2013 Health Care Changes

[winger]

Concise article on changes that will be implemented in 2013. I was surprised to see the Medicaid reimbursement changes.


Five ways your health care will change in 2013

 

[Midpack]

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f38/ppaca-so-whats-new-for-2013-a-64128.html

 

[frank]

What I see is my costs going up again without an increase in benefits. there is nothing new about that. why is there never any dental coverage for adults?

 

[bUU]

What I see is my costs going up again without an increase in benefits.

I've seen my VGHCX holding double in value in ten years. Perhaps there is some relationship.

why is there never any dental coverage for adults?

I was reading an article yesterday that outlined the best jobs to get into right now... Dentist was at the top of the list. I'm not sure why, but they seem to have a license to print money these days.

 

[Midpack]

I've seen my VGHCX holding double in value in ten years. Perhaps there is some relationship.

It's the other sector that interests me*, but to me it's just a matter of time before costs are reined in one way or another, and the HC sector will take a hit. Costs just can't keep going up faster than inflation forever, something will give eventually. I just don't if it will be a year, a decade or other.

*VGENX is the other, and I own some

 

[bUU]

It's the other sector that interests me*, but to me it's just a matter of time before costs are reined in one way or another, and the HC sector will take a hit. Costs just can't keep going up faster than inflation forever, something will give eventually. I just don't if it will be a year, a decade or other.

I view this as a "can't lose" scenario. If I take a hit on my VGHCX holdings because health care costs come under control, then that's okay with me. Heck, let's call my VGHCX holdings what they are - they're going to pay for a few years (hopefully more) of health care after I retire, before I qualify for Medicare, and if there is anything left by the time I qualify for Medicare (extremely unlikely) then that'll go for supplemental medical insurance. If, instead, there is less money there, but private health insurance and supplemental medical insurance are both less expensive, I'm good that way too.

Having said that, I think I'll be ash before costs actually go down such that my sector holdings would suffer.

*VGENX is the other, and I own some

I am not sure how that directly relates to frank's concern, though (while my VGHCX performance does).

 

[Midpack]

I am not sure how that directly relates to frank's concern, though (while my VGHCX performance does).

It doesn't, that's why it was a simple footnote...almost invariably someone would ask.

 

[bUU]

Ah. Understood.

 

[Tyro]

What I see is my costs going up again without an increase in benefits. there is nothing new about that.

+1. We're going over our 2 enrollment options again: high deductible, lower premium or lower deductible, higher premium, and they both come out about the same (within <$500/year). Either way, it's amounting to almost a third of our yearly expenses.

 

[Lancelot]

It's the other sector that interests me*, but to me it's just a matter of time before costs are reined in one way or another, and the HC sector will take a hit. Costs just can't keep going up faster than inflation forever, something will give eventually.

My hunch is that the tipping point will be when the majority of employers that now provide health insurance end that benefit. Instead the employer would say: "Dear Employee, here is X dollars, go buy your own insurance."

Talk about unhappy voters

 

[bUU]

I'm not so sure, Lancelot: A very large number of employers have always told many of their employees to go buy their own health insurance. I don't think that's going to change enough to make a big difference, and here's why...

Without getting political, what we can say is that voters don't typically vote for candidates that are promising to pass laws that will cut the cost of a specific class of product or service. As a matter of fact, the only way we've ever seen voters vote based on a promise to pass laws that will cut the cost of anything is when the target is non-specific, as in the case of taxes. Since proponents can keep the identity of what will be harmed by the cut in taxes out of the discussion (spending is a separate matter from taxes), the voter isn't challenged to think about their vote in the context of what will be gone, i.e., what harm their vote can cause. As soon as you make things real, by tying a specific vote to the loss of a specific thing, practically everyone who benefits from that which would be lost, and practically everyone who is related to anyone who benefits, etc., will vote 'no'.

Therefore, I think if someone (for example) tried to get a nationwide campaign going to reduce the wages of all health care workers by 30% to cut health care costs, that campaign would fail miserably. Same with trying to reduce or cap malpractice awards - the opponents would just have to present the heartfelt stories of victims of malpractice to scuttle such efforts. It all sounds good on paper, this idea of cutting costs, but even the idea of nationalizing insurers, large health care network corporations, and pharmaceutical companies to eliminate the contribution to costs associated with their profits would fail, because of how those profits can be so readily tied, in the minds of voters, to large investments in those profits on the part of Grandpa's pension plan, Mamaw's variable annuity. Or their PR companies will quickly foster in the minds of voters how such government confiscation of private assets means "They're coming after yours, next!"

If I knew the answer, then I'd be worthy of being nominated for a Nobel Prize. What I think is important to keep in mind is that there actually may not be any answer to be found. There is no requirement that reality treat us kindly. There may be no way of unraveling this mess without a lot of people getting severely hurt or at least severely burdened in some way.