Obama won.. (Read 1493 times)

    My company's premiums are staying the same this year, but the coinsurance will drop from 90% to 80%.  They're also pushing a high deductible alternative plan on which I did the math for my family, and for us it's a bad deal.

    Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject.

      my premium went up 17%.  Needless to say we took the high deductible route.  YMMV. 

      In an infinite universe, the one thing sentient life cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion

      http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white&fb_source=message

       

       

       


      A Dance with Monkeys

        Most health insurers' premiums have gone up year-in and year-out for many many years.

         

        So too has sea level.  Frankly, from a statistical standpoint, sea level is more likely to have caused insurance premium increases than Obamacare.

         

        Glenn Beck's lemonade is apparently fairly tasty as well Wink

          I suspect the main problem is that employers and insurers have little idea how it's all going to pan out, so the rates for the next couple of years will be determined by the WAG method as much as anything.

          Well at least someone here is making relevance to the subject.


          day after day sameness

            Insurance = the premiums of the many cover the major, unaffordable & unpredictable losses of the few.

             

            Outside of some elements of the high-deductible plans, what you're buying with health insurance is not insurance. It is cost leveling.

             

            Carry on.

            Choosing my words carefully has never been my strength I've been known to be vague and often pointless


            just a simple cat

              My premiums stayed the same.  My employer did add a cheaper option, but the coverage wasn't as complete.  My employer didn't blame or credit Obama.

               

              Running is stupid


              A Dance with Monkeys

                A friend of mine lost her job last year. Her former employer blamed Obamacare. The employer was unhappy that he would now have to provide healthcare coverage and could not afford it. So he fired some employees and blamed Obamacare rather than take responsibility for simply finding a way to provide his employees adequate employee benefits.

                 

                Running a business ain't easy. But your employees, I'd imagine they are your most important resource. Without your employees (and customers, of course) you don't succeed. They deserve their benefits, and a business owner ought to be responsible enough to budget that. IMO. YMMV.

                  sea level rise is due to Obamacare. 

                  In an infinite universe, the one thing sentient life cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion

                  http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white&fb_source=message

                   

                   

                   


                  A Dance with Monkeys

                    sea level rise is due to Obamacare. 

                     

                    snap!

                    wbudde


                      Insurance = the premiums of the many cover the major, unaffordable & unpredictable losses of the few.

                       

                      Outside of some elements of the high-deductible plans, what you're buying with health insurance is not insurance. It is cost leveling.

                       

                      Carry on.

                       Umm - I think you just defined insurance.  Insurance is cost leveling, regardless of the type of insurance.  Homeowner's insurance premiums work the same way - the premiums of the many cover the major, unaffordable, and unpredictable losses of the few.

                       

                      When you buy health insurance, you are getting cost leveling, which is in fact insurance.

                       

                      Carry on.


                      Ostrich runner

                        I am an employer who does not offer insurance. The availability of exchanges should make some people viable employees for us who were not previously. I'm excited about that.

                        http://www.runningahead.com/groups/Indy/forum


                        Feeling the growl again

                          This is a clear and coherent post, but I thought that many of the factors that you mention here would be mitigated by spreading costs over a larger group of people -- including the currently uninsured. This is at least the reasoning behind mandated coverage. Also, the thought is that if we can get everyone's care managed instead of so many folks having to go to the ER, that this would also reduce costs. I am not sure whether the math adds up, but it seems that any reasonable analysis would have to take these factors into consideration.

                           

                          To the point about demonstrating value of care -- isn't this what conservative opponents of the plan called "death panels" and was a primary problem that they found with Obamacare? I thought the idea was that experts would make these decisions about cost/benefit in consultation with docs and patients. This sounds fairly reasonable to me, and sounds at least as efficient as the open market (the facts are in on the open market, and it doesn't have much to say for itself.) I think the reason that the open market doesn't work well with health care is that it's hard for patients to be a) well informed and b) reasonable actors in the face of severe health issues. In other words, people don't act as free economic agents doing cost/benefit analysis when their own health is what's at stake.

                           

                          To heffa: I think Trent's point was simply that health premiums are rising because the costs of health are rising. Obamacare is a response to this, not a driver of it. Of course reasonable people disagree about whether Obamacare is a good response, but any claim that Obamacare is or would be the principle "cause" of rising health care costs is simply false.

                           

                           

                          My post was not intended as an exhaustive analysis...you are correct, there are other factors and considerations.  Yes, reducing dependence on ER visits would help bring costs down (duh, right?).  However, bringing in a lot of the currently uninsured is likely not going to generate a ton of additional revenue...many of them will be subsidized by taxpayers, so that's not helping anything with the cost angle.

                           

                          I need to clear up my "value of care" comment.  I was not referring to the "death panels" (or whatever they are more appropriately called as that moniker was BS).  Although some govt-payer systems (UK) do just that...the gov't determines if the value provided is worth the price, and may choose not to make a treatment available to the population.  Personally I don't think the society in the US is ready to accept that model.

                           

                          What I was referring to was a decision made at the patient level.  There is rarely any transparency to the patient as to the performance of physicians/hospitals/institutions.  There is also practically no way to prospectively investigate the prices for most service.  So the patient cannot shop for the best value they can afford within their budget, as a savvy shopper would do for practically all other goods/services.

                           

                          Imagine if there were outcomes data publicly available allowing you to view the quality provided by healthcare sources.  Then imagine they were mandated to provide pricing for a set list of services.  So you can restrict your search to those within your budget, then choose the highest-performing provider -- the best value.  Healthcare providers would then be placed under both pricing and performance pressure; costs would go down and quality of care would go up.

                           

                          Why is this important...take the real-life example given to me of a smallish city that had two hospitals.  Both had expensive diagnostic equipment operating well below capacity; there was only demand enough to keep one of them busy and their physical location was in close proximity.  But with no competitive pressures, both facilities stayed open at only about half of capacity and raised their prices to cover costs.  In a competitive environment, you likely would have seen one of the facilties choose to exit that service and focus on competing on some other service, allowing the remaining one to operate more efficiently/cheaply. 

                           

                          This obviously doesn't work with all services...you're not going to do a cost/benefit analysis when you're having a heart attack or get in a car wreck.  But it would have a significant impact in many types of care.  Our biggest healthcare expense for the past 5 years has been deliveries; I would certainly have liked the opportunity to plan ahead in this way to optimize the value we got.

                           

                          As for Obamacare being the principle driver of premium cost....of course not.  But it will drive them up more, there are plenty of sources to validate that fact.  But the fundamental purpose was also not to reduce costs...for most people, that is not the case.  It will be for some.  I doubt we will see a true reform package anytime soon.

                          "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                           

                            What I was referring to was a decision made at the patient level.  There is rarely any transparency to the patient as to the performance of physicians/hospitals/institutions.  There is also practically no way to prospectively investigate the prices for most service.  So the patient cannot shop for the best value they can afford within their budget, as a savvy shopper would do for practically all other goods/services.

                             

                            Imagine if there were outcomes data publicly available allowing you to view the quality provided by healthcare sources.  Then imagine they were mandated to provide pricing for a set list of services.  So you can restrict your search to those within your budget, then choose the highest-performing provider -- the best value.  Healthcare providers would then be placed under both pricing and performance pressure; costs would go down and quality of care would go up.

                             

                            Sounds great to me! I vote YES.


                            Interval Junkie --Nobby

                              I read a great article, that I'm having trouble finding, that the rising relative cost of heathcare is completely predictable and natural.  Most industries are experiencing the benefit of the industrial and technology/information revolution in the form of cost-savings through workforce efficiency (the forklift does the work of 10men for the same volume of work, etc).  

                               

                              However, health-care experiences the opposite trend.  Technology has not made doctors and nurses more efficient, they only increase quality of the service.  The X-Ray doesn't make a diagnosis of a broken arm faster.  But it does dramatically increase the cost of diagnosing the fracture, as well as the accuracy of the diagnosis.  And much of medical technology is like that.  Furthermore, the maladies we can cure have increased -- where before a person with cancer was a gonner at little cost, now they have a chance with a big price ticket.

                               

                              So, while other things are becoming relatively cheaper, the relative cost of health-care for our society will continue to become a greater percentage of our living expenses.

                               

                              Wish I could find the article, as I'm sure I've done it injustice.

                              2014 Goals:  sub-3 Marathon 

                              Current Status 08/28: Slowly working back up from a pelvic stress fracture.  4mil distance PR w00t!

                              xor


                                "where before a person with cancer was a gonner at little cost, now they have a chance with a big price ticket."

                                 

                                 

                                Hip hip hooray.  :-/

                                 

                                Off the top of my head, I can think of 5 cancer survivors who regularly post in this board and at least 2 who are actively dealing with the "condition".

                                 

                                Let's be careful out there.