re: Who wants to point out the flaws of this healthcare bill?

It's weird how you live in this world, have access to facts, yet refuse to look for them or even acknowledge them when held to your face.

Does it take a large portion of your day to be so blindingly stupid, or did you just fall into it?

quote:

---

Obamacare is crushing a lot of people. Everybody buying policies on the individual market and not getting a subsidy is getting hammered. I have a reason to be the way I am.

Previous to 2014 I could buy a high deductible catastrophic policy for $120 a month. The ACA mandates kicked in at the beginning of 2014. Aetna informed me my current policy did not comply with ACA. My new bronze level compliant policy would be $325 month. That told me everything I needed to know. It told me that my huge increase was mandate driven. It also told me my increase was there to help pay for someone else(what you socialists like to call it "cost sharing"). Fast forward to 2017 my payment would have been $454 a month. I didn't buy. I went without insurance.

---

I take it you are over 30 and did not qualify for a hardship exemption at that time?

Either way, nothing magical about Cassidy's bill is going to give you another $120 a month plan, not even if we rolled back everything to how it was that day. Because inflationary pressures and all the things that go into driving up premiums year over year. A phenomenon that was already spiraling out of control well before the ACA. Not to mention an environment where lifetime caps and rescission was a widespread occurrence. Making that high-risk plan a bit of gamble in and of itself if you got cancer and forget to list one drug you took ten years ago on page 24 of some doctors form and the insurer then used it to try and cancel your reimbursements.

Cassidy would open the path for a way for you to get a high deductible plan again, yes, but a lot of that is dependent on the state you live in and whether they will seek exemptions. Cassidy would also open the door to invite back in a lot of the above nonsense as well.

The question I have is why that path is so desirable? 18% of GDP is spent on healthcare in this country, 750 billion dollars lost in waste that doesn't improve patients outcomes, we spend more for almost every unit of healthcare then any other country, and all you want to get out of that investment is a high deductible plan built on that foundation, that may end up having out of pocket caps that still end you up bankrupt? And I wouldn't take pride in not taking a subsidy if you qualify. The thing is, the moment you get large employer coverage, you will have a tax subsidy baked into it. Because one of the glossed over aspects of our system(including a reason why individual market coverage is so much more expensive) is that employers and employees that receive health benefits get a tax subsidy to pay for it. Which economic studies have shown has helped inflate healthcare insurance prices at large.

Though I am still waiting for what better ways there are to fix these problems you hint at, and why Republicans had 6 years and haven't been able to put them forth?

I'm solutions orientated, and I don't see many solutions to the problems I identify in the system coming out of Cassidy's plan, and have yet to hear a convincing argument for it.

quote:

---

BamaAtl

---

I am against anything you say regarding healthcare.

You are a loon.

quote:

---

The question I have is why that path is so desirable? 18% of GDP is spent on healthcare in this country, 750 billion dollars lost in waste that doesn't improve patients outcomes, we spend more for almost every unit of healthcare then any other country, and all you want to get out of that investment is a high deductible plan built on that foundation, that may end up having out of pocket caps that still end you up bankrupt? And I wouldn't take pride in not taking a subsidy if you qualify. The thing is, the moment you get large employer coverage, you will have a tax subsidy baked into it. Because one of the glossed over aspects of our system(including a reason why individual market coverage is so much more expensive) is that employers and employer receiving health benefits get a tax subsidy to pay for it.

---

I see things differently then you. I kinda don't know what you are asking.

Here was my deal. My high deductible plan had a deductible of $7500. I have no problem with that if I got sick. It gives you an incentive to stay healthy. I don't want to go to the doctor because it is my money I would most likely be spending. It had a million dollar max I believe. Also I want low premiums. I don't care about deductibles...I don't plan on getting sick.

My premium payments in 2013 were $120 a month or $1440 a year. I would put $3000 in a health savings account at year end. That money goes in tax free. Majority of my income is in the 25% federal tax bracket. Putting that $3000 in a health savings account would knock my tax bill down by $750. So in reality my total health care costs were only $690 per year if I stay healthy. Do you follow? That opportunity is now gone with ACA.

I used to looked at health care as an opportunity. Start at age 25. Save 3K per year health savings accounts. You get to invest that money. Compound interest. By the time you are age 50 and you get sick you have 150 to 200k. Enough money to buy any type of insurance. What you don't spend on healthcare you get to keep.

A high deductible policy catastrophic policy with a health savings account was the future. People need to have "skin in the game" when it comes to health care. It makes you attempt to do your best to stay healthy because those first health care dollars are coming out of your own pocket. People need an incentive to stay healthy.

quote:

---

I see things differently then you. I kinda don't know what you are asking.

Here was my deal. My high deductible plan had a deductible of $7500. I have no problem with that if I got sick. It gives you an incentive to stay healthy. I don't want to go to the doctor because it is my money I would most likely be spending. It had a million dollar max I believe. Also I want low premiums. I don't care about deductibles...I don't plan on getting sick.

My premium payments in 2013 were $120 a month or $1440 a year. I would put $3000 in a health savings account at year end. That money goes in tax free. Majority of my income is in the 25% federal tax bracket. Putting that $3000 in a health savings account would knock my tax bill down by $750. So in reality my total health care costs were only $690 per year if I stay healthy. Do you follow? That opportunity is now gone with ACA.

I used to looked at health care as an opportunity. Start at age 25. Save 3K per year health savings accounts. You get to invest that money. Compound interest. By the time you are age 50 and you get sick you have 150 to 200k. Enough money to buy any type of insurance. What you don't spend on healthcare you get to keep.

A high deductible policy catastrophic policy with a health savings account was the future. People need to have "skin in the game" when it comes to health care. It makes you attempt to do your best to stay healthy because those first health care dollars are coming out of your own pocket. People need an incentive to stay healthy.

---

I mean you can't prevent a bus hitting you, or having the genetics that pre-dispose you to cancer. That is the gamble of human health.

Given the rate of healthcare inflation, at current or pre-ACA rates, inflation would very likely outpace any interest you gain from investments. It mainly serves the purpose as a tax shelter.

But HSA's only work if you have savings. So that is also the difficulty in building a system around HSA's and high deductible plans, unless you are Singapore. What happens the next recession? Or you get laid off?

And I noticed you said you had a maximum, which means you would be in a plan that would cover you if you get really sick, but not really, really sick. Which was another flaw in the pre-ACA marketplace that contributed to a lot of the problems. that prompted the need for reform in the first place.

But to your strategy. One, that catastrophic plan will continue to get more and more expensive as you age(incline much steeper under Cassidy's proposal), reducing what you can contribute. At age 50, based on Cassidy's plan, and the assumption the state you are in seeks waivers, the insurance for a 50 year old(thanks to more consequential age ratings for older people) is going to be incredibly expensive. You want that high end coverage as your needs rise? You are talking about yearly insurance, at the current growth rates, that will drain that fund in a few years. Well before you get to that sweet Medicare. And under your scenario, you are paying 4400 a year in healthcare before consuming any unit of actual healthcare, which will be additional money, and will be all on your end if you go past your cap.

That is before adding in the costs you pay in taxes for healthcare in this country. Which is the second highest tax rate for healthcare in the world. All that inefficiency means you are probably putting 6000 to 8000 a year aside in savings accounts, premiums, out-of-pocket expenses, or taxes for healthcare. then walking into a money pit at 50-65 when you seek comprehensive care. Even worse if in that time you develop a condition insurers want to charge a lot more for because it harms their bottom line.

Every other industrialized country manages to give their citizenry comprehensive birth to death coverage for well below that 8000 dollar price tag per person.

To me it seems like you are asking the wrong questions. Yearning for an arrangement that would still leave this country in a space where we are fostering a raw deal for our citizenry. For yourself.

1 in 4 LA residents get healthcare through medicaid. With reductions in federal medicaid funding, the choices of how to allocate those dollars will create widespread pain for many. It won't affect me or my family, but I do have great concerns for the more vulnerable among us.

quote:

---

Every other industrialized country manages to give their citizenry comprehensive birth to death coverage for well below that 8000 dollar price tag per person.

---

...by denying care.

quote:

---

by denying care.

---

Our system currently denies care to many. We need to make the tough choices about how to best and most equitably allocate limited health care dollars. That should include primary, emergency and preventative care for everyone, but limiting access to more expensive treatments for some (e.g. transplants to those with few years to live). No matter which system you select, there will be rationing, the question is what services are rationed and to whom.

No, the question is whether the rationing will occur at gunpoint, or not.

Your constant use of "then" for "than" makes you look like a bumpkin. Just saying.