Then you better tell the ACA supporters that because they have been trying to stifle self insurance. I am not sure where you are getting the idea that self insurance was on the decline prior to 2006. https://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/benefits/Articles/Pages/Self-Insured-Plans-Scrutinized.aspx Some organizations view self-insurance as a way to avoid additional costs under the ACA. In light of this, the federal agencies overseeing health care reform announced in a May 2012 notice in the Federal Register, "This practice [self-insurance], if widespread, could worsen the risk pool and increase premiums in the fully insured small group market." The agencies noted that because self-insured employers are likely to purchase stop-loss insurance to protect against catastrophic claims and high costs, they “were considering regulations to discourage small and midsize employers” from using this type of insurance to circumvent the new health care law. Once again I think you are confusing ESI with self insurance. ESI just means that the employer is covering most fo the cost. It does not tell whether that is out of pocket or if its fully sponsored insurance like through a company such as Aetna. Its remained around 12% for less than 50 employees but it has been going up since 2001 for firms with over 50 employees. Employer sponsored insurance (not the same as self insurance) was what was on the decline nationwide while slightly upticking in MA.
That's a great plan if you have a sore throat, but it doesn't cover hospitalization, or really anything beyond an office visit, you still need insurance. Concierge medicine is something you pay extra for, on top of your health plan.
The problem with self insurance is that it delivers clear financial incentives for firms to lay off older employees, or employees with chronic conditions, or employees with spouses or children with chronic conditions, and to prefer young single male employees, and to discriminate in hiring, avoiding women in child bearing years and older employees. Tax paid Single payer avoids all that workplace discrimination....
Not true. There are in fact concierge hospitals and they charge a fraction of the cost for MRIs and other stuff that normal hospitals provide. I am not arguing against insurance. I am arguing that insurance has morphed into this monstrosity of it must cover everything. That is not what insurance is supposed to be for. Home owners insurance doesn't pay for you putting new carpeting in or putting new tile in the bathroom. Car insurance doesn't cover for gas or a new battery. Why is health insurance supposed to cover everything? That is incredibly vapid thinking. Insurance is supposed to be for unexpected or high cost medicine or procedures. There is a reason that the insurance companies heavily lobbied for the ACA early on and that is because it is a wet kiss to the insurance companies. Only now that the provision about taxpayer money being used to supplement any losses has come to light and is likely to be taken out of the law since it is so politically unpopular have insurance companies begun to worry.
That is not true either. First of all, at least where I worked the people in charge of the insurance and medical paperwork had nothing to do with the people who hired and fire employees. They were completely separate from the company and had their own bosses. Basically they were a small insurance company unto themselves albeit they only had one customer. Second, even with traditional insurance it is still more expensive to employ an older person. Not everyone pays the same rate and the companies pay more for older workers no matter what. Companies pay extra for smokers as well which is why many companies like the one I worked for banned smoking on the premises and had bonuses for healthy activities like working out, quitting smoking or losing weight. Canadian health care costs are eating them alive so no to single payer although I would at least put single pay above the ACA right now. I don't want either. Medicine should be a cash transaction with insurance only for the high cost items and unexpected events. Concierge doctors charge less than half what other doctors charge and they end up making more money. Primary physicians are being run out of the hills and there is a massive shortage of them that is only getting to get worse. The ACA is exasperating the issue and making it far worse that it already was. Doctors are dropping Medicare and Medicaid patients at an increasing rate as well because of all the new onerous regulations.
Not the article you linked to, that was a concierge doctor, office visits and discount pharmaceuticals for $50 a month, health insurance required for anything more.
OK, here's how self insurance works for most companies, they hire someone like Blue Cross or an HMO to process claims for a fixed fee, and the company covers all claims. And the hiring managers know what has an effect on the bottom line. They know if you've got a kid with a rare disease that is costing $10,000 a month to treat, you should be laid off at the earliest possibility, if they want to be perceived as a team player. They'll pay for that stuff for the big guys, but for the lower level employees, they consider the "cost effectiveness" of continued employment. Canadian Health costs used to be the same as US health costs, then Canada went to single payer, now US health costs are twice what Canadian health costs are, and they see their doctors twice as much as Americans, and are in better health, because they get better health care. Most of your argument just isn't true, which tells me that you really don't understand the topic, you are just repeating old lies. You've been fooled, again...
Are you literally taking the short bus. How many times have I stated that insurance should be used for stuff outside of normal maintenance and preventive care. TThat is how it is supposed to work. Pay the physician out of pocket for doctors visits and basic in office tests and then use insurance for more expensive tests or for unexpected costs. Their are 4,400 of them which is 30% more than in 2012 which should tell you something about the trend. More and more doctors will be moving to this system and abandon Medicaid/Medicare patients thanks to how the ACA has further (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up the situation. How is that any different than just insuring? You still haven't said what the difference is. A company that buys insurance versus paying out of pocket is going to pay more for a sicker person no matter what. The incentive to fire older sicker people is there regardless of which system you have. You are the one that is completely clueless on this. This is also a myth because I know tons of people who were out for weeks at a time with expensive back operation or heart operations or what not and they went back to work and nothing changed. In fact their companies went out of their way to accomodate their return. This constant attacking of business as nothing but evil money grabbers is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing obnoxious. Its bull(*)(*)(*)(*) spread by people who never ran a business and have no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idea what they are talking about. Canada's costs are increasing and they are taking up every more of every provinces budget and their performance is horrible. They pay extremely high taxes for long wait times and old technology which is why many Canadians end up coming to the US for care. That is not a good system. Even the Australians mock Canada's system. You seem to the be only one that is being willfully ignorant of Canada's predicament. http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/news/display.aspx?id=19381 In comparing Canadian and Australian health care, the report notes that Canadian government health expenditures (age-adjusted) were 26 per cent higher than Australias in 2009. In fact, Canadas health spending as a share of GDP was the highest among all developed nations with universal-access health care. At the same time, Canadians are forced to endure poor access to medical professionals and medical technologies as well as some of the longest waits for treatment in the developed world. Australias health policy framework differs from Canadas in the following important ways: Cost-sharing for outpatient medical services Some private provision of hospital and surgical services Activity-based funding for hospital care Broad private/parallel health care sector with taxpayer support and dual practice Emulating the Australian health care system would not require a marked departure from the current tax-funded, provincially managed, federally supported health care system in Canada, Esmail said. An Australian approach to health care in Canada would primarily require important changes to financial flows within provincial tax-funded systems, a greater reliance on competition and private ownership, and public support for private insurance and care. The report suggests that the Canadian health care system would be greatly improved if provinces adopted reforms based on Australias proven framework for providing high-quality universal-access health care at reasonable cost: Australia combines private and public financing with more emphasis on private than Canada does and they get better results. You and your fellow Obamacare droolers who want singlepayer want nothing but government.
So you are comparing Australia's 3670 per capita cost with Canada's 4445 per capita cost and deciding the US is better off spending 8233 per capita. Because there isn't anyone in the world that thinks it would make sense to switch Canada's single payer system, with what the US had before ObamaCare. Australia has the individual mandate, but they have a public option that is paid for by taxes, they can opt for private insurance, and get a voucher, but most take the basic public option for FREE....
Single payer proponents ALWAYS point to the Canadian system as how we should do it. I was showing that even other countries with universal health care consider Canada to be overly expensive and underperforming. If you don't want single payer people to keep advocating the Canadian system then you better get on the phone and get the message out because its on these forums and everywhere else I go. Australia has their own issues and you can google those for yourself such as being ranked dead last in accessability to primary physicians. Something that is quite common with heavily govermnent controlled health care systems. The only country I would consider is the Swiss system but even there the Swiss have a very homogeneous society and are one of the wealthier European countries.
I don't know what you're reading that you interpret references to the "trend of the last 10+ years toward more self-insured plans" and numbers quantifying the growth in self-insurance in my post as me suggesting self-insurance was on the decline. Is it opposite day? ESI coverage has been declining everywhere (except Massachusetts, Alaska, and North Dakota) for over a decade. Self-insurance within ESI has been on the rise during the same period. I think I've made this point pretty clearly several times now.
Further proof that ACA is working to lower health insurance costs while spreading coverage throughout the land: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...-and-cost-government-less-than-nbsp-projected Lower premiums, 12 million more people insured, lower costs to the government and further deficit reduction. Try repealing all that, Republicans.
Let's see... Daily Kos or healthcare.gov? Rejoice, people. Americans are suffering because of Obamacare. Must make you so proud. Kathy Loan OK, bigtime supporter of ACA. Seriously. But I have had a nightmare of a time navigating this site since October, unable to log in, unable to see anything, different amounts quoted for coverage and allowance. Met with a navigator, total waste of time. Tried to file an appeal via the instructions as they read and was told I couldn't appeal as the written instructions said to, finally after months more of efforts and on phone for five hours a day got rate nailed down. Still unaffordable for me. Email after email says if you can afford health insurance and don't enroll blah blah blah. I do not believe I can afford it at the rates I am given plus it doesn't pay for anything until I meet $6300 deductible. Might as well not have insurance IMO, but fine, I play the game. Then your phone staff tells me I am not eligible for the extension to today no matter how many press releases and news stories I read them. THEN you call and email me and say I am. Cut to the chase. I have "enrolled" in a plan I really shouldn't. It doesn't pay squat. But I have enrolled. Then I added optional dental and every plan was for adult and 1 child. I have no child. will it be lower? Why are my rates higher than my friends who make more money than me or same as me or less than me and either smoke but said they didn't or haven't lived or worked here for but a few years. They are paying less for top tier plans that pay EVERYTHING for nothing or $50 or a family for $200 plus than I am paying for the bottom second rung. AGAIN, I am FOR this plan, and look at what I have experienced. MAJOR FAIL HERE, staff.Edited*·*Like*·*Reply*·*47 minutes ago https://m.facebook.com/Healthcare.g...8618336187410.24429.130163127032931&source=46
https://www.facebook.com/ObamacareSavedMyLife Thousands who have benefited from Obamacare. Major FAIL for the deluded right wing, major VICTORY for America.
Thousands have benefited while millions have either lost their insurance completely or are being forced to pay more. As long as the do-nothings are happy, the lefties are happy.
Self-insured employers has increased significantly over the past decade. The reason why is because those premiums for each of their employees doesn't go to the insurance company but in a special bank account set up by the employer. A small administration fee is sent to the insurance company to administer the plan by using their networks. Now that higher deductibles is becoming the normal trend across the board, employers who are self insured and insurance companies that fully insure are earning profits thanks to the higher deductible. When Mass did Romneycare, that state saw a big increase in the number of self-insured employers as they are not obligated under state regulations but under federal which is called "ERISA". Employers that have over 1000 employers is at 86% of being self-insured. Over 59 million people are employed with a self insured employer. There was only 6.8 million who did not have health coverage. The same is true for employers that have 500-999 employees who are mostly self-insured. There are 7.2 million people employed for this bracket that are covered by insurance with this type of employer and only 1 million people employed that do not have coverage. Prior to the ACA the insurance companies combined only had 11 million fully insured of the employed population and this is the main reason why they wanted so many young people signing up on the exchanges.
You actually think that insurance companies should not cover routine or preventive care? A physical can run anywhere from $300 to $400 dollars and lab work runs about $1200. A mammogram runs about $500 and a colonscopy runs anywhere from $2000 to $2700. Who the hell can afford those prices on their own?
No it doesn't cost that much. Concierge doctors who bypass insurance cost at little as $50 a visit. The entire reason that normal doctors office visits cost so much is precisely because of all the insurance overhead.
Contrary to the lies of the deluded far right, more Americans are covered today than ever and at REDUCED cost as shown in the links I have posted.
And the propaganda continues to flow. 1. More Americans are covered. 2. And, at lower rates. 3. If you like your current plan, you can keep your current plan. All lies.
More people covered. Insurance rates lower. More lives saved. 100% TRUTH. This is why contrary to the lies of the paid Koch brother stooges who post on forums, the Republicans have suddenly dropped their anti-ACA ads in their current campaigns while Democrats are now embracing Obamacare success in theirs: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...ich-D-Touts-Obamacare-Success-Story-In-New-Ad
Note how she attacks the source but offers no proof to counter its TRUTHS. - - - Updated - - - MILLIONS more would be covered if pro death Republicans extended Medicaid: Obama Blasts GOP Govs Turning Down Medicaid Expansion: 'That's Wrong' DYLAN SCOTT – APRIL 17, 2014 President Barack Obama was uncharacteristically blunt Thursday while addressing the Republican governors and state legislators who have turned down Obamacare's Medicaid expansion. "That's wrong," Obama said from the White House briefing room after he announced that 8 million people had enrolled in private coverage under the law. The White House simultaneously released a fact sheet, which said 5.7 million people would be left uncovered in 2016 if the 24 states that have not expanded the program maintained their opposition. "This does frustrate me: states that have chosen not to expand Medicaid for no other reason than political spite," Obama said. "We've got 5 million people who could be having health insurance right now at no cost to these states. Zero cost to these states." "It should stop," he said. "Those folks should be able to get health insurance like everybody else." http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-blasts-gop-govs-medicaid-expansion
