Posted on 10/17/2007 10:34:27 PM PDT by Lorianne
I agree with your observations. The ones regarding the pharmaceutical industry are interesting, because the companies themselves are sortof held hostage by the government. Do this, do that, don’t do that, no change that...
We give the government the power, then damn the company for doing precisely what the government demands they do. Hardly anyone damns the government for what they make the companies do.
There are mile wide holes in your argument. There isn’t going to be some vast new pool of people needing insurance. They already have insurance today. Just swapping them to policies not associated with employer provided plans, isn’t going to create a whole lot of new business and reduce rates.
There’s another falicy in your logic. Healthcare services must go down before insurance companies can drasticly reduce their rates. That isn’t going to happen.
What you propose will drag everyone off employee provided plans. These plans have been a part of the employee income package for decades. You are going to strip away those provisions from every employee, thereby reducing their compensations in one massive colossal f-up.
I have mentioned before that employers are not going to increase employee pay to compensate for the loss. At best they will increase wages a small percentage to compensate. And then the employee will be out there on their own having to develop coverage for the family.
Removed from the work place environment, this will be one more massive bill people will have to pay out each and every month. It will be larger than their car payment. And it will be almost totally a whole new category of expense since it’s cost will not be reimbursed.
You are in effect signing on to a plan that will destroy a portion of the workplace compensation package that has been an institution for decades.
I’m not in favor of this.
They should call this dog the Employer Relief Act of 2008.
So what you’re basicly saying is that anyone who wants it can find insurance. Great. Case closed.
Now, stripping away the employer provide plans will not result in increased compensation.
Also, yanking all those people out from under employer plans won’t lower the costs of insurance across the board. They were a part of the insurance pool before the change. It would have no effect. You will have to lower healthcare costs to lower insurance rates.
Other than that, thanks for the comments.
I’m not sure I’d agree with the idea of charging different rates for folks in different age groups. You would significantly lower the fees in the group for the young, and destroy the ability of people in the elder high risk groups to obtain insurance. Ultimately that would shrink the pool of the insured and result in the rates for the younger group being impacted negatively anyway.
The question is whether the insurance companies will be forced to insure everyone including those with prexisting illnesses.
The question is whether the insurance companies will be forced to insure everyone including those with prexisting illnesses.
It is the case for federal emplpoyees who belong to FEHB programs. It is true for my daughter who works in a law firm. These are group plans.
I'm sorry. The key part of that sentence is probably "In Maryland,". I priced some options here in Missouri.
For a plan with $3800 deductible and no coinsurance once the deductible is reached, using the United Healthcare network (most common here) it was $313.38/mo for a healthy family of four.
For an Anthem (BCBS affiliate) plan with a $5000 deductible, 30% coinsurance after deductible reached and only $30 for first two office visits (n/c after that) it was $194.95.
For a $7500 deductible (again United Healthcare) with 0% coinsurance, it was $223.29.
An Anthem HMO plan with $0 deductible and 10% coinsurance and office visits at $25, the cost was $852.87.
Do you think that companies offer benefits based upon the level of benefits that other companies competing for employees offer? If a company has an extra $200 million, are you positive that would not end up in compensation? It would only have to be one company. They would be able to hire away the best and brightest from their competitors by offering higher salaries. Does this not happen?
To be fair, the premium charged ought to reflect the risk it represents. Reality says that someone 60 years old represents a greater risk for certain problems than someone who is 20.
If you charge the two the same rate for coverage, the younger individual is in effect subsidizing the older, basically paying for their own risk and a portion of someone elses. Conversely, the older person would be receiving a discount.
In your scenario, the premium charged to the elder group would be consistent with the risk they represent. If it happens to be higher than what they pay now, that means they are being subsidized.
“I’m sorry. The key part of that sentence is probably ‘In Maryland,’.”
That’s sort of the point. There are folks in different parts of the country for whom inexpensive health insurance just isn’t an option.
It just doesn’t exist.
sitetest
Understood. Sorry about the brain tumor, glad about the prognosis. *sigh*
I don’t dismiss that as an irrational arguement. I simply state that what you reap today, you will sew in your old age.
Yes, the youth do subsidize the elderly. And what do the grownups do for the youth? They house, feed, clothe, provide medical care and put them through school and change their diapers for the first eighteen years of life. Then the youth go to work and complain that for the first time in roughly twenty years they have to start supporting others. It’s all about transitions and disbursed risk.
The middle working class will always have to support those who are too young or too old to support themselves outright.
What we can do to make it so that people have invested better than this idiotic social security and medical ponzee scheme, will reduce the cost of those who have retired. And we should work toward that immediately.
Self insurance and large deductables would help get this off the ground in a decade or so if we’d just put our heats into it.
I’d be interested to know how health care dollars compare across age groups. I’m thinking young people have different but just about equal expenses to 60 yos.
Do you honestly think that they would? Why would they? Wouldn't the CEO and HR guys just get a killer bonus that year? If you cut out employer insurance, the windfall will not go to the workers. It will go to capital projects, top tier bonuses, or to pay off debt.
Thanks.
It is starting to influence hiring patterns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.