Premiums Unveiled For Health Overhaul Plans

[Tiddlywinks]

Originally Posted by Millburn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't know about you guys but I'm fucking STOKED for this shit.

I've had type 1 diabetes for 24 years now and the shit it's done to my savings account is ridiculous. I have to maintain health insurance even if it doesn't do anything for me so that I can keep a certificate of credible insurability which would guarantee that going forward I wouldn't be denied coverage due to my pre-existing condition. Most (read: 99%) of plans don't cover anything that I need and the ones that do are split between both prescription insurance and health insurance due to diabetic supplies being a medical supply and insulin being a medication. So that's two things that sap my income without providing any benefit.

All in all my monthly expenses are about $300 for insulin, $100 for strips, $75 for syringes and pen needles. That's almost $500 a month and that's the BARE necessity of what I need. That is essentially a second apartment lease and that's just to survive.

The affordable care act is pretty much a dream come true if I understand it correctly.

Awesome man. I'm wicked happy for people like you, and what this changes for those with pre-existing conditions. It's really barbaric the way you people have been treated for so long by health care providers and insurers.

[Tiddlywinks]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ah, I was speaking of people our age. Old folks use a lot of health care, but not necessarily for insurable events, just "getting older" problems. This chart kind of shows what I'm talking about.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]




Your understanding of history and economics is sorely lacking. Companies don't offer health insurance "based on compensation structures of other similar businesses" just for that reason. They structure it like they do because government regulations make the current structure most effective in giving the employee the maximum amount of compensation for the least amount of cost to the business owner. They could offer us 100% pay and no benefits, but then the employer would have to pay more money overall to get the same bang for their buck. If we removed all tax incentives, you would see many more companies with no health insurance, giving their employees cash instead. You don't buy your car insurance, food, housing, or any other goods through your employer. Why don't you do these things? For economic reasons, and the same economic reasons would encourage you to buy health insurance on the open market absent government influence is keeping our health insurance tied to our job.



You seem to agree with me at first, but then only to a degree. It seems you understand that people are just as greedy as the employers. And you have to realize that people aren't stupid. If they were suddenly without health insurance through the employer and needed to pay another $5k a year on insurance, they would ask their employer for nearly all of that in increased compensation. In fact, I bet this process would happen automatically for most companies, as employees would be incredibly unhappy to suddenly lose such a big chunk of compensation. Companies that don't immediately increase compensation when the health coverage goes away would lose a lot of people. You have to remember that people who run businesses aren't as economically ignorant as you. And lucky for you many of us employees aren't either, and we'd make sure our (and by extension your) compensation rises as it should in this case.

I don't really understand the maliciousness in your tone. Calling me ignorant and telling me what I have no background or experience with is quite comical really. I don't pretend to know you, and for that reason I don't pretend to know what you do and don't know simply because I don't agree with you.

That said, I still disagree whole heartidly. It doesn't matter that we as employees would ask for the money our employers would be saving, they would have zero incentive to give it. I'm fairly confident they would just as soon have us walk away entirely.

The reason is that if everyone within a given industry did that, the compensation plans accross that industry would still be competitive, which is part of why we are receiving those benefits in the first place.

When the comeptition anywhere within the same industry is the same, the threat to walk and go elsewhere does not exist.

You're correct in that I do partially agree with you, because I feel for a given industry if this were to occur then pay would indeed rise, but like I said not by much, and definately nowhere near 100% of what our employers had been paying.

[Tiddlywinks]

Also, you can't really just look at the small subset of age brackets when discussing health costs per year. Of course younger people are on average going to spend far less than the elderly. Part of the way that insurance is set up is so that the unused Premiums of people such as yourself are used to cover the woman with breast cancer. You are not paying ONLY for directly what you will benefit from, that's not how insurance works. That's what savings accounts are for.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Tiddlywinks [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't really understand the maliciousness in your tone. Calling me ignorant and telling me what I have no background or experience with is quite comical really. I don't pretend to know you, and for that reason I don't pretend to know what you do and don't know simply because I don't agree with you.

That said, I still disagree whole heartidly. It doesn't matter that we as employees would ask for the money our employers would be saving, they would have zero incentive to give it. I'm fairly confident they would just as soon have us walk away entirely.

The reason is that if everyone within a given industry did that, the compensation plans accross that industry would still be competitive, which is part of why we are receiving those benefits in the first place.

When the comeptition anywhere within the same industry is the same, the threat to walk and go elsewhere does not exist.

You're correct in that I do partially agree with you, because I feel for a given industry if this were to occur then pay would indeed rise, but like I said not by much, and definately nowhere near 100% of what our employers had been paying.

Perhaps your employer would just let you walk away if you asked for a raise. Many wouldn't. I mean, if your theory is correct, why don't all employers just reduce compensation by 10% tomorrow? Your theory would dictate that they could do exactly that.

Compensation is determined by supply and demand for labor. Changing the law so that it's no longer advantageous to provide health insurance as part of the compensation does not change the number of people in the job market or the number of jobs needing to be filled. Therefore the total compensation, which would then be more pushed towards direct pay and less towards insurance, would remain the same. If anything, it would increase overall compensation, and here is why. Many people feel tied to their job because they need to maintain the same health insurance. This reduces the competitiveness in the job market and allows employers to pay somewhat less than they otherwise would have to.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Tiddlywinks [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also, you can't really just look at the small subset of age brackets when discussing health costs per year. Of course younger people are on average going to spend far less than the elderly. Part of the way that insurance is set up is so that the unused Premiums of people such as yourself are used to cover the woman with breast cancer. You are not paying ONLY for directly what you will benefit from, that's not how insurance works. That's what savings accounts are for.

Actually, that's exactly how insurance works in every other type of insurance. And it's how insurance would work with health insurance if not for regulations. Older folks get to pay far less on car insurance because they are less likely to have an accident. Older folks also have to pay a lot more on life insurance because it's more likely that they will die. For any insurance, any one person needs to pay exactly what their risk is at that point in time. Our health insurance is structured the way it is because old folks voted in people who told them that they'd force young people to subsidize their health care.

[MrSparkle001]

Originally Posted by Millburn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't know about you guys but I'm fucking STOKED for this shit.

I've had type 1 diabetes for 24 years now and the shit it's done to my savings account is ridiculous. I have to maintain health insurance even if it doesn't do anything for me so that I can keep a certificate of credible insurability which would guarantee that going forward I wouldn't be denied coverage due to my pre-existing condition. Most (read: 99%) of plans don't cover anything that I need and the ones that do are split between both prescription insurance and health insurance due to diabetic supplies being a medical supply and insulin being a medication. So that's two things that sap my income without providing any benefit.

All in all my monthly expenses are about $300 for insulin, $100 for strips, $75 for syringes and pen needles. That's almost $500 a month and that's the BARE necessity of what I need. That is essentially a second apartment lease and that's just to survive.

The affordable care act is pretty much a dream come true if I understand it correctly.

As happy as I am for you, I'm pissed that other people will now be paying for you. That's what the individual mandate is for. They may spin it to sound otherwise, but that's what it is. The insurance companies want to keep their profits, and in order to pay for preexisting conditions and maintain a profit they need young, healthy people to pay. Young, healthy people are forced to buy lousy insurance with ridiculously high deductibles in order to pay for people who cost the insurance companies too much. Your costs are forced on others. Great system huh.

Without the individual mandate this whole law would fail.

I'm also pissed that big corporations and even Congress got themselves exemptions because it's too expensive for them, yet the average working guy who will see his monthly expenditures increase significantly can't get an exemption. You know it's bad when there's members of Congress fighting to get Congress not to exempt itself.

[Pringles]

Originally Posted by Millburn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The affordable care act is pretty much a dream come true if I understand it correctly.

I don't think you understand it correctly.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Pringles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't think you understand it correctly.

Read the rest of his story. This thing is a dream come true for those who would like to be subsidized by healthy people.

[runlvlzero]

Originally Posted by Millburn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't know about you guys but I'm fucking STOKED for this shit.

I've had type 1 diabetes for 24 years now and the shit it's done to my savings account is ridiculous. I have to maintain health insurance even if it doesn't do anything for me so that I can keep a certificate of credible insurability which would guarantee that going forward I wouldn't be denied coverage due to my pre-existing condition. Most (read: 99%) of plans don't cover anything that I need and the ones that do are split between both prescription insurance and health insurance due to diabetic supplies being a medical supply and insulin being a medication. So that's two things that sap my income without providing any benefit.

All in all my monthly expenses are about $300 for insulin, $100 for strips, $75 for syringes and pen needles. That's almost $500 a month and that's the BARE necessity of what I need. That is essentially a second apartment lease and that's just to survive.

The affordable care act is pretty much a dream come true if I understand it correctly.

I don't think you should have to pay anything for your insulin or supplies. That whole sub unit industry could be run cheaply and efficiently enough that it could be entirely subsidized by everyone. I'm not sure how this will help people who are barely surviving with diabetes though who can't hold down a full time job. But if this is indeed going to help you I am happy. I don't think people should be murdered just because they aren't perfect.

Below just general thoughts not directed at you:

I just think it could be done much much better than our current regime is doing it. It's not even Obama's fault he doesn't have control over the entire medical industry. But as a leader he could publicly demand solutions and point out the corruption and issues it does have.

I think everyones biggest gripe in general is how vague and mis-advertised this whole idea is. And that a large number of us think we could do so much better as far as health care is concerned in this country. And that this is just a band aid.

Yep I think a lot. Nothing is written in stone as far as my opinion goes. I am not certified to know for sure in absolute terms =)

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by runlvlzero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

...I don't think people should be murdered just because they aren't perfect.
...

What a shocking and controversial statement. I'm sure all those non-perfect-people-murderers are going to come here in droves to debate you on that position.