Posted on 02/08/2010 4:43:38 PM PST by UAConservative
Anthem Blue Cross of California should send back the reply: “None of your [expletive] business.”
That would thrill me to no end!
Actually did this in January - did not even wait for our annual review. increases almost 30% last year. We have continued to get less and less programs for employees due to this and keep them going. PPO members now pay over 1,300 a month. HMO’s are paying around 500 the company pays for 250 of it.
I’d take the opportunity to trace it to the unseen burden of free care to illegals that is goosing up medical prices all over.
Is this on top of their annual 20-25% increase?
Well, United Health Care has for us $257 in 2008 to $378 in 2009 to $511 in 2010.
Its pretty typical.
Gee, if only someone would propose the genius idea of making it ILLEGAL for all those greedy folks to drop their insurance. Problem solved!
Looks like it’s time for California to allow more residents to buy their insurance across state lines.
From what I’m hearing many insurers raised their rates effective January. Our company was notified by Horizon Blue Cross that they are raising our rates 30%. My daughters Health Ins. Co. raised their rates 25%.
It’s happening nationwide, so thank Obummer and his band of Marxists for that. I was told by our agent that the insurance companies saw it as their last hoorah to make money since they were certain that Health Care Reform was going to pass.
2) Make it illegal for any U.S. citizen to purchase health insurance.
3) All health expenses must be paid in cash, with credit cards, or with loaned money.
4) The U.S. government will act as the lender of last resort for those who cannot get the money they need any other way. The interest rate the U.S. government charges could be set to be higher than what private corporations are charging so as to truly be the lender of last resort.
5) Medical procedures for which people can get government loans should be strictly limited, e.g no tummy tucks, botox injections, aroma therapy, etc.
6) Noone is required to pay more than 10% of their gross income (if they are working) or 5% of their saved/invested income (if they are retired) in any year to pay for medical expenses.
7) If a person dies owing the government then up to 50% of their estate could be required to help pay down what they owe.
The only loss to the government/taxpayer is what is owed when a person dies minus the returns on loan interest. This should be considerably less than the government spends on Medicare, Medicaid, etc. and should require no more than a reasonably small percentage of the general fund each year.
This will encourage everyone to shop around for a reasonable compromise between quality and price.
This will encourage reasonably intelligent people to purchase preventative care now at a lower price, rather than get hit with much higher costs from untreated conditions later on.
This will encourage reasonably intelligent people to maintain healthy lifestyles as each person has a lifetime responsibility to payoff his/her own health expenses, along with the health expenses of their dependents.
Those few who try and remain unemployed so that they have to pay none of their health costs should be forced into some sort of work program so as to help pay down their health expenses.
Sufficient money needs to be spent to make sure that people who claim that their health problems prevent them from working are not just shirkers. Money also needs to be spent to make sure retirees aren't hiding saved/invested income. The amount of money necessary to monitor shirkers and skirters should be no more than the amount of money that is currently being spent to identify and prevent Medicare/Medicaid fraud.
Retirees who try to hide savings/investments may be deterred from doing so if the government interest rate is high, and some of their estate will eventually go to paying off the debt when they die: better to pay of the debt as soon as possible.
In a way, you are talking about Medicaid. Medicaid can and does go after your assets after you’re gone, as many a bewildered widow or widower has found.
Some of your other comments reek of nannyhood. Nannyhood arises almost anywhere a free market is not permitted to fill a void.
Medicaid shares one point of this proposed seven point plan.
Medicaid is as much like this proposed plan as a banana is like a yellow corvette.
The Insco’s shouldn’t have worried, because they would be kept busy administering Bummercare.
Take those fardels and put them where the sun don’t shine.
They initially paid goot money to lobbyist to get it to pass thinking it would force everyone into one of their programs - they forgot the gov plan and it all went south when they stopped paying politicians for it.
If they go into medicaid there is a 5-year look back on assets. When they die, the government will send a bill to the estate providing 9 months to pay it. For most families they have to sell the house. Average medicaid bill for life $400,000. Going to $1.2 million in 10 years.
How is this nannyhood? Most people will be able to pay for their health expenses through the private sector. The few who have to depend on government loans will be no different than those who currently depend on government loans for schooling.
The only "nannyish" thing about this is making health insurance illegal. A reasonable conservative argument can be made against insurance as it results in people paying for the support of others, to whom they have no relation.
Under the proposed system private charities could offer to pay health expenses and you would be free to contribute to those charities.
Where is it written that a person has a right to inherit a house from a parent?
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.