Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    I can't even begin to tell you how far off the mark you are.  That's why your post is so strange. Just your use of the word "cutthroat"  tells me where you are at on this.  You are unwilling to discuss alternatives, because you are ideologically locked to government solutions only.  Government somehow will magically make this all work, and nothing else is even worth listening to.  Nice, and completely legless stance.

     

    Small business needs to provide health care, or shutter their doors?  Talk about "cutthroat".

    Face it.   you aren't interested in solutions, you are only interested in government control.

     

     



    That's because you are unable to even find the mark, much less find my place on it.

     

    You seem dreadfully unaware of the existence of ethics in either business or commerce in general.  Hence my terms of "cutthroat" to your view that people should be on their own re: basic health care coverage.

    This has nothing to do with your nebulous idea of "govt control" and everything to do with how our society functions in an age where people have the false choice of either going bankrupt and losing their house vs. receiving critical or even lifesaving health care services.

    Face it.  You want to put profits above people.

     



    Profits above people?  Nonsequitor.  Profits end up in the hands of people.  They are called stockholders.  They include your grannie and gramps, and it is where oyur pension funds are likely invested.

    Why a prift motive?  Because profits drive behavior the market desires, causing people to be well served.  So, actually, I think it would be better stated:

     

    "profits make healthy people"

     

    Apparently your view is that this is a bad dynamic, and therfore, everything in healthcare must be put in government control.  Are you going to deny that?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    My insurance has gone up over 100% in the past year becasue of Obamacare.  

     



     

    I call BS on this claim.  

     

     

     



    Well, I'm not going to include my policy, by you need to google private health insurance costs to see what is going on.

     

    "As retired actuary Mark Litow and I have written elsewhere, health insurance premiums in the individual market will double for some people in some states—and that’s only in the near term."

    "the Wall Street Journal reports companies including UnitedHealth Group, Aetna and Blue Cross & Blue Shield of North Carolina say health insurance premiums could rise from 25 percent to 116 percent for some people. Part of these cost increases are due to Obamacare's requirements that health insurance companies provide better benefitsincluding maternity care and prescription drugs, accept any customer regardless of pre-existing conditions, and not charge older people more than three times what younger people pay."

     

    "What about other sorts of policies, and other people? The news isn’t much better: Wisconsin predicts “an average premium increase of 41 percent.” Ohio’s Department of Insurance says “the individual health insurance market premiums are estimated to increase by 55 percent to 85 percent above current market average rates.”

     

    That's just a sample of what is going on.  Apparently you are so locked into your union healthcare, which is likely exempt from Obamacare, that you are not seeing what is going on.  Individual policies are skyrocketing.  Absolutely out of control.  Why haven't you heard about this?  Because the press, Obama, and apparently you, have a tin ear to people who are trying to make their own way through life.  Better to crush us under medical costs with a state-run system than oh, say, allow insurance to be sold across state lines.

     



    I still call BS.  How does conjecture in an op-ed over future premiums translate into YOUR insurance "increasing 100% in one year?  I don't need your policy...an explanation would suffice.  Premiums don't increase that much, that quickly without a reason.

     

    I don't belong to a union or have union healthcare, so you're wrong twice.  I work for a private employer and have private group coverage.

    Individual policies have always been expensive, which is why most people get their coverage through their employers or organizations.  Part of the point of the ACA is to make the individual policy market more affordable.  Your view of "free market first" would seem to allow the insurers to charge whatever they want.

     



    Because I pay for the insurance.

     

    Look, you can claim BS all oyu want, I don't care.  What you are really saying is that, in the face of reality, you are STILL insisting that Obamacare is driving down costs, and, I am TELLING YOU from personal experience, it is DRIVING COSTS THROUGH THE ROOF.

    Facts matter, and you don't have 'em.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    The other issue is people paying different amounts for the same exact procedure in the same place...but that's a problem between the insurance plans and the providers.

    That's a function of what the insurer negotiates with the provider for discounts. That should be different depending on the insurer. A bigger insurers can offer bigger discounts for their members than a smaller insurer can. 

    It's only fair that hospitals and doctors should post their prices (not their costs) and allow the consumer a little leeway to shop around and get the best deal for their money.  As it currently stands, lots of people are scared to death of the potential costs of even minor or standard procedures...and these include people WITH insurance coverage.

    Hospitals do post their charges with the state, which is public data that anyone can request. I'm surprised people with coverage would be scared to death of minor or standard procedures. I've never wondered or cared how much a procedure would cost. I had hernia surgery and didn't spend one second wondering what the cost would be. Nor do I know anyone who has coverage that has ever wondered about the cost. Hmmmm.

     

    But why should anyone be charged differently for the exact same procedure?  Why shouldn't everyone be able to pay the medicare price, for example?

    Some hospitals are transparent about their prices.  Some are not.  There is no consistency throughout the system.  Every hospital has their chargemaster, but not all of the info is made public.

    That you weren't concerned about the expense does not mean that others are not also.  Of course, you know that not all coverage is equal and may not be as good as yours...and some may be better.

    Medical bills are still one of the most prevalent causes for bankruptcy in this country...upward of half of all cases.  So yes, lots of people are scared.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    But why should anyone be charged differently for the exact same procedure?  Why shouldn't everyone be able to pay the medicare price, for example?

    No one is charged differently for same exact procedure. It's the same charge for you or me at say MGH. It's the reimbursement from your insurer that is different

    But, if you want hospitals to go out of business then let's adopt the medicare fee schedule. Boston area hospitals lose MILLIONS on Medicare and Medicaid patients. If it wasn't for the Big 3 insurers these hospitals would be closed.

     

    Some hospitals are transparent about their prices.  Some are not.  There is no consistency throughout the system.  Every hospital has their chargemaster, but not all of the info is made public.

    Which hospitals aren't transparent about their prices?

     

     

     




     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     


    Because I pay for the insurance.

    Look, you can claim BS all oyu want, I don't care.  What you are really saying is that, in the face of reality, you are STILL insisting that Obamacare is driving down costs, and, I am TELLING YOU from personal experience, it is DRIVING COSTS THROUGH THE ROOF.

    Facts matter, and you don't have 'em.



    You're wrong again.  And you're confusing costs with premiums.  The FACT is that both were rising rapidly before the ACA received even a single vote... and on a faster pace than they are right now.

    I never said the ACA is driving down costs.  I've said that when the law is fully implemented, the deeper risk pool WILL result in lower costs across the board.

    You have no proof that the ACA is causing your absurd rise in premiums.  ALl I can guess is that you lost your job and now have to buy an individual policy.  That's unfortunate...and it's also one of the areas addressed by Obamacare.

    Remember, there is no public option.  Aside from medicare and medicaid, all other changes will apply to the private insurance market.

    The ONLY rationale behind free market health care is to have only the people who can pay the most for services get them.  That's not right.  It's like only the nice homes getting protection from police or fire.  Not good.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    The other issue is people paying different amounts for the same exact procedure in the same place...but that's a problem between the insurance plans and the providers.

    That's a function of what the insurer negotiates with the provider for discounts. That should be different depending on the insurer. A bigger insurers can offer bigger discounts for their members than a smaller insurer can. 

    It's only fair that hospitals and doctors should post their prices (not their costs) and allow the consumer a little leeway to shop around and get the best deal for their money.  As it currently stands, lots of people are scared to death of the potential costs of even minor or standard procedures...and these include people WITH insurance coverage.

    Hospitals do post their charges with the state, which is public data that anyone can request. I'm surprised people with coverage would be scared to death of minor or standard procedures. I've never wondered or cared how much a procedure would cost. I had hernia surgery and didn't spend one second wondering what the cost would be. Nor do I know anyone who has coverage that has ever wondered about the cost. Hmmmm.

     

     

    But why should anyone be charged differently for the exact same procedure?  Why shouldn't everyone be able to pay the medicare price, for example?

    Some hospitals are transparent about their prices.  Some are not.  There is no consistency throughout the system.  Every hospital has their chargemaster, but not all of the info is made public.

    That you weren't concerned about the expense does not mean that others are not also.  Of course, you know that not all coverage is equal and may not be as good as yours...and some may be better.

    Medical bills are still one of the most prevalent causes for bankruptcy in this country...upward of half of all cases.  So yes, lots of people are scared.

     



    "But why should anyone be charged differently for the exact same procedure?"

    Because there is no such thing.  We are all unique snowflakes, the ailments that strike us are all slightly different.

    The skill of the doctors varies, the specifics of your procedure are different, complications might be different.

    Look, healthcare is not the cut and dry process you make it out to be, like buying cold cuts.

    More reason for a profit motive.  helps you beter match the need to the skill.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    But why should anyone be charged differently for the exact same procedure?  Why shouldn't everyone be able to pay the medicare price, for example?

    No one is charged differently for same exact procedure. It's the same charge for you or me at say MGH. It's the reimbursement from your insurer that is different

    But, if you want hospitals to go out of business then let's adopt the medicare fee schedule. Boston area hospitals lose MILLIONS on Medicare and Medicaid patients. If it wasn't for the Big 3 insurers these hospitals would be closed.

     

    Some hospitals are transparent about their prices.  Some are not.  There is no consistency throughout the system.  Every hospital has their chargemaster, but not all of the info is made public.

    Which hospitals aren't transparent about their prices?

     

    These issues were detailed at length in Time a few weeks ago.  A person without insurance will pay more for the same procedure than a person with insurance will.  And then, insurance plans vary, which means that two people with different insurances will pay two different prices for the same procedure and same result.

    Remember, we're talking about people who are uninsured or underinsured and the out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of needing health services.  Unless a person can estimate their out-of-pocket expenses for a procedure (with or without insurance) and compare among hospitals, there is no real transparency.

    One analysis found considerable price variation for common preventive services: 755 percent cost variation for diabetes screenings (from $51 to $437); 264 percent variation for Pap smears (from $131 to $476); and 132 percent cost variation for colonoscopies (from $786 to $1,819) over a 12-month period. Since the Affordable Care Act mandates these preventive screenings come at no cost to individuals, the costs are borne by plan sponsors. Healthcare Transparency Index, "Affording the Affordable Care Act: Engaging Employees in Finding Lower-Cost Preventive Care," March 2012, Change Healthcare. Another analysis found that hospital charges for appendicitis in California hospitals ranged from $1,529 to a high of $182,955. R. Y. Hsia, A. H. Kothari, T. Srebotnjak et al., "Health Care as a "Market Good"? Appendicitis as a Case Study," Archives of Internal Medicine, published online April 23, 2012. One analysis found that U.S. spending on health care could be reduced by $36 billion a year if the 108 million Americans with employer-sponsored coverage comparison shopped for 300 common medical procedures. B. Coluni, "Save $36 Billion in U.S. Healthcare Spending Through Price Transparency," Thomson Reuters, February 2012. Several studies have found that higher costs do not equate with higher quality.

    And even if the prices are transparent, that doesn't mean the prices are reasonable.  It's absolutely possible that your insurance company negotiates a higher price than skeeter's, or vice versa.  So, why should you pay more for the same procedure merely by dint of the carrier you chose...?

     

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     


    Because I pay for the insurance.

    Look, you can claim BS all oyu want, I don't care.  What you are really saying is that, in the face of reality, you are STILL insisting that Obamacare is driving down costs, and, I am TELLING YOU from personal experience, it is DRIVING COSTS THROUGH THE ROOF.

    Facts matter, and you don't have 'em.

     



    You're wrong again.  And you're confusing costs with premiums.  The FACT is that both were rising rapidly before the ACA received even a single vote... and on a faster pace than they are right now.

     

    I never said the ACA is driving down costs.  I've said that when the law is fully implemented, the deeper risk pool WILL result in lower costs across the board.

    You have no proof that the ACA is causing your absurd rise in premiums.  ALl I can guess is that you lost your job and now have to buy an individual policy.  That's unfortunate...and it's also one of the areas addressed by Obamacare.

    Remember, there is no public option.  Aside from medicare and medicaid, all other changes will apply to the private insurance market.

    The ONLY rationale behind free market health care is to have only the people who can pay the most for services get them.  That's not right.  It's like only the nice homes getting protection from police or fire.  Not good.

     

     




    "You have no proof that the ACA is causing your absurd rise in premiums."  Really?  You didn't read what I posted.  There is clearly a link between rising costs and Obamacare.  Oh, BTW, I do work.  I am one of those dreaded small business people, a business of one.

    You are hopeless.  in the face of tons of facts put in front of you, you are claiming that Obamcare is a better system.  And yes, people who can pay more should get more.  That's just simple logic.  It doesn't mean that if you are poor that you get nothing, you should get critical care.  But, it doesn't mean that one should have access to the same level of services that those can afford it can get.

     

    "The ONLY rationale behind free market health care is to have only the people who can pay the most for services get them."

    No, that's notthe only reason.  That's what you commies in cambridge want everyone to think.

    The profit motive drives innovation in health care.  Innovation get more services and care to more people by making it more efficient and successful in delivering care.

    The single biggest problem in healthcare over the past "n" years is that government has taken over increasing responsibility in health care, and have blown it big time.  The result has been a broken system.  Now, the government analysis of the problem is that they haven't exerted enough control, so it all must come under government control.

    That's the fact, jack.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    But why should anyone be charged differently for the exact same procedure?  Why shouldn't everyone be able to pay the medicare price, for example?

    No one is charged differently for same exact procedure. It's the same charge for you or me at say MGH. It's the reimbursement from your insurer that is different

    But, if you want hospitals to go out of business then let's adopt the medicare fee schedule. Boston area hospitals lose MILLIONS on Medicare and Medicaid patients. If it wasn't for the Big 3 insurers these hospitals would be closed.

     

    Some hospitals are transparent about their prices.  Some are not.  There is no consistency throughout the system.  Every hospital has their chargemaster, but not all of the info is made public.

    Which hospitals aren't transparent about their prices?

     

     

    These issues were detailed at length in Time a few weeks ago.  A person without insurance will pay more for the same procedure than a person with insurance will.  And then, insurance plans vary, which means that two people with different insurances will pay two different prices for the same procedure and same result.

    Remember, we're talking about people who are uninsured or underinsured and the out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of needing health services.  Unless a person can estimate their out-of-pocket expenses for a procedure (with or without insurance) and compare among hospitals, there is no real transparency.

    One analysis found considerable price variation for common preventive services: 755 percent cost variation for diabetes screenings (from $51 to $437); 264 percent variation for Pap smears (from $131 to $476); and 132 percent cost variation for colonoscopies (from $786 to $1,819) over a 12-month period. Since the Affordable Care Act mandates these preventive screenings come at no cost to individuals, the costs are borne by plan sponsors. Healthcare Transparency Index, "Affording the Affordable Care Act: Engaging Employees in Finding Lower-Cost Preventive Care," March 2012, Change Healthcare. Another analysis found that hospital charges for appendicitis in California hospitals ranged from $1,529 to a high of $182,955. R. Y. Hsia, A. H. Kothari, T. Srebotnjak et al., "Health Care as a "Market Good"? Appendicitis as a Case Study," Archives of Internal Medicine, published online April 23, 2012. One analysis found that U.S. spending on health care could be reduced by $36 billion a year if the 108 million Americans with employer-sponsored coverage comparison shopped for 300 common medical procedures. B. Coluni, "Save $36 Billion in U.S. Healthcare Spending Through Price Transparency," Thomson Reuters, February 2012. Several studies have found that higher costs do not equate with higher quality.

    And even if the prices are transparent, that doesn't mean the prices are reasonable.  It's absolutely possible that your insurance company negotiates a higher price than skeeter's, or vice versa.  So, why should you pay more for the same procedure merely by dint of the carrier you chose...?

     

     

     



    If you're talking about uninsured, then yes, they would get what the charge is from the hospitals. However, MANY hospitals give an "uninsured" discount because the thought is that insured people shouldn't be the only ones that get a discounted rate.

     

    Again, bigger insurers can negotiate bigger discounts for their members. That goes for ANY business. Costco can sell you the same product you'd get at a supermarket or CVS for much cheaper. Why is that ok? Same product right?

    And which hospitals aren't transparent about their charges?

    Another analysis found that hospital charges for appendicitis in California hospitals ranged from $1,529 to a high of $182,955. 

    Clearly this wasn't a case where the procedures were EXACLTY the same. Obviusly the $182K had some major complications. Can't take everything you read at face value.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    "But why should anyone be charged differently for the exact same procedure?"

    Because there is no such thing.  We are all unique snowflakes, the ailments that strike us are all slightly different.

    The skill of the doctors varies, the specifics of your procedure are different, complications might be different.

    Look, healthcare is not the cut and dry process you make it out to be, like buying cold cuts.

    More reason for a profit motive.  helps you beter match the need to the skill.



    WE might be different, but many procedures are exactly the same.  CT scans, for instance, can range from $400-$800 for a simple screening to as much as $2000 for a diagnostic screening...and that is PER body part scanned.

    Agreed that it's not a "cut-and-dry" process, but it is far more complicated than it needs to be.  We're talking about the same terms without complications, which usually come later, anyway.  There's no doubt that complications and errors add to the costs.

    How do we adjust pricing for skill?  We pay for the x-ray regardless of whether they find something.  Should we pay more if they DO find something?

    Lab tests, for another example, are mostly mechanical using machines.  It's never clear if a price paid for a test reflects on the result.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    You are hopeless.  in the face of tons of facts put in front of you, you are claiming that Obamcare is a better system.  And yes, people who can pay more should get more.  That's just simple logic.  

    It doesn't mean that if you are poor that you get nothing, you should get critical care.  But, it doesn't mean that one should have access to the same level of services that those can afford it can get.

     




    You didn't put any facts in front of me.  You gave conjecture and opinion.

    What I am claiming is that Obamacare attempts to fix SOME of the problems with our health care system, not all.  (I always said it was too weak.)  

    The point being is that someone can pay much less than you for the same procedure merely by paying cash or having a different insurance company.  If you think that's fair, then fine.  (What is the "more" paying for, anyway...?  Better drugs? Hotter nurses?)

    And while you're partly right that overall costs aren't addressed enough, the mere fact of millions of more insureds on the rolls will help redistribute costs across the whole spectrum of services and care.

    Ultimately, it's up to the consumer to evaluate doctors, hospitals and services to keep them honest, but without transparency, that is almost impossible.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    You are hopeless.  in the face of tons of facts put in front of you, you are claiming that Obamcare is a better system.  And yes, people who can pay more should get more.  That's just simple logic.  

    It doesn't mean that if you are poor that you get nothing, you should get critical care.  But, it doesn't mean that one should have access to the same level of services that those can afford it can get.

     

     




     

    You didn't put any facts in front of me.  You gave conjecture and opinion.

    What I am claiming is that Obamacare attempts to fix SOME of the problems with our health care system, not all.  (I always said it was too weak.)  

    The point being is that someone can pay much less than you for the same procedure merely by paying cash or having a different insurance company.  If you think that's fair, then fine.  (What is the "more" paying for, anyway...?  Better drugs? Hotter nurses?)

    And while you're partly right that overall costs aren't addressed enough, the mere fact of millions of more insureds on the rolls will help redistribute costs across the whole spectrum of services and care.

    Ultimately, it's up to the consumer to evaluate doctors, hospitals and services to keep them honest, but without transparency, that is almost impossible.

     



    In actuality these people aren't paying more. They are paying the ACTUAL charge. It's that the people who have insurance are paying less due to the discounts their carrier has negotiated. 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    You are hopeless.  in the face of tons of facts put in front of you, you are claiming that Obamcare is a better system.  And yes, people who can pay more should get more.  That's just simple logic.  

    It doesn't mean that if you are poor that you get nothing, you should get critical care.  But, it doesn't mean that one should have access to the same level of services that those can afford it can get.

     

     




     

    You didn't put any facts in front of me.  You gave conjecture and opinion.

    What I am claiming is that Obamacare attempts to fix SOME of the problems with our health care system, not all.  (I always said it was too weak.)  

    The point being is that someone can pay much less than you for the same procedure merely by paying cash or having a different insurance company.  If you think that's fair, then fine.  (What is the "more" paying for, anyway...?  Better drugs? Hotter nurses?)

    And while you're partly right that overall costs aren't addressed enough, the mere fact of millions of more insureds on the rolls will help redistribute costs across the whole spectrum of services and care.

    Ultimately, it's up to the consumer to evaluate doctors, hospitals and services to keep them honest, but without transparency, that is almost impossible.

     

     



    In actuality these people aren't paying more. They are paying the ACTUAL charge. It's that the people who have insurance are paying less due to the discounts their carrier has negotiated. 

     



    No, it's the opposite - if you pay cash, you will pay less because the doctor's office does not have to negotiate compensation with the Insurance company.  

    I'd guess insurance and protection from law suits are responsible for 50% of health care costs - maybe more.   

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    You are hopeless.  in the face of tons of facts put in front of you, you are claiming that Obamcare is a better system.  And yes, people who can pay more should get more.  That's just simple logic.  

    It doesn't mean that if you are poor that you get nothing, you should get critical care.  But, it doesn't mean that one should have access to the same level of services that those can afford it can get.

     

     




     

    You didn't put any facts in front of me.  You gave conjecture and opinion.

    What I am claiming is that Obamacare attempts to fix SOME of the problems with our health care system, not all.  (I always said it was too weak.)  

    The point being is that someone can pay much less than you for the same procedure merely by paying cash or having a different insurance company.  If you think that's fair, then fine.  (What is the "more" paying for, anyway...?  Better drugs? Hotter nurses?)

    And while you're partly right that overall costs aren't addressed enough, the mere fact of millions of more insureds on the rolls will help redistribute costs across the whole spectrum of services and care.

    Ultimately, it's up to the consumer to evaluate doctors, hospitals and services to keep them honest, but without transparency, that is almost impossible.

     

     



    In actuality these people aren't paying more. They are paying the ACTUAL charge. It's that the people who have insurance are paying less due to the discounts their carrier has negotiated. 

     

     



    No, it's the opposite - if you pay cash, you will pay less because the doctor's office does not have to negotiate compensation with the Insurance company.  

     

    I'd guess insurance and protection from law suits are responsible for 50% of health care costs - maybe more.   

     



    We were talking about hospitals. If an uninsured goes to a hospital they would pay more than someone who is insured. 

    Do you have proof uninsured pays less at doctor's office?

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In actuality these people aren't paying more. They are paying the ACTUAL charge. It's that the people who have insurance are paying less due to the discounts their carrier has negotiated. 


    If that were true, then wouldn't it make sense for the larger insurers to charge lower premiums due to their lower negotiated prices with hospitals?  If not, then why not?

    I'm not at all convinced that's the case.

    We know how some retailers can charge less based on their purchasing power.  BJs gas prices, for example, are a quarter or more per gallon cheaper than most other stations.  They defray their costs by membership dues AND buying in bulk directly from suppliers.

    Ideally, health care consumers should be able to negotiate en masse for lower-priced services.  In the current system, the only way to do that is through group insurance...hence why the exchanges will be so critical.

    Most consumer products and some services have a "generic" equivalent that is virtually identical to the name brand, except in terms of cost.  Aside from pharmaceuticals (currently arguing at the Supreme Court re: "pay-for-delay"), health care services have no generic equivalent.  

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

    Report Puts Obamacare's Cost at $30.8B, 114M Paperwork Hours   March, 25, 2013       

      Obamacare has so far cost $30.8 billion and 111.4 million hours to complete paperwork to individuals, healthcare institutions, and small businesses, according to a new report.

    The American Action Forum, a Washington-based advocacy group that has long opposed the health law, said 55,742 employees — working 2,000 hours per year — would be needed to process all the red tape associated with Obamacare.

    The report cites several examples of excessive costs from each category.

    In most cases, neither the Department of Health and Human Services nor the Congressional Budget Office has provided cost estimates, the organization said.

    In the healthcare market, for instance, the Obamacare rule on “preexisting condition exclusions” is costing institutions $4.9 million and 38,000 paperwork hours, the group said.

    Regarding premiums, the organization surveyed healthcare costs in five cities — Atlanta, Austin, Chicago, Phoenix, and Milwaukee.

    “The results are sobering: young and healthier individuals, including small employers, can expect a 169 percent premium increase, averaged across the five cities,” the report concluded. “Consumers in Milwaukee could experience the greatest sticker shock, with a 190 percent increase in 2014.”

    For individuals, the report noted that Obamacare requirements for mandated nutrition labeling could drive up food prices — ultimately costing more than $750 million and imposing 2.6 million paperwork hours, causing “some businesses to forgo certain consumer products.”

    But the biggest impact continues to be on small business, those with up to 50 employees, the report said. Obamacare so far has imposed 11 new regulations on small business.

    These range from patient-notification requirements for medical providers — at a cost of $2.5 million and 138,032 paperwork hours — to menu-labeling changes for restaurants — $757.1 million and 622,000 paperwork hours.

    But Obamacare also imposes a 3 to 5 percent tax on small companies, based on size.

    “They will undoubtedly affect health insurance coverage, consumer products, and the amount of time Americans spend completing federal paperwork,” the report concluded.




     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

    In actuality these people aren't paying more. They are paying the ACTUAL charge. It's that the people who have insurance are paying less due to the discounts their carrier has negotiated. 

     

     


    If that were true, then wouldn't it make sense for the larger insurers to charge lower premiums due to their lower negotiated prices with hospitals?  If not, then why not?

    not that you'll believe it but you ARE paying lower than you would be if your insurer didn't get any discount. I lived it...this was my job for 10 years. I have no dog in the show now so I have no reason to lie.

    I'm not at all convinced that's the case.

    We know how some retailers can charge less based on their purchasing power.

     BJs gas prices, for example, are a quarter or more per gallon cheaper than most other stations.  They defray their costs by membership dues AND buying in bulk directly from suppliers.

    Ding! More members an insurer has the more purchasing power they have. 

     

     

    Ideally, health care consumers should be able to negotiate en masse for lower-priced services.  In the current system, the only way to do that is through group insurance...hence why the exchanges will be so critical.

    Most consumer products and some services have a "generic" equivalent that is virtually identical to the name brand, except in terms of cost.  Aside from pharmaceuticals (currently arguing at the Supreme Court re: "pay-for-delay"), health care services have no generic equivalent.  

     




     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    You are hopeless.  in the face of tons of facts put in front of you, you are claiming that Obamcare is a better system.  And yes, people who can pay more should get more.  That's just simple logic.  

    It doesn't mean that if you are poor that you get nothing, you should get critical care.  But, it doesn't mean that one should have access to the same level of services that those can afford it can get.

     

     




     

    You didn't put any facts in front of me.  You gave conjecture and opinion.

    What I am claiming is that Obamacare attempts to fix SOME of the problems with our health care system, not all.  (I always said it was too weak.)  

    The point being is that someone can pay much less than you for the same procedure merely by paying cash or having a different insurance company.  If you think that's fair, then fine.  (What is the "more" paying for, anyway...?  Better drugs? Hotter nurses?)

    And while you're partly right that overall costs aren't addressed enough, the mere fact of millions of more insureds on the rolls will help redistribute costs across the whole spectrum of services and care.

    Ultimately, it's up to the consumer to evaluate doctors, hospitals and services to keep them honest, but without transparency, that is almost impossible.

     

     



    In actuality these people aren't paying more. They are paying the ACTUAL charge. It's that the people who have insurance are paying less due to the discounts their carrier has negotiated. 

     

     



    No, it's the opposite - if you pay cash, you will pay less because the doctor's office does not have to negotiate compensation with the Insurance company.  

     

    I'd guess insurance and protection from law suits are responsible for 50% of health care costs - maybe more.   

     

     



    We were talking about hospitals. If an uninsured goes to a hospital they would pay more than someone who is insured. 

     

    Do you have proof uninsured pays less at doctor's office?



    Hospitals too - http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/27/business/la-fi-medical-prices-20120527

    There's no difference in cost between insured & uninsured - you just don't see the full cost if you're insured because you're only responsible for your deductible.

    Even the insured can take advantage of cash discounts.

    But it illustrates that insurance companies just get in the way.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

    In actuality these people aren't paying more. They are paying the ACTUAL charge. It's that the people who have insurance are paying less due to the discounts their carrier has negotiated. 

     

     


    If that were true, then wouldn't it make sense for the larger insurers to charge lower premiums due to their lower negotiated prices with hospitals?  If not, then why not?

    I'm not at all convinced that's the case.

    We know how some retailers can charge less based on their purchasing power.  BJs gas prices, for example, are a quarter or more per gallon cheaper than most other stations.  They defray their costs by membership dues AND buying in bulk directly from suppliers.

    Ideally, health care consumers should be able to negotiate en masse for lower-priced services.  In the current system, the only way to do that is through group insurance...hence why the exchanges will be so critical.

    Most consumer products and some services have a "generic" equivalent that is virtually identical to the name brand, except in terms of cost.  Aside from pharmaceuticals (currently arguing at the Supreme Court re: "pay-for-delay"), health care services have no generic equivalent.  

     



    Maybe a Med-Stop could be considered generic health care.  Of course there are limits to what you can do there, but I've had a finger stitched up at a Med-Stop.  I think it was about $100 total - would have been thousands at an ER.

    One area I can get on board with conservatives - de-regulate some of the things that require doctors.  Pharmacists are perfectly capable of determining your need for anti-biotics; why so many hoops for such simple issues?

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    You are hopeless.  in the face of tons of facts put in front of you, you are claiming that Obamcare is a better system.  And yes, people who can pay more should get more.  That's just simple logic.  

    It doesn't mean that if you are poor that you get nothing, you should get critical care.  But, it doesn't mean that one should have access to the same level of services that those can afford it can get.

     

     




     

    You didn't put any facts in front of me.  You gave conjecture and opinion.

    What I am claiming is that Obamacare attempts to fix SOME of the problems with our health care system, not all.  (I always said it was too weak.)  

    The point being is that someone can pay much less than you for the same procedure merely by paying cash or having a different insurance company.  If you think that's fair, then fine.  (What is the "more" paying for, anyway...?  Better drugs? Hotter nurses?)

    And while you're partly right that overall costs aren't addressed enough, the mere fact of millions of more insureds on the rolls will help redistribute costs across the whole spectrum of services and care.

    Ultimately, it's up to the consumer to evaluate doctors, hospitals and services to keep them honest, but without transparency, that is almost impossible.

     

     



    In actuality these people aren't paying more. They are paying the ACTUAL charge. It's that the people who have insurance are paying less due to the discounts their carrier has negotiated. 

     

     



    No, it's the opposite - if you pay cash, you will pay less because the doctor's office does not have to negotiate compensation with the Insurance company.  

     

    I'd guess insurance and protection from law suits are responsible for 50% of health care costs - maybe more.   

     

     



    We were talking about hospitals. If an uninsured goes to a hospital they would pay more than someone who is insured. 

     

    Do you have proof uninsured pays less at doctor's office?

     



    Hospitals too - http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/27/business/la-fi-medical-prices-20120527

     

    There's no difference in cost between insured & uninsured - you just don't see the full cost if you're insured because you're only responsible for your deductible.

    Even the insured can take advantage of cash discounts.

    But it illustrates that insurance companies just get in the way.

     



    Really? By all means go without insurance and god forbid you need cancer treatment or major surgery you can pay for it all out of your own pocket. Good luck!

    And most hospitals don't give these types of big discounts. Many more don't give ANY discount at all.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

    In actuality these people aren't paying more. They are paying the ACTUAL charge. It's that the people who have insurance are paying less due to the discounts their carrier has negotiated. 

     

     


    If that were true, then wouldn't it make sense for the larger insurers to charge lower premiums due to their lower negotiated prices with hospitals?  If not, then why not?

    I'm not at all convinced that's the case.

    We know how some retailers can charge less based on their purchasing power.  BJs gas prices, for example, are a quarter or more per gallon cheaper than most other stations.  They defray their costs by membership dues AND buying in bulk directly from suppliers.

    Ideally, health care consumers should be able to negotiate en masse for lower-priced services.  In the current system, the only way to do that is through group insurance...hence why the exchanges will be so critical.

    Most consumer products and some services have a "generic" equivalent that is virtually identical to the name brand, except in terms of cost.  Aside from pharmaceuticals (currently arguing at the Supreme Court re: "pay-for-delay"), health care services have no generic equivalent.  

     

     



    Maybe a Med-Stop could be considered generic health care.  Of course there are limits to what you can do there, but I've had a finger stitched up at a Med-Stop.  I think it was about $100 total - would have been thousands at an ER.

    You clearly have crappy coverage. Would cost me $100 at ER

     

     

     




     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    "But why should anyone be charged differently for the exact same procedure?"

    Because there is no such thing.  We are all unique snowflakes, the ailments that strike us are all slightly different.

    The skill of the doctors varies, the specifics of your procedure are different, complications might be different.

    Look, healthcare is not the cut and dry process you make it out to be, like buying cold cuts.

    More reason for a profit motive.  helps you beter match the need to the skill.

     



    WE might be different, but many procedures are exactly the same.  CT scans, for instance, can range from $400-$800 for a simple screening to as much as $2000 for a diagnostic screening...and that is PER body part scanned.

     

    Agreed that it's not a "cut-and-dry" process, but it is far more complicated than it needs to be.  We're talking about the same terms without complications, which usually come later, anyway.  There's no doubt that complications and errors add to the costs.

    How do we adjust pricing for skill?  We pay for the x-ray regardless of whether they find something.  Should we pay more if they DO find something?

    Lab tests, for another example, are mostly mechanical using machines.  It's never clear if a price paid for a test reflects on the result.

     

     



    If the complicated part is because the doctor is treating me like a patient, and not like a piece of meat, then that's good.


    Unfortunately, much of the complication comes as a direct result of overly burdensome regulations and lawyers.  That's the part that needs to be fixed.  Now theres some cost that can be cut from the overall healthcare nut.

    The free market does all the adjusting we need.  It adjusts for skill.  It adjusts for labs that produce inferior results, and so on.

    Come on.  Let's try the free market with healthcare.  I mean, how could it be worse than what is in front of us?

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Name your poison: how ObamaCare will devastate small business

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

    In actuality these people aren't paying more. They are paying the ACTUAL charge. It's that the people who have insurance are paying less due to the discounts their carrier has negotiated. 

     

     


    If that were true, then wouldn't it make sense for the larger insurers to charge lower premiums due to their lower negotiated prices with hospitals?  If not, then why not?

    I'm not at all convinced that's the case.

    We know how some retailers can charge less based on their purchasing power.  BJs gas prices, for example, are a quarter or more per gallon cheaper than most other stations.  They defray their costs by membership dues AND buying in bulk directly from suppliers.

    Ideally, health care consumers should be able to negotiate en masse for lower-priced services.  In the current system, the only way to do that is through group insurance...hence why the exchanges will be so critical.

    Most consumer products and some services have a "generic" equivalent that is virtually identical to the name brand, except in terms of cost.  Aside from pharmaceuticals (currently arguing at the Supreme Court re: "pay-for-delay"), health care services have no generic equivalent.  

     

     



    Maybe a Med-Stop could be considered generic health care.  Of course there are limits to what you can do there, but I've had a finger stitched up at a Med-Stop.  I think it was about $100 total - would have been thousands at an ER.

     

    One area I can get on board with conservatives - de-regulate some of the things that require doctors.  Pharmacists are perfectly capable of determining your need for anti-biotics; why so many hoops for such simple issues?

     



    Deregulation:  exactly.  I agree with your premise.  I tire of this progressive focus on the aggregate.  The discussion isn't gettign us anywhere.  Progressives want socialized medicine, conservatives want a free market system.  Both sides are dug in.  Where the rubber meets the road is the patient.

    We need to do a few things in terms of the individual patient:

    Stop dollar-one coverage.  If people need to pay directly for most of the simpiler medical procedures, then they will be connected the the actual cost, and will push the price of these procedures, ie. a couple of stitches, lower.

    Deregulate who can perform simple procedures and prescribe certain medications.  Clearly if you have a cold or flu, you don't need to see a doctor if you are otherwise healthy.  Most medical practices are doing this type of thing anyways, sending you to a nurse practitioner or physicians assistant for simplier procedures.

    Continue with the long time system of not turing away the indigent.  This has already been the practice, and in terms of the supposed advantages of Obamacare, I don';t see it.  PEople just need to know that if they show up at a medical facility with a cold or flu, broken arm, etc.  it will be taken care of.  That's all we need to do.  No big Obamacare needed, this system is already in place.

     

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share