No comment, just sharing an article.
5 Ways To Protect Yourself Against Obamacare - Forbes
Forbes article "ways to protect yourself against Obamacare"
No comment, just sharing an article.
5 Ways To Protect Yourself Against Obamacare - Forbes
Definitely some good advice there even if Obamacare never passed. I have already taken advantage of medical tourism and highly recommend it.
The advise really hits on two of the most problematic aspects of Obamacare and medicare. The lack of docs willing to deal with the govt.
In 10 years, I see 2 distinct health systems in the US. The govt run system will be cheap but have long waits, impersonal, rushed care, and decreasing quality. The private system will be very expensive but very high quality. I still cant decide if private insurance will still be around or if the private system will be cash only.
Actually that's kind of how it works in many countries with universal health care. Everyone has access to the standard option but those who want can pay extra and go to private options. I don't see that as a problem.Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
You dont see it as a problem that a vast majority will be subjected to far lower quality health care than they currently receive? Not to mention the lack of access to see a doc because docs will either take the private route or be so backed up it takes months to get an appointment?
I don't see it as a problem.
Just curious, when a bunch more people line up for medical care, does that not increase demand for doctors/nurses/med techs/etc.? does that create more jobs? That's how it works in every other business, is that not how it works in the medical business?
The medical field is already short primary care docs. There is simply no interest in the relatively low pay and large workload.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
It's not a problem because they will not be "subjected" to it. It will simply be an option for everyone and the people who can afford exceptional healthcare will still be able to get the top of the line stuff. The fact we have high quality care now doesn't matter to those who can't afford it. I understand the system right now probably works fairly well for you and me but that doesn't mean it does for everyone. When it comes to healthcare, we need a system that works for everyone.
That is a problem but the answer isn't to price poorer people out of the healthcare system which is what is happening now.
We will all be subjected to it simply because we are in the US and forced to buy insurance. Obviously we are talking on a hypothetical scale right now, but it is already happening with reduced access for medicare/medicaid, it will get worse and be more far reaching when 12mil more people are added to the system.
Here is an article from 2009 that lays out the situation pretty well. Its only real deficiency, it was written before Obamacare passed so its numbers about doc shortages are too low.
Finding a Doctor Who Accepts Medicare Isn’t Easy - NYTimes.com
Here is a pretty good article about doc shortages. Notice the chart to the left that breaks down the shortage with and without Obamacare.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/he...mmunities.html
The lower quality care will start with assembly line style consultations and low waits. When, not if, costs start getting out of control, it will further lower the quality as docs are forced to use cheaper, less aggressive or less efficient methods of diagnosing and treating their patients.
Your average poor person can afford a major medical plan. They just have do decide which luxury item to do away with. Maybe its cigs, maybe its a smart phone, maybe its a new car every 4 years.
I just did a quick search and its possible to get a decent major medical plan for under $100 a month. BCBS offers one with a 2k deductable and an RX plan for about $75.
There is a very long list of reasons health care is getting more expensive. One of the biggest is under payment for medicare/medicaid. Another is the use of emergency rooms for non emergency care. Neither of which will be improved under Obamacare. One of the articles I linked thinks it will actually get worse.
Except many people who don't have it can't get it due to the preexisting condition BS.
This is where the gov't could step in. Maybe allow people with long term conditions to enroll in medicare.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
I couldn't get health insurance because I didn't follow up with something STUPID. That one reason, nothing was physically wrong. That stupid reason 100% prevented me from getting insurance with ANYONE. lol
I'm sure there are others willing to pay but have stupid reasons preventing them.
Just like me. I got stuck with a 3k bill with insurance because I had previously had chest pains 2 years prior to it. lol
Like I said, preexisting conditions which disqualify someone from private insurance is where the govt should step in.
Obamacare is too far reaching and will do nothing to reduce costs at any level of the system.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
The reason we don't have to wait long now is because there are millions of people who aren't going to the doctor even though they should be. That is worse in my opinion than everyone having to wait for checkups, non lifethreating procedures, etc. The solution is to bring down costs and make it easier to train doctors, not to reduce access to healthcare.
Yes a major medical plan is affordable for many people but not so much for others. First of all you are quoting a pretty optimal scenario (relatively healthy, young, individual as opposed to older, less healthy, family). The fact is that advertised plans on ehealthsurance.com or similar sites are often not the real cost once the application process is complete and they account for even the most minor health issues. Once you get coverage, that's just the start of your medical payments, not the end. Further, it is only as cheap as it is because people with significant health issues are disqualified from the get go.
I agree that Obamacare doesn't do anything for cost. The big win from Obamacare is that preexisting conditions can't be denied. The mandate is an unfortunate necessity (otherwise everyone would sign up for insurance only after getting sick). For that reason alone I am happy Obamacare was passed. Now we need to focus on bringing costs down.
I agree, the waits arent as long now because of cost. After Obamacare is fully implemented, there will be long lines for care and fewer docs to provide that care. About 1/3 of all primary care docs are over 55 and able to retire.
Will There Be Enough Doctors?
Making it easier to train and certify docs means lesser qualified docs. Another reason Obamacare will result in lower quality care for the masses. And you point out later, there is absolutely nothing that will bring down costs, only make healthcare more expensive for those that actually do pay for it ourselves, no matter what form those payments take.
I have stated several times preexisting conditions is where the govt needs to step in. I would prefer that people requiring long term care for a preexisting condition be allowed to enroll in a new form of medicare that has income based premiums.
The preexisting conditions mandate isnt a win. It is a loser for everyone. Now, everyone's premiums will be forced higher to pay for the sick. How many thousands of healthy patients do you think it would take to cover a single cancer patient when the insurance company not only HAS to enroll them, but cannot charge them in accordance with their current health? Instead of charging the sick guy 500 a month and charging me 50 a month, both of us will be charged 275 a month. Oh, and if cancer patient goes to the federal exchange for subsidies, the govt gets a say in how much care he gets.
You say you agree preexisting conditions need to be covered but you don't want the mandate. How can you have one without the other. Someone has to subsidize those with preexisting conditions or else their premiums would be unaffordable. If healthy people aren't forced to buy insurance, where will the money come from to pay for the less than healthy?
Read what I said again. Income based premiums for a new part of medicare for those that have long term pre existing conditions.
Side note, another major flaw has been discovered in Obamacare. You will see several states opting out of the state run exchanges in favor of the federal exchange. This is a strategic move. Because of the way the employer mandate was written, employers in states that opt for the federal exchange will not be subject to the fines for not providing coverage.
To make things better, revenue bills must start in the House. Since the mandate is a tax, legislation to fix the employer mandate has to start in the House. This means it wont be fixed and Obamacare just got tens of billions more expensive annually.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Income based premiums makes it more affordable for those with preexisting conditions but it doesn't lower the actual cost of their care. Who is going to pay for the cost of that care? In an insurance market, you can't just lower the amount one group pays without bringing in more revenue from somewhere else to counterbalance it. The money must either come from increased premiums for everyone else or by expanding the number of people in the market. Also without the mandate, why should healthy people pay for insurance when they can sign up the day after they get a condition?
Ah, I was wondering why some many red states were voluntarily giving power to the federal gov. Thanks for clarifying that.
Wouldn't that make it more likely to get fixed since the house is republican controlled and they claim lowering the deficit is a top priority?
There is nothing anywhere in Obamacare that will lower costs. It is only shifting the current costs and the costs of the new mandates on to someone else. Eliminating Obamacare and insuring the people with pre existing conditions through medicare will be far cheaper. As for solvency of medicare, its time to goto income based premiums, or even eligibility, for that also.
This may be a huge economic boom for those states as mobile employers will be able to avoid all of the extra taxes and fines.
Republican House now as more ammo to attack Obamacare. Dems dont care about deficits so it wont be repealed outright, but GOP now has a chance to actually replace it with something that may actually work to reduce the costs.
So instead of having the mandate and keeping more people in the private healthcare industry, you actually want to add millions more to the government program? The cost isn't really shifting much either way The costs are born by all Americans via higher insurance premiums (Obamacare method) or all Americans via higher medicare taxes (your method). Why do you think going through medicare will be far cheaper?
Well fixed or replaced. Just a semantics issue really.
The extra premiums required within the private health insurance system will handcuff many employers and their employees. You will likely see something in the nature of a 25% increase in premiums to cover the millions of long term, high cost pre existing conditions. Think of how many thousands of healthy customers that only get their monthly birth control and check-ups it will take to cover someone with cancer. Remember, that cancer patient cannot be charged more for their coverage than a healthy customer.
Millions more will be added to medicare and medicaid anyways. Using income based premiums will simply be a way offset some of the costs. Even doubling medicare taxes will not cost tax payers as much as the insurance mandate will. And I will repeat, there is nothing in Obamacare that will lower costs at any level of the healthcare system.
I dont think there is a way to fix Obamacare. There are thousands of lawyers waiting to file lawsuits but cannot do it until Jan 1, 2014. The real question is, will it matter. If Obama gets another SCOTUS appointment before the new challenges hit the court the decision would have already been made before the first argument. As it is, the SC is about as impartial as any other political establishment. You might as well dump the other 8 Justices and just let Kennedy hear the cases. We already know how the other 8 will vote on about 90% of the cases they hear.
Many people already feel handcuffed to their employers for health benefits but that's another issue. Everyone knows that health benefits through employers is a WW2 relic that makes no sense in the current environment.
But you still haven't answered why a 25% increase in premiums is worse than an increase in taxes to pay for the same people's health coverage through medicare.
By offset the costs, you mean rich people will bear the burden (since you are saying income based premiums). The price of treatment doesn't change much. An MRI is still an MRI whether private insurance pays for it or medicare does.
Why do you keep repeating this. I have already said I agree and you and I are the only ones still in here discussing this.
We weren't talking about fixing Obamacare on the whole, just the employer loophole you mentioned.
I dont really have an opinion on health insurance through employers because the costs are the same either way.
The tax increase will be smaller than the premium increase will be. You simply have a larger pool to collect from. The overall costs may also.
The rich already bear the burden of income taxes while nearly half of taxpayers have a negative liability. Dems want an even higher percentage of their money so why should this bother you? BTW, the rich will not be on medicare so it wont affect them.
The price of treatment changes drasticly. Medicare does not cover the real cost of most procedures. Those losses are then passed onto private health insurance in the form of higher procedure costs. The next question is why do I want more people on program that is going to cause a larger gap in payments to docs. The answer is simple, there is no better place to put them. You cant drop them in the lap of private health insurers then prevent them from charging a reasonable premium based on the health of the customer.
The employer mandate is a major revenue stream for the govt to pay for Obamacare. Just like without the individual mandate, the law is FAR to expensive to survive without the employer mandate.
If you have the mandate, you will have just as large of a pool. That's precisely why a mandate is and has to be part of Obamacare.
I never said it bothered me. I'm just surprised that you are advocating for it.
You can drop them on the private insurers if there is a mandate that requires all the healthy people to buy insurance. That's the whole point of the mandate.
I think you underestimate the ability of expensive legislation to survive.
Since we agree preexisting conditions should be covered and that the true cost of healthcare doesn't change regardless of who is paying for it, the choice is:
Private insurers - Costs are paid by everyone via higher premiums (coupled with the individual mandate)
or
Medicare - Costs are paid by everyone via higher premiums (due to low procedure payouts from medicare) and higher taxes
It's a six of one / half dozen of the other sort of problem. I'm just surprised that you advocate for the more government involvment option. Nothing wrong with that, just surprising.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
