So much for "Affordable"

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

    Re: So much for

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    I don't know...I can only speak from personal experience..but the cost for my health insurance, copays and the one prescription medication I take have gone down significantly. My health insurance even provides 20 percent discount on healthcare related items if I buy them at CVS. Also..I just got my rebate for my gym membership.

    I think any rise in cost is going to be short term. Once insurers get on board with the preventative coverage then long term, there will be less need for secondary and tertiary interventions ( both cost much more).



    You are the only one.  Not being wise, but everyone else I know, particularly those like me on individual catastrophic plans, way up.

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

    Re: So much for

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    I don't know...I can only speak from personal experience..but the cost for my health insurance, copays and the one prescription medication I take have gone down significantly. My health insurance even provides 20 percent discount on healthcare related items if I buy them at CVS. Also..I just got my rebate for my gym membership.

    I think any rise in cost is going to be short term. Once insurers get on board with the preventative coverage then long term, there will be less need for secondary and tertiary interventions ( both cost much more).



    So your copays decreased as well as what you pay per month for insurance? That is highly unusual. Which isn't to say I think you're lying. I have no doubt you're being honest.

    When copays are lowered the premiums increase in order to cover the richer plan. Hence why many employers have gone with plans with higher copays in the past. It helps to get overall cost of plan down. 

    How many employees is your company? Did you switch insurers? Was there a significant shift in employee population? 

    Where I'm going with this is if your company is small and you had some older folks retire and hired young employees that can have a big impact. If you switched insurers that can also have a big impact because many times an insurer trying to get the account will undercut the existing insurers rates to get the business. 

    Anyway...lucky you that your health insurance is a bit cheaper.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: So much for

    I am really tired of paying for everybody else.  The amount my wife and I paid in taxes last year was obscene.  I did feel good knowing the woman in front of me at the grocery store using her ebt card had an Iphone 5. 

    I wish she had said thank you though.

    The number of takers has exceeded the number of contributors.....we are doomed.

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

    Re: So much for

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    All programs are designed to be temporary, and the majority should be.

    --------------------------------------

    Ah yes, the "temporary" Mass state income increase a quarter century ago.



    That's not a program.

    Stop changing the subject.

     

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

    Re: So much for

    In response to macnh1's comment:

    The number of takers has exceeded the number of contributors.....we are doomed.



    Too bad they're on both sides of the political aisle...

    ...yet only one side seems to be able to acknowledge theirs in public.

     

     

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

    Re: So much for

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     


    Exactly. Same thing with health insurance. Why I keep saying all the coverage in the world is no good if one doesn't utilize said coverage.

     

     


    That's true, but generally speaking if someone is paying for something, they will be more likely to utilize it.  

    Another reason why individual mandates are a good idea.

     

     



    if that we're true then why did majority of men from my dads generation not go to doctors? Why do most of my guy friends not go to doctors on any kind of regular basis?

     

    Not to mention that most people who DO go clearly don't take doctors advice. think of it this way....how many millions smoke? Of those millions how many have been told to quit smoking yet don't. How many overweight and obese people have been told they need to change their diet and exercise yet don't. 

    So even if more DO go...it doesn't mean they'll heed their doctors advice.

     



    You're asking a few different questions.

    First pre-suppose the number of smokers vs. those with health insurance.  Since smokers tend to be poor and poor people tend to be uninsured, I'm not sure the point you're trying to make.

    Guys are largely idiots and biologically have a deep-seated need to appear tough and invulnerable, even in the face of damning evidence to the contrary.

    I'll also surmise that people in your "dad's and his generation" didn't eat the crappe many guys do today, exercised more in work and play, and that the ones with unhealthful behaviors lost years because of it.

     

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

    Re: So much for

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    English conservative idea: If you are obese, get benefits, but do not exercise as prescribed by your doctor, cut your benefits.

     

     

    Obese and other unhealthy people could be monitored to check whether they are taking exercise and have their benefits cut if they fail to do so under proposals published on Thursday by a Conservative-run council and a local government thinktank.

    Westminster council and the Local Government Information Unit say new technologies such as smart cards could be used to track claimants' use of leisure centres, allowing local authorities to dock housing and council benefit payments from those who refuse to carry out exercise prescribed by their GP.

    The report, A Dose of Localism: the Role of Councils in Public Health, precedes the transfer in April of responsibility for community wellbeing and public health from the NHS to local authorities.

    The proposals address how councils can meet the financial challenges posed by their new public health function amid rising levels of obesity and major budget cuts. The report suggests linking benefit payments to claimants' lifestyles, and notes that some councils have introduced schemes allowing GPs to prescribe exercise at swimming pools, yoga, gyms and walking clubs.

    "Where an exercise package is prescribed to a resident, housing and council tax benefit payments could be varied to reward or incentivise residents," the authors state.

    A Westminster council spokesman said the proposal would have to involve a "carrot and stick" approach.

    Obesity increases the risk of type 2 diabetes, heart and liver disease and some cancers, making it a major financial burden on the NHS – £5.1bn per year, according to the Department of Health.

    In England, 24% of men and 26% of women are obese,while 65% of men and 58% of women are either overweight or obese, according to the latest edition of the Health Survey for England.

     

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/obesity-benefits-cuts



    We're already headed there.  No choice.

    Woe to those who refuse to believe it.

     

     

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

    Re: So much for

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    First pre-suppose the number of smokers vs. those with health insurance.  Since smokers tend to be poor and poor people tend to be uninsured, I'm not sure the point you're trying to make.

    You're making quite the assumptions. How poor is Obama? Isn't/wasn't he a smoker? You think he's the only educated , successful person to smoke?

     

     

    I'll also surmise that people in your "dad's and his generation" didn't eat the crappe many guys do today, exercised more in work and play, and that the ones with unhealthful behaviors lost years because of it.

    And all that good eating and exercising can still lead to esophygeal cancer if one doesn't go to doctors when certain pains come about. 

     




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

    Re: So much for

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    First pre-suppose the number of smokers vs. those with health insurance.  Since smokers tend to be poor and poor people tend to be uninsured, I'm not sure the point you're trying to make.

    You're making quite the assumptions. How poor is Obama? Isn't/wasn't he a smoker? You think he's the only educated , successful person to smoke?

     

     

    I'll also surmise that people in your "dad's and his generation" didn't eat the crappe many guys do today, exercised more in work and play, and that the ones with unhealthful behaviors lost years because of it.

    And all that good eating and exercising can still lead to esophygeal cancer if one doesn't go to doctors when certain pains come about. 

     


    Not really.

    It's well-documented that poorer people tend to smoke more and for longer periods of time.  Also well-documented is the fact that higher educated populations tend to be healthier on average than lower educated populations.  Several "living indexes" point to this.

    [Why you would bring Obama into this is anyone's wild guess, but it's silly.]

    Yes, that's true.  Genetics and circumstance can still be b*tches when it comes to terminal maladies.

     

     

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

    Re: So much for

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     


    Not really.

    It's well-documented that poorer people tend to smoke more and for longer periods of time.  Also well-documented is the fact that higher educated populations tend to be healthier on average than lower educated populations.  Several "living indexes" point to this.

    [Why you would bring Obama into this is anyone's wild guess, but it's silly.]

    Sorry for trying to give an example to back up my position. Apparently that's unheard of...

    I'm not denying poor smoke. But you can't tell me rich people don't smoke...um...majority of hollywood actors (read rich) smoke. 

    And many middle-class also smoke. Walk by any construction site, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, majority of whom smoke. 

    Swing by downtown Boston and see all the "suits" smoking outside office buildings. 

    Check out the PGA tour lately? Go to live event and see how many pro golfers smoke.

     

     




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

    Re: So much for

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    I don't know...I can only speak from personal experience..but the cost for my health insurance, copays and the one prescription medication I take have gone down significantly. My health insurance even provides 20 percent discount on healthcare related items if I buy them at CVS. Also..I just got my rebate for my gym membership.

    I think any rise in cost is going to be short term. Once insurers get on board with the preventative coverage then long term, there will be less need for secondary and tertiary interventions ( both cost much more).

     



    So your copays decreased as well as what you pay per month for insurance? That is highly unusual. Which isn't to say I think you're lying. I have no doubt you're being honest.

     

    When copays are lowered the premiums increase in order to cover the richer plan. Hence why many employers have gone with plans with higher copays in the past. It helps to get overall cost of plan down. 

    How many employees is your company? Did you switch insurers? Was there a significant shift in employee population? 

    Where I'm going with this is if your company is small and you had some older folks retire and hired young employees that can have a big impact. If you switched insurers that can also have a big impact because many times an insurer trying to get the account will undercut the existing insurers rates to get the business. 

    Anyway...lucky you that your health insurance is a bit cheaper.

     




    Actually, what I pay in premiums went up slightly because I went from a single plan to a family plan( added a spouse). But our premiums for both for my company went down ..slightly less than 5 percent over 2011 rates.

     

    The dollar amount of my copay has stayed the same ( $20) for an office visit. Where I am saving money on copays is that any visit that is considered preventative means that I don't get charged the copay. I also now get a rebate for my gym membership..and a 20 percent discount on any health care related items I purchase at CVS.

    I also don't have to pay anydeductables for the very expensive annual (sometimes more often) bloodwork that I have as part of a monitoring process for a chronic illness. So far this year that has saved me $400.

    The dollar amount for the prescription copays has not changed ( $15, $25, $50) but my health insurer has some kind of deal with CVS if I get my prescription from them I don't even pay $15.00.

    My guess is that the way they make up for these savings is the enormous increase in the copay for an ER visit ( unless it results in admission) and we now have a copay for hospital stays ( $500 for ER visit, $1500 for hospital visit...except day surgery for which there is no copay).

    At first I hated this idea..but now I actually embrace them. It has resulted in a change of culture in my company. Where some people used to go to ER's for sore throats and earaches, those people now have regular doctors because they didn't want to pay $500 a visit to the ER.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: So much for

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    Actually, what I pay in premiums went up slightly because I went from a single plan to a family plan( added a spouse). But our premiums for both for my company went down ..slightly less than 5 percent over 2011 rates.

    Still intrigued by this. Something had to trigger a 5% decrease. especially since your ov copay stayed same and preventive copay went away...that copay going away is benefit increase. On top of that your rx copays stayed same but the deal with cvs is yet another benefit increase. 

    The increase in your ER visit would account for some decrease but not enough to get overall premiums to 5% lower.

    well, anyway....I'm sure you're happy about the cost decreasing so enjoy while you can : ) 

    The dollar amount of my copay has stayed the same ( $20) for an office visit. Where I am saving money on copays is that any visit that is considered preventative means that I don't get charged the copay. I also now get a rebate for my gym membership..and a 20 percent discount on any health care related items I purchase at CVS.

    I also don't have to pay anydeductables for the very expensive annual (sometimes more often) bloodwork that I have as part of a monitoring process for a chronic illness. So far this year that has saved me $400.

    The dollar amount for the prescription copays has not changed ( $15, $25, $50) but my health insurer has some kind of deal with CVS if I get my prescription from them I don't even pay $15.00.

    My guess is that the way they make up for these savings is the enormous increase in the copay for an ER visit ( unless it results in admission) and we now have a copay for hospital stays ( $500 for ER visit, $1500 for hospital visit...except day surgery for which there is no copay).

    At first I hated this idea..but now I actually embrace them. It has resulted in a change of culture in my company. Where some people used to go to ER's for sore throats and earaches, those people now have regular doctors because they didn't want to pay $500 a visit to the ER.




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

    Re: So much for

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    Very nice, and good for you.  You are rare.  VERY rare.

    My premium went up 30%.  PCP visits doubled.  Specialty tripled, and deductable quadrupled.

    Of course, I do use a rather obscure and unknown provider.

    Blue Cross Blue Shield.

    Same provider through the wife. We saw increases but I don't recall them being that bad when we looked them over. Then again, her employer pays a very substantial share of the premium so.....   the bite wouldn't be as painful.




    Fortunate for you "dont recall" how much they increased. For many Americans any increase hurts their quality of life as they are barely getting by now.

     

     

     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: So much for

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    For many Americans any increase hurts their quality of life as they are barely getting by now.

     

    It would be nice if employers hadn't stagnated employee wages in pursuit of maximum profit for so long, wouldn't it?

    I know I know. They're "job creators". Nothing they do is wrong. It's all Obama's fault because Obama is in "government," which is categorically evil.



    employers stagnated wage?  How did they do that?  A conspiracy?  Magic?  What mechanism did employers use to stagnate wages?

    Can't wait to see this pretzel of logic.

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

    Re: So much for

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    Ok, ok.  Affordable now means costs more.  I get it.



    When they got rid of things like lifetime max and pre-x it comes at a cost. Increased benefits call for increase in premiums to cover the richer benefits. Now, I will say getting rid of lifetime max and pre-x was a good thing, but for people to actually believe costs would decrease as a result of increased benefits is laughable. 

     
  18. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: So much for

    Our agency did away with BC/BS years ago because the rate increases were out of control.  I like the rate structure of my current insurance. I suppose one of the reasons premium rates went down is because there are more people paying into the plan. Our agency has doubled in size over the last 2 years. I believe a big part of it was the high copay instituted for hospital/Er care.

    I like that they seem to promote preventative care. Unless I am mistaken..that is one of the goals of obamacare. Promoting preventative care saves everyone money in the long run.

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

    Re: So much for

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    Our agency did away with BC/BS years ago because the rate increases were out of control.  I like the rate structure of my current insurance. I suppose one of the reasons premium rates went down is because there are more people paying into the plan. Our agency has doubled in size over the last 2 years. I believe a big part of it was the high copay instituted for hospital/Er care.

    I like that they seem to promote preventative care. Unless I am mistaken..that is one of the goals of obamacare. Promoting preventative care saves everyone money in the long run.



    Ah...now things are starting to make sense

     

Share