Healthcare Hypocricy?

[Kung Wu]

LOL

[RoyalShock]

Here is an interview with a US Senate candidate from North Carolina. The whole interview is pretty good, but he gives an interesting answer regards to defunding ObamaCare starting at around the 3-minute mark.

[SubGod22]

Fewer options for Nebraska

[MoValley John]

Fewer options for Nebraska

Good thing I am on a company plan. It's also nice to know that everything is smooth as a baby's butt. Nobody is losing coverage just because seven companies are quitting, fewer companies always makes for more competition and lower prices.

[WuDrWu]

Maybe there's a number out there that will prove my theory wrong, but I am going to speculate that there will end up being more people uninsured when the ACA is fully kicked in than there is now.

Why would a small business that provides group insurance today, continue to do it, except for principle?

For instance, a guy owns a business with 40 employees and he offers health insurance to his staff where he pays 80% of the premium. Probably costs him 5-10k per month. Most of his employees are entry level or near entry level. They're going to get premium subsidies (and for folks like @kcshocker11: , those aren't free). There is no penalty for the owner because he's under 50 employees. You think everyone is going to start buying those policies? If you do, you're not smart at all. I know the left goal is single payer (and if that's you, you're still stupid and wrong) but this is going to be such a disaster you have no idea.

[jdmee]

Maybe there's a number out there that will prove my theory wrong, but I am going to speculate that there will end up being more people uninsured when the ACA is fully kicked in than there is now.

Why would a small business that provides group insurance today, continue to do it, except for principle?

For instance, a guy owns a business with 40 employees and he offers health insurance to his staff where he pays 80% of the premium. Probably costs him 5-10k per month. Most of his employees are entry level or near entry level. They're going to get premium subsidies (and for folks like @kcshocker11: , those aren't free). There is no penalty for the owner because he's under 50 employees. You think everyone is going to start buying those policies? If you do, you're not smart at all. I know the left goal is single payer (and if that's you, you're still stupid and wrong) but this is going to be such a disaster you have no idea.

How about the owner with 50 employees? Does he offer health insurance or does he let one of his employees go to avoid the penalty?

[Kung Wu]

Easy. He drops them to part time (under 30 hours per week). Now the employee needs to have two jobs and the costs associated with that, he no longer gets his health care paid for, and he has to pay a tax if he can't afford the exchange rates. Low and middle income people are screwed over once again.

[ShockBand]

I still personally think that health insurance needs to be decoupled from employers. We don't get our home and auto insurance through our employer, we shop around for the best deal that meets our need. There would undoubtedly need to be some regulation on such a system, but it can't be any worse than either the ACA or the hyperinflating cost system of the past decade or two.

[Kung Wu]

I still personally think that health insurance needs to be decoupled from employers. We don't get our home and auto insurance through our employer, we shop around for the best deal that meets our need. There would undoubtedly need to be some regulation on such a system, but it can't be any worse than either the ACA or the hyperinflating cost system of the past decade or two.

What is preventing you from going out and buying group insurance elsewhere?

[ShockBand]

What is preventing you from going out and buying group insurance elsewhere?

The only affordable options are through my or my wife's employer. At least ones that provide reasonable coverage. I think if it were decoupled, insurance companies would have to work harder at being competitive with one another to the consumer, not just companies. This could also help Am.erican companies be more competitive globally, by not being shackled to health insurance and its costs directly. A good company would likely still offer financial compensation for health care, but in the form of a monthly amount specified for the employee to use, kind of like how flex plans work. I know there would still be many logistical details, but I can't help but think this would make things more truly open and competitive.

[Kung Wu]

The only affordable options are through my or my wife's employer. At least ones that provide reasonable coverage. I think if it were decoupled, insurance companies would have to work harder at being competitive with one another to the consumer, not just companies. This could also help Am.erican companies be more competitive globally, by not being shackled to health insurance and its costs directly. A good company would likely still offer financial compensation for health care, but in the form of a monthly amount specified for the employee to use, kind of liku how flex plans work. I know there would still be many logistical details, but I can't help but think this would make things more truly open and competitive.

I still don't get it.

Employers don't have to offer insurance (pre ACA). It's a pure expense for them to do so. And it's a pain in their ass. They do it as a benefit to the employee, so they can be more competitive at hiring and retaining employees. So they pay someone to negotiate good rates for their employees and help subsidize the employee's health insurance. You are free to get insurance anywhere else you want to but the employer is making it more affordable for you if you take theirs. You are getting something "free": A portion of your health insurance paid for, if you take their insurance. You are also free to buy a second policy _on top of_ your employer subsidized health insurance if you think it doesn't cover enough.

Everything above benefits the insured employee. Nothing above causes rates to increase macro or microscopically.

So help me out where you think it's broken specifically.

[Kung Wu]

Are there any lessons about the failure of price controls or centralized control of resources here:

http://www.ksla.com/story/23679489/walmart-shelves-in-springhill-mansfield-cleared-in-ebt-glitch

[Steeleshocker]

I still don't get it.

Employers don't have to offer insurance (pre ACA). It's a pure expense for them to do so. And it's a pain in their ass. They do it as a benefit to the employee, so they can be more competitive at hiring and retaining employees. So they pay someone to negotiate good rates for their employees and help subsidize the employee's health insurance. You are free to get insurance anywhere else you want to but the employer is making it more affordable for you if you take theirs. You are getting something "free": A portion of your health insurance paid for, if you take their insurance. You are also free to buy a second policy _on top of_ your employer subsidized health insurance if you think it doesn't cover enough.

Everything above benefits the insured employee. Nothing above causes rates to increase macro or microscopically.

So help me out where you think it's broken specifically.

My grandfather (RIP 2001) had some very interesting perspectives on health insurance. He was a surgeon in WW2 and a practicing physician afterward. He was against the allowing of companies using health insurance as a benefit, because it incentivized the insurance companies to focus on the large corporations where they make the most profit and are shielded by large workforces. Then these companies stopped providing as much care to the individuals who wanted insurance because they weren't as valuable. Those people then couldn't afford health insurance and become a drain on medical costs. In short, he said employee sponsored health plans would drive health care costs up eventually.

Additionally, as I understand it medical insurance is licensed by each state individually, which reduces the competitiveness that is normally available from market conditions.

For credibility, I will state that my grandfather also said only one thing could prevent Tiger Woods from breaking Jack Nicklaus' record for major victories: women.

[Kung Wu]

My grandfather (RIP 2001) had some very interesting perspectives on health insurance. He was a surgeon in WW2 and a practicing physician afterward. He was against the allowing of companies using health insurance as a benefit, because it incentivized the insurance companies to focus on the large corporations where they make the most profit and are shielded by large workforces. Then these companies stopped providing as much care to the individuals who wanted insurance because they weren't as valuable. Those people then couldn't afford health insurance and become a drain on medical costs. In short, he said employee sponsored health plans would drive health care costs up eventually.

Okay, I see the argument your grandpappy was making. He was concerned that those people that worked for companies that didn't provide insurance would be excluded from getting good group rates. I'll have to chew on that a bit and see if I buy it. :)

Additionally, as I understand it medical insurance is licensed by each state individually, which reduces the competitiveness that is normally available from market conditions.

Yes, that sucks big time and has a much bigger impact than lots of groups (employers) negotiating costs down on behalf of insured people.

In actuality it may not be the per state licensing that kills the competition as much as how heavily involved each state government gets in the regulations -- obviously to support the citizen but with the unintended consequence of hurting them, ultimately. A minimal set of regulations with reciprocity would help tremendously.

For credibility, I will state that my grandfather also said only one thing could prevent Tiger Woods from breaking Jack Nicklaus' record for major victories: women.

Hahaha! Genius!

[Kung Wu]