Obamacare, explained.

[One Brow]

Yes. It does. I would hire another 20 people, right now, if all I had was the salary. The matching funds/FICA, worker's comp, health .. it just makes employees way too expensive. I know that probably sounds harsh, but it's simply an economic reality.

If it weren't for the matching funds/FICA, etc. you'd probably have to put most of that cost into the employee's wages anyhow. I wouldn't work for 150% of my current salary if I had to pay for all of that (say, as an independent contractor).

 

[NAOS]

I agree with this. I like to do more rather than less .. but as costs continue to rise there are fewer we can care for.

Back to where we started.

We aren't stuck with these costs, these services, or these conceptions of care giving. In the end, this comes down to what we think medicine should do (preventive, etc.) and supporting those things collectively. Call that govt...or don't.

 

[bordelais7]

Wait...employers have a "responsibility" to provide health care to their employees? Says who?

 

[NAOS]

It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously as you go on.

I'm pretty confident that I'm being clear. Debating the true costs of production is important to both human health and environmental health. If you don't think so, then....

 

[One Brow]

There just doesn't seem to be many cost controls in the healthcare industry (that was too broad of stroke, but humor me) and it's a self-perpetuating problem that has the average American with burden of the result.

Health insurance companies negotiate fiercely to keep costs down. They negotiate (or dictate with smaller organizations) which treatments they will fund for which diagnoses. They negotiate which treatment plans will be suggested. They negotiate medicine recommendaitons with pharmacies. If yo ucan offer a family plan to an employer for $200 less per month, on the same coverage, you can make a lot of money.

 

[bordelais7]

If it weren't for the matching funds/FICA, etc. you'd probably have to put most of that cost into the employee's wages anyhow. I wouldn't work for 150% of my current salary if I had to pay for all of that (say, as an independent contractor).

Agreed -- shift these costs to the employee and you're right back where you started. I believe there IS something, however, to making these costs more transparent and tangible to the end user -- people would have probably been a lot pissier a lot sooner about the cost of healthcare were it not for employers shouldering the majority of the cost burden.

 

[One Brow]

Are we really innovating more than everyone else? I know it's common for people to say this, but then I see Kobe and other sports stars going to South Korea and other nations to get career extending surgeries and treatments that aren't available in the USA.

Plus our heart disease, cancer, and other numbers don't compare favorably with many other western nations.

I think we spend somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the world's budgeted medical research supply. Our health measures are poorer in amny ways because of our diet and excessive work hours.

 

[larryselbows]

now tell me why do people gotta pay healt insurance for people who smoke, people who eat unhealthy and people who are morbidly obese.
why should i pay for their bad habbits?
will they pay for sins? will they pay for my visits to the red light district.

mandatory health insurance is communism and a bad thing.

why the **** do i have to pay for a smokers cancer treatment.

there is a reason why my father never married a smoker. and i will not marry one. to minimize the pain of cancer and to minimize the risk of getting hospital bills.


screw communicstic socialistic health insurance.

this does not make sense.

i train reguraly, i have a healthy lifestyle, i dont smoke, i dont drink exsesivly, i eat kosher.

i visited the doctor twice in 8 years for minor ****(once was to get a deceleration of health. the other was some small thingy) with a total cost of about 80 euros.
yet i gotta pay monthly 130 euros for health insurance. so i paid almost 10.000 euros to cover the health cost of irresponsible people. **** Them!
because people live irresponsible and drive up the cost of health insurance...

in morgan freeman's voice:
this is wrong

You actually don't have to pay for any more to help those that smoke, eat poorly, and don't exercise.

As it said in the original post, Obamacare will cost $1.7 trillion to start out but the cost will be paid for by new taxes on people making more than $200k per year (a tax increase of 0.9% annually), insurers, pharmaceutical companies, and tanning salons. Then, because Obamacare puts such a premium on preventative care, it is estimated that $109 billion will be saved annually from the deficit because fewer people will be treated for serious illness. By the year 2021, Obamacare should pay for itself.

Hope this helps!

 

[NAOS]

I think we spend somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the world's budgeted medical research supply. Our health measures are poorer in amny ways because of our diet and excessive work hours.

Repped.

 

[bordelais7]

I'm predicting this thread will die down soon and have a hard time getting enough posts to push it past page 5.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

Our health measures are poorer in amny ways because of our diet and excessive work hours.

Which at the root, is caused by the Federal Reserve's extensive hold on our economy. They continue to devalue the dollar, and therefore we continue to work more and more hours to make the same amount of money that we used to make working 40 or less hours.
This in turn creates less time and money for paying attention to our health, wellness, and overall diet.
It's a complete snowball effect.

 

[One Brow]

Agreed -- shift these costs to the employee and you're right back where you started. I believe there IS something, however, to making these costs more transparent and tangible to the end user -- people would have probably been a lot pissier a lot sooner about the cost of healthcare were it not for employers shouldering the majority of the cost burden.

I agree there. A couple of companies I have worked for have handed out/emailed a description of the true cost of the company for that employee. It's a real eye-opener. I'm always in favor of more information going out.

 

[NAOS]

You actually don't have to pay for any more to help those that smoke, eat poorly, and don't exercise.

As it said in the original post, Obamacare will cost $1.7 trillion to start out but the cost will be paid for by new taxes on people making more than $200k per year (a tax increase of 0.9% annually), insurers, pharmaceutical companies, and tanning salons. Then, because Obamacare puts such a premium on preventative care, it is estimated that $109 billion will be saved annually from the deficit because fewer people will be treated for serious illness. By the year 2021, Obamacare should pay for itself.

Hope this helps!

so....wait....investing in the health of our society is gonna have some start-up costs?

****, braugh, I'm out.

 

[bordelais7]

I think we spend somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of the world's budgeted medical research supply. Our health measures are poorer in amny ways because of our diet and excessive work hours.

Curious if you've run across any stats to back this up. I believe it 100%, for the record, but it's just a gut feeling/observation.

It would be a fun experiment to take all of the citizens of the US and swap them for a year or two with the citizens of, say, Norway or Switzerland. Let them go on living their lives and using the local health care. Then gather the statistics (infant mortality, life expectancy, etc.) that the WHO used in their (in)famous report and see if the rankings change at all. I fear it's difficult for the US to keep up in some of these reports simply because of demographics and culture.

Mostly, however, I just want to see the Matterhorn.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Part of the reason this is a mess/expensive is because the single-payer option was abandoned in the gridlock (i blame both sides). The dems needed to pull some kind of political victory out of this charade, so they caved to mega-retailers and insurance giants and lived to fight another day. Nobody in their right mind would say the Act is perfect as it currently is; but nobody in their right mind would say the previous system was adequate or even functional for most people.

Just make sure that while you're throwing stones at this, lob some at employers writ large for simply refusing to offer training, benefits, and protections... then pointing to govt and blaming it for not working.

Dang.

 

[DutchJazzer]

You actually don't have to pay for any more to help those that smoke, eat poorly, and don't exercise.

As it said in the original post, Obamacare will cost $1.7 trillion to start out but the cost will be paid for by new taxes on people making more than $200k per year (a tax increase of 0.9% annually), insurers, pharmaceutical companies, and tanning salons. Then, because Obamacare puts such a premium on preventative care, it is estimated that $109 billion will be saved annually from the deficit because fewer people will be treated for serious illness. By the year 2021, Obamacare should pay for itself.

Hope this helps!

i was talking more in general/mysituation.

here in the netherlands healthcare has been up for a gazillion years.
healthcare insurance is mandatory.
with absurdd prices.(130 euros a month)
and will likely go up next year.
I have a problem with this mandatory thing.

 

[bordelais7]

I agree there. A couple of companies I have worked for have handed out/emailed a description of the true cost of the company for that employee. It's a real eye-opener. I'm always in favor of more information going out.

It was just on my mind as today happened to be open enrollment for my company. I'm a big fan of the low premium/high deductible HSA plans and opted for the $8500 family deductible/$11,000 max out of pocket/$0 monthly premium plan. Company picks up $893/month. I think the company pays on average around $1150 per month per employee (in addition to contributions to employee HSA accounts).

So I go to the doctor usually once per year for a checkup (covered) as does the rest of the family. A couple trips to the ER for broken bones and mystery illnesses and we do ok. Most of my co-workers opt for the low-dedcutible, higher premium plans so that they can go to the doctor every time they get a runny nose. And that's not really an exaggeration. I'm sure that helps keep health care costs down.

 

[One Brow]

Curious if you've run across any stats to back this up. I believe it 100%, for the record, but it's just a gut feeling/observation.

I did not, but our gut feelings were only off a little.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending

Adding up the numbers on that page, it's 31.37%.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I agree there. A couple of companies I have worked for have handed out/emailed a description of the true cost of the company for that employee. It's a real eye-opener. I'm always in favor of more information going out.

I agree with this. Not enough companies do this.

 

[One Brow]

Most of my co-workers opt for the low-dedcutible, higher premium plans so that they can go to the doctor every time they get a runny nose. And that's not really an exaggeration. I'm sure that helps keep health care costs down.

It's not quite that cut-and-dried. Catching a runny nose early can prevent serious consequences in that (under 1%) of the time that worse things happen. One of the biggest drains on our medical system is preventable conditions only being treated in the emergency room, after they have become serious.