Company meeting this morning to discuss health insurance. Weekly premium going up 43% keeping my current plan (at 90% - 10%) or ............ change plans for a $10,400 deductible with 100% coverage.
Company meeting this morning to discuss health insurance. Weekly premium going up 43% keeping my current plan (at 90% - 10%) or ............ change plans for a $10,400 deductible with 100% coverage.
Tony, I noticed you are located in Maryland. I know that maryland typically votes about 70% democrat. If you dont mind me asking, who did you vote for in the last 2 presidential elections?
Tony, I noticed you are located in Maryland. I know that maryland typically votes about 70% democrat. If you dont mind me asking, who did you vote for in the last 2 presidential elections?
If you like your plan, you can keep it (and pay more).
He says what he means and means what he says.
My insurance was $131/month for my wife, 2 kids & I. $25 per visit, $120 emergency, $2500 combined annual max, then insurance pays 100%.
New coverage is $632/month. $100 co-pay, $250 emergency, $3500 per person deductible, then 80%/20%.
I couldn't afford the new coverage. I have never paid this much in a year. For $632/month, I could self-insure & pay all my medical bills. My doctor retired, rather than be subject to the new policy.
Tony, I noticed you are located in Maryland. I know that maryland typically votes about 70% democrat. If you dont mind me asking, who did you vote for in the last 2 presidential elections?
Not the current clown in the White House, that's for darn sure. Please don't hold it against me because I live among a majority of idiots who wants to tell me what to do while their hands are in my pockets. Yes, I could move out and would in a heartbeat. However, the wife, mortgage, family, friends and job doesn't make it quick & easy decision.
I'm one of the 'local politicians' in my area (Township Supervisor), and we just received word that our insurance is going up 40%, which although we are a very small township, equates to a $120,000.00 increase, if we don't want to lose any benefits. $120k. <sigh>
Of course, we are going to shop around, as we can't just absorb that. We have already been running the budget with zero surplus the last 7 years. So, instead of repaving a road, or some other real infrastructure improvement, we will likely have to raise taxes to cover health insurance.
Can't really reduce benefits, either, as union contracts dictate coverage. (Teamsters and Police)
Couple that with all the Federal EPA and Fish and Wildlife stuff, which trickle down to the State DEP, which gets pushed to Local and local level, we are just scraping by. Recently, $4k in costs to 'inspect' two culverts that need a replacement pipe, because a 'bog turtle' might live there, and countless other stupid stuff like that.
Not the current clown in the White House, that's for darn sure. Please don't hold it against me because I live among a majority of idiots who wants to tell me what to do while their hands are in my pockets. Yes, I could move out and would in a heartbeat. However, the wife, mortgage, family, friends and job doesn't make it quick & easy decision.
If you voted third party, you may not have voted FOR the clown in charge, but you enabled his victory. Third party voters who are upset at the increased health insurance prices can now look to their own wallet to see the cost of their choice to not vote for the "lesser of two evils."
I'm one of the 'local politicians' in my area (Township Supervisor), and we just received word that our insurance is going up 40%, which although we are a very small township, equates to a $120,000.00 increase, if we don't want to lose any benefits. $120k. <sigh>
Of course, we are going to shop around, as we can't just absorb that. We have already been running the budget with zero surplus the last 7 years. So, instead of repaving a road, or some other real infrastructure improvement, we will likely have to raise taxes to cover health insurance.
Can't really reduce benefits, either, as union contracts dictate coverage. (Teamsters and Police)-Darryl
Unions causing taxes raised on the public, oh man the perfect storm now.
If you voted third party, you may not have voted FOR the clown in charge, but you enabled his victory. Third party voters who are upset at the increased health insurance prices can now look to their own wallet to see the cost of their choice to not vote for the "lesser of two evils."
No third party either. Voted for Romney. I agree, the third wheel screws up the outcome, especially in an election like this one.
(What's really interesting, I talk to a lot of people in commercial construction, local and nation wide manufacturers. I can honestly say that not one of them approve of Obama. Of course, all of these people are working and paying taxes.)
I'm no Obama supporter by any means but I think there is more to rising health care premiums than just Obamacare.
True. But the politicians stuffing it down our throats insisting it's the greatest thing since sliced bread is just getting annoying now. There are plenty of other fixes and/or solutions to the health care problem. But turning it over to an elaborate bureaucratic network is definitely not the answer in my book.
If you voted third party, you may not have voted FOR the clown in charge, but you enabled his victory. Third party voters who are upset at the increased health insurance prices can now look to their own wallet to see the cost of their choice to not vote for the "lesser of two evils."
And that's EXACTLY why this country is going down the shitter. If everyone that actually wanted a 3rd party candidate in the WH actually voted for that 3rd party candidate, we'd have had one 3 election cycles ago(or more), by overwhelming majority. But everyone's too scared to make that first jump. I'm proud I voted 3rd party(not like it mattered in my state anyway, Obama won by large majority in 08 and Romney won by a similar majority in 12 and I voted 3rd party in both elections.) The 2 party system we have today is WHAT BROKE OUR COUNTRY. We NEED a legitimate 3rd party candidate, and the ONLY way that's going to happen is if the voters-at-large actually take that risk and vote for who they really want, not just vote for the most likely to win. That mindset absolutely pisses me off to no end, and it's because of that mindset this hole we're in is only getting deeper.
And that's EXACTLY why this country is going down the shitter. If everyone that actually wanted a 3rd party candidate in the WH actually voted for that 3rd party candidate, we'd have had one 3 election cycles ago(or more), by overwhelming majority. But everyone's too scared to make that first jump. I'm proud I voted 3rd party(not like it mattered in my state anyway, Obama won by large majority in 08 and Romney won by a similar majority in 12 and I voted 3rd party in both elections.) The 2 party system we have today is WHAT BROKE OUR COUNTRY. We NEED a legitimate 3rd party candidate, and the ONLY way that's going to happen is if the voters-at-large actually take that risk and vote for who they really want, not just vote for the most likely to win.
That mindset absolutely pisses me off to no end, and it's because of that mindset this hole we're in is only getting deeper.
I agree.
And if in that last sentence you're also talking about those that try shoving up your azz this holier-than-thou attitude that YOU "wasted" YOUR vote, (or better yet the horsesh!t that voting for who you thought was best for the job was actually voting for someone else) than I also agree whole-heartedly.
Who do these people think they are? Each mans vote is sacred. And not of anyone's business, comment, approval or disapproval.
Any American that gets out and votes for who they think is best for the job can in no way possibly waste their vote. The only wasted vote is the one never made.
And that's EXACTLY why this country is going down the shitter. If everyone that actually wanted a 3rd party candidate in the WH actually voted for that 3rd party candidate, we'd have had one 3 election cycles ago(or more), by overwhelming majority. But everyone's too scared to make that first jump. I'm proud I voted 3rd party(not like it mattered in my state anyway, Obama won by large majority in 08 and Romney won by a similar majority in 12 and I voted 3rd party in both elections.) The 2 party system we have today is WHAT BROKE OUR COUNTRY. We NEED a legitimate 3rd party candidate, and the ONLY way that's going to happen is if the voters-at-large actually take that risk and vote for who they really want, not just vote for the most likely to win. That mindset absolutely pisses me off to no end, and it's because of that mindset this hole we're in is only getting deeper.
At least you now have the benefit of being able to pay for your ideology. The thing you need to remember in a 3 or more party system is there's a very good chance you'll have a winner that a majority didn't vote for. That's not a good recipe for national unity. I respect one's decision to vote third party so long as they're willing to accept the consequences of that vote. Standing on principle is easy when it doesn't cost you anything.
I think a not-for-profit health care could work, but there are too many for-profit providers that would quell any thought of it.
Serious question: How would that work exactly? Currently it can take 10-20 years to become an MD and complete your residency. 8 years of college won't be cheap, plus the work load required to complete medical school and residency is substantial. Are you suggesting people should take on that burden on a volunteer basis with no income? Would government decide the right level of "profit?"
How much of your job are you willing to do on a "not-for-profit" basis?
Originally posted by FrugalFiero: I don't know how to best deal with the health care debacle myself. Government controlled health care is doomed to failure. I think having your healthcare subsidized by your employer is failing miserably. I think a not-for-profit health care could work, but there are too many for-profit providers that would quell any thought of it.
What do you do for a living ? Work for not-for-profit ? Government anything is doomed to failure. Even in our military with the $500.00 dollar hammers and the veteran's health care repayment package. Employer health care is still subject to government. State government. I have always only had the choice of the same single provider. Healthcare needs to be put under control of the user, if one so chooses to use. The user should be able to buy across state lines. he user should be able to join a pool of users, just as one is allowed to join a union. Wait ... one is forced to join a union. We have a Constitutional right of "freedom of assembly". We should be able to band together to make mass healthcare purchasing decisions.
I think having your healthcare subsidized by your employer is failing miserably.
Nonsense... that's how it's been for me for the 18 years that I've been working, and I've never had a problem with it. For some of the companies I've worked for, my health care has been COMPLETELY free to me (I literally paid nothing except my co-pay).
Weekly premium going up 43% keeping my current plan
Well, Obama said the average family would see their premiums go down $2,500 per year. DOWN.
So he and the democrats were going to make it that about 35-40 million more people would be covered, and at the same time, premiums would be going down $2,500 per year. Many of us said, look, just think about that for a minute. It is non-sensical. It can't happen. It can't even be that costs break even if you are adding that many people.
Many of you said that we were just being negative about anything Obama.
You said it was a CRISIS.
You said SOMEthing had to be done.
We said, doing NOTHING is better than doing this.
You said, no, this will be better. Government run. That is the way to go.
We said, look at goverment performance on literally anything. It always winds up being more expensive.
You said, no, Obama and the smart ones--this will be different.
And then you saw they couldn't even make a website work after 3 years to get ready, and billions of dollars.
And what, about 5 million extra got insurance? Not close to 35 or 40 million.
And now premiums are up about 40% instead of down $2,500 per year. That is the REALITY.
So those of you that wanted it before, and defended it--what is your answer? Why did you believe it? What happened? (and stop. Don't give me the, well, congress is opposing, blah blah. This was wholly a 100% democrat plan forced on the public.)
The current fiasco sure didn't help, but lets not kid ourselves; Insurance was always going to go up.
The insurance companies had to find more money one way or another. Stockholders were demanding better returns of profits due to losses from the staggering increase's in fraud, lawsuits, etc.
And we all know where that money always has and always will come from...
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 08-12-2014).]
If you are as dumb as a bag of hammers as to blame one of our political parties then WTF !
It was both of them, they just want to make you vote for them, if you really think it is a bad thing for all of us to have insurance you are dumber than a bag of hammers !
every other country in the world has health care that covers everyone, but not us, why because the republicans own the healthcare insurance companies and the democrats own the rest of us. If that doesn't make sense sorry but we are a country run the haves and the have not's are the ones who lose. Is it so wrong that everyone has health insurance? Is it?
Only to those who think they disserve even more money because they own stock in health insurance companies. I am so tired of people who say this party is wrong or that party is wrong because they think it is a good idea to have health insurance. WTF dude, we all pay for it in the end, if they don't have insurance they just go to the ER and we all pay for it.
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 08-12-2014).]
The current fiasco sure didn't help, but lets not kid ourselves; Insurance was always going to go up.
Of course it was. But then the President shouldn't have made that kind of promise when he knew full well it wasn't true. Unless it was based on what insurance costs would be thirty years from now with the way things were going as compared to how they thought things would be thirty years from now under the ACA. But they always seem to kind of leave those little tidbits out. I have this conversation with my wife who is a big supporter of single-payer. I agree that single-payer can work. Just not in our current political environment. Our politicians (most if not all of them) are so utterly corrupt that single-payer in their hands will be an economic and personal disaster. But as long as groups of politicians keep offering free stuff, people will vote for them and their empty promises. Problem is, that "free" stuff still comes with a price tag.
At least you now have the benefit of being able to pay for your ideology. The thing you need to remember in a 3 or more party system is there's a very good chance you'll have a winner that a majority didn't vote for. That's not a good recipe for national unity. I respect one's decision to vote third party so long as they're willing to accept the consequences of that vote. Standing on principle is easy when it doesn't cost you anything.
I get your point, and I respect it.
Yes, there is a high likelihood in a solid 3 party system that the person elected will not have had a majority vote and National Unity will suffer. I would like to speculate that National Unity under such a "system" would not suffer any more than it has already. And in my personal experience, aside from the 2 die-hard "Obama can do no wrong" left-wingnuts and the 1 uber-religious right-wingnut, every active voter I know would vote for a 3rd party candidate if they weren't so terrified of "the other guy". Even the semi-religious hardcore (R) would vote (I) or (L) if they weren't so afraid a (D) getting elected, and I know a LOT of (D)'s that would vote (I)/(L) if they weren't so afraid of (R)'s. If all of those people would actually meet in the middle and vote their principles, this county would have went (L) the last half-dozen elections, and I imagine there are a lot more counties across the country in the same position.
To the consequences of my vote specifically, there really are none, not yet anyway. (R)'s won this county by a larger margin than votes were cast for all 3rd party candidates combined, so my individual vote literally did not matter, I could have voted (D) and it wouldn't have changed anything. Standing on principle has actually cost me more than once. I really don't want to get into the specifics, but I have lost a great deal before by standing on principle, but I think I came out a better person on the other side for it.
And if in that last sentence you're also talking about those that try shoving up your azz this holier-than-thou attitude that YOU "wasted" YOUR vote, (or better yet the horsesh!t that voting for who you thought was best for the job was actually voting for someone else) than I also agree whole-heartedly.
Who do these people think they are? Each mans vote is sacred. And not of anyone's business, comment, approval or disapproval.
Any American that gets out and votes for who they think is best for the job can in no way possibly waste their vote. The only wasted vote is the one never made.
Not so much that, but the mindset that I have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils because I'm afraid the bigger evil will win and subsequently don't vote for the potential 3rd partier that may actually do some real good for this country. I think there are enough people on both sides of the line that are of that mindset that if they all actually voted for who they thought would actually do a better job the (D)'s and (R)'s would be relegated to the 3rd party ballot over night.
If you are as dumb as a bag of hammers as to blame one of our political parties then WTF !
It was both of them, they just want to make you vote for them, if you really think it is a bad thing for all of us to have insurance you are dumber than a bag of hammers !
every other country in the world has health care that covers everyone, but not us, why because the republicans own the healthcare insurance companies and the democrats own the rest of us. If that doesn't make sense sorry but we are a country run the haves and the have not's are the ones who lose. Is it so wrong that everyone has health insurance? Is it?
Only to those who think they disserve even more money because they own stock in health insurance companies. I am so tired of people who say this party is wrong or that party is wrong because they think it is a good idea to have health insurance. WTF dude, we all pay for it in the end, if they don't have insurance they just go to the ER and we all pay for it.
Steve
The republicans had ZERO input into Obamacare. Zero. It was completely and unilaterally passed by the democrats.
Is it a bad thing for all of us to have insurance? Of course not. Is it a bad thing to not have people financially responsible for what they get? Of course. If you think people somehow by their mere existence deserve or merit something without any contribution, then you are dumber than a bag of hammers.
"Every other country in the world has health care that covers everyone..." Well, probably not true about every country. But let's not nitpick. What every other country does not have is the expectation of the level of health care that is just expected by the average citizen in the U.S. They also don't have the same disregard for their health with their daily behavior. They also don't have as heterogeneous of a population as we have. Etc., etc., etc. It is amazing to me that people would look at other countries in the world, that in most situations are far inferior in quality of life compared to ours, and then want to look to them for examples of how we should be. That would seem...dumber than a bag of hammers. Yeah, let's get ideas from people not doing as well as us. But let's, again, just say that it IS great if everyone has health insurance. And that you think the democrats and Obama had such a great idea. How in the world do you defend their performance? What did it turn out to be? About 5 million more people that got on insurance that didn't have it before? Instead of the round figure of 40 million.
Brilliant. So you increased the cost 40%, and missed the goal by 7/8. The private insurance companies, apparently wholly owned subsidiaries of republicans, could have found a way to provide insurance to the 40 million, got a website that actually worked, actually got 35 million of the 40 million onto the plans instead of 5 million, and had costs go up about 15% instead of 40%, and made their republican masters a tidy profit in the meantime.
And as a country we STILL would have come out ahead of the incompetent bunglers that is Obama and the democrats.
And you would have been happy that all those people got insurance.
Well, actually, no you wouldn't have. Because private industry would have made money. Which is obviously evil. Even though it would have cost less than half of what the government would have cost. Boy. Those hammer bags get sort of complicated, don't they?
The private insurance companies, apparently wholly owned subsidiaries of republicans, could have found a way to provide insurance to the 40 million, got a website that actually worked, actually got 35 million of the 40 million onto the plans instead of 5 million, and had costs go up about 15% instead of 40%, and made their republican masters a tidy profit in the meantime.
[sarcasm] But that would have been wrong because fat cat 1%-er making money. ObamaCare is more "fair". Costs only went up because Republicans are racist. [/sarcasm]
The Massachusetts law applies to the 6.5 million residents of the commonwealth. The ACA covers more than 300 million people spread across 50 diverse states. Massachusetts began its reform with a rate of uninsured that was half that of the nation as a whole, and it was written to meet the unique needs of state residents. These differences led Governor Mitt Romney to oppose the ACA. While Romney’s health reform is working in Massachusetts, he believes one model cannot meet the needs of all 50 states. In addition, the ACA has a much broader scope in that it includes provisions to address healthcare provider shortages, increase wellness and nutrition programs, bolster community health centers, and adjust Medicaid and Medicare.
What do you think are the reasons premiums are rising so much suddenly?
Originally posted by Formula88: Serious question: How would that work exactly? Currently it can take 10-20 years to become an MD and complete your residency. 8 years of college won't be cheap, plus the work load required to complete medical school and residency is substantial. Are you suggesting people should take on that burden on a volunteer basis with no income? Would government decide the right level of "profit?"
How much of your job are you willing to do on a "not-for-profit" basis?
I'm not saying anyone should work for free.
Maybe a "health care co-op" that you could pay into that was owned by the people who use it. Not associated with the government or an insurance company in any way. If the co-op collected more than it spent, the owners could get a surplus refund.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Nonsense... that's how it's been for me for the 18 years that I've been working, and I've never had a problem with it. For some of the companies I've worked for, my health care has been COMPLETELY free to me (I literally paid nothing except my co-pay).
Good for you! I hope it lasts.
quote
Originally posted by Fats: What do you think are the reasons premiums are rising so much suddenly? Brad
As I said...I'm sure Obamacare is part of it, but has any other insurance you pay for gone down in the past few years?
I DO know insurance companies are in business to make a profit.
I DO know the government can't seem to get it right.
I don't have a good answer to rising health care costs.
[This message has been edited by FrugalFiero (edited 08-12-2014).]
The republicans had ZERO input into Obamacare. Zero. It was completely and unilaterally passed by the democrats.
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say, the Democrats rammed it into law but the republicans have tried to cram the idea that it couldn't work down our throats since day one of it being talked about. they were both wrong in my opinion, nether wanted the other party to get any credit for doing something good for,
"The People !"
I have said from the very beginning if ether of them wanted to do this and do it right all they had to do was give everyone access to Medicare at varying rates, those who made more money paid more into the system to be covered. The people with more money than God didn't need it now did they ? So they were never going to go along with paying for anyone else having it for free or at their expense now were they? Yet they love the owning of those insurance companies and making even more money off of those less fortunate than themselves, so there was one more reason for them never wanting universal coverage, that would cut into their profits from the insurance companies that they owned. Yet as well all know the insurance companies rates were never going to go down, they couldn't have that now could they, they always would be going up no matter what now wouldn't they.
now as a doctor you will say that you don't get paid enough threw Medicare reimbursement, but now take a lesson from the automotive companies, they make crap, even lose money from the first few hundred cars they make in a model run, they make their money in volume sales over the model run, first part of the year they even lose money but the profit is there as long as they continue to sell many, many, many models.
Sure there would be lots of problems with everyone who wanted to use Medicare but it could be worked out a lot easier than what the idiot in charge did, it was already a working system and while it had its own problems it had been around for how long? it was already in place and working, now if the government spent half the money they have already in trying to make this new system work to catching the con men who screwed the system, doctors, lawyers, con men, people just out to screw the system and get rich from it who actually had no real problems. Because as we all know everything has its problems and the lawyers who file these bogus law suits for people who never had anything wrong with them to begin with, then the ones who file the class action law suits so that they are the only ones who really get paid, then the doctors who go along with the lawyers to make the money for those law suits. Now I am not saying every doctor or lawyer is a con man, but the ones out there that are ruining it for the rest now aren't they? Steve
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 08-13-2014).]
Originally posted by 84fiero123: I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say, the Democrats rammed it into law but the republicans have tried to cram the idea that it couldn't work down our throats since day one of it being talked about. they were both wrong in my opinion, nether wanted the other party to get any credit for doing something good for,
"The People !"
If it wont work it wont work. Looks like the republicans were correct. Comparitively ramming something thru into law is a much more grievous offense than objecting. Your point that it was just politics, one side not wanting the other side to get credit is legitimate in some cases, but I dont think it is in this one. That would assume the republicans actually thought it would work. In big pictures, handouts dont work.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 08-13-2014).]
That woudl assume the republicans actually thought it would work. In big pictures, handouts dont work.
This same type of plan was supported by Republicans back when Hillary was scaring them with her idea of a health care plan. Romneycare is a Republican plan....
What we are leading to is a single payer system.... this is just a political mess that will make single payer seem like the best solution.
What we are leading to is a single payer system.... this is just a political mess that will make single payer seem like the best solution.
For sure, the real objective. I think no one in charge actually thought Obamacare could work, its just a tool that leads a direction. People eat it up though.
Most likely. But I really don't think single payer will work in this country despite what some say. Some say it will work in this country because it works in others. This country is not like other countries. That's what makes us unique (duh). Besides, many of our politicians are so corrupt that, in the end, if we go to single payer and you have a job, you may as well just resign to having to hand over your paycheck every week to cover the costs. But at least you'll get substandard care at enormous prices and only have to wait six months for something as simple as a doctor's appointment. For the people who hate the way insurance companies practice, as far as the ACA's new rules, I don't think we've even seen much of the beginnings of what kind of disaster it will be. Pass it and THEN read it to find out what you just passed? That should've told people something about the nature of the ACA right there.
Most likely. But I really don't think single payer will work in this country despite what some say. Some say it will work in this country because it works in others. This country is not like other countries. That's what makes us unique (duh). Besides, many of our politicians are so corrupt that, in the end, if we go to single payer and you have a job, you may as well just resign to having to hand over your paycheck every week to cover the costs. But at least you'll get substandard care at enormous prices and only have to wait six months for something as simple as a doctor's appointment. For the people who hate the way insurance companies practice, as far as the ACA's new rules, I don't think we've even seen much of the beginnings of what kind of disaster it will be. Pass it and THEN read it to find out what you just passed? That should've told people something about the nature of the ACA right there.
I dont think it will work either, its a great means of control for the government to have over the citizens though.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 08-13-2014).]
I think having your healthcare subsidized by your employer is failing miserably.
I completely support separating insurance from employment. Let people shop for health insurance the same way they shop for every other kind of insurance, life, auto, home, business, general liability, etc. Linking ones job to one's insurance is just a bad idea.
I have this conversation with my wife who is a big supporter of single-payer. I agree that single-payer can work. Just not in our current political environment. Our politicians (most if not all of them) are so utterly corrupt that single-payer in their hands will be an economic and personal disaster. But as long as groups of politicians keep offering free stuff, people will vote for them and their empty promises. Problem is, that "free" stuff still comes with a price tag. 
