Affordable Care Act - catastrophic plans cancelled

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

By its very nature, there can't be much of a ceiling on health care, you have to attempt to cure the person , irrespective of costs and most countries systems "attempt" to do just that.

The reality is that actual healthcare system are completely constrained by budgets and hence the care you get , is very defined by that. Thats just a fact of life

Dave

These two statements are in direct contrast to each other.

There is a ceiling on health care, based on availability of resources, even if we pretend there isn't.

The real problem is trying to pretend that there isn't a conflict, and failing to prioritize our resources.

Paying double what other developed countries pay for care, with similar health care outcomes, isn't sustainable indefinitely.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

These two statements are in direct contrast to each other.

There is a ceiling on health care, based on availability of resources, even if we pretend there isn't.

The real problem is trying to pretend that there isn't a conflict, and failing to prioritize our resources.

Paying double what other developed countries pay for care, with similar health care outcomes, isn't sustainable indefinitely.

Yes the statements are in direct contrast, and that is the dilemma that every developed country finds itself in. There isn't a European country for example that doesn't agonise over the health budget or the cost of its hospital/medical system.

Paying double what other developed countries pay for care, with similar health care outcomes, isn't sustainable indefinitely

Yes almost uniquely , the US seems have made a terrible mess of healthcare, with very high costs and only reasonable outcomes. Its what happens when you allow "free enterprise" feast on a fact that people "must" have healthcare, they cannot really "shop" around or do without. Inherently you must control the process , with only the patients in mind, once you start high rewards, high profits the system feeds on its patients constantly squeezing more and more from them, in a situation where they have little choice.

dave

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

It is our objective of having unlimited health care, with unlimited profits, with someone else paying, that makes this kind of a mess.

I don't think that's anyone's objective though, is it? The goal is a high standard of universal healthcare, at reasonable cost. There are ways to lower costs, and a healthier population will help reduce the medical costs of that last year of life.

[Doodles]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

These two statements are in direct contrast to each other.

There is a ceiling on health care, based on availability of resources, even if we pretend there isn't.

The real problem is trying to pretend that there isn't a conflict, and failing to prioritize our resources.

Paying double what other developed countries pay for care, with similar health care outcomes, isn't sustainable indefinitely.

I agree with your last statement but am confused about the rest. it seems to me we don't lack for resources since we are paying 2, 3 and sometime 4 times as much for comparable results. I think the problem is where are the resources being squandered? Of course, we know but finding the political will to correct the problems is another matter.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

SNIP

Its what happens when you allow "free enterprise" feast on a fact that people "must" have healthcare, they cannot really "shop" around or do without.

SNIP

Economists often point out there are very few "free enterprise" systems, and certainly most of the US health care system is not free enterprise.

True, some folks do pay cash and usually get much lower prices than folks who pay with insurance. But interestingly lasik is free enterprise and the prices have been dropping while there have been real improvements in the tools used.

Of course this does not address the health care needs of the majority of folks, but it does illustrate how free markets are suppose to work according to the econ texts.

[Jimske]

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

This is the rationing that keeps health costs down, it ain't pretty but it works. I assume you've heard of the national debt. It's my belief that the growth in health care spending has been directly and indirectly fueled by the debt over the last 30 years. Everyone with healthcare believes it the best and they are PAYING for it, but in reality the care is so so and national debt is funding i

The bottom line is someone that made say 35k a year as a truck driver cannot afford to visit a surgeon that makes 500k a year for multiple surgeries between the ages of 65 and 85. This is not economically possible. This is what other countries understand as they actually pay (mostly) for their systems every year. There doctors also make a lot less ans qqtheir is less corporate profit in thir systems as well.

The reason why we don't have single payer is the corporate power and the fact that there would have to be some rationing. However, if you believe in math it will likely be the only way to save Medicare in 20 years or so if voters deem that a desirable goal.

Quite so and quite simple. Except in fact we already ration healthcare.

[misfits]

Originally Posted by CarlF

Unless you have a six figure income , ACA seems like a great thing for US cruisers. And I don't think Obama is even a sailor

Personally I think ACA will be great for many people, there are no pre-existing conditions which is the financial killer for many.

We're not cruising but being self employed for over 27 years & with the members of our family being in the "high risk pool", I was looking at 22K yearly plus a 5K deductible. I can't afford that so I recently took a full time job with a firm to get health insurance & what I previously paid for prescriptions more than covers the buy in, providing no one gets sick.

Between the conversation on this site & sailnet I went to healthcare.gov to see where I'd be. For the gold plan, based on 90K income for a family of four, $1068.00 a month including dental.

That's a far cry from 22K plus a deductible. Don't get me wrong, that's still a lot of money for healthcare but it's better than pre Obama care....

[Group9]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Someone's BSing, or there's missing info. There wouldn't be a 3 yr wait on a cleft palate of a newborn, unless there were medical reasons for waiting.

Yeah, and everyone who likes their health insurance and doctor is going to be able to keep it, too.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by misfits

Between the conversation on this site & sailnet I went to healthcare.gov to see where I'd be. For the gold plan, based on 90K income for a family of four, $1068.00 a month including dental.

That's a far cry from 22K plus a deductible. Don't get me wrong, that's still a lot of money for healthcare but it's better than pre Obama care....

For clarification, does that include any government subsidy or is it the straight full cost of the insurance plan?

Mark

[Doodles]

Originally Posted by Group9

Yeah, and everyone who likes their health insurance and doctor is going to be able to keep it, too.

I've heard of plans being cancelled because the company decided not to make them ACA compliant but I haven't heard of anyone not being allowed to continue to see their doctor. Can you elaborate?

[capngeo]

If it is so good……… why did Congress and the Exec E-X-E-M-P-T themselves!

My coverage (Male mid 50’s, perfect health, Non-smoker) goes from $262/mo with $5K deductible to $795/month with $6K

My Wife (pre-existing condition) from $350/mo, same $5K deductible…. to $1895???? WTF?

So much for retirement; I need to go back to work:bang head:

The Gov’t can kiss my butt! I’m going naked…. saving the premium to pay for out of pocket, and “the system” can go to Hell!

[gonesail]

my coverage will more than double too. where does the word "affordable" fit into any of this government mandated *******

[Eumelia]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

Paying double what other developed countries pay for care, with similar health care outcomes, isn't sustainable indefinitely.

I could be mistaken, but isn't it true that the US health care system pays for all development of new medicines, most R&D for new medical devices, as well as most pioneering medical techniques? In that sense, the US system subsidizes the entire globe.

[misfits]

Originally Posted by colemj

For clarification, does that include any government subsidy or is it the straight full cost of the insurance plan?

Mark

That was the straight cost. I was just curious to see what if any difference it would be compared to what insurance would cost us before the ACA. For us it would be a huge difference in that it makes insurance a bit more affordable.

I have to think other single group self employed souls out there will also see savings. It may not be perfect but it's a start.

I'm not a socialist but no America citizen should lose their life savings or their home because they get sick, just ain't right....

[colemj]

Originally Posted by misfits

That was the straight cost. I was just curious to see what if any difference it would be compared to what insurance would cost us before the ACA. For us it would be a huge difference in that it makes insurance a bit more affordable.

I have to think other single group self employed souls out there will also see savings. It may not be perfect but it's a start.

I'm not a socialist but no America citizen should lose their life savings or their home because they get sick, just ain't right....

So in your case, the ACA actually lowered the cost of insurance even without a subsidy. It doesn't sound like you are paying more to support lower costs for others. This is interesting data. I wonder if it is because of competition or transparency forced upon the insurers in your state? It sounds like others have not found it the same for them.

Mark