Posted on 10/17/2007 10:34:27 PM PDT by Lorianne
"The U.S. employer-based health-insurance system is failing," declares a new report by the Committee for Economic Development (CED). The CED is a Washington, D.C.-based policy think tank comprised of business and education leaders. And it is right: Employer-based health-insurance is indeed failing.
Between 2000 and 2007, the percentage of firms offering health insurance benefits fell from 69 percent to 60 percent. The percentage of people under age 65 with employer provided insurance dropped by 68 to 63 percent. In absolute numbers, those covered by job-based insurance fell from 179.4 million to 177.2 million.
Employers are jettisoning health insurance because costs are out of control. Since 2001, premiums for family coverage have increased 78 percent, while wages have gone up 19 percent and inflation is up 17 percent. The consequence is that health insurance is the number one domestic policy issue in the 2008 presidential race.
So what is the CED's prescription for our ailing health insurance system? The report promisingly begins by recommending the creation of "a system of market-based universal health insurance." In order to achieve this, the CED would make health insurance mandatory for every American.
The CED proposal envisions the creation of independent regional exchanges that would act as a single point of entry for each individual to choose among competing private health plans. The exchanges would set minimum benefit plans. The exchanges would also cut through the thickets of state health insurance regulations that add substantially to the costs of insurance. Individuals could purchase insurance above and beyond the minimum benefit plans with after tax dollars.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
“I ran a mile today. I didn’t think I could, but my HEALTH COACH did”
“Humana’s health coach work with you...”
Health coach? The State is farming out big brother. “Winston Smith, a few more push ups please!”
St. Louis Magazine
"Although prices here vary, they generally fall in the range of $1,000 to $1,600 per person per year."
"Fox, who converted to what he calls patient-supported practice in 2004, requires all members of a nuclear family to become his patients. His fees range from $180 annually for a child and $240 for a baby or toddler up to as much as $1,020 a year for those over age 65. He cares for about 10 percent of his patients at a reduced rate or no charge."
The last time I was in the ER there were a lot of morons there with ailments that should have been treated in a doctor’s office. My rule of thumb is very simple: If it ain’t bleeding, broke, or on the outside when it should be on the inside, then don’t go to the ER.
That’s the very, very low end and not quite what defines it.
Here’s a story on concierge.
http://physiciansnews.com/business/204.kalogredis.html
What does your wife pay? She’s the employee.
That premium does seem high. How much is individual ins for you?
It is what is defining it here in St. Louis. These are not "low-end" doctors. The Doctors listed in this article are thriving. They have been joined by probably 6 more in just the last 6 months in a relatively small area of St. Louis. No, it is not the "spalike" offices of M2D ($20,000/yr). It is a regular doctor's office with 1/3 to 1/4 the volume of patients seen.
All rates every two weeks:
$ 27.92 Cancer+
$ 05.66 Medical*
$ 01.78 Vision*
* Pre Tax
+ an option I chose to add
Then its not so bad for both.
Then the definition is changing.
Wow. The Romney virus is running wild, even on FR.
Could be fatal to our free republic.
I would imagine that the health insurance profit margins are relatively low compared to the rest of the economy. 5.5% is not the holy grail of capitalist profit margins.
I don't think so. Upon reading your article, the characteristics listed by your article can all be found in varying degrees (some house calls, email and phone availability at all times, spa-like decor and some spa services available, etc) in the practices listed in the St. Louis Magazine article. And for $2000-2200/yr.
Well, that’s through my employer. It doesn’t cover my wife and I. She has her own set of costs to cover her through her own employer’s plan. I don’t have those figures in front of me right now. They are comparable, perhaps a bit higher.
I have not really looked at insurance market profits in the last few years, but they were running 80% margins during the last major hurricanes in FLA. I remember the figure because it really baked me that with a margin like that, they weaseled out of payment, asking the gvt to cover them or they would go bankrupt.
Even if I accept a 5.5% margin, surely there is a reason why all the health facilities are owned by insurance companies and pharmaceuticals.
Dang! I know a guy paying close to $40k a year here in NYC.
I’m misunderstanding you. I thought you needed insurance. It’s cheaper to stay on your plan. That’s cheap.
See my #52. It is my position that the insurance and pharm companies own the hospitals in order to set their own prices. large cost of health care is what is driving insurance up. Meanwhile the insurance company is free to adjust it's bottom line by claiming write off out of it's hospital holdings.
It is insurance that keeps the cost up- It is never cheaper for someone else to pay your bills for you. The illusion of great cost is what props up the insurance health, and pharmaceutical industries.
Remove the insurance and the prices will fall in line by supply and demand.
"I have not really looked at insurance market profits in the last few years, but they were running 80% margins during the last major hurricanes in FLA."
Apples and Oranges. Health vs Property insurance?
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.