So, how am I going to save $2500/year in light of all of this....
Or was I simply lied to?
Kind of.
The numbers I have always seen are the average household will save a certain number (I've seen between 1500-3000). Since there really is no way for everyone's numbers to go down, it means some will stay the same and some will go up when we are considering the aggregate. By allowing the preexiting conditions piece, etc. it will certainly lead to increases in other areas. I also think more insurance companies need to be part of the exchange. When I looked, I only had 4 options.
My guess is in the future, we will all see prices stabilize and go down, IF the centerpiece, the mandate, stays in place. If we reduce the unpaid expenses and hospitals only have to charge for the actual cost of services and not for the unpaid services to others, there really isn't anywhere for the costs to go but down.
So, how am I going to save $2500/year in light of all of this....
Or was I simply lied to?
Kind of.
The numbers I have always seen are the average household will save a certain number (I've seen between 1500-3000). Since there really is no way for everyone's numbers to go down, it means some will stay the same and some will go up when we are considering the aggregate. By allowing the preexiting conditions piece, etc. it will certainly lead to increases in other areas. I also think more insurance companies need to be part of the exchange. When I looked, I only had 4 options.
My guess is in the future, we will all see prices stabilize and go down, IF the centerpiece, the mandate, stays in place. If we reduce the unpaid expenses and hospitals only have to charge for the actual cost of services and not for the unpaid services to others, there really isn't anywhere for the costs to go but down.
So, how am I going to save $2500/year in light of all of this....
Or was I simply lied to?
Because- as you know- initially I supported this whole idea-
But seeing how it has unfolded with gross incompetence and lie after lie- I have zero confidence in it at present-
Apparently I'm not alone (see recent decisions by Sloan-Kettering and Cedars Sinai)- and rumored nonparticipation by a fairly high % of physicians-
The continued lack of acknowledgement by the administration does not actually just kick the can down the road (as they might hope- until some of the flaws are rectified), but rather significantly erodes support for the plan by even those who were in favor at the outset....
So, how am I going to save $2500/year in light of all of this....
Or was I simply lied to?
Because- as you know- initially I supported this whole idea-
But seeing how it has unfolded with gross incompetence and lie after lie- I have zero confidence in it at present-
Apparently I'm not alone (see recent decisions by Sloan-Kettering and Cedars Sinai)- and rumored nonparticipation by a fairly high % of physicians-
The continued lack of acknowledgement by the administration does not actually just kick the can down the road (as they might hope- until some of the flaws are rectified), but rather significantly erodes support for the plan by even those who were in favor at the outset....
The numbers I have always seen are the average household will save a certain number (I've seen between 1500-3000). Since there really is no way for everyone's numbers to go down, it means some will stay the same and some will go up when we are considering the aggregate. By allowing the preexiting conditions piece, etc. it will certainly lead to increases in other areas. I also think more insurance companies need to be part of the exchange. When I looked, I only had 4 options.
My guess is in the future, we will all see prices stabilize and go down, IF the centerpiece, the mandate, stays in place. If we reduce the unpaid expenses and hospitals only have to charge for the actual cost of services and not for the unpaid services to others, there really isn't anywhere for the costs to go but down.
I'm not sure my insurance premiums have ever gone down- for anything- ever- regardless of the company's outlay-
The numbers I have always seen are the average household will save a certain number (I've seen between 1500-3000). Since there really is no way for everyone's numbers to go down, it means some will stay the same and some will go up when we are considering the aggregate. By allowing the preexiting conditions piece, etc. it will certainly lead to increases in other areas. I also think more insurance companies need to be part of the exchange. When I looked, I only had 4 options.
My guess is in the future, we will all see prices stabilize and go down, IF the centerpiece, the mandate, stays in place. If we reduce the unpaid expenses and hospitals only have to charge for the actual cost of services and not for the unpaid services to others, there really isn't anywhere for the costs to go but down.
I'm not sure my insurance premiums have ever gone down- for anything- ever- regardless of the company's outlay-
You are acting as if this market could be defined by economic principles.
Sorry it cant.
There is too much manipulation, and prices will never equilibrate downward. That is a pipe dream .
Now that we are forced at the threat of penalty to engage in commerce what free market forces can there be to bring down costs?
This is a blank check, and the gouging is going to be painful.
I already know people who were forced to drop their insurance. 40-60% increases? come on man, they are going to raise prices for those that pay to unbelievable heights, while attempting to limit access for those at the bottom.
People act as if the greedy insurance agencies went away, they didn't. They are the same, but now they have armies of IRS regulators to make sure you buy their product at the tip of a gun.
You are acting as if this market could be defined by economic principles.
Sorry it cant.
There is too much manipulation, and prices will never equilibrate downward. That is a pipe dream .
Now that we are forced at the threat of penalty to engage in commerce what free market forces can there be to bring down costs?
This is a blank check, and the gouging is going to be painful.
I already know people who were forced to drop their insurance. 40-60% increases? come on man, they are going to raise prices for those that pay to unbelievable heights, while attempting to limit access for those at the bottom.
People act as if the greedy insurance agencies went away, they didn't. They are the same, but now they have armies of IRS regulators to make sure you buy their product at the tip of a gun.
I'm not sure my insurance premiums have ever gone down- for anything- ever- regardless of the company's outlay-
So on that front I'm not optimistic-
Why would they?
Insurance premiums are directly correlary to possible medical costs of services. Those haven't gone down and would have no reason to, especially if hospitals and those providing medical services are forced to compensate for unpaid expenses.
I don't know if the changes that were made could've had a smooth transition. I certainly don't have any confidence in Obama. I do have confidence that the ideas can work.
I'm not sure my insurance premiums have ever gone down- for anything- ever- regardless of the company's outlay-
So on that front I'm not optimistic-
Why would they?
Insurance premiums are directly correlary to possible medical costs of services. Those haven't gone down and would have no reason to, especially if hospitals and those providing medical services are forced to compensate for unpaid expenses.
I don't know if the changes that were made could've had a smooth transition. I certainly don't have any confidence in Obama. I do have confidence that the ideas can work.
You are acting as if this market could be defined by economic principles.
Sorry it cant.
There is too much manipulation, and prices will never equilibrate downward. That is a pipe dream .
Now that we are forced at the threat of penalty to engage in commerce what free market forces can there be to bring down costs?
This is a blank check, and the gouging is going to be painful.
I already know people who were forced to drop their insurance. 40-60% increases? come on man, they are going to raise prices for those that pay to unbelievable heights, while attempting to limit access for those at the bottom.
People act as if the greedy insurance agencies went away, they didn't. They are the same, but now they have armies of IRS regulators to make sure you buy their product at the tip of a gun.
Easy.
Google the percentage of Americans 'forced' to purchase car insurance.
Why hasn't that market cost increased at the rate of health insurance if it is the 'greedy' insuance companies fault or the fault of the auto repair places?
In actuality, many people's insurance goes down year to year or stays the same, yet the cost of repairs increases (mostly based on market forces and cost of living increases).
Often times, people are able to save money by comparative pricing.
The difference is that car repair companies are not forced to incur the costs of people who cannot afford to pay.
You are acting as if this market could be defined by economic principles.
Sorry it cant.
There is too much manipulation, and prices will never equilibrate downward. That is a pipe dream .
Now that we are forced at the threat of penalty to engage in commerce what free market forces can there be to bring down costs?
This is a blank check, and the gouging is going to be painful.
I already know people who were forced to drop their insurance. 40-60% increases? come on man, they are going to raise prices for those that pay to unbelievable heights, while attempting to limit access for those at the bottom.
People act as if the greedy insurance agencies went away, they didn't. They are the same, but now they have armies of IRS regulators to make sure you buy their product at the tip of a gun.
Easy.
Google the percentage of Americans 'forced' to purchase car insurance.
Why hasn't that market cost increased at the rate of health insurance if it is the 'greedy' insuance companies fault or the fault of the auto repair places?
In actuality, many people's insurance goes down year to year or stays the same, yet the cost of repairs increases (mostly based on market forces and cost of living increases).
Often times, people are able to save money by comparative pricing.
The difference is that car repair companies are not forced to incur the costs of people who cannot afford to pay.
Insurance premiums are directly correlary to possible medical costs of services. Those haven't gone down and would have no reason to, especially if hospitals and those providing medical services are forced to compensate for unpaid expenses.
I don't know if the changes that were made could've had a smooth transition. I certainly don't have any confidence in Obama. I do have confidence that the ideas can work.
I never was going to save $2500/year, was I?
It was all bullshit- as has been most of the sales pitch to date-
Because to tell the truth would have meant a lack of support for the proposal-
Which is why I have no confidence in it going forward-
I'm curious why, now that we know more specific details than when it was proposed, you think it can work- maybe logistically- but I see no way financially-
Insurance premiums are directly correlary to possible medical costs of services. Those haven't gone down and would have no reason to, especially if hospitals and those providing medical services are forced to compensate for unpaid expenses.
I don't know if the changes that were made could've had a smooth transition. I certainly don't have any confidence in Obama. I do have confidence that the ideas can work.
I never was going to save $2500/year, was I?
It was all bullshit- as has been most of the sales pitch to date-
Because to tell the truth would have meant a lack of support for the proposal-
Which is why I have no confidence in it going forward-
I'm curious why, now that we know more specific details than when it was proposed, you think it can work- maybe logistically- but I see no way financially-
It was all bullshit- as has been most of the sales pitch to date-
Because to tell the truth would have meant a lack of support for the proposal-
Which is why I have no confidence in it going forward-
I'm curious why, now that we know more specific details than when it was proposed, you think it can work- maybe logistically- but I see no way financially-
I believe due to the exchanges, the average family will see a decrease in costs. Mine didn't go down either. I actually did not anticipate it would do so immediately.
As I said earlier, there is one cost we need to get under control. You know this better than anyone.
As this goes down I do see this working more like the car insurance industry.
It was all bullshit- as has been most of the sales pitch to date-
Because to tell the truth would have meant a lack of support for the proposal-
Which is why I have no confidence in it going forward-
I'm curious why, now that we know more specific details than when it was proposed, you think it can work- maybe logistically- but I see no way financially-
I believe due to the exchanges, the average family will see a decrease in costs. Mine didn't go down either. I actually did not anticipate it would do so immediately.
As I said earlier, there is one cost we need to get under control. You know this better than anyone.
As this goes down I do see this working more like the car insurance industry.
Google the percentage of Americans 'forced' to purchase car insurance.
Why hasn't that market cost increased at the rate of health insurance if it is the 'greedy' insuance companies fault or the fault of the auto repair places?
In actuality, many people's insurance goes down year to year or stays the same, yet the cost of repairs increases (mostly based on market forces and cost of living increases).
Often times, people are able to save money by comparative pricing.
The difference is that car repair companies are not forced to incur the costs of people who cannot afford to pay.
False example, You have a choice not to drive. I don't have much of a choice not to exist ( I guess that isn't 100% true, but you get the point). You can not merely exist in this country anymore, you are taxed for the very state of living.
When everyone is forced to purchase something, how would that lower the cost?
Demand for their product is at an all time high, as it is now illegal not to have it.
They set the prices, and are not constrained by any market, or governing body.
I figure they are going to stick it to those that can still afford it, so that they can make their bones before they are put out of business by the public option that this debacle will lead to.
Google the percentage of Americans 'forced' to purchase car insurance.
Why hasn't that market cost increased at the rate of health insurance if it is the 'greedy' insuance companies fault or the fault of the auto repair places?
In actuality, many people's insurance goes down year to year or stays the same, yet the cost of repairs increases (mostly based on market forces and cost of living increases).
Often times, people are able to save money by comparative pricing.
The difference is that car repair companies are not forced to incur the costs of people who cannot afford to pay.
False example, You have a choice not to drive. I don't have much of a choice not to exist ( I guess that isn't 100% true, but you get the point). You can not merely exist in this country anymore, you are taxed for the very state of living.
When everyone is forced to purchase something, how would that lower the cost?
Demand for their product is at an all time high, as it is now illegal not to have it.
They set the prices, and are not constrained by any market, or governing body.
I figure they are going to stick it to those that can still afford it, so that they can make their bones before they are put out of business by the public option that this debacle will lead to.
False example, You have a choice not to drive. I don't have much of a choice not to exist ( I guess that isn't 100% true, but you get the point). You can not merely exist in this country anymore, you are taxed for the very state of living.
When everyone is forced to purchase something, how would that lower the cost?
Demand for their product is at an all time high, as it is now illegal not to have it.
They set the prices, and are not constrained by any market, or governing body.
I figure they are going to stick it to those that can still afford it, so that they can make their bones before they are put out of business by the public option that this debacle will lead to.
not to take a position but if you choose not to drive, ther is a 0% chance that you will cause an crash with a vehicle. so that person would not need to buy auto insurance and i won't have to pay for any damage he causes with a vehicle for not buying that insurance. if you choose to live, there is practically a 100% chance you will use medical services at some point.
False example, You have a choice not to drive. I don't have much of a choice not to exist ( I guess that isn't 100% true, but you get the point). You can not merely exist in this country anymore, you are taxed for the very state of living.
When everyone is forced to purchase something, how would that lower the cost?
Demand for their product is at an all time high, as it is now illegal not to have it.
They set the prices, and are not constrained by any market, or governing body.
I figure they are going to stick it to those that can still afford it, so that they can make their bones before they are put out of business by the public option that this debacle will lead to.
not to take a position but if you choose not to drive, ther is a 0% chance that you will cause an crash with a vehicle. so that person would not need to buy auto insurance and i won't have to pay for any damage he causes with a vehicle for not buying that insurance. if you choose to live, there is practically a 100% chance you will use medical services at some point.
So if you posit that it is certain that everyone will need to use medical services at some point, why should they buy insurance?
Insurance is risk mitigation, in the unlikely event of something happening.
Do you have any data to back up your claim, that it is certain that everyone who lives will use medical services at some point?
just experience.
but as to the first part, that isn't my point. my point is that if people want to complain based on percentages, making us buy auto insurance is more bullshit than making us buy health insurance. if i drive and am a really good driver, i can make an argument that i shouldn't have to buy auto insurance because i can avoid causing a crash so i'll never need it. and a lot of people will be right as, whether by luck and/or skill, a larger percentage of people will drive and never cause a crash.
on the other hand, a much smaller percentage of people who live a regular life will use the medical system at some point, normally quite often over the years so there is a greater incentive to make them buy health insurance.
So if you posit that it is certain that everyone will need to use medical services at some point, why should they buy insurance?
Insurance is risk mitigation, in the unlikely event of something happening.
Do you have any data to back up your claim, that it is certain that everyone who lives will use medical services at some point?
just experience.
but as to the first part, that isn't my point. my point is that if people want to complain based on percentages, making us buy auto insurance is more bullshit than making us buy health insurance. if i drive and am a really good driver, i can make an argument that i shouldn't have to buy auto insurance because i can avoid causing a crash so i'll never need it. and a lot of people will be right as, whether by luck and/or skill, a larger percentage of people will drive and never cause a crash.
on the other hand, a much smaller percentage of people who live a regular life will use the medical system at some point, normally quite often over the years so there is a greater incentive to make them buy health insurance.
The point being- if health insurance is being provided as a subsidy- then what really is the difference in that and just enrolling them in the current Medicaid system?
Much simpler- and fewer middle men getting their % along the way.....
The point being- if health insurance is being provided as a subsidy- then what really is the difference in that and just enrolling them in the current Medicaid system?
Much simpler- and fewer middle men getting their % along the way.....
The government doesn't force you to buy auto insurance, in order to protect yourself. They make you buy minimal liability insurance in the event you cause harm to someone else.
Your argument that you are a good driver so you shouldn't pay is nonsense. There's plenty of things that can happen that are totally outside of your control. What happens if you blow out a tire? What if a deer jumps in front of you? Its an apples to oranges comparison.
I can argue that I will never use medical services. And moreso, if I do need to render service from medical industry, I can pay for it out of my savings. I can control much of the factors that others subject themselves to, by eating a healthful diet.
For whatever reason, you aren't bitching that high risk drivers pay more than safe drivers, while people that literally poison themselves by eating the government suggested diet, pay the same health insurance rates as people that go to great lengths to be healthy.
The government doesn't force you to buy auto insurance, in order to protect yourself. They make you buy minimal liability insurance in the event you cause harm to someone else.
Your argument that you are a good driver so you shouldn't pay is nonsense. There's plenty of things that can happen that are totally outside of your control. What happens if you blow out a tire? What if a deer jumps in front of you? Its an apples to oranges comparison.
I can argue that I will never use medical services. And moreso, if I do need to render service from medical industry, I can pay for it out of my savings. I can control much of the factors that others subject themselves to, by eating a healthful diet.
For whatever reason, you aren't bitching that high risk drivers pay more than safe drivers, while people that literally poison themselves by eating the government suggested diet, pay the same health insurance rates as people that go to great lengths to be healthy.
The government doesn't force you to buy auto insurance, in order to
protect yourself. They make you buy minimal liability insurance in the
event you cause harm to someone else.
exactly.
Your argument that you are a good driver so you shouldn't pay is
nonsense. There's plenty of things that can happen that are totally
outside of your control. What happens if you blow out a tire? What if a
deer jumps in front of you? Its an apples to oranges comparison.
that's not my argument. my point is that there is logic to the idea that if i'm a good drive, i can at least make the argument that i won't cause an accident. now, if a tire blows or something happens out of my control, that isn't my fault and i, or my insurance, isn't liable to pay for any damage caused. my liability insurance only pays for damage caused by my negligence.
you can argue that you won't use medical services. maybe you won't. but for the average person, i firmly believe that the odds that they will use the medical system are much greater than the odds they will cause an accident that causes injury to someone so based on the percentages, people should be angrier at having to buy auto insurance than having to buy medical insurance
The government doesn't force you to buy auto insurance, in order to
protect yourself. They make you buy minimal liability insurance in the
event you cause harm to someone else.
exactly.
Your argument that you are a good driver so you shouldn't pay is
nonsense. There's plenty of things that can happen that are totally
outside of your control. What happens if you blow out a tire? What if a
deer jumps in front of you? Its an apples to oranges comparison.
that's not my argument. my point is that there is logic to the idea that if i'm a good drive, i can at least make the argument that i won't cause an accident. now, if a tire blows or something happens out of my control, that isn't my fault and i, or my insurance, isn't liable to pay for any damage caused. my liability insurance only pays for damage caused by my negligence.
you can argue that you won't use medical services. maybe you won't. but for the average person, i firmly believe that the odds that they will use the medical system are much greater than the odds they will cause an accident that causes injury to someone so based on the percentages, people should be angrier at having to buy auto insurance than having to buy medical insurance
For whatever reason, you aren't bitching that high risk drivers pay more
than safe drivers, while people that literally poison themselves by
eating the government suggested diet, pay the same health insurance
rates as people that go to great lengths to be healthy.
that is consistent with what i'm saying because that's an argument based on logic and reasonable percentages. i have no issue with high risk drivers paying more in auto insurance, i.e. a driver with a couple of dui's or a lot of traffic tickets, and i have no issue with people who smoke or eat mcdonalds 3 times a day paying more in health insurance.
For whatever reason, you aren't bitching that high risk drivers pay more
than safe drivers, while people that literally poison themselves by
eating the government suggested diet, pay the same health insurance
rates as people that go to great lengths to be healthy.
that is consistent with what i'm saying because that's an argument based on logic and reasonable percentages. i have no issue with high risk drivers paying more in auto insurance, i.e. a driver with a couple of dui's or a lot of traffic tickets, and i have no issue with people who smoke or eat mcdonalds 3 times a day paying more in health insurance.
But what happens when the least healthy have subsidized "coverage"- and the healthy ones pick up the tab?
Again, I don't have the numbers- but I don't think that's an unreasonable scenario...
Also- to stick with the auto insurance comparison- where are there provisions to subsidize high risk- or any, for that matter- drivers?
i don't think there is anything like that. i would guess it's because driving is considered a privilege and if you want to take advantage of that privilege, you need to be ready to meet the minimum coverage requirements, whereas living and being healthy (or at least having access to basic medical services) is in a different class, at least to some people, than a driving privilege and we as a society should do a little more to help people in this regard.
But what happens when the least healthy have subsidized "coverage"- and the healthy ones pick up the tab?
Again, I don't have the numbers- but I don't think that's an unreasonable scenario...
Also- to stick with the auto insurance comparison- where are there provisions to subsidize high risk- or any, for that matter- drivers?
i don't think there is anything like that. i would guess it's because driving is considered a privilege and if you want to take advantage of that privilege, you need to be ready to meet the minimum coverage requirements, whereas living and being healthy (or at least having access to basic medical services) is in a different class, at least to some people, than a driving privilege and we as a society should do a little more to help people in this regard.
darn if i know, but other countries seem to manage so there should be an answer somewhere. it seems odd that every other normal country takes care of their people, or at least makes an attempt, yet our system is so fuckin backwards and inefficient.
darn if i know, but other countries seem to manage so there should be an answer somewhere. it seems odd that every other normal country takes care of their people, or at least makes an attempt, yet our system is so fuckin backwards and inefficient.
Well- the models are out there- typically single-payor with some limitations but overall workable care..... But, this administration chose an option to insure a money grab on all sides...and almost certainly insuring financial insolvency along with ultimately a (at least) 2 tiered system- as hospitals and providers will increasingly decline to participate....
Well- the models are out there- typically single-payor with some limitations but overall workable care..... But, this administration chose an option to insure a money grab on all sides...and almost certainly insuring financial insolvency along with ultimately a (at least) 2 tiered system- as hospitals and providers will increasingly decline to participate....
maybe this is irrelevant, but what about our VA system? i'm not that familiar with it, but i assume that veterans get government run healthcare by doctors who are actually employed by the government. don't let the rightwingers find out about this or the loss of freedom rhetoric will be deafening.
but anyway, do we hear about veterans losing their garbage because they are in this system? are the doctors quitting left and right because they are employed by the government? does any of this model have greater applicability to nonveterans?
maybe this is irrelevant, but what about our VA system? i'm not that familiar with it, but i assume that veterans get government run healthcare by doctors who are actually employed by the government. don't let the rightwingers find out about this or the loss of freedom rhetoric will be deafening.
but anyway, do we hear about veterans losing their garbage because they are in this system? are the doctors quitting left and right because they are employed by the government? does any of this model have greater applicability to nonveterans?
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.