion. Medicare, though a much better insurance than private in most cases, is still costing the government too much. To it's credit, it does deliver a superior product at a lower cost, but the cost is still over inflated in this country.
The problem is that not enough money has been collected over the years by the government to adequately fund Medicare. This coupled with our inflated health care costs brings me back to my original statement that the costs we are paying for healthcare must be addressed and the only way to achieve this is through government intervention. We do not get better quality health care under our current system. We rank 37th. https://www.healthinsurance.org/texas-medicaid/
We just get more expensive health care. You will be hard pressed to find anyone who receives health care coverage through Medicare complain about it. (unless you have an Advantage plan through a private provider)
I agree Medicare for all paid for through taxes is the ideal whether individually or through an employer, and what every other country has come to realize (only much earlier) What we got through the ACA was all that we were going to be able to get through at the time, and if any of you were watching the fight unfold, you know how tough it was to just get that passed. It was a fix, but certainly not the ideal fix.
But without the 100% support of all Americans (which means everyone must be negatively impacted by costs, not just some) we will never get anything through of this magnitude. Many Presidents have tried for almost 100 years, and they all failed, due to the propaganda propelled by the Health Care Industry, and bought politicians. Careers in government typically trump the welfare of the people, with a few rare exceptions from time to time.
I don't think that anyone would argue that trying to set up a system that would allow everyone access to health care was not going to cost more under our current system. Even with the taxes and provisions put in place to help pay for the expansion. Medicare, though a much better insurance than private in most cases, is still costing the government too much. To it's credit, it does deliver a superior product at a lower cost, but the cost is still over inflated in this country.
The problem is that not enough money has been collected over the years by the government to adequately fund Medicare. This coupled with our inflated health care costs brings me back to my original statement that the costs we are paying for healthcare must be addressed and the only way to achieve this is through government intervention. We do not get better quality health care under our current system. We rank 37th. https://www.healthinsurance.org/texas-medicaid/
We just get more expensive health care. You will be hard pressed to find anyone who receives health care coverage through Medicare complain about it. (unless you have an Advantage plan through a private provider)
I agree Medicare for all paid for through taxes is the ideal whether individually or through an employer, and what every other country has come to realize (only much earlier) What we got through the ACA was all that we were going to be able to get through at the time, and if any of you were watching the fight unfold, you know how tough it was to just get that passed. It was a fix, but certainly not the ideal fix.
But without the 100% support of all Americans (which means everyone must be negatively impacted by costs, not just some) we will never get anything through of this magnitude. Many Presidents have tried for almost 100 years, and they all failed, due to the propaganda propelled by the Health Care Industry, and bought politicians. Careers in government typically trump the welfare of the people, with a few rare exceptions from time to time.
I personally take a financial beating on Medicare. I had a life time Cadillac plan with my long term employer as did my wife. Basically paid nothing. If not for Medicare I would have kept that plan. I now end up paying just short of a grand a month for Plan F and drugs. Wife's plan is a little cheaper and she does not have the big drug bill. Altogether $16,000 or so.
Still have yet to hear from anyone who had a $10K/year ($30K/family/year) plan prior to ACA who hates ACA.
The people who really hate ACA had the health equivalent of "The General" car insurance. And now are having conniptions over what real insurance plans actually cost.
It's because very few were was spending $30,000 a year to insure their family Scoop. In 2012 (pre ACA) the average health insurance premium through an employer was $15,745 with the average employee paying $4,316 of that amount. $30,000 a year to insure a family wasn't happening my friend unless you're a family of smokers with deadly pre-existing conditions and could find an insurance company to insure you.
I'd seriously have to question someone’s basic financial management skills (or guess they have more money than they know what to do with) if they were a generally healthy family and they were spending $30,000 a year on health insurance pre ACA. Now if their employer was paying 100% of that (which is unlikely since the average is $16,000), it's a different story. However it’s still part of a compensation calculation and personally, I'd rather take the cash IF I could get the same care.
Let's look at my situation: We'll take average round numbers here so I can keep the math simple for myself, but they're close, very close. Let's take your $30,000 a year figure, say with premiums, out of pocket medical costs/deductibles etc. my annual healthcare cost was $12,000 a year. One of the years prior to ACA I had a heart attack and that year was about $20,000. If you run the numbers for 5 years at a rate of 5% return annually I'm up $95,173 AND still insured my family and our every medical need was met and paid. Why on earth would I pay $30,000 a year for health insurance and flush $95,000?, Hear the water swirling sound, that's 95K going down the crapper. Care was the exact same care as if I paid $30,000 but I didn't! Now granted, with the exception of my heart attack my family is healthy.
Now let’s say that savings allowed me to max out my 401K (which I do) and take advantage of the dollar for dollar match my employer does (which I'm fully vested in). Using a 5% annual return and an average max IRS contribution of $16,500 during the same 5 year period I'm sitting at $190,904. Now can I say that I deliberately funneled the money from insurance premium savings to my 401k, in all honestly I cannot, however, the savings certainly didn't hurt my ability to do it.
So tell me why I should have been paying $30,000 a year in health insurance premiums again?
Please excuse typos and grammatical errors, I typed this quickly.
It's because very few were was spending $30,000 a year to insure their family Scoop. In 2012 (pre ACA) the average health insurance premium through an employer was $15,745 with the average employee paying $4,316 of that amount. $30,000 a year to insure a family wasn't happening my friend unless you're a family of smokers with deadly pre-existing conditions and could find an insurance company to insure you.
I'd seriously have to question someone’s basic financial management skills (or guess they have more money than they know what to do with) if they were a generally healthy family and they were spending $30,000 a year on health insurance pre ACA. Now if their employer was paying 100% of that (which is unlikely since the average is $16,000), it's a different story. However it’s still part of a compensation calculation and personally, I'd rather take the cash IF I could get the same care.
Let's look at my situation: We'll take average round numbers here so I can keep the math simple for myself, but they're close, very close. Let's take your $30,000 a year figure, say with premiums, out of pocket medical costs/deductibles etc. my annual healthcare cost was $12,000 a year. One of the years prior to ACA I had a heart attack and that year was about $20,000. If you run the numbers for 5 years at a rate of 5% return annually I'm up $95,173 AND still insured my family and our every medical need was met and paid. Why on earth would I pay $30,000 a year for health insurance and flush $95,000?, Hear the water swirling sound, that's 95K going down the crapper. Care was the exact same care as if I paid $30,000 but I didn't! Now granted, with the exception of my heart attack my family is healthy.
Now let’s say that savings allowed me to max out my 401K (which I do) and take advantage of the dollar for dollar match my employer does (which I'm fully vested in). Using a 5% annual return and an average max IRS contribution of $16,500 during the same 5 year period I'm sitting at $190,904. Now can I say that I deliberately funneled the money from insurance premium savings to my 401k, in all honestly I cannot, however, the savings certainly didn't hurt my ability to do it.
So tell me why I should have been paying $30,000 a year in health insurance premiums again?
Please excuse typos and grammatical errors, I typed this quickly.
There is an index that tracks the cost of medical insurance for a family of four.
lIt indicates that growth in recent years has been moderate. Does not reach $30K but suggests $25K next year. But nothing extraordinary has happened. So it would indicate those in the ACA plan simply joined reality.
lIt indicates that growth in recent years has been moderate. Does not reach $30K but suggests $25K next year. But nothing extraordinary has happened. So it would indicate those in the ACA plan simply joined reality.
Right, the Kaiser survey I read was pre ACA and surveyed something like 3,300 small, med, and large business in 2012 again, pre ACA which is what the question regarding. Even using Milliman, $9,000 and change less than $30,000 pre ACA. Doesn't help Scoop finding those paying $30,000 per year.
Right, the Kaiser survey I read was pre ACA and surveyed something like 3,300 small, med, and large business in 2012 again, pre ACA which is what the question regarding. Even using Milliman, $9,000 and change less than $30,000 pre ACA. Doesn't help Scoop finding those paying $30,000 per year.
Kaiser has nothing at all to do with medical care in Las Vegas. Nothing. You want to talk Las Vegas ? Talk Sierra/ HPN/ United Healthcare.
They touch more than 50 percent of the valley's healthcare either directly or indirectly.
You looked at your provider manual recently? Notice a similarity?
Kaiser has nothing at all to do with medical care in Las Vegas. Nothing. You want to talk Las Vegas ? Talk Sierra/ HPN/ United Healthcare.
They touch more than 50 percent of the valley's healthcare either directly or indirectly.
You looked at your provider manual recently? Notice a similarity?
Different Kaisers. One is a CA medical purveyor. The other a non-profit that does data gathering.
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.
