Where do you stand on Healthcare?

How do you feel about the healthcare currently provided in the US?

  • It’s perfect the way it is. No changes necessary.

  • I like our system but it needs some tweaking.

  • I like the idea of our system but it has gotten much too expensive and needs major reform.

  • I think the format for providing healthcare is flawed and it needs rebuilt from the ground up.

  • Other

Results are only viewable after voting.
#477
#477
hog88 said:
Employees are not forced to take teh employer provided insurance but the products you are offered by your employer are often limited. It's certainly limited to what insurance company is offered. And if you don't take the employer provided insurance and buy your own policy there is no tax benefit for you.

I do believe that getting the employer out of the equation would reign in some cost for insurance coverage.
Click to expand...
Reign in cost for who and where? For the employee on the employer provided insurance? Not in my case. My monthly premiums will go up substantially. And I'd bet the costs for services and out of pocket maximums would be an overall significant increase as well.

I'm not directing this at you specifically. I've just heard the comments before in other places (forums or tv) about how employer provided health insurance is awful, a negative, needs to go away, a relic of the past, ect. But when those people have had to explain their reasoning, it ultimately came down to "it's not fair for someone to have access to lower cost insurance because the employer is paying some of it."

I'm not saying that's your argument. Just that's what I've heard before when it comes to the subject. Mostly from people who want single payer govt insurance.
 
#478
#478
Vol8188 said:
Yep the false claim that creating a monopoly will somehow improve supply
Click to expand...
That.

And the ridiculous question of what kind of person are you?

Pay a little more and save poor, innocent lives
-or-
Be a cheap, greedy bastard and let people die
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
#479
#479
TheDeeble said:
Reign in cost for who and where? For the employee on the employer provided insurance? Not in my case. My monthly premiums will go up substantially. And I'd bet the costs for services and out of pocket maximums would be an overall significant increase as well.

I'm not directing this at you specifically. I've just heard the comments before in other places (forums or tv) about how employer provided health insurance is awful, a negative, needs to go away, a relic of the past, ect. But when those people have had to explain their reasoning, it ultimately came down to "it's not fair for someone to have access to lower cost insurance because the employer is paying some of it."

I'm not saying that's your argument. Just that's what I've heard before when it comes to the subject. Mostly from people who want single payer govt insurance.
Click to expand...

IMO I think premiums would go down for a lot of people, take out the middle man (employer) and people would be able to shop around for coverage that fits their needs and budget. For some reason (I have yet to have it explained in a way that I understand) we can't even offer a catastrophic plan. We have 2 plans to choose from, the standard 80/20 with a $2500 deductible and a 90/10 with (I think) $500 deductible. We pay 100% for the 80/20 and if an employee picks the 90/10 they pay the difference. You know how many employees are on the higher $$ plan? Zero!

Plus I absolutely hate when I hear an employee complaining about their insurance coverage, or a decision the insurance company makes. I'd rather raise wages let them buy their own plans and leave us out of it. If you are a 20something and relatively healthy why do you need anything more than a catastrophic plan? Anyway end of rant, IMO I think it would build competition within the insurance industry.
 
#480
#480
hog88 said:
IMO I think premiums would go down for a lot of people, take out the middle man (employer) and people would be able to shop around for coverage that fits their needs and budget. For some reason (I have yet to have it explained in a way that I understand) we can't even offer a catastrophic plan. We have 2 plans to choose from, the standard 80/20 with a $2500 deductible and a 90/10 with (I think) $500 deductible. We pay 100% for the 80/20 and if an employee picks the 90/10 they pay the difference. You know how many employees are on the higher $$ plan? Zero!

Plus I absolutely hate when I hear an employee complaining about their insurance coverage, or a decision the insurance company makes. I'd rather raise wages let them buy their own plans and leave us out of it. If you are a 20something and relatively healthy why do you need anything more than a catastrophic plan? Anyway end of rant, IMO I think it would build competition within the insurance industry.
Click to expand...
As for why you can't offer catastrophic, I would have thought that would be an Obamacare thing. I know they existed before that, but largely disappeared because of Obamacare restrictions.

I'm guessing you're a business owner? I think if you have more than 50(?) people you are required to offer insurance. Again, an Obamacare thing. Get that requirement out and I'm guessing you can get out of the insurance hassle.

If employees were required to take the employer option I could see a negative. I just didn't see how an employer offering an option of insurance is road blocking other plan options existing outside of an employer. I can choose not to enroll but everything I've seen out there currently would be a substantial cost increase over what I currently have.

We have multiple options though. There's a zero premium option geared towards virtual visits and copays for in office stuff. I'm guessing that might be attractive to the 20 somethings. I have one of the more traditional 80% coverage plans. Although if I was an employee at your place I'd look more into that 90/10 plan. Personally I'd rather have better coverage even if I paid a little more monthly.
 
#483
#483
LouderVol said:
TL:DR version, the government should not be involved at all with health insurance.

I ran into something myself this last week that I wasn't expecting regarding prescription drugs.

So I knew that insurers don't help cover the cost for every drug. However, what I didn't know was that even if a drug is covered, the insurer still gets to decide how much they cover. I am on a prescription to take a pill twice a day, my insurance only covers once a day. meaning I can't get my insurance to pay for a refill when I run out in "half" the time the insurance company is expecting. Apparently I should be able to get them to adjust, but I have to wait until one of their adjustments. Apparently this was an Obamacare "protection" of the consumer to allow the insurers to determine how much of a prescription drug the consumer should take. not their doctor, pharmacist, or anyone who has ever medically examined the consumer, the government requires it to be the insurer's pencil pusher getting to determine what I get.

so when paying for my non-insured refill the pharmacist told me I am saving money not using insurance because they use a discount program. I knew those existed, but always thought they were the cheaper option only if you don't have insurance. turns out its just generally cheaper, and the pharmacist knows this. but once they pull up that I have insurance they aren't allowed to tell me about the cheaper option unless I tell them I am not using my insurance, again this is another Obamacare "protection" for the consumer to hide cheaper drug options from the consumer. in reality its protection for the insurer. who would have thought, the government helping the insurance company screw over the consumer. As long as I continue to tell them I am paying out of pocket I will save the equivalent cost of 2 months of prescriptions over a 1 year period. and I won't deal with running out in half the time.

so I am paying my insurance premiums for higher end cost to me. and going back to my post above, that higher cost gets returned to the insurance company as additional profit. they are using the government to get me coming and going.
Click to expand...
Using GoodRx instead of insurance co-pays and formularies has saved me a lot of $.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: slobberknocker
#485
#485
Another place expenses could be saved is lab results visits. Some providers will try to get two visits out of you. One to talk about what labs you need. One to review your results. Granted if it’s your first time seeing this provider the first visit is necessary, but if it’s not, they already know what labs you need. In which case it can be a cheaper, lab only visit
 
#489
#489
Vol8188 said:
Another place expenses could be saved is lab results visits. Some providers will try to get two visits out of you. One to talk about what labs you need. One to review your results. Granted if it’s your first time seeing this provider the first visit is necessary, but if it’s not, they already know what labs you need. In which case it can be a cheaper, lab only visit
Click to expand...
and the second visit may not even be necessary. I had an EDG, and they took a biopsy as a precautionary step. had to wait 6 weeks, went back to the doctor, waited for more than an hour, doctor comes back and tells me they didn't find anything in the biopsy, and to stick with the plan. 108 bucks and almost 2 hours of my day gone that I had to take as PTO. could have been a 5 minute phone call.

I have been talking with our HR a lot about more of the ins and outs of our insurance after the last couple things, and apparently the second visit is required by our insurance provider. I have no idea if there is a regulation that pushes them.

the problem with the government involvement is anything they do will benefit the insurance provider over the individuals. you can not create red tape and have it impact the individual more than a corporation who has a system in place to deal with the red tape.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
#490
#490
I'm curious too if annual exams are actually cost effective. When ACA was rolled out one of the lies we were told was that our burden of disease was higher than other countries due to "lack of preventative care" and that we could save tons of money by doing more preventative care. To my knowledge, the data doesn't back that.

There are some patients who need regulate check ups for various reasons (monitoring drug levels, A1C, low dose CT, etc). But that's not true for the entire population.
 
#491
#491
Vol8188 said:
I'm curious too if annual exams are actually cost effective. When ACA was rolled out one of the lies we were told was that our burden of disease was higher than other countries due to "lack of preventative care" and that we could save tons of money by doing more preventative care. To my knowledge, the data doesn't back that.

There are some patients who need regulate check ups for various reasons (monitoring drug levels, A1C, low dose CT, etc). But that's not true for the entire population.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine an annular check up is driving up the costs. now if the doctor/insurance orders a whole battery of tests, then yeah that is not cost effective. I am also curious about all the tests they do, pre-ACA I remember blood work being maybe 2 vials. now its 6, and if you have something else you want to get tested for its another 2. seems like a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#492
#492
LouderVol said:
I can't imagine an annular check up is driving up the costs. now if the doctor/insurance orders a whole battery of tests, then yeah that is not cost effective. I am also curious about all the tests they do, pre-ACA I remember blood work being maybe 2 vials. now its 6, and if you have something else you want to get tested for its another 2. seems like a lot.
Click to expand...

The more you use the system the greater the cost. So unless annual exams are leading to x amount of early diagnoses, they're unlikely to save money. I'd imagine there's some age group that is true in. Possibly 18-39 or so. The older you get the more likely an annual exam is going to find a new onset type 2 diabetes or a cancer.
 
#493
#493
More to say it needs to be revamped because of illegal immigrants draining the system as well.

This causes your rates to go up because of the drained resources and the Insurance Companies have the excuse to keep them high.

Congress needs to get their hands dirty and lower drug prices period. Oh wait, the lobbyist maintain their hands in the mess as well.

We need a fix to all this. This is insurance Welfare on Steroids'.
 
#495
#495
I'd probably look at some sort of system that let's people choose whatever provider and then reimburses them. Something that creates more competition and skirts the crony relationship thats developed between providers and insurers.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top