3M stopping retiree medical

[haha]

So making people pay more is not losing them anything? Is that what you're saying? It's a little counter-intuitive.

Perhaps this is similar to Marxists Revolutionaries' attitude that the worse things get for people, the better the chances for revolution.

If we are all bleeding to death in the street because we couldn't pay our health insurance we might be pretty highly motivated to do some revolting.

Mostly we act like frogs slowly being brought to the boil, but this could perhaps jolt us out of that passivity.

Ha

 

[traineeinvestor]

So making people pay more is not losing them anything? Is that what you're saying? It's a little counter-intuitive.

No. Making the users of the health system pay more is just another way of saying that the taxpayers are not bearing the cost. One group loses. One group wins. We can chose who is going to pay but we cannot choose for nobody to pay (unless we want to do away with health care alltogether). There is no such thing as "free" health care. Personally, I much prefer it when other people pay my expenses for me. Unfortunately, too many other people have the same attitude for this to work.

 

[chinaco]

Simple video that describes healthcare reform

The Basics - Kaiser Health Reform


Bottom line: our health care system is sick. That health care reform bill could be better... There are several things about it I do not like... but at least it is a start.

What people that work do not (or have not yet) realized is that if something is not done... they would see health care coverage at worst go away at their company or at best continue an unsustainable increase. This is especially true for the lower to mid middle class families.

 

[travelover]

What you have to realize is that somebody likes things just the way they are and is making a bunch of money by maintaining the status quo. Not coincidentally, those with gobs of money contribute the most to campaigns and fund attack ads to maintain the status quo. This isn't just true in the health care industry, it is true in energy and I'm sure, other areas. Follow the money.

 

[chinaco]

Yes... there are people and businesses who want status quo. But the status quo is not working so well and looking unsustainable.

Change is hard to accept.

 

[Alan]

Mostly we act like frogs slowly being brought to the boil, but this could perhaps jolt us out of that passivity.

Ha

The lead up to the Great Recession was more akin to us acting like the frog in a blender, "What goes green green green green red?".

 

[ERD50]

Change is hard to accept.

It depends. Change is easy to accept if it is clearly better than the status quo. I could give numerous examples, one being the fact that you are posting this rather than handwriting a snail-mail letter-to-the-editor.

If this change was clearly better, resistance would be minimal. I agree we need change.

-ERD50

 

[youbet]

It depends. Change is easy to accept if it is clearly better than the status quo. I could give numerous examples, one being the fact that you are posting this rather than handwriting a snail-mail letter-to-the-editor.

If this change was clearly better, resistance would be minimal. I agree we need change.

-ERD50

Well said ERD50! The constant use of the expression "change is hard to accept" with the implication that all change is good all the time is tiresome. We need changes that lead to improvement and those that think that there is no possible downside from where we are today are naive. There is lots of room for criticism and questioning of the "changes" currently being mandated by Congress and attempts to stop discussion by saying we should accept any change unquestioned are inappropriate IMO.

I also agree that we need change.

 

[chinaco]

It depends. Change is easy to accept if it is clearly better than the status quo. I could give numerous examples, one being the fact that you are posting this rather than handwriting a snail-mail letter-to-the-editor.

If this change was clearly better, resistance would be minimal. I agree we need change.

-ERD50

Yes... it is in the eye of the beholder!


Most people have no clue about health care... similar to managing their finances to plan for retirement. It has been taken care of for them and they know little (until they experience adverse health problems... then they see it for what it is, a fine line between them and financial ruin).

Many only believe the rhetoric (whichever camp one falls into).

 

[jebmke]

It depends. Change is easy to accept if it is clearly better than the status quo. I could give numerous examples, one being the fact that you are posting this rather than handwriting a snail-mail letter-to-the-editor.

If this change was clearly better, resistance would be minimal. I agree we need change.
-ERD50

Sadly this is often not the case. Look at the banking system in this country. We still use little pieces of paper (checks) to transfer money around. Taxes - it took a long time for momentum to gather on e-filing. There are many people, despite having the technical capability to do so refuse to file their taxes electronically and/or have their refund direct deposited to their bank account despite the significantly faster processing of tax returns and payment of refunds. Years ago when direct deposit was being introduced in payroll processing my employer struggled to get acceptance. Despite special incentives (free bank account at a designated, national bank) and the obvious advantage of getting cash in your bank account earlier, employees refused to sign up for direct deposit. We finally had to make it mandatory.

 

[GregLee]

There are many people, despite having the technical capability to do so refuse to file their taxes electronically and/or have their refund direct deposited to their bank account ...

I am among those. I've never found a reason to file electronically -- usually it would have cost me more, because I'd have to pay for some program or processing service. Why should I do that? And getting a refund faster would be no use to me, because I never get a refund. I'm waiting for some incentive to be offered.

 

[jebmke]

I am among those. I've never found a reason to file electronically -- usually it would have cost me more, because I'd have to pay for some program or processing service. Why should I do that? And getting a refund faster would be no use to me, because I never get a refund. I'm waiting for some incentive to be offered.

Well in that case we should eliminate e-filing altogether.

 

[ERD50]

RE:
If this change was clearly better, resistance would be minimal. I agree we need change.
-ERD50

Sadly this is often not the case. .... Years ago when direct deposit was being introduced in payroll processing my employer struggled to get acceptance. Despite special incentives (free bank account at a designated, national bank) and the obvious advantage of getting cash in your bank account earlier, employees refused to sign up for direct deposit. We finally had to make it mandatory.

I agree with you in that I think direct deposit is better. But if a significant % of people were resistant, it wasn't "clearly better" to them (the old saying that perception is reality). It might be a matter of better education of the advantages, or dispelling any unfounded fears, or maybe "baby steps" to build confidence/trust?

The "DO NOT CALL" list received overwhelming public support. It was clearly better. Sure, Health Care is more complex, and bad information was thrown all around. But the bill even over-complicated a complex situation (not going to re-hash all those details again), and a significant number of people were put off by that. It just wasn't/isn't "clearly better" to many people.

-ERD50

 

[samclem]

Well in that case we should eliminate e-filing altogether.

No, E-filing should be free for anyone. The IRS issues tons of propaganda each year claiming that e-filing saves them abiut $15 per return. Okay--then why does it cost me anything to efile? Shouldn't the government be encouraging it? If anything, they should charge people who file onpaper. IIRC, The IRS cut an unholy deal with software providers and e-file servicers in which the IRS agreed to not provide free efiling for most customers.

Nope, they get paper copies from me. It's cheaper and really no more trouble (for me).

And if I have to file a bunch of 1099s due to the new health care "reform" law, those will be on paper, too. Written in crayon and crumpled up in the envelope. With similar copies (sans SSAN) to every legislator who voted for that abomination.
But, I'm not disgruntled or anything.

 

[huusom]

I have to say that peoples on this forum are very informed about health care problems we're facing.

However, most of my friends who are covered by employer provided health insurance have absolutely no ideas what they really cost. They are so surprised when I told them what it will cost them if they have to purchase insurance for themselves. They all agree that reform is needed once this is known to them.

 

[jebmke]

I agree with you in that I think direct deposit is better. But if a significant % of people were resistant, it wasn't "clearly better" to them (the old saying that perception is reality). It might be a matter of better education of the advantages, or dispelling any unfounded fears, or maybe "baby steps" to build confidence/trust?

The "DO NOT CALL" list received overwhelming public support. It was clearly better. Sure, Health Care is more complex, and bad information was thrown all around. But the bill even over-complicated a complex situation (not going to re-hash all those details again), and a significant number of people were put off by that. It just wasn't/isn't "clearly better" to many people.

-ERD50

That was my point. Even in the face of fairly straightforward evidence people didn't want to change (the direct deposit -- I agree, the HC issue is more complex). I find this is fairly typical. When I was working I found it easy to quickly categorize people into three groups. (1) likely to change and would lead change (2) reluctant to change but would change when lead properly and (3) against change and often would resist. Often the last group would self-select and leave on their own. Occasionally they had to be assisted out the door.

Speaking of do not call. Have you seen the new one -- "do no kill"?

New 'Do Not Kill' Registry To Allow Americans To Opt Out Of Being Murdered | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

[youbet]

I have to say that peoples on this forum are very informed about health care problems we're facing.

However, most of my friends who are covered by employer provided health insurance have absolutely no ideas what they really cost. They are so surprised when I told them what it will cost them if they have to purchase insurance for themselves. They all agree that reform is needed once this is known to them.

Do your friends realize that the "reforms" identified so far do little or nothing to reduce the aggregate cost of healthcare to American society? In fact, some are saying that unsubsidized health insurance premiums may actually increase as a result of the current set of reforms.

We seem to have a little ways to go yet in terms of controlling costs.

 

[huusom]

Do your friends realize that the "reforms" identified so far do little or nothing to reduce the aggregate cost of healthcare to American society? In fact, some are saying that unsubsidized health insurance premiums may actually increase as a result of the current set of reforms.

We seem to have a little ways to go yet in terms of controlling costs.

I did not say that the current reform is the way to go but reform is needed. I agree that meaningful cost control is not really addressed in the current reform. This is where we should focus our efforts. Instead of repealing the reform we should make it better so more americans are covered for less.

 

[ziggy29]

I did not say that the current reform is the way to go but reform is needed. I agree that meaningful cost control is not really addressed in the current reform. This is where we should focus our efforts. Instead of repealing the reform we should make it better so more americans are covered for less.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Get control of costs and health care inflation FIRST, and then any reforms concerning underwriting and universal access become MUCH easier to tackle. Instead, we focused on a couple of small chimpanzees in the room while ignoring the 800-pound gorilla that's responsible for most of the damage.

 

[youbet]

I did not say that the current reform is the way to go but reform is needed. I agree that meaningful cost control is not really addressed in the current reform. This is where we should focus our efforts. Instead of repealing the reform we should make it better so more americans are covered for less.

Well, whether we repeal what's already been done and replace it with something better or we heavily modify the current proposal to get it in line with what is actually needed, costs will need to be controlled. It gives me a headache trying to think of things we should give up to keep costs down....... It's going to take a lot more, a LOT MORE, than just cutting out the fat to make things affordable in the future. Our politicians seem to be struggling to have the will to tell us that.......

 

[youbet]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Get control of costs and health care inflation FIRST, and then any reforms concerning underwriting and universal access become MUCH easier to tackle. Instead, we focused on a couple of small chimpanzees in the room while ignoring the 800-pound gorilla that's responsible for most of the damage.

IMHO, you've got the picture in focus Mr. Zig......

 

[dex]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Get control of costs and health care inflation FIRST, and then any reforms concerning underwriting and universal access become MUCH easier to tackle. Instead, we focused on a couple of small chimpanzees in the room while ignoring the 800-pound gorilla that's responsible for most of the damage.

I'm going to disagree with you on this one. The cost reduction proposal is the "one variable" (non) solution. It ignores the other variables. Most are looking at the expense aspect and not the revenue aspect.


Participation in health ins plans is going down faster than costs can be cut.

Participation in health ins. is going down due to companies eliminating it, jobs going overseas, healthy people not buying it, and in the future people moving to the gov't plan. So fewer people paying in means higher premiums (also, if you are sick you make sure you pay your premiums & you also increase costs).

So the question will be what comes first - cut medical costs to make it affordable and people participate or somehow lower premium cost (without regard to medical costs) so people participate (how would health ins cos. stay in business when losing $)?

Of course, the answer will eventually be neither - health costs will be 'nationalized'.

 

[samclem]

Both "getting costs under control" and "eating the elephant one bite at a time" sound very attractive right now, since we are now experiencing the problems of a "do everything at once" reform that also didn't control costs.

But, the problem with "controlling costs" is that there are two fundamentally different ways to do it, and how we to control costs affects the whole future of the effort:
-- Centrally-managed top-down price controls (e.g. the government will allow a charge of $168 for the MRI of one knee). We know that this approach produces scarcity, waiting periods .
-- Market forces: (co-pays that make patients aware of costs, competition between insurers and between providers to reduce prices). We know that this approach will hit poor people hardest.

There is a little "low-hanging fruit" than can be harvested one-bite at a time (tort reform, Medicare fraud and waste, govt-provided info on outcomes, etc), but much of the rest of the incremental reforms will only make sense if we know which general direction we are headed: Market based or "the borg."

 

[GregLee]

Get control of costs and health care inflation FIRST, and then any reforms concerning underwriting and universal access become MUCH easier to tackle.

I'm sure that is so. But since we never will get control of costs, waiting for universal access until we do would just mean we never would get universal access. So the statement of a truism becomes a code meaning `Forget about universal access'.

 

[traineeinvestor]

Both "getting costs under control" and "eating the elephant one bite at a time" sound very attractive right now, since we are now experiencing the problems of a "do everything at once" reform that also didn't control costs.

But, the problem with "controlling costs" is that there are two fundamentally different ways to do it, and how we to control costs affects the whole future of the effort:
-- Centrally-managed top-down price controls (e.g. the government will allow a charge of $168 for the MRI of one knee). We know that this approach produces scarcity, waiting periods .
-- Market forces: (co-pays that make patients aware of costs, competition between insurers and between providers to reduce prices). We know that this approach will hit poor people hardest.

There is a little "low-hanging fruit" than can be harvested one-bite at a time (tort reform, Medicare fraud and waste, govt-provided info on outcomes, etc), but much of the rest of the incremental reforms will only make sense if we know which general direction we are headed: Market based or "the borg."

+1

Most of the debate is either about controlling the costs (and then wondering why there is a scarcity issue) or figuring out who pays what (preferrably someone else). However, I see a lot less debate about the supply side which has (potentially) at least two pieces of low hanging fruit:

1. recognise a wider range of over seas medical and nursing qualifications and encourage people with those qualifications to immigrate;

2. better tax breaks and other incentives for providing medical facilities and equipment.

I do not know enough about the industry to comment on how realistic these are?

Then, or course, there is the possibility of [-]compelling [/-]incentivising people to lead healthier lives.