Quillback Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 The insurance companies are getting all this new business from younger people that would have taken their chances before, and most likely won't use the insurance until they age. The premiums from those that won't use the insurance until later in life will pay for the ones that have accidents or need attention earlier in life. The demand it creates (which will mostly be preventative) will all be paid for (small costs), and should lead to less costly procedures for those later in life. The costly procedures shouldn't change in the short term as those are mostly life saving ones that are now being done in some cases for free. That's purely wishful thinking. And please tell me the hospital that is giving life saving treatments for free. And if that's the case, why sign up for Obama care if you can get free treatment?
Feathers and Fins Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Justin you are making the same assumption the government is that young people will join. With a penalty for not joining of $95.00 a year I believe most young people will not participate thus putting more of a strain on healthcare and a burden on those with insurance. If health care to a young person is lets say 100.00 a month versus 95 a year in fines the youth will take the 95 over 1200. Especially with the fact in the bill that they could in a catastrophic illness sign up and be covered at that point. Just one of the many flaws of the ACA. Without the youth signing on to pay which builds up a catastrophic fund that is not used by them for 20 years or more the older people who are ill will quickly drain that fund. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Beaver-Lake-Arkansas-Fishing-Report/745541178798856
Feathers and Fins Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 That's purely wishful thinking. And please tell me the hospital that is giving life saving treatments for free. And if that's the case, why sign up for Obama care if you can get free treatment? Yes and no Quill. They are required by law to provide life saving aid. However once stable they will kick the person out. Then they will bill them. Now that is the interesting part. The patient does not have to pay for it the hospitals can try all they want to collect but the most that happens is the patient getting dinged on their credit and lets face it if they couldn't pay they probably don't care about their credit as its probably bad already. That's the simple version https://www.facebook.com/pages/Beaver-Lake-Arkansas-Fishing-Report/745541178798856
Justin Spencer Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Justin you are making the same assumption the government is that young people will join. With a penalty for not joining of $95.00 a year I believe most young people will not participate thus putting more of a strain on healthcare and a burden on those with insurance. If health care to a young person is lets say 100.00 a month versus 95 a year in fines the youth will take the 95 over 1200. Especially with the fact in the bill that they could in a catastrophic illness sign up and be covered at that point. Just one of the many flaws of the ACA. Without the youth signing on to pay which builds up a catastrophic fund that is not used by them for 20 years or more the older people who are ill will quickly drain that fund. By 2016 that number rises to $695 or 2.5% of taxable income (whichever is greater), so at this point why not get covered. I like how it eases people in instead of being a complete jolt to our systems. This easing in is why it will take a few years to see the full effect. I think people should be forced to get health insurance before they pay their cable bill or cell phone bill (chances are these add up to more than their health care insurance would be for the year). If you choose not to be insured you better not have a darn cell phone, or satellite tv and radio. "The problem with a politician’s quote on Facebook is you don’t know whether or not they really said it." –Abraham Lincoln Tales of an Ozark Campground Proprietor Dead Drift Fly Shop
Feathers and Fins Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 695 vs 1200 still betting on the lesser of two dollar amounts. And even then it still doesn't address the funding for the aging and their healthcare. If the fine is cheaper than the product why pay the product will be their mentality. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Beaver-Lake-Arkansas-Fishing-Report/745541178798856
Justin Spencer Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 695 vs 1200 still betting on the lesser of two dollar amounts. And even then it still doesn't address the funding for the aging and their healthcare. If the fine is cheaper than the product why pay the product will be their mentality. I don't know where the $695 will go (and I sure won't assume it is going where it should) but this money hopefully will be going to something related to paying for health care. With everyone paying their bills (or insurance companies) this does fund the aging and their healthcare, and the hope is with things finally being paid for that it might drive costs down and save the government money that they are already spending through medicare and Medicaid. I've said it many times, this won't be perfect to start with, but give it a chance and tweak it as we see where the improvements need to be made. I know you hate this because you look at it as being forced on you by the government (and I think government HAS to be downsized), but how can you possibly see this as being worse than the current system of letting those of us who pay our bills being forced to pay the bills of the millions who go to the ER for a fever? The only way I see anyone being against this is if they currently have no insurance, and are happy with others paying their bill if god forbid they have a catastrophic medical condition or accident. "The problem with a politician’s quote on Facebook is you don’t know whether or not they really said it." –Abraham Lincoln Tales of an Ozark Campground Proprietor Dead Drift Fly Shop
SpoonDog Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 The average cost per student is somewhere around $9500/year. The average cost of a hospitalization per person is around $15000/year. The reason healthcare doesn't worth locally, like schools- is partly because healthcare is simply more expensive than schools. If you think managing a national health program is confusing, imagine 114 independently operating healthcare systems- just in Missouri. If you were in a wreck on vacation out of state, does your local health plan cover that? A local system ignores discrepancies in the health of populations and availability of health services (http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/app/missouri/2013/rankings/outcomes/overall/by-rank) Many outstate counties have lower populations, higher obesity rates, higher smoking rates, higher rates of physical inactivity, higher unemployment, higher rates of uninsured, higher poverty rates, higher median age, and less access to healthy food. You can be the healthiest person in Carter County, but because the population's lower, the risks are higher, and the doctors are fewer, you'll be paying more money for less service than an unhealthy person in Boone County. And private insurers have little incentive to invest in low-income, high risk folks outstate when they can invest in healthier, wealthier, younger people in urban areas. Local governments already have trouble attracting enough medical providers for their residents. They already have problems implementing health and nutrition programs like WIC. They already have problems dealing with changing demographics- I'm not sure how making healthcare a matter for local government resolves the issues which are currently outstanding. You may not want your healthcare administered by Barack Obama- I'm not sure things would be better administered by Barney Fife. I'm just not sure many local governments have the talent pool necessary to run health or insurance programs. Example- one of the local (county) health department administrators has an Associate's in Social Service, from the local community college. He wasn't hired because of his stellar resume', he was hired because of who he knew- local governments are no more immune to abuse than federal. I don't think his education and experience qualifies him to run a local/regional health insurance program, and I think many places would have a tough time attracting enough talented or qualified people to make local healthcare networks functional, effective, and affordable.
SpoonDog Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 No, its a denial of insurance because the risk is too great. Insurance is a business where a pool of people put money into a pot to be used in case of emergency. That money tends to draw interest and make more. People are asked to put money into that pot based on the risks of age, health, and other criteria. But if someone wants to enter into the investment/insurance company with a risk factor that would result in a larger than normal payout resulting in a loss too great, they are denied. That person can still get health care. They just have to pay out of pocket. If the individual cannot pay out of pocket, they are denied healthcare. Or they go to the emergency room and you and I ultimately pay their bill. To me, neither of those is an ideal alternative.
Quillback Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 I don't know where the $695 will go (and I sure won't assume it is going where it should) but this money hopefully will be going to something related to paying for health care It goes to the treasury. With everyone paying their bills (or insurance companies) this does fund the aging and their healthcare The ageing receive Medicare and buy supplemental insurance, Medicare is not going away, and the hope is with things finally being paid for that it might drive costs down and save the government money that they are already spending through medicare and Medicaid.. Collectively the states are increasing their Medicaid budgets by 6 - 7 billion dollars, costs are not going down, they are being shifted, in this case, to the states. I've said it many times, this won't be perfect to start with, but give it a chance and tweak it as we see where the improvements need to be made. You are absolutely right in this case. I know you hate this because you look at it as being forced on you by the government (and I think government HAS to be downsized), but how can you possibly see this as being worse than the current system of letting those of us who pay our bills being forced to pay the bills of the millions who go to the ER for a fever? We'll still pay the bills, but in the form of federal spending, the costs are not going to magically decrease or go away. The only way I see anyone being against this is if they currently have no insurance, and are happy with others paying their bill if god forbid they have a catastrophic medical condition or accident. These are the folks Obama care needs to pay the bills, kind of useless if they continue to visit the emergency room.
Quillback Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Yes and no Quill. They are required by law to provide life saving aid. However once stable they will kick the person out. Then they will bill them. Now that is the interesting part. The patient does not have to pay for it the hospitals can try all they want to collect but the most that happens is the patient getting dinged on their credit and lets face it if they couldn't pay they probably don't care about their credit as its probably bad already. That's the simple version I can go to the emergency room and get heart bypass surgery?
Recommended Posts