Think about what you just said. Increase the rate, but make more (older) people eligible. Exactly how does that fix the/a problem? The increase would have to exceed the predicted additional lives involved. Now also subtract the additional governmental oversight and administration costs. Just how much more are YOU willing to pay? Because it's pretty much not OK for the rest of us.
Self inflicted and blaming it on external forces cause a structural problem, just sayin'. The PPACA was never planned to be sustainable, the internal structure of revenues versus expenditures prevent that. Single payer was the goal, and the PPACA a stepping stone.
The death spiral is built in. It started during Obama’s Presidency. The American people have been “Grubered”.
Actually making younger people eligible.... Here Is an idea: Say you reduce the elgibility age to 50 as proposed in this discussion, those employed would still pay into the system via payroll tax the employer would pay a supplemental tax of 50% of what they would have paid for that employee’s private insurance. This would save the employer money on principles and get the risky older employees off their insurance.
To what extents, I don't know. Hopefully, removing the tax caps would either lessen or eliminate a means test. My gut feeling is if you put it in, you should get it back.
That is your assertion without factual proof. Far right and libertarian screeds and blogs are opinions without proof.
And into the inferior government healthcare systems. Do you actually believe that older people would be in favor of this absurd proposal ?? It’s politically impossible.
Well good why don't you just try going to a healthcare provider without insurance and then let us know how much higher the charge would be than if you had insurance. Medicare seems to work very well in the US and it is basically single payer. Even the moron Trump won't claim medicare is bad and needs to be abolished.
I have done. It was significantly less expensive. Medicare is an inferior way to deliver healthcare services. It’s like driving a car with the parking brake on.
AFM is a bot who posts assertions with no proof or factual information. He will say he posts such but he hasn't. He can't really debate an issue, but simply reacts to them. Far right = good; everything and everybody else = bad.
You are functioning on the assumption that the employee would not only be eligible for the employer's health plan, but wanted to participate. Perhaps they had coverage elsewhere, like a spouse or other program. Effectively, your suggestion calls for an additional TAX on the employer. The more tax that is applied to an employer based on wages, the lower that employer will attempt to keep the wages. The damage the PPACA did to wages was rather noticeable in most markets.
I have. Try this simple calculation: Take the premium you pay per year, and divide it by the number of times you go to a regular doctor for non-emergency care per year. Add your co-pay, and consider if the deductible or out of pocket maximum is applicable to that particular visit. Which is more? My dermatologist (considered specialist) accepts for payment an amount equal to what my co-pay would be for a visit, and doesn't bother filing for insurance. She saves the time and aggravation of dealing with the insurance. Anything above a standard annual checkover, and you have an option of paying directly at a minimal charge, or if you wish to file on insurance, the charge is upped by about 25%. Rather straight forward, I would say. My GP discounts his standard rate by 20% for direct pay. No paperwork to file, no waiting to be paid. It isn't as complicated as you think. Catastrophic coverage for the big stuff, and maybe, just maybe, the American people will stop going to the doctor for the little stuff, and see a realistic level for premiums for the serious stuff.
The standard rate is irrelevent to what the insurance companies actually pay. Do you not know that? The amount tha big insurance companies actually pay is usually a third to a forth of the standard amount billed so a 25% cut in the billed amount still gets the physicisn way more money than the physician wiuld get from an insurance company. There is a sucker born every minute and apparently your GP has figured that out to his advantage.
You do know that providers inflate their rates that they submit to the insurance, right? So do pharmacies, and virtually everyone who is in the medical related industry. Do you know what the R&C is for specific charges in your area? I do. Do you know what R&C is? I do. Do you know what a proprietary up charge is? I do. You might want to rethink that 'sucker' statement.
Actually I don't know that and neither do you. Doctors charge the exact same for the same procedure. What they actually get paid is what is different. In reality most doctors don't even do their own billing anymore.
Exactly. A high deductible low premium catastrophic coverage policy combined with a health savings account allows healthcare recipients to be consumers because they pay directly for routine care. I retired early and had ~ $30K in my HSA when going on Medicare which can be used to pay for Medicare and Medicare supplemental premiums.
Actually, I do have access to the R&C. Most people don't, and no, doctors across the country do NOT all charge the same for the same procedure, that's what the R&C charts are all about. What a doctor charges in NYC is not the same as what a doctor charges in BFE. If your doctor is turning his billing over to a medical billing company, then you are paying for that too, one way or another. Another way practitioners add to their cost, and so add to the amount they bill the insurance companies, which in turn raises your premiums. If you want to be 100% everything on insurance, that's your choice. But 'full coverage' insurance, such as what was mandated by the PPACA, is NOT necessary for every single person, and the government has no bloody business deciding what is best for everybody in regards to healthcare. If everybody were forced on to a Medicare for all program, they own you lock stock and barrel. The illusion of freedom of choice will be long gone.
My only issue with HSA's, is there are government rules as to the who what when and where for their use. Screw that. I rather take my hit on income taxes, and have the freedom to use MY money as I see fit. Reasons why I no longer have an IRA... who knows what the tax rates will be when I retire, or if they will still be untaxed, and again, they get to tell me how and when I need to take distributions? Not happening here.
ObamaCare placed restrictions on them. But for all practical purposes those are gone. The money is tax free if used for medical expenses.
Most people don’t come anywhere close to their deductibles. Low deductible plans are a waste of money except for persons who have unfortunate chronic conditions.
