The Bobcat Nation

Affordable Health Care is ****** joke!

Our family is in the midst of financial transition. We are deciding whether to make a job move or not and much of it depends on health insurance. So, I have been running a bunch of what-if scenarios and here are my conclusions thus far:

1. How is it that "Affordable" has come to mean a $7,500 family deductible combined with paying almost $8,000 in premiums for a year?
2. If you are on Medicaid, you essentially have to get a job that will pay close to $20,000 more than you make now - just to break even.
3. What the ****** do we get for our $8,000? Less than $1,000/year for "preventative" health care measures.
4. How is it that "Affordable" has come to mean that you pay more for health insurance than you do for a $150,000 home? (roughly)
5. So basically what happened is that insurance companies and medical facilities got a windfall with the passing of ACA. And yet, the costs of delivering health care in this country continue to mount (apparently). Because health insurance premiums continue to rise, and in fact, some insurance companies are opting out of the health insurance marketplace altogether.

This is a joke and it was played beautifully on the middle class by Washington, Insurance Companies and Health Care Facilities!

Multifaceted problem. Your rant should be directed at the root of the problem. The cost of delivering health care in the US.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

77matcat wrote:Multifaceted problem. Your rant should be directed at the root of the problem. The cost of delivering health care in the US.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Think about this. If you eliminated insurance, and contain needed procedures caused by attorneys, how cheep does it get.

Why would any small business consider expansion if it causes them to go over the 30 employee threshold?

Law of diminishing returns...

ACA is a job killer

The cost of health care delivery is inexorably tied to insurance. The price that providers charge is often time 50% less if you pay them directly instead of using your insurance.

allcat wrote:

77matcat wrote:Multifaceted problem. Your rant should be directed at the root of the problem. The cost of delivering health care in the US.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Think about this. If you eliminated insurance, and contain needed procedures caused by attorneys, how cheep does it get.

For large companies that self insure costs 4 to 6 percent to process claims. For large companies that insure add 3 to 4 percent for a risk charge. So for large companies about 10 percent.

For small companies the answer is what ever the mkt allows. O care attempts all to participate in a large pool and reduce small company costs. As I understand one problem that is occurring is the affect of pent up demand.

Google the forty year general inflation and health care inflation. Multiply 1 by both strings.

The problem is the cost of the services insured. Free enterprise works great if there is a level playing field.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Has the increasing cost of health care leveled off? I honestly have no idea, but the ACA was sold as a tool that would do that.

77matcat wrote:

allcat wrote:

77matcat wrote:Multifaceted problem. Your rant should be directed at the root of the problem. The cost of delivering health care in the US.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Think about this. If you eliminated insurance, and contain needed procedures caused by attorneys, how cheep does it get.

For large companies that self insure costs 4 to 6 percent to process claims. For large companies that insure add 3 to 4 percent for a risk charge. So for large companies about 10 percent.

For small companies the answer is what ever the mkt allows. O care attempts all to participate in a large pool and reduce small company costs. As I understand one problem that is occurring is the affect of pent up demand.

Google the forty year general inflation and health care inflation. Multiply 1 by both strings.

The problem is the cost of the services insured. Free enterprise works great if there is a level playing field.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Adding several layers of government between patient and doctor might level the playing field but it is the antithesis of free enterprise. Nobody can make the argument that there is not enough government in health care, yet that has been the direction for at least the 40 years of analysis. Adding several layers of government between patient and doctor CAN ONLY INCREASE COSTS.

Difficult problems do not automatically become solvable just because lawmakers make those problems the focus of attention. Less government solutions, more free market solutions.

77matcat wrote:

allcat wrote:

77matcat wrote:Multifaceted problem. Your rant should be directed at the root of the problem. The cost of delivering health care in the US.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Think about this. If you eliminated insurance, and contain needed procedures caused by attorneys, how cheep does it get.

For large companies that self insure costs 4 to 6 percent to process claims. For large companies that insure add 3 to 4 percent for a risk charge. So for large companies about 10 percent.

For small companies the answer is what ever the mkt allows. O care attempts all to participate in a large pool and reduce small company costs. As I understand one problem that is occurring is the affect of pent up demand.

Google the forty year general inflation and health care inflation. Multiply 1 by both strings.

The problem is the cost of the services insured. Free enterprise works great if there is a level playing field.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are failing to look at the personel required just to keep up with coding, differing insurance billing requirements and such. That contributes greatly to the cost. Then look at the personel at the insurance companies just to process the claims. As far as attorneys, how many procedures are required (once again by an insurance company), just to cover the doctor ass. The AMA is essentially a monopoly limiting the number of doctors, so where is the free market. Check out the difference in medical costs, just by changing cities in Montana. If we are talking free market, why can you get better care in Thailand for less than 1/5th the money.

Rich K wrote:

77matcat wrote:

allcat wrote:

77matcat wrote:Multifaceted problem. Your rant should be directed at the root of the problem. The cost of delivering health care in the US.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Think about this. If you eliminated insurance, and contain needed procedures caused by attorneys, how cheep does it get.

For large companies that self insure costs 4 to 6 percent to process claims. For large companies that insure add 3 to 4 percent for a risk charge. So for large companies about 10 percent.

For small companies the answer is what ever the mkt allows. O care attempts all to participate in a large pool and reduce small company costs. As I understand one problem that is occurring is the affect of pent up demand.

Google the forty year general inflation and health care inflation. Multiply 1 by both strings.

The problem is the cost of the services insured. Free enterprise works great if there is a level playing field.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Adding several layers of government between patient and doctor might level the playing field but it is the antithesis of free enterprise. Nobody can make the argument that there is not enough government in health care, yet that has been the direction for at least the 40 years of analysis. Adding several layers of government between patient and doctor CAN ONLY INCREASE COSTS.

Difficult problems do not automatically become solvable just because lawmakers make those problems the focus of attention. Less government solutions, more free market solutions.

Agree with less government in concept. First thing to drop is mandated not for profits care of folks unable to pay.

Is healthcare a privilege or a right???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

77matcat wrote:

Rich K wrote:

77matcat wrote:

allcat wrote:

77matcat wrote:Multifaceted problem. Your rant should be directed at the root of the problem. The cost of delivering health care in the US.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Think about this. If you eliminated insurance, and contain needed procedures caused by attorneys, how cheep does it get.

For large companies that self insure costs 4 to 6 percent to process claims. For large companies that insure add 3 to 4 percent for a risk charge. So for large companies about 10 percent.

For small companies the answer is what ever the mkt allows. O care attempts all to participate in a large pool and reduce small company costs. As I understand one problem that is occurring is the affect of pent up demand.

Google the forty year general inflation and health care inflation. Multiply 1 by both strings.

The problem is the cost of the services insured. Free enterprise works great if there is a level playing field.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Adding several layers of government between patient and doctor might level the playing field but it is the antithesis of free enterprise. Nobody can make the argument that there is not enough government in health care, yet that has been the direction for at least the 40 years of analysis. Adding several layers of government between patient and doctor CAN ONLY INCREASE COSTS.

Difficult problems do not automatically become solvable just because lawmakers make those problems the focus of attention. Less government solutions, more free market solutions.

Agree with less government in concept. First thing to drop is mandated not for profits care of folks unable to pay.

Is healthcare a privilege or a right???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You do not have a right to force somebody else to provide for you.

allcat wrote:

77matcat wrote:

allcat wrote:

77matcat wrote:Multifaceted problem. Your rant should be directed at the root of the problem. The cost of delivering health care in the US.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Think about this. If you eliminated insurance, and contain needed procedures caused by attorneys, how cheep does it get.

For large companies that self insure costs 4 to 6 percent to process claims. For large companies that insure add 3 to 4 percent for a risk charge. So for large companies about 10 percent.

For small companies the answer is what ever the mkt allows. O care attempts all to participate in a large pool and reduce small company costs. As I understand one problem that is occurring is the affect of pent up demand.

Google the forty year general inflation and health care inflation. Multiply 1 by both strings.

The problem is the cost of the services insured. Free enterprise works great if there is a level playing field.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are failing to look at the personel required just to keep up with coding, differing insurance billing requirements and such. That contributes greatly to the cost. Then look at the personel at the insurance companies just to process the claims. As far as attorneys, how many procedures are required (once again by an insurance company), just to cover the doctor ass. The AMA is essentially a monopoly limiting the number of doctors, so where is the free market. Check out the difference in medical costs, just by changing cities in Montana. If we are talking free market, why can you get better care in Thailand for less than 1/5th the money.

Actually I don't recall stating there is a whole lot of invisible hand going on.

Not sure, but believe a part of the problem is the cost of med school and the numbers docs they educate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Healthcare is a privilege

Then you need to push the Feds to stop the not for profit requirements to server all who walk in the front door.

Reducing hospital's bad debt will have a meaningful affect on its rates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

77matcat wrote:Then you need to push the Feds to stop the not for profit requirements to server all who walk in the front door.

Reducing hospital's bad debt will have a meaningful affect on its rates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you know about hospitals you know the bad debt is uncollectible in most cases. They are writing off millions per year because people choose not to pay them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well not quite. The daily room rate include estimated bad debt. Those costs are not just forgotten or most hostpital a would have to close their doors. They are spread to those who can afford to pay.

So, one way or the other we have national healthcare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

77matcat wrote:Well not quite. The daily room rate include estimated bad debt. Those costs are not just forgotten or most hostpital a would have to close their doors. They are spread to those who can afford to pay.

So, one way or the other we have national healthcare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is an excellent point, and one that is lost on most people in the debate about healthcare. One way or another, people who can afford to pay will end up footing the bill for those who can't afford to pay, or who choose not to pay, regardless of what kind of system is implemented. Unless we decide to just start turning those sorts of people away. Ironically, it seems like conservative Christians are the ones who are most likely to support doing that, which I'm not sure fits very well with the whole "what would Jesus do" thing.

Every other country in the world spends far less for healthcare per capita than we do (and this has been true for as long as I can remember). It seems like the most obvious first step would be to figure out why that is.

http://www.pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0006_health-care-oecd