Healthcare Reform Just Starting to Kick In

[mrmeangenes]

I've read - in postings here and elsewhere-how healthcare reform is causing crowding in ERs,forcing Phusicians to abandon patients, and (the biggie) "just not working" ; and I've wondered about the validity of tjese tales of woe.

Now comes a clarifying story on the AP wire: Benefits are JUST STARTING
to "kick in" :

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100706/ap_on_bi_ge/us_expanding_health_insurance


(So much for the credibility of the "naysayers" !)

[kres24GT]

Not saying there is any truth to the "tales of woe", I personally think it will be a couple years before we see any benefits/consequences. However it is possible for people to act proactively. Because the law had not kicked in yet, does not prevent people from responding to it with new business policies.

[John Galt]

It's nice that a certain segment of the population will be receiving care that they wouldn't have previously.

However, this bullshit law does nothing to reduce costs to those of us who pay through the nose for healthcare, to fund everyone else's shortfalls.

Many Americans covered through employers won't see the changes until Jan. 1, the start of their next health plan year. That means 2011 will be the first year that the early benefits are fully in place.

What that entails for costs is a matter of intense speculation. A recent survey of employers by Mercer, a major benefits consultant, found that 42 percent expect an increase of 2 percent or less, while one-fourth expect an increase of 3 percent or more. Government estimates are generally lower.

Beth Umland, research director for Mercer, said employers were expecting health cost increases averaging about 6 percent a year before the law. "Now they are looking at an additional 2 or 3 points, so that 6 percent can become a 9 percent, and that seems to be above their comfort level," she said.

Dave Osterndorf, chief health actuary for the Towers Watson consulting firm, said large employers will respond by passing on costs to their workers. "These first few changes, in and of themselves, will not dramatically change the way employers look at the provision of health benefits," he said. "Employers will feel part of the impact, and employees will feel part."
9 percent? That's viewed as a potential problem?

I just got a 60% increase in premiums. There is nothing in this legisaltion to stop ins. companies from continuing to rape policyholders, in order to maximize profits.



Nor is there anything that offered me any type of option to shop elsewhere.

[MichMike]

It's nice that a certain segment of the population will be receiving care that they wouldn't have previously.

However, this bullshit law does nothing to reduce costs to those of us who pay through the nose for healthcare, to fund everyone else's shortfalls.


9 percent? That's viewed as a potential problem?

I just got a 60% increase in premiums. There is nothing in this legisaltion to stop ins. companies from continuing to rape policyholders, in order to maximize profits.



Nor is there anything that offered me any type of option to shop elsewhere.


There are yearly out of pocket caps...after which insurance companies pick up the tab. This will reduce the number of people that go bankrupt due to healthcare costs. Lifetime limits will be banned...helping if you become seriously ill. Also, the cost - I've documented - of NOT insuring people but demanding the medical community help with the sick in emergency rooms (Reagan's National Healthcare Bill) is about 100 billion a year. Much of this goes away as well. Lastly, comparitive studies within Medicare and Medicaid will help you as will the elimination of Medicare Advantage (a free market bloating government scam) - indirectly as costs for these government programs will go down.

The problem with costs centers on the massive government subsidies that employers get - these subsidies partially hides the true cost of healthcare from the consumer. This bill DOES address that with the Cadillac Tax...but this tax was pushed back.


Costs? This bill is far from perfect, but better than the old mess of a system.

[John Galt]

There are yearly out of pocket caps...after which insurance companies pick up the tab. This will reduce the number of people that go bankrupt due to healthcare costs. Lifetime limits will be banned...helping if you become seriously ill. Also, the cost - I've documented - of NOT insuring people but demanding the medical community help with the sick in emergency rooms (Reagan's National Healthcare Bill) is about 100 billion a year. Much of this goes away as well. Lastly, comparitive studies within Medicare and Medicaid will help you as will the elimination of Medicare Advantage (a free market bloating government scam) - indirectly as costs for these government programs will go down.

The problem with costs centers on the massive government subsidies that employers get - these subsidies partially hides the true cost of healthcare from the consumer. This bill DOES address that with the Cadillac Tax...but this tax was pushed back.


Costs? This bill is far from perfect, but better than the old mess of a system.
I agree that this bill tickled a few of the inherent problems in this nation.

The problem, is that it did absolutely nothing to those of us who always get caught footing the bill.


We were sold to the highest bidder. This was never about true reform.

Otherwise, I'd have a public option to look forward to. Instead, by 2014 I'll be paying triple what I pay now.


And the shareholders will be taking that to the bank.

[MichMike]

I agree that this bill tickled a few of the inherent problems in this nation.

The problem, is that it did absolutely nothing to those of us who always get caught footing the bill.


We were sold to the highest bidder. This was never about true reform.

Otherwise, I'd have a public option to look forward to. Instead, by 2014 I'll be paying triple what I pay now.


And the shareholders will be taking that to the bank.



Do you have any research claiming that the cost curve of the old system was somehow going to go down or be superior to the new system at all? This would fly in the face of all CBO analysis.

I don't have any issues with your concerns about healthcare costs, but it seems to me the new system has a much better chance of keeping costs in check than the old one did. The old one was out of control. Moreover, we can always change the parts that don't work out.

Insurance companies fought this with all of their might...their shareholders are hoping to go back to the old system...let's not let that happen.

[John Galt]

Do you have any research claiming that the cost curve of the old system was somehow going to go down or be superior to the new system at all? This would fly in the face of all CBO analysis.

I don't have any issues with your concerns about healthcare costs, but it seems to me the new system has a much better chance of keeping costs in check than the old one did. The old one was out of control. Moreover, we can always change the parts that don't work out.

Insurance companies fought this with all of their might...their shareholders are hoping to go back to the old system...let's not let that happen.
We have no way of knowing what the cost curves will look like with this new legislation.

I'd be inclined to agree that it couldn't possibly be worse than the old way.

But...we now see increased demands on insurance companies, with absolutely no restrictions on premium increases. Yes...in many respects, costs to the insurance companies will decrease...

That won't translate to savings for me.

I was angry when I heard about 39% increases in California. How do you think I felt when I got my 60% increase?

I don't even use prescription drugs.


My primary complaint in this debate, is the issue of why a public option was never on the table?

If we are to believe in the free market system, then the only way to control insurance costs is to create competition.

I'm going to have 'pools' to choose from in 4 years? What the hell am I going to do until then?


You and I were on the same page during the drawing up of this bill.

The crap that came out of this, does absolutely nothing for me. Yes...the ER method of healthcare will be gone. But...there's nothing that keeps my costs down, while the ins. companies will no doubt reap record profits.


I see no chance of any changes to this bill. Until/unless the dems. pick up a handful of seats in Nov, there will never be anything but party line bullshit in the halls of Congress.



Single payer was a pipedream, that couldn't be funded without massive tax increases. I need to know why a public option was squashed.

Other than the influx of millions of lobbyist dollars, that is.

[mrmeangenes]

The single payer option WAS on the table-but was shouted and screamed down.

[doctordog]

it is just a shame that the working population of this country is being forced to subsidize this when many of the people without made choices early on to be without and now everyone is in the penalty box.

[John Galt]

The single payer option WAS on the table-but was shouted and screamed down.
Single payer isn't a viable option. It never had a chance.