# What Do You Think Of This Health Insurance Premium?



## Lon

I just read on FACE Book a posting by my grandson that his monthly premium for his family of four had gone up to $1,256 monthly.
He is a well paid employee of the COUNTY which subsidizes part of the premium. The $1,256 is his portion.


----------



## Ameriscot

What do I think?  I think I'm extremely glad I'm growing old with the NHS in the UK.  Something the US needs badly.


----------



## tnthomas

My portion of the premium for Kaiser Permanente as a California state employee is showing as $1323/month for two.   I don't know if that is going to be my permanent figure, I just started up my health benefits with the state, as my wife retired from the County; was on her benefit plan until then.


----------



## Don M.

Lon said:


> I just read on FACE Book a posting by my grandson that his monthly premium for his family of four had gone up to $1,256 monthly.
> He is a well paid employee of the COUNTY which subsidizes part of the premium. The $1,256 is his portion.



Those kinds of prices seem to be the norm for young people.  It's no wonder that many of them cannot afford Health Insurance.  We have a young couple across the road, with 3 kids,, and the best price they can find is well over $1000 a month....and then, the co-pays would be off the charts.  It seems that the ONLY ones who are benefiting from the ACA (Obamacare) are the welfare recipients....who qualify for huge government subsidies.  

At some point, the people of this nation are going to have to wake up and Demand a SP-UHC system similar to that which works for much of the rest of the civilized world.  However, the biggest hurdle to such a plan here would be our entrenched Health Care Industry...which is reaping billions in profits from our present overpriced system.


----------



## Carla

Healthcare is spiraling out of control. Some of it may be partially due to Obamacare but I doubt that it's the only reason. Families cannot afford to pay between $1000-$2000 mo in healthcare even if they are earning a decent wage. Combined with deductibles and out of pocket expenses, it is unreasonable. Those less fortunate not earning good money are being squeezed.

Sure hope the powers that be sort through this mess. It would seem that some of the companies are focused only upon profit and while that may be understandable, maybe that's part of the problem. BC is nonprofit but still doing well as a group. I would hope that when a new congress is seated, they can put aside partisanship and come up with some solutions. Repealing Obamacare will not fix things unless something better is put together to replace it. IMO


----------



## Aunt Bea

I have Obamacare and my portion of the 2016 platinum premium for an individual is $665.00/month.  I'm holding my breath to see what it will be next year, I'm estimating that it will be approx. $825.00/month for 2017, we'll see.


----------



## Butterfly

I find insurance premiums in the amounts mentioned here to be outrageous.  How in the world do people afford these premiums?  I don't think I ever could have done so.

Aren't these premiums much higher than before Obamacare?  The last year I paid my own insurance premiums myself (2010), my premium was about $500, and I had a hard enough time with that.


----------



## Aunt Bea

Butterfly said:


> I find insurance premiums in the amounts mentioned here to be outrageous.  How in the world do people afford these premiums?  I don't think I ever could have done so.
> 
> Aren't these premiums much higher than before Obamacare?  The last year I paid my own insurance premiums myself (2010), my premium was about $500, and I had a hard enough time with that.



In 2013 my retiree insurance premium through my previous employer was $912.00/month and the initial monthly platinum premium through Obamacare in 2014 was $465.00/month so it was a big help to me in the beginning.

The premiums are very high but I look at it as wealth insurance instead of health insurance.  My retirement is mostly self funded and without good insurance my private income could be wiped out by a couple of large medical expenses.


----------



## QuickSilver

I wouldn't blame the ACA, but rather the Insurance companies who have found yet another way to gouge people.  The only fault  of the ACA is that it is based on private insurance and was not made single payer.  Hopefully it can be fixed.. but don't hold your breath.. Republicans in DC will not hear of it. will want to go back to lifetime limits and exclusion  of pre-existing conditions... as well as elimination of free screenings.. count on it.


----------



## Bobw235

Since I retired I've been paying full freight for my former employer's health insurance, which along with dental coverage comes to a staggering $1,604/month for the two of us. It's a good plan for sure, but on top of that have been plenty of out of pocket costs this year. When I was admitted to the hospital in August, my co-pay was $250. My wife has had many doctor visits this year as she continues to seek treatment for nerve-related pain. Those are all $20 each. I think for the first time ever, I'll be taking some form of deduction on Schedule A next year for health-related costs. 

I shudder to think how much our cost will be going up for 2017, and that alone may be reason to keep working part-time.


----------



## Knight

Ameriscot said:


> What do I think?  I think I'm extremely glad I'm growing old with the NHS in the UK.  Something the US needs badly.



On this side of the pond those of us that don't travel to the UK only have media articles to base our perception of the NHS. If this article that is a little over one month old is any indication of health care I don't think America needs this as an example.  


The body that represents hospitals across England has issued a startling warning that the NHS is close to breaking point because of its escalating cash crisis.
Years of underfunding have left the service facing such “impossible” demands that without urgent extra investment in November’s autumn statement it will have to cut staff, bring in charges or introduce “draconian rationing” of treatment – all options that will provoke public disquiet, it says.
NHS 'in perpetual winter of Narnia' as waiting list reaches record 3.9m 

In an unprecedentedly bleak assessment of the NHS’s own health, NHS Providers, which speaks for hospital trust chairs and chief executives, tells ministers that widespread breaches of performance targets, chronic understaffing and huge overspends by hospitals mean that it is heading back to the visible decline it last experienced in the 1990s.
“Taken together this means the NHS is increasingly failing to do the job it wants to do and the public needs it to do, through no fault of its own,” Chris Hopson, the chief executive of NHS Providers, writes in the Observer.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/10/hospitals-on-brink-of-collapse-say-health-chiefs

What was envisioned and some of the provisions of the ACA are good. IMO if the next president uses the parts that actually benefit people and build on those America will have a system that does serve health care needs at a reasonable cost.


----------



## Fyrefox

I have Blue Cross, and my current premium is $743 month for myself as a single person; it would be $100 a month more if not for a state worker offset I receive.  The insurance never pays the full amount that I'm charged for my actual medical expenses, and the amount they'll pay for lab work has been as low as half of what I'm charged, forcing me to go shopping for the lowest priced labs rather than those conveniently located.  My medication plan only provides the cheapest generics, and those for only 30 days at a clip.  I'm looking forward to qualifying for Medicare so that I can do better on my health care expenses.


----------



## Butterfly

Fyrefox said:


> I have Blue Cross, and my current premium is $743 month for myself as a single person; it would be $100 a month more if not for a state worker offset I receive.  The insurance never pays the full amount that I'm charged for my actual medical expenses, and the amount they'll pay for lab work has been as low as half of what I'm charged, forcing me to go shopping for the lowest priced labs rather than those conveniently located.  My medication plan only provides the cheapest generics, and those for only 30 days at a clip.  I'm looking forward to qualifying for Medicare so that I can do better on my health care expenses.



I think that premium is outrageous!!!  There's no way I could afford that -- I guess I'd just have to do without.  I had an individual plan for myself back when I was working, until I qualified for Medicare.  The highest I paid was $465 per month.  I now have Medicare and an advantage plan, for which I pay nothing except the regular Medicare premium.


----------



## Walelausdi

That's an unrealistic amount. The affordable healthcare act isn't very affordable to some. I have some friends and one is on medicare and one isn't but is on SS so the income is fixed except for some investment income. What happened to them is the income for both was counted yet only one needed insurance so the premium was incredibly high. They are going to get a divorce, end a 40 year marriage, so they can both have healthcare and keep enough income to pay their property taxes and buy food. I don't understand this government that allows and encourages such wanton greed by healthcare companies. Most healthcare companies in my state are cancelling plans right and left and the plans that are remaining cover next to nothing for their outrageous fees.


----------



## Dudewho

Fyrefox said:


> I have Blue Cross, and my current premium is $743 month for myself as a single person; it would be $100 a month more if not for a state worker offset I receive.  The insurance never pays the full amount that I'm charged for my actual medical expenses, and the amount they'll pay for lab work has been as low as half of what I'm charged, forcing me to go shopping for the lowest priced labs rather than those conveniently located.  My medication plan only provides the cheapest generics, and those for only 30 days at a clip.  I'm looking forward to qualifying for Medicare so that I can do better on my health care expenses.



You'll still be using generic prescriptions on Medicare to avoid the donut hole.


----------



## Dudewho

?





Walelausdi said:


> That's an unrealistic amount. The affordable healthcare act isn't very affordable to some. I have some friends and one is on medicare and one isn't but is on SS so the income is fixed except for some investment income. What happened to them is the income for both was counted yet only one needed insurance so the premium was incredibly high. They are going to get a divorce, end a 40 year marriage, so they can both have healthcare and keep enough income to pay their property taxes and buy food. I don't understand this government that allows and encourages such wanton greed by healthcare companies. Most healthcare companies in my state are cancelling plans right and left and the plans that are remaining cover next to nothing for their outrageous fees.



 The greedy insurance companies are canceling plans?? If they're making so much money were they canceling plans?


----------



## 911

Sorry, I have paid lifetime benefits thanks to the kind citizens of the Commonwealth of PA.


----------



## Walelausdi

Dudewho said:


> ?
> 
> The greedy insurance companies are canceling plans?? If they're making so much money were they canceling plans?



It appears they still offer medicare advantage plans and employer plans. They are dropping all but one of the obamacare plans and in that one they have drastically reduced the network. They are upset that so many people who had low deductibles actually used the insurance, met their deductible so they had to pay out.


----------



## Dudewho

Walelausdi said:


> It appears they still offer medicare advantage plans and employer plans. They are dropping all but one of the obamacare plans and in that one they have drastically reduced the network. They are upset that so many people who had low deductibles actually used the insurance, met their deductible so they had to pay out.



You have me a little confused. 
Are the insurance company for making a ungodly amount of money on ACA or not?
In your previous post you seem to suggest that the insurance companies are making a lot of money on ACA products but then mention they are dropping them. Why would they be dropping the plans if they were so profitable? 
How can they disenroll/drop plans and people and make a profit? Don't they want enrollments for the premium dollars? 
What am I missing?


----------



## spot

I'm still self-employed and have medicare/no S.S. @65 . I have a ACA 2017 plan for my younger wife for $74 dollars/$250 deductable, a month after ACA subsidy. It appears we will loose the susidy and her insurance, we will see. My part be will go to $134 a think?  Some folks will be hurt when ACA is stopped is the reason I posted this.


----------



## OneEyedDiva

OMG!! I feel so bad for those of you (and your grandson Len) who are paying that kind of money just for health insurance! I worked for the state and until I went on Medicare, my health coverage was free. I have an excellent plan and love my doctors. I think it's just WRONG that people have to pay so much for health coverage! It's too bad that the Affordable Care Act turned out to be such a bomb for many people. I've heard others say the ACA has been a blessings. People love to blame president Obama but if my memory serves me correctly, there were things in that act the the Republicans added or edited under the condition that they would only sign if the changes they wanted were in there. So who knows what parts were their doing? We'll see what happens during the Trump presidency since they want to dismantle it. I wonder if the uber rich will come up with a plan that is beneficial for "regular folks".


----------



## Don M.

It appears that Chicago is about to experience Severe Health Care Insurance issues for its retirees....and this is a City/State that is dominated by Democrat politicians....so this is NOT a Republican problem or issue.  

http://chicago.suntimes.com/politic...phaseout-chicago-retiree-health-care-program/

Health care expenses in the U.S. are quickly reaching a breaking point for large numbers of our people, and if Washington doesn't get off its Dead A$$ and do something in the very near future, this is going to be a crisis issue.


----------



## mrstime

I think I should be ashamed of myself for being miffed when our BC Insurance rate went up to $130.50 per month. It covers all dr visits and any hospital stays for the 2 of us.


----------



## Lethe200

>>It seems that the ONLY ones who are benefiting from the ACA (Obamacare) are the welfare recipients....who qualify for huge government subsidies.>>

On the contrary: the people who have benefited the most from ACA are the people with pre-existing conditions, who were often turned down for insurance. Diabetes, high blood pressure, thyroid conditions, etc. - many conditions which can be treated with generic prescriptives, where early detection and prevention improve both the quality of life and mortality ratio.

The ONLY reason Medicare exists is that longevity was pushing retirees into bankruptcy, because they didn't have retiree medical benefits and there was NO alternative except out-of-pocket. When the middle-class seniors began going bankrupt from healthcare costs - remember the "eating dog food" stories"? I do - then the political pressure began to help seniors.

Even then, the Repubs dragged their feet, as did the Southern Dems (who eventually fled to the Repub side and became the Tea Party faction). The ORIGINAL healthcare legislation was Richard Nixon's blueprint for national health insurance, a cause which he firmly believed in since the early 1960's. 

Due to the outcry over "socialism", the legislation was modified to be only for seniors, not all citizens. The insurance industry was allowed to continue to "pick and choose" applicants. And this is why, 50 yrs later, the U.S. spends more $$$$ and gets less return for its healthcare funds, than any other industrialized country in the world.

I retired in 2006. I noticed that very few people paid any attention to the REAL cost of their healthcare, which was clearly listed in Open Enrollment literature. At that time when our employees were paying $100/mo, the HMO cost was $850/mo and the PPO cost was $990/mo. 

I realized then that only the self-employed had any idea what healthcare insurance actually cost. For company employees, they just never bothered to read, or think about what their benefits actually meant.


----------



## CurlyQ

QuickSilver said:


> I wouldn't blame the ACA, but rather the Insurance companies who have found yet another way to gouge people.  The only fault  of the ACA is that it is based on private insurance and was not made single payer.  Hopefully it can be fixed.. but don't hold your breath.. Republicans in DC will not hear of it. will want to go back to lifetime limits and exclusion  of pre-existing conditions... as well as elimination of free screenings.. count on it.


 I completely agree.


----------



## WhatInThe

Insurance, benefits are only methods of payment. More effort must focused on the cost of actual care, not insurance. Third party reimbursement for health or most other stuff leads to inflation. Part of cost issue is how health care is delivered, it's not just about things like insurance across state lines. Things like clinic style medicine as an alternative must become more prominent for costs to drop.


----------



## BlondieBoomer

But most people outside the U.S. Are dissatisfied with their health care, right? They don't get very good care like we do here.


----------



## Don M.

BlondieBoomer said:


> But most people outside the U.S. Are dissatisfied with their health care, right? They don't get very good care like we do here.



That's a Myth that our Health Care Industry constantly tries to foist upon us.  The fact is that we pay twice as much as most other nations, and the last ranking by the WHO put the U.S. way down the list....about number 34...in terms of overall results.  While it's true that there are some extended waiting periods for treatment of non life threatening issues in some nations, the overall quality of care that those people receive surpasses what we have come to expect.  In most nations a high priority is placed upon Preventative health care, so as to find issues before they become severe.  Here, our system is based upon Treatment, because Treatment is far more profitable than Prevention.

This report from 2009 sums it all up pretty well....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html


----------



## BlondieBoomer

Don M. said:


> That's a Myth that our Health Care Industry constantly tries to foist upon us.  The fact is that we pay twice as much as most other nations, and the last ranking by the WHO put the U.S. way down the list....about number 34...in terms of overall results.  While it's true that there are some extended waiting periods for treatment of non life threatening issues in some nations, the overall quality of care that those people receive surpasses what we have come to expect.  In most nations a high priority is placed upon Preventative health care, so as to find issues before they become severe.  Here, our system is based upon Treatment, because Treatment is far more profitable than Prevention.
> 
> This report from 2009 sums it all up pretty well....
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html



But I heard the Canadians were coming over the border to get care here that wasn't available in Canada. Trump said during the debates that Canadians, “when they need a big operation, when something happens, they come into the United States, in many cases because their system is so slow, it’s catastrophic in certain ways”.  That sounds pretty dysfunctional to me.


----------



## Don M.

BlondieBoomer said:


> But I heard the Canadians were coming over the border to get care here that wasn't available in Canada. Trump said during the debates that Canadians, “when they need a big operation, when something happens, they come into the United States, in many cases because their system is so slow, it’s catastrophic in certain ways”.  That sounds pretty dysfunctional to me.



"But I heard"...is exactly what our present Health Care Industry wants our people to believe.  Here is an article that presents more factual information.

http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-03-2012/myths-canada-health-care.html

Traveling abroad for health care is not a unique occurrence.  Thailand, for example, is becoming a major hub for people needing heart surgery.  A person can fly to Bangkok, have heart surgery, stay in a luxury hotel during recovery, and fly back to the US for about 1/5th the cost of that same surgery in the U.S.


----------



## nvtribefan

BlondieBoomer said:


> But most people outside the U.S. Are dissatisfied with their health care, right? They don't get very good care like we do here.




Bwaahaahaa


----------



## Robert59

I pay 270.00 a month but have a 2100 deductible and I'm only 56 years old and single. This is United Health insurance.[h=1][/h]


----------



## jujube

I have Medicare plus a supplement and pharmacy plan.  It's somewhat reasonable, considering that it's a platinum plan.  Luckily, I get $200 from the state of Florida each month to help pay for it.  That is, however, "at the pleasure of the legislature" so it can be discontinued any year now.  I'm dreading that.  I'm sure when the next big slash comes, the first cut will be in survivor benefits.


----------



## JustBonee

There doesn't seem to be anything uniform about the Medicare plans around the country.   I have Medicare with an Advantage Plan (HMO) here in Texas,  and I pay nothing above the monthly Medicare charge  to my SS acct. .... it's zero monthly,  and that includes a  drug plan with Part B.  

I've never,  to this point,   had to test anything outside of routine doctor visits/checkups  though,  and the occasional drug or shot.


----------



## Butterfly

Bonnie said:


> There doesn't seem to be anything uniform about the Medicare plans around the country.   I have Medicare with an Advantage Plan (HMO) here in Texas,  and I pay nothing above the monthly Medicare charge  to my SS acct. .... it's zero monthly,  and that includes a  drug plan with Part B.
> 
> I've never,  to this point,   had to test anything outside of routine doctor visits/checkups  though,  and the occasional drug or shot.



I have an advantage plan with part B, too, and I also pay nothing above the Medicare premium.  I had both hips replaced using this plan, and paid VERY little out of pocket.


----------



## mrmarkg

Just an FYI, it often benefits you to look at private Medicare Supplements if you are over 65. I had two clients in Texas paying $1200 per month for health through the state and they were able to get supplements for both of them for $250/month. Nice thing about Supplements is they usually pay everything Medicare does not and you can go to any Doctor or Hospital.


----------



## mrmarkg

Bonnie, count your blessings. MA plans are great until you start getting sick and then the rubber meets the road. Depending on the plan you could have up to $7200 out of pocket in a single year and be told which doctors you can and cannot see. I always recommend Supplements if you can afford them. You pay a fixed monthly premium, no co-payments, and can go to any Doctor or Hospital in the U.S. that accepts Medicare. Many companies, many options. Explore during open enrollment in October.


----------



## Butterfly

mrmarkg said:


> Bonnie, count your blessings. MA plans are great until you start getting sick and then the rubber meets the road. Depending on the plan you could have up to $7200 out of pocket in a single year and be told which doctors you can and cannot see. I always recommend Supplements if you can afford them. You pay a fixed monthly premium, no co-payments, and can go to any Doctor or Hospital in the U.S. that accepts Medicare. Many companies, many options. Explore during open enrollment in October.



Some places have better MA plans than others.  When "the rubber met the road" for me with my two hip replacements, I paid very little out of pocket total for the two surgeries, including doctors' fees, hospitalization, lab stuff, drugs, etc.  My sister is on the same plan, with multiple medical problems, and her experience has been the same.  This plan is associated with our largest hospital and its huge network of participating physicians.  It's pretty hard to find a physician here who does NOT accept the plan.  I've been on this plan for 6 years now.

Wherever you are, it's worth checking into the Advantage plans in your area.  They can save you a huge amount of money.  You ojust need to be sure you carefully research the plan you are considering.


----------



## helenbacque

Ameriscot,  I totally agree.   I am embarrassed that this country does not provide some form of universal health care for its citizens as does most other advanced nations in the world.


----------



## Don M.

helenbacque said:


> Ameriscot,  I totally agree.   I am embarrassed that this country does not provide some form of universal health care for its citizens as does most other advanced nations in the world.



Hang in there...it's only going to get worse.  Between Obamacare, and what the GOP is proposing, our health care system is headed for a brick wall.  Personally, I don't give it much beyond 2020 before the people of this nation wake up, and demand that Washington moves toward a SP-UHC system.  We pay twice as much as most other nations for health care, and the last time the WHO ranked the nations, the U.S. came in at number 37 in terms of overall quality and value of the health care systems.  

http://thepatientfactor.com/canadia...zations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/


----------



## NancySue

I hope something changes. You shouldn't be punished for being a hard working citizen and rewarded for messing up your life. My daughter and son in-law have five children. They both work two jobs and are left to using Google to nurse themselves and their children because they can't afford the co-pays after paying ridiculous premiums. In addition to life insurance and disability insurance. I pray for them everyday.


----------



## Trade

Bobw235 said:


> Since I retired I've been paying full freight for my former employer's health insurance, which along with dental coverage comes to a staggering $1,604/month for the two of us. It's a good plan for sure, but on top of that have been plenty of out of pocket costs this year.



I'm in about the same situation. But since I am on Medicare as my primary I get a "break" there. So my cost is $1119 a month to cover my wife plus whatever Medicare doesn't pay of mine. But then I also pay $111 a month for Medicare. It would be $134 except that I caught a "break" from the hold harmless clause. So that's $1240 a month. And that's with me on Medicare plus having the advantage of a lower cost employer group plan for the rest. It's absolutely obscene how much healthcare costs in this country. Why we put up with when virtually the whole rest of the industrialized countries have universal single payer is beyond me.


----------



## Camper6

I'm a Canadian.  Our health care is not free.  We pay higher taxes in Canada but we consider that as premiums spread over the entire population.  Canadians are much more satisfied with their system than Americans are with theirs by a long shot.

I doubt the U.S. will ever get away with a 'not for profit' healthcare system because free enterprise is so entrenched.

Americans don't want government interference in their affairs is the way I see it as an outsider.

Wait times are longer in Canada for operations such as knee replacement. But essential treatment?  My friend had a heart attack and was taken to hospital and had a stent put in all within an hour.  I had cataracts operated on and had to wait because that type of surgery is done by specialists.  There aren't that many to go around.  Now when it comes to prescription drugs, there used to be busloads coming to Canada to have their prescriptions filled.  No longer because the U.S. government put a stop to it.  So much for free enterprise.


----------



## Trade

Camper6 said:


> I'm a Canadian.  Our health care is not free.  We pay higher taxes in Canada but we consider that as premiums spread over the entire population.



I would gladly pay the $13000 a year that I currently pay to Blue Cross in premiums to the government instead in the form of taxes for a system like you have in Canada.


----------



## Camper6

Trade said:


> I would gladly pay the $13000 a year that I currently pay to Blue Cross in premiums to the government instead in the form of taxes for a system like you have in Canada.


If you can afford it. If you can't you have nothing over Canada's system. Rich people don't have to worry. Poor people do.


----------



## Trade

Camper6 said:


> If you can afford it. If you can't you have nothing over Canada's system. Rich people don't have to worry. Poor people do.



The point I am trying to make is that I am already paying way more in health insurance premiums than I would pay in additional taxes if we went exclusively to single payer.


----------



## Camper6

Trade said:


> The point I am trying to make is that I am already paying way more in health insurance premiums than I would pay in additional taxes if we went exclusively to single payer.



I misinterpreted your post.
The question was, what do you think of these health insurance premiums.

What I think?  Outrageous.


----------



## Trade

Camper6 said:


> I misinterpreted your post.
> The question was, what do you think of these health insurance premiums.
> 
> What I think?  Outrageous.



No argument there. 

I'd better not get started on our Healthcare system, because when I do I can lose it pretty fast.  

"I'm Superfly TNT!"   

"I'm the Guns of Navarone!


----------



## WhatInThe

Part of the issue with high INSURANCE premiums and the various plans/possible solutions out there is that they focus on finding money to pay for insurance premiums yet it is the cost of actual CARE that is a big expense factor. COST and/or care issues need to identified first. Part of the problem of cost issues is they have gotten lost if not hidden in a system of third party reimbursements. Someone else is paying for it syndrome perpetuates inflation. That includes service providers and suppliers. Takeout or de-emphasize third party reimbursement and costs will start to come under control.

All this talk of things like single payer or universal health care would basically turn health care workers into pseudo government employees and suppliers would basically wind up with mostly government contracts. Government funded and provider health CARE should be there for a back up plan for those who really really need it. Or for those that would rather PAY the government vs the private sector. But it is/should NOT be the only other alternative. 

Rather than search for ways to pay for it find out why it costs so much. Don't just throw money at the problem.


----------



## Camper6

_Rather than search for ways to pay for it find out why it costs so much. Don't just throw money at the problem.

_ Well that's simple.  It costs so much because the companies offering it have to make a profit after paying all their expenses and guessing who is insurable and who is not and what to charge those who are at at risk.

That's the problem with 'for profit" health care.  I think is outrageous to make money off of sick peoples backs.

The Canadian system.  The doctors are basically private businesses.  They bill the provincial governments and the provincial governments pay them. The provincial governments also cap the fee that they can charge.

It would never work in the United States.  The people of the United States are so inured to free enterprise and competition that they cannot even start to envision a similar proposal where each state takes the same stance as the provinces in Canada.

Also.  The billing practices to the insurance companies must be a nightmare when each patient might have a different insurance plan.


----------



## WhatInThe

Camper6 said:


> _Rather than search for ways to pay for it find out why it costs so much. Don't just throw money at the problem.
> 
> _ Well that's simple.  It costs so much because the companies offering it have to make a profit after paying all their expenses and guessing who is insurable and who is not and what to charge those who are at at risk.
> 
> That's the problem with 'for profit" health care.  I think is outrageous to make money off of sick peoples backs.
> 
> The Canadian system.  The doctors are basically private businesses.  They bill the provincial governments and the provincial governments pay them. The provincial governments also cap the fee that they can charge.
> 
> It would never work in the United States.  The people of the United States are so inured to free enterprise and competition that they cannot even start to envision a similar proposal where each state takes the same stance as the provinces in Canada.
> 
> Also.  The billing practices to the insurance companies must be a nightmare when each patient might have a different insurance plan.



It's not just 'profit'. Third party or insurance company reimbursements perpetuate inflation or exorbitant/price gouging profit. Insurance in general can fester inflation. I had the same car repair done in two different states where one state mandated insurance companies cover it and another where they didn't. The cost of the repair in the insurance mandated state was about 4 times greater-in a lower cost of living state. But again third party money perpetuates inflation.

Also with totally inadequate upfront disclosure the providers bill the insurance on what they can get away with. Not just cover their costs and make "a" profit but a price gouging exorbitant profit. Even without an emergency situation to get upfront pricing from the health care industry is minimal at best. At least you get an written estimate/contract from a contractor when it comes to price, not from the health care industry.


----------



## Don M.

Camper6 said:


> Also.  The billing practices to the insurance companies must be a nightmare when each patient might have a different insurance plan.



For sure!  Dealing with All these various insurance companies, has forced the doctors and hospitals to maintain large clerical staffs just to process the paperwork...and you can be sure that those employee expenses are passed along to the patients.  

Then, there is the issue with Malpractice Insurance.  Our doctors pay anywhere from $80,000 to $250,000 a year for malpractice insurance to protect themselves from our army of Ambulance Chasing Lawyers...and you can guess who ultimately pays those premiums.  

The U.S. and New Zealand are the only nations which allow these Stupid "Ask your Doctor" ads to be constantly broadcast on TV...to the tune at least 12 billion dollars a year...which the drug companies then gleefully pass to the people who are prescribed these drugs.  

Our bloated "for profit" system is so heavily immersed in chasing the Almighty Dollar, that patient care has become a secondary priority.  Our system is totally based upon "Treatment", rather than "Prevention", because Treatment rakes in several times as much money as the Health Care Industry would make by trying to convince people to live a healthier lifestyle.  

There are SO many things Wrong with our present system, that flaws could be found in almost every facet.  Our government is unable, or unwilling, to seriously begin a major overhaul...instead it just continuously applies "Band-aid" fixes, like Obamacare.  But, that is all going to change...and not too far into the future.  As costs continue to spiral out of control, the day is fast approaching where neither individuals, nor government subsidies will be able to keep feeding this Monster.  Already, some people are faced with paying more for health insurance/care than they pay for food and housing.  That is simply unsustainable.


----------



## WhatInThe

Don M. said:


> For sure!  Dealing with All these various insurance companies, has forced the doctors and hospitals to maintain large clerical staffs just to process the paperwork...and you can be sure that those employee expenses are passed along to the patients.
> 
> Then, there is the issue with Malpractice Insurance.  Our doctors pay anywhere from $80,000 to $250,000 a year for malpractice insurance to protect themselves from our army of Ambulance Chasing Lawyers...and you can guess who ultimately pays those premiums.
> 
> The U.S. and New Zealand are the only nations which allow these Stupid "Ask your Doctor" ads to be constantly broadcast on TV...to the tune at least 12 billion dollars a year...which the drug companies then gleefully pass to the people who are prescribed these drugs.
> 
> Our bloated "for profit" system is so heavily immersed in chasing the Almighty Dollar, that patient care has become a secondary priority.  Our system is totally based upon "Treatment", rather than "Prevention", because Treatment rakes in several times as much money as the Health Care Industry would make by trying to convince people to live a healthier lifestyle.
> 
> There are SO many things Wrong with our present system, that flaws could be found in almost every facet.  Our government is unable, or unwilling, to seriously begin a major overhaul...instead it just continuously applies "Band-aid" fixes, like Obamacare.  But, that is all going to change...and not too far into the future.  As costs continue to spiral out of control, the day is fast approaching where neither individuals, nor government subsidies will be able to keep feeding this Monster.  Already, some people are faced with paying more for health insurance/care than they pay for food and housing.  That is simply unsustainable.



"...SO many things Wrong..." which is exactly why Obama or Trump care won't solve the problems. Both bills focus on paying insurance premiums  not controlling the costs of actual care. AGAIN third party money(insurance) perpetuates, festers, drives inflation.

That being said yes things like middlemen called the insurance industry are driving cost including malpractice insurance. But how care is delivered and billed are part of the issue as well. Providers need insurance "qualified"/familiar employees just for billing reasons alone. Setting aside "insurance" for a minute is the lack of upfront fully disclosed and/or package/bundled pricing which festers what ever you can get away with billing. The providers bill what they can get, not what their fee or costs are. They know that the patients and/or insurance companies are defacto hostages once they voluntarily to decide to pay for a service with insurance. Patients also have a whatever mindset what they slap that insurance card on the counter-there was a reason they made medical insurance cards similar to credit cards psychologically.

Full disclosure pricing should mean consistency in pricing as well. There shouldn't be the 100$ aspirin or band aid. Bill where the costs are, padding the bills elsewhere make it more difficult to identify cost problems for the insurer & patient especially. And have bundle & package deal pricing. Even price out use of a defribbrilator if your heart stops during a procedure. But vague and arbitrary pricing does not help.

"Fixing" health CARE and COST in the US should be a step by step chip away at it approach. But one sweeping bill/change for political legacy isn't going to do squat.


----------



## Don M.

WhatInThe said:


> "...SO many things Wrong..." which is exactly why Obama or Trump care won't solve the problems. Both bills focus on paying insurance premiums  not controlling the costs of actual care. AGAIN third party money(insurance) perpetuates, festers, drives inflation.  "Fixing" health CARE and COST in the US should be a step by step chip away at it approach. But one sweeping bill/change for political legacy isn't going to do squat.



That's right.  Our Health Care Industry has been chasing the Almighty Dollar for decades, and this abomination is Not going to get fixed overnight.  It's going to require several steps to restore some sanity to this system, and a major and sudden overhaul will only make things worse.  However, Washington, and its Masters who fund the politicians campaigns, will be hard pressed to come up with any reasonable solutions until the majority of our people stand up.  If you look up the 10 highest paid careers in the U.S., 7 of the top 10 are in the Medical arena.  If you go to Opensecrets.org, and look at who funds the politicians campaigns, the Health Care Industry and the Lawyers are at or near the top contributors to the majority of our politicians...Both Democrat and Republican.  It's all about Money, and patient care is little more than a "side effect".  

This rising cost of Health Care in the U.S. is going to have dire consequences for our entire population within a very few years....especially for Seniors.  Just like Social Security, the Medicare trust funds are being rapidly depleted, and unless positive action is taken, in the very near future, both of these programs will be worth a fraction of today's value.  Medicare will be on life support in about 10 years.

http://www.pgpf.org/analysis/2016/06/medicare-trustees-warn-of-serious-financial-shortfalls


----------



## Butterfly

I strongly believe that part of the problem is our complete inability to comparison shop for health care services.  If you need, say, a certain rocedure on your shoulder, you can't call around and see who charges what, because they flat will not (or cannot) tell you.  I am aware they can't predict if something might go wrong during the procedure or if it might be worse than expected, but you ought to be able to get a "baseline" price, like when I call around to find out what it will cost to start up my swamp cooler for the summer, I get "Well, our base price is $100, but if you need new pads or pump that would be an additional $50," and so on.  When we get medical care, we are agreeing to pay for services for which we have no idea of the cost.

ALSO, because of lawyers hiding around every corner, the medical industry is forced to order unnecessary tests to rule out every possible thing that might be wrong, no matter how unlikely, in order to cover their own butts from unfounded malpractice claims.

The whole system is just a mess.


----------



## Aunt Bea

I agree with Butterfly the whole system is just a mess!

I think back to my grandmother in the early sixties, before Medicare.  My grandmother carried a modest major medical policy, with a benefits cap, that was intended to help with serious injury or illness.  She paid cash for routine office visits, medical tests and prescription drugs.  She lived in an area without ambulance service, when a family member was injured or ill you bundled them up and drove them to the hospital.  The cost was high enough to pinch but not high enough to put her into bankruptcy.  The old system was not perfect by any means but it kept costs within the reach of most average people mainly because you can't get blood from a stone!  Then in 1965 Medicare came along and the medical folks found out that you can get blood and buckets of cash from the federal government, since then the whole system has spiraled out of control.

It seems a shame to me that we live in an age with all of these amazing drugs, talents, treatments, etc... that save and extend life but at the same time drains every nickle to the point where we can't afford to live.

I think I'm ready to dial it back to a simpler time.


----------



## WhatInThe

Butterfly said:


> I strongly believe that part of the problem is our complete inability to comparison shop for health care services.  If you need, say, a certain rocedure on your shoulder, you can't call around and see who charges what, because they flat will not (or cannot) tell you.  I am aware they can't predict if something might go wrong during the procedure or if it might be worse than expected, but you ought to be able to get a "baseline" price, like when I call around to find out what it will cost to start up my swamp cooler for the summer, I get "Well, our base price is $100, but if you need new pads or pump that would be an additional $50," and so on.  When we get medical care, we are agreeing to pay for services for which we have no idea of the cost.
> 
> ALSO, because of lawyers hiding around every corner, the medical industry is forced to order unnecessary tests to rule out every possible thing that might be wrong, no matter how unlikely, in order to cover their own butts from unfounded malpractice claims.
> 
> The whole system is just a mess.



Exactly, lack of up front fully disclosed pricing. Little need to compete. They take the insurance payout for granted along with the patients.  The medical care industry is a defacto monopoly with limited choice which keeps prices artificially high based on insurance payouts. Other industries probably could be charged with price fixing with some of the stuff that goes on in the health care industry and/or billing.

For years it's been said that the AMA/American Medical Association wanted to keep the supply of doctors artificially low, this is a decades old story, might be different now but that mindset led to things like production line medicine ie patients per hour, maximizing insurance payouts/coding etc. The whole model is basically a backdoor monopoly for maximum profit.


----------



## Knight

I've always considered learning from the problems others have as a free way to avoid doing the same. 
I'm not saying single payer systems are not possible, obviously they are. What I am saying is look at what is happening in countries that are having problems with long established systems and learn from what is impacting them. Beginning with primary care doctor to patient ratio, rural vs. metropolitan. Will adding about 30 million newly covered impact that and end up causing what others are experiencing?   

Excerpts from an Article.
From Canada to the United Kingdom and even Scandinavia, single-payer systems have proven cripplingly expensive even as they limit patients’ ability to access quality care. 

Consider Canada’s true single-payer system. Patients must wait an average of more than two months to see a specialist after getting a referral from their general practitioner, according to the Fraser Institute, a nonpartisan Canadian think tank. Patients can expect to wait another 9.8 weeks, on average, before receiving the treatment they need from that specialist. 
Overall, Canadians now wait even longer than last year — and 97 percent longer than they did in 1993. 
Access to care is so poor, in fact, that 52,000 Canadians flee to the United States each year for medical attention. They refuse to wait in line for care as their health deteriorates.

The situation is no better under Great Britain’s mainly government-run health system. 
As of this summer, 3.4 million Brits were stuck on waiting lists — a 36 percent uptick since 2010. Last year, about a million people had to wait more than four months to get treatment. Almost 300,000 waited at least six months. 
As with most centrally-controlled bureaucracies, the British health system is inefficient. According to a recent government report, the country’s National Health Service is plagued by problems like neglect, incorrectly-administered medications and inadequate care for the dying. In some cases, the report concluded that the treatment of patients was “appalling.” Last month, more than 40,000 young doctors threatened an all-out strike over their hours. 

As the Swedish economist Nima Sanandaji recently explained, the country’s socialist experiment has proven “such a colossal failure that few even in the left today view the memory as something positive.” 
https://www.pacificresearch.org/article/socialized-medicine-a-global-failure/

Trump cited Australia as a system to emulate, but that system has problems to.
http://www.ceda.com.au/2016/03/health-system-failing-most-vulnerable


----------



## Butterfly

Knight said:


> I've always considered learning from the problems others have as a free way to avoid doing the same.
> I'm not saying single payer systems are not possible, obviously they are. What I am saying is look at what is happening in countries that are having problems with long established systems and learn from what is impacting them. Beginning with primary care doctor to patient ratio, rural vs. metropolitan. Will adding about 30 million newly covered impact that and end up causing what others are experiencing?
> 
> Excerpts from an Article.
> From Canada to the United Kingdom and even Scandinavia, single-payer systems have proven cripplingly expensive even as they limit patients’ ability to access quality care.
> 
> Consider Canada’s true single-payer system. Patients must wait an average of more than two months to see a specialist after getting a referral from their general practitioner, according to the Fraser Institute, a nonpartisan Canadian think tank. Patients can expect to wait another 9.8 weeks, on average, before receiving the treatment they need from that specialist.
> Overall, Canadians now wait even longer than last year — and 97 percent longer than they did in 1993.
> Access to care is so poor, in fact, that 52,000 Canadians flee to the United States each year for medical attention. They refuse to wait in line for care as their health deteriorates.
> 
> The situation is no better under Great Britain’s mainly government-run health system.
> As of this summer, 3.4 million Brits were stuck on waiting lists — a 36 percent uptick since 2010. Last year, about a million people had to wait more than four months to get treatment. Almost 300,000 waited at least six months.
> As with most centrally-controlled bureaucracies, the British health system is inefficient. According to a recent government report, the country’s National Health Service is plagued by problems like neglect, incorrectly-administered medications and inadequate care for the dying. In some cases, the report concluded that the treatment of patients was “appalling.” Last month, more than 40,000 young doctors threatened an all-out strike over their hours.
> 
> As the Swedish economist Nima Sanandaji recently explained, the country’s socialist experiment has proven “such a colossal failure that few even in the left today view the memory as something positive.”
> https://www.pacificresearch.org/article/socialized-medicine-a-global-failure/
> 
> Trump cited Australia as a system to emulate, but that system has problems to.
> http://www.ceda.com.au/2016/03/health-system-failing-most-vulnerable



I would be interested to know if those waiting times are across the board, so to speak, or if they are different for different types of procedures.  For instance, I had a waiting time for my hip replacements (considered "elective" surgery even though my hips had deteriorated to mush); part of that was because I chose a surgeon who is arguably the best in the area and he has longer waiting times than many (yes, you CAN choose your specialist with medicare); part of it was the nature of the beast, i.e., that many more of us are reaching the age where hips fail and thus there are a lot more of us in line.  However, I would not want to wait if I had had a condition where the wait might kill me or lessen my chances for survival.

How does that scenario play out in Canada, i.e., waiting time for non-elective surgery, treatment, etc.?


----------



## Don M.

There is Another Problem coming for our health care system....LacK of PCP/Family doctors.  Over 90% of today's Med students are planning on entering some "Specialty", instead of becoming a PCP...because the Specialties are where the Big Bucks are.  It may not be much more than 10 years before a lot of communities have few PCP's....as the existing doctors begin to retire.  

I would like to see a government program which subsidizes the education of doctors...IF they commit to becoming a PCP.


----------



## WhatInThe

Butterfly said:


> I would be interested to know if those waiting times are across the board, so to speak, or if they are different for different types of procedures.  For instance, I had a waiting time for my hip replacements (considered "elective" surgery even though my hips had deteriorated to mush); part of that was because I chose a surgeon who is arguably the best in the area and he has longer waiting times than many (yes, you CAN choose your specialist with medicare); part of it was the nature of the beast, i.e., that many more of us are reaching the age where hips fail and thus there are a lot more of us in line.  However, I would not want to wait if I had had a condition where the wait might kill me or lessen my chances for survival.
> 
> How does that scenario play out in Canada, i.e., waiting time for non-elective surgery, treatment, etc.?



Ironically the possible solutions to cheaper and more accessible care is clinic style medicine where one could walk into an office without an appointment. You might be triaged and have to wait but at least it would be cheaper and more accessible care for many. I think that's what would happen with a single payer type system, not necessarily rationing but wait times. 

The benefit of private insurance and/or plans now is that one can schedule an appointment and be in an operating room with in days or get an in office procedure. Sometimes I think the 'convenience' of US insurance based medicine leads not only to the convenience of an appointment and immediate treatment but over treatment as well.


----------



## Aunt Bea

We have a sufficient number of PCPs in my area but they seem to have been dumbed down to the point that is it like visiting the school nurse.  Most of the diagnosis, treatment and prescriptions for maintenance drugs comes out of a canned computer database.  They seem to be little more than a dispatcher or clearing house to set you up with various specialists.


----------



## WhatInThe

Don M. said:


> There is Another Problem coming for our health care system....LacK of PCP/Family doctors.  Over 90% of today's Med students are planning on entering some "Specialty", instead of becoming a PCP...because the Specialties are where the Big Bucks are.  It may not be much more than 10 years before a lot of communities have few PCP's....as the existing doctors begin to retire.
> 
> I would like to see a government program which subsidizes the education of doctors...IF they commit to becoming a PCP.



This was a result of policy and philosophy of the US medical care industry. The AMA or American Medical Association has been one of the largest lobbies going back decades. For years they advocated and even lobbied congress to control the supply of medical school graduates and doctors.

1997

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/19...-medical-schools-new-doctors-american-medical

There was also a book about US health care that cameout around 1970ish that basically foretold and exposed alot of current day issues by exposing a lot of the dirty secrets of the industry. I can't think of the name but it still has value today.


----------



## Don M.

Aunt Bea said:


> We have a sufficient number of PCPs in my area but they seem to have been dumbed down to the point that is it like visiting the school nurse.  Most of the diagnosis, treatment and prescriptions for maintenance drugs comes out of a canned computer database.  They seem to be little more than a dispatcher or clearing house to set you up with various specialists.



Isn't THAT the Truth!  I seems that over the past 5 or 6 years, when I've visited the doctor, for the annual Medicare Wellness visit, etc., all he seems to do is play with his laptop as he enters any symptoms, etc.  Heck, I can do that for myself by going to WebMD, or the Mayo Clinic web sites.  Then, in the rare cases where I might have an issue, he just wants to refer me to a "specialist".  I don't think he does anything but act as a "conduit" for the specialists.  I've talked to several others who visit the same facility...they have 5 doctors, and are a extension of a very good hospital about 40 miles away...and everyone I talk to says the same thing about the doctor they visit.  I'm beginning to think that if their laptops went down, they wouldn't be able to prescribe a bottle of aspirin.


----------



## nvtribefan

Knight said:


> I've always considered learning from the problems others have as a free way to avoid doing the same.
> I'm not saying single payer systems are not possible, obviously they are. What I am saying is look at what is happening in countries that are having problems with long established systems and learn from what is impacting them. Beginning with primary care doctor to patient ratio, rural vs. metropolitan. Will adding about 30 million newly covered impact that and end up causing what others are experiencing?
> 
> Excerpts from an Article.
> From Canada to the United Kingdom and even Scandinavia, single-payer systems have proven cripplingly expensive even as they limit patients’ ability to access quality care.


What article?  When and where was it published, and who wrote it?


----------



## Camper6

nvtribefan said:


> What article?  When and where was it published, and who wrote it?



The Article comes from the Pacific Research Institute.  They are committed to private care.

I'm Canadian.  So let's check with Canadians to see if they are satisfied with their system And then let's compare that to the U.S. to see how many are satisfied with their system.

There are lots of comments about the wait times in Canada and Canadians visiting the U.S. for health care.  Well if you have money you can do anything.  That's the point.  If you don't have money then what? That's never addressed in these articles. 

If you need immediate care in Canada you are taken care of.  My friend had a heart attack and was taken to hospital and had a stent put in and a pacemaker all within one hour.

I slipped and fell at home.  I was asked if I wanted to go to hospital to get checked out.  I said yes.  They took me to the hospital and I had a series of tests including x-rays and blood tests and sent me home all within 4 hours.  They suspected a heart attack which was ruled out.


Any way here goes:
*Group says advocates of private system are out of touch with most Canadians
*
In a last-ditch effort to convince Canadians that their public health care system should be privatized, Canadian Medical Association (CMA) President Robert Ouellet has promised to “pull out all the stops” during the association’s annual meeting next week. Trouble is, Ouellet’s mission to lead the change to privatization is exactly the opposite of what 86 percent of Canadians want.

A new poll conducted by the Toronto-based Nanos Research points to overwhelming support — 86.2 percent — for strengthening public health care rather than expanding for-profit services.

“With more than 8 in 10 Canadians supporting public solutions to make public health care stronger, there is compelling evidence that Canadians across all demographics would prefer a public over a for-profit health care system,” said Nik Nanos, president of Nanos Research.

https://www.healthcare-now.org/blog...ns-overwhelmingly-support-public-health-care/


One-fourth of American respondents are either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with "the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation," (6% very satisfied and 19% somewhat satisfied). This level of satisfaction is significantly lower than in Canada, where 57% are satisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, including 16% who are very satisfied. Roughly 4 in 10 Britons are satisfied (43%), but only 7% say they are very satisfied (similar to the percentage very satisfied in the United States).

Looking at the other side of the coin, 44% of Americans are very dissatisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, and nearly three-fourths (72%) are either somewhat or very dissatisfied. The 44% in the United States who are very dissatisfied with healthcare availability is significantly higher than corresponding figures in either Canada (17%) or Great Britain (25%).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/healthcare-system-ratings-us-great-britain-canada.aspx


----------



## Trade

Below is a link to a PDF document that gives some information on the BCBS Group Plan for State of Florida   Employees. This is the one I was on when I was working and stayed with after I retired. 


https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/7007/Analyses/h7007a.APC.PDF


If you look on page 7 you will find a history of the cost of this plan per employee beginning in with FY 04-05 up to and including FY 16-17. As you can see, for most of this time the contribution required from the employees has remained the same. $600 per year for single employees and $2160 for married employees opting for family coverage. 
  The state has opted to absorb the increased costs rather than pass them on to the employees. However during this period they were very miserly with pay increases to make up for that. Cost of living increases were virtually non existent. 

  Now if you look at the numbers in this chart you can readily see that the cost per single employee went from $4453 to  $8314 per year over the 12 year period. That's an increase of almost 87%.  That's an average of 5.3% per year over the 12 year period. 

  If you do the same for the family coverage option the increase is from $10,104 to $18,715 or a little over 85%. Rounded that also averages to about 5.3% over the 12 years. 

  Now lets go to the government's inflation calculator:  

https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

  For the same 12 year period the CPI only increased 27%, for an average of 2% a year. 

  So there you have it in black and white. The cost of Health Insurance has increased at a rate of over 2 and 1/2 times the rate of inflation. This is for a decent plan. You still have co-pays and deductibles and there are still things that aren't covered. And in fact the co-pays and deductibles have seen some increases too. 

  Now I've heard all kinds of convoluted explanations for this but to me there is no other explanation than pure unbridled greed. And that's not just on the Insurance companies part either. The entire Health care industry is in on the feeding frenzy. Doctors, drug companies, medical supply providers, laboratories, etc. They are all raking it in with both lands.


----------



## Knight

nvtribefan said:


> What article?  When and where was it published, and who wrote it?


 Instead of cutting and pasting a small section why not go to post 58 of mine and click on the web site that has the entire article? 

Single payer systems in place for years are experiencing difficulties, all I was pointing out is it's free to learn from what others are experiencing. 

There is a projected shortage of primary care doctors now, with obesity, older less healthy population increasing, and the reality of additional people via a single payer system wouldn't it makes sense to look around our world to see what might work to minimize the problems in an American single payer system?


----------



## Don M.

Knight said:


> There is a projected shortage of primary care doctors now, with obesity, older less healthy population increasing, and the reality of additional people via a single payer system wouldn't it makes sense to look around our world to see what might work to minimize the problems in an American single payer system?



What works in other nations might not be totally acceptable here, but there are certainly facets of other nations health plans that the U.S. could begin to incorporate, and eventually transition to a UHC plan that meets the needs of our people.  A SP-UHC system would certainly require higher taxes, etc., to support such a program, but the end costs would most likely be a fraction of what we currently pay our "For Profit" system...with all its ridiculous premiums and co-pays, deductibles, etc., etc.  I would rather pay 2 or 3 thousand more in annual taxes, than to be stuck with health insurance that costs $1,000 a month, and doesn't kick in until a $5,000 deductible is met.


----------



## Trade

Don M. said:


> What works in other nations might not be totally acceptable here, but there are certainly facets of other nations health plans that the U.S. could begin to incorporate, and eventually transition to a UHC plan that meets the needs of our people.  A SP-UHC system would certainly require higher taxes, etc., to support such a program, but the end costs would most likely be a fraction of what we currently pay our "For Profit" system...with all its ridiculous premiums and co-pays, deductibles, etc., etc.  I would rather pay 2 or 3 thousand more in annual taxes, than to be stuck with health insurance that costs $1,000 a month, and doesn't kick in until a $5,000 deductible is met.



Exactly. I can remember back when Kucinich was running (and polling about 1%) and someone asked him how he planned on paying for his proposed Universal Health Care plan and he answered "We are already paying for it". Something like 17% of our GNP goes for Heathcare right now and that's with leaving millions uninsured and millions more under insured.  Canada is paying about 10% and they are covering everybody. So what's better? Paying Insurance companies and providers 17% in premiums and fees? Or paying the government 10% in taxes? Kind of a no brainer isn't it?


----------



## Butterfly

Don M. said:


> Isn't THAT the Truth!  I seems that over the past 5 or 6 years, when I've visited the doctor, for the annual Medicare Wellness visit, etc., all he seems to do is play with his laptop as he enters any symptoms, etc.  Heck, I can do that for myself by going to WebMD, or the Mayo Clinic web sites.  Then, in the rare cases where I might have an issue, he just wants to refer me to a "specialist".  I don't think he does anything but act as a "conduit" for the specialists.  I've talked to several others who visit the same facility...they have 5 doctors, and are a extension of a very good hospital about 40 miles away...and everyone I talk to says the same thing about the doctor they visit.  I'm beginning to think that if their laptops went down, they wouldn't be able to prescribe a bottle of aspirin.



And That's part of the problem, for sure.  Referring people to specialists when their problem could easily be handled by a competent  PCP.  I do not want to waste time and money seeing a specialist (after waiting forever to do so) and a bunch of complicated (and often unpleasant) tests when the problem could be managed, at least initially, by the PCP.  They're all so worried they'll get sued if you turn out to have Dengue Fever instead of the flu that everyone else has, that they want to do a battery of tests for everything that could possibly, in any scenario, be wrong.  It's a waste of money and time.  

I really think we need some reform of tort law to cut out some of the BS malpractice cases that are brought.  In all the years I worked, I saw I don't know how many malpractice cases, and out of them there were only two that had any real merit.  But, defending them costs the physician and his insurance carrier a boatload of money even if they win, and the doc's premiums go up, too.  Maybe we do need some kind of "loser pays" law in relation to downright frivolous litigation.


----------



## Camper6

Knight said:


> Instead of cutting and pasting a small section why not go to post 58 of mine and click on the web site that has the entire article?
> 
> Single payer systems in place for years are experiencing difficulties, all I was pointing out is it's free to learn from what others are experiencing.
> 
> There is a projected shortage of primary care doctors now, with obesity, older less healthy population increasing, and the reality of additional people via a single payer system wouldn't it makes sense to look around our world to see what might work to minimize the problems in an American single payer system?



All health plans are "experiencing difficulties" because they are all in transition and none are perfect or ever will be perfect.

You really cannot compare a small population such as Canada has to the U.S. with their huge population.

In order to make it work you have to cobble it down to individual states to come up with a system.


----------



## WhatInThe

Camper6 said:


> All health plans are "experiencing difficulties" because they are all in transition and none are perfect or ever will be perfect.
> 
> You really cannot compare a small population such as Canada has to the U.S. with their huge population.
> 
> In order to make it work you have to cobble it down to individual states to come up with a system.



California's recent single payer health proposal would double the state budget.

https://calwatchdog.com/2017/05/23/...lth-care-california-cost-double-state-budget/

400 BILLION dollars a year


----------



## Camper6

WhatInThe said:


> California's recent single payer health proposal would double the state budget.
> 
> https://calwatchdog.com/2017/05/23/...lth-care-california-cost-double-state-budget/
> 
> 400 BILLION dollars a year



California is about the same size as Canada in means of population.

So. What are they doing wrong?

Is the cost of dismantling the present system included? If it is it shouldn't be as that would be a one time cost.

Question costs and question them again and again. Anyone can throw out numbers without any backup.

See. You believe the numbers without question.


----------



## Camper6

WhatInThe said:


> California's recent single payer health proposal would double the state budget.
> 
> https://calwatchdog.com/2017/05/23/...lth-care-california-cost-double-state-budget/
> 
> 400 BILLION dollars a year



California is about the same size as Canada in means of population.

So. What are they doing wrong?

Is the cost of dismantling the present system included? If it is it shouldn't be as that would be a one time cost.

Question costs and question them again and again. Anyone can throw out numbers without any backup.

See. You believe the numbers without question.

Canada spends about 140 billion.


----------



## WhatInThe

Camper6 said:


> California is about the same size as Canada in means of population.
> 
> So. What are they doing wrong?
> 
> Is the cost of dismantling the present system included? If it is it shouldn't be as that would be a one time cost.
> 
> Question costs and question them again and again. Anyone can throw out numbers without any backup.
> 
> See. You believe the numbers without question.
> 
> Canada spends about 140 billion.



It says "predicted" costs and based on the ability to still use federal funds. A 15% payroll tax would be needed to fund it. Eliminating private insurance takes out a lot of clerks  from providers and insurers-unemployment claims and retraining would be just one of the issues with the old system along with redoing the computers systems & administrative record keeping. More state level government employees would need to be hired and budgeted for as well.

Californians are already complaining about a additional gas & vehicle tax of about 500$ a year. It tripped a recall election of a politician who helped push it through. No way would a 15% payroll tax fly.


----------



## Camper6

No matter how you cut it.

The present system has to be fixed.


----------

