Correct. But it not evenly distributed among the insured, and the group that pays the most are the uninsured that still have resources.The cost of care for the uninsured is already born by those who have insurance.
Correct. But it not evenly distributed among the insured, and the group that pays the most are the uninsured that still have resources.The cost of care for the uninsured is already born by those who have insurance.
i'm curious to how my company will react. they are very mum on the matter and basically said, "don't ask any questions, you'll see what happens next month during open enrollment and you won't get to know what changes are made until open enrollment starts, but change is a coming..." (no political pun intended on my interpretation of my company's message)
stay tuned til Oct 19th for the official change. hoping for the best.
And it's all working out as intended.
Big health insurers to stop selling new child-only policies - latimes.com
The study found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993.
From that article I'm having trouble parsing out the difference between "linked to lack of Health Care" and "caused by having no insurance". I know of well insured people who do a number of things in that following chart.
-ERD50
Here is the sequence of events
1. Private health ins premiums go up for each mandated change
2. Individual and companies reduce or drop health ins.
3. Private health ins premiums go up for #2 - fewer people paying in
4. More people move to the Gov't plan.
5. Private heath ins. premiums go up for #4 - fewer people paying in
6. Number of private health ins companies decline.
7. Private heath ins. premiums go up for #6 - fewer ins. companies; less competition
8. People without any ins rely more upon hospital emergency rooms. Increasing costs for state and local government and insurance premiums - depending upon state.
9. Premiums and/or taxes go up for #8
10. Gov't plan becomes dominate plan in USA
11. People complain that Gov't plan too expensive; Gov't tries to keep premiums artificially low
10. Gov't cuts benefits to control costs and deficits. Taxes may increase.
12. Private health ins. becomes supplemental ins to inadequate Gov't Plan for those that can afford it. The premium goes up as gov't services decline.
It is amazing that every other OECD country has figured out how to do national health insurance. on lots of different delivery platforms.
I'm not sure if Americans are not just mentally defective or simply so stupid and greedy that they cannot figure it out
There is enormous waste in American healthcare No one else spends the administrative dollars we do trying to make sure people don't get care.
Just passing along data, not into speculating today.
Another update:
Uninsured Rate Soars, 50+ Million Americans Without Coverage - Kaiser Health News
In a reflection of the battered economy, the number of people without health insurance rose sharply last year to 50.7 million — an all time high — according to data released Thursday by the Census Bureau.
That pushed the rate of uninsured Americans to 16.7 percent last year from 15.4 percent in 2008, when there were 46.3 million uninsured. It was one of the largest single year increases since the Census starting tracking the figure in 1987.
Nearly every demographic and geographic group posted a rise in the uninsured rate — with the exception of children, who remained stable at about 10 percent.
It is amazing that every other OECD country has figured out how to do national health insurance. on lots of different delivery platforms. I'm not sure if Americans are not just mentally defective or simply so stupid and greedy that they cannot figure it out
There is enormous waste in American healthcare No one else spends the administrative dollars we do trying to make sure people don't get care.
My old megacorp was one of the first to publicly talk about this, although I don't think their intention was for it to become public. I hung on for a couple of years after FI in order to be eligible for the retiree health coverage. Not for the cost, just for the coverability. I know W2R and a few others did the same. I know things will work out however they work out, and there are no guarantees, but it would have been nice to FIRE a couple years earlier if they're going to yank the rug out.
AT&T, Verizon, others, thought about dropping health plans - May. 5, 2010
One of the major differences between the US & other countries is the Tort Liability System. Much of the cost of Healthcare is the cost of Malpractice & liability insurance built into it. We are talking really large sums of money here. Many doctors & facilities cannot afford it or build it into the cost of medical services. The new HC Bill does very little to reduce the cost of medical services, (there is a small sure-to-fail-pittance given to the states for Tort Reform which is doomed IMO given the funds/strength of the BAR & such). Drugs & medical devices are expensive in the US for the same reason. The US is flooded with ambulance chasing attorneys encourage potential litigants to sue for "bad" drugs, etc.It is amazing that every other OECD country has figured out how to do national health insurance. on lots of different delivery platforms. I'm not sure if Americans are not just mentally defective or simply so stupid and greedy that they cannot figure it out
There is enormous waste in American healthcare No one else spends the administrative dollars we do trying to make sure people don't get care.
The Swiss healthcare coverage system is actually one of the closest to the current US target model (private insurers, minimum coverage specified, all persons required to participate), but it does so with substantially fewer 'moving parts', all the odd little clauses, gotchas and oddities packed into the recent US legislation.
One of the major differences between the US & other countries is the Tort Liability System. Much of the cost of Healthcare is the cost of Malpractice & liability insurance built into it. We are talking really large sums of money here. Many doctors & facilities cannot afford it or build it into the cost of medical services. The new HC Bill does very little to reduce the cost of medical services, (there is a small sure-to-fail-pittance given to the states for Tort Reform which is doomed IMO given the funds/strength of the BAR & such). Drugs & medical devices are expensive in the US for the same reason. The US is flooded with ambulance chasing attorneys encourage potential litigants to sue for "bad" drugs, etc.
I spent 20+ years in the insurance industry, and the cost of liability insurance in other countries is very small (even when provided by a US INS CO). Why? Because of their legal system and viewpoint of compensation for losses.
Tort reform has eben attempted for over 30 years, but the lawyer's lobbyists always beat it back.
One of the major differences between the US & other countries is the Tort Liability System. Much of the cost of Healthcare is the cost of Malpractice & liability insurance built into it. We are talking really large sums of money here. Many doctors & facilities cannot afford it or build it into the cost of medical services. The new HC Bill does very little to reduce the cost of medical services, (there is a small sure-to-fail-pittance given to the states for Tort Reform which is doomed IMO given the funds/strength of the BAR & such). Drugs & medical devices are expensive in the US for the same reason. The US is flooded with ambulance chasing attorneys encourage potential litigants to sue for "bad" drugs, etc.
I'm not sure if Americans are not just mentally defective or simply so stupid and greedy that they cannot figure it out
They don't get sick as often. When they do, more of the care is provided by the family doctor.Yes, I was surprised how little attention the Swiss system got in this whole debate leading up to what we got. I could be 'sold' on the Swiss system, and I'm a tough 'sell'.
Makes me wonder - how did the Swiss manage to do it?
-ERD50
I think there are a lot of things which make relatively minor differences on their own, but collectively make a big difference. The problem is that half of these things are opposed by one side of the public policy debate, and the other half of these things are opposed by the other side.Tort reform would be a good thing, but it's not going to have a significant impact on the costs of health care on it's own.
The meat of this bill doesn't take affect until 2014, in the what have you done for me lately, this bill is a total bust.If unemployment was not almost 10%, that number would drop...........not many folks in America who are unemployed can afford insurance........
Your link does not say more than a paragraph & a statement, not criticizing, just curious as to what the other 97.6% of the costs are attributed to. Does anyone know?Before you blow a gasket at the evils of the BAR, step back and look at the data. Here is a study which shows that about 2.4% of our healthcare costs is due to malpractice related items: National Costs Of The Medical Liability System -- Mello et al. 29 (9): 1569 -- Health Affairs. Most is defensive medicine and that may not disappear if malpractice is dealt with differently.
There are states, like Wisconsin, where malpractice insurance costs are low in part due to caps and due to a compensation fund. Health care still costs a lot in Wisconsin.
(I find it interesting that we want to cap malpractice for doctors and we have short statutes of limitations for the claims. But legal malpractice claims get no caps and long statutes of limitation for malpractice. I guess we like the medical profession and not the legal? )
Unnecessary or unproven high tech imaging and testing, aggressive end-of-life care for elderly or chroniically ill patients with no meaningful hope for recovery in any event; tens of millions of uninsured or underinsured who uses the hospital ER for primary care, pandemic obesity; untreated hypertension, diabetes and other diseases with effective treatment available; pharmaceutical abuses and numerous "me-too" drugs of no added value to old stand-by drugs; a 25-30% administrative cost on every dollar of services; neglected prenatal care; rampant violence in certain locations requiring massive trauma care; lack of primary care physicians who can deflect a reflex referral to subspecialists (who often a buck-stops-here approach which is costly and is sometimes avoidable with no adverse consequences.just curious as to what the other 97.6% of the costs are attributed to. Does anyone know?
The meat of this bill doesn't take affect until 2014, in the what have you done for me lately, this bill is a total bust.
TJ
....... aggressive end-of-life care for elderly or chronically ill patients with no meaningful hope for recovery in any event; .............