High deductible health insurance policies are supposed to be coupled with Health Savings Accounts so that insureds can accumulate savings to pay the high deductibles. If you can’t afford to put money into a savings account you shouldn’t have a high deductible policy.
What if you get sick the first year into your high deductible plan and have not had the time to save enough in your HSA? What if the only plan available to you you is a high deductible policy? What if you had savings in your HSA and were then diagnosed with cancer and it wiped out your HSA and then the cancer came back 18 months later, before you could rebuild your savings?
The HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS approach solves that problem and many others that result from the lack of / theft of freedoms by government mandated HI or employer sponsored group HI plans.
With more choices and freedom to chose, as exemplified by Ted Cruz’s proposal earlier this year, the market will correct all these ‘mistakes’ in judgement by the federal govt swamp creatures and bottom-line oriented HR Managers who decide on Group HI plan benefits. The latter group have incentive to discriminate against senior employees and older job applicants, thus, creating adverse selection in ACA plans that capture the ‘residual market’ of older, unemployed people, created in part by ACA provisions imposed on employers.
The solution that should be obvious to all but the most stubborn Socialists by now is greater / complete freedom of choice by HI consumers.
Oh Goody, I was thinking the exact same thing when I read this article. I chose a medical plan with a high deductible to save on the premiums and opened an HSA to cover the deductibles. It worked the way it was supposed to.
Anyone remember when Obamacare was passed and people got the plans they liked cancelled to populate the Mandated plan they didn’t want? In the face of all the huge rate increases, companies had to offer the high deductible plans and cost share with employees. Proper planning with HSA’s could have saved the day for many to pay normal medical expenses.
You and others often DEMAND the stats behind statements. Give us the stats showing the increases you mention in passing without stating their magnitude. We won’t be surprised why you didn’t post the actual stats in your original post.
“You and others often DEMAND the stats behind statements.”
And then you pretend to analyze them with your fake statistics degree you lie about getting.
June 28, 2018 at 2:12 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
6
This is sheer ignorance. Again a swing and a miss, from a kid, a whiny kid, who doesn’t know what statistics matter. You’re quoting numbers but you’re not interpreting what is important. Polar, you should have caught this, so this is on you too.
So then, a plan is passed to push people toward HSA’s, which is a high deductible type of tax credit scenario. So what happens when you get an HSA plan and an increased tax credit? You’re insuring for a worst case scenario, BY CHOICE. You seek out the high deductible plan, or you did more back then rather. The HSA was of course available for people who were trapped with them, but every statistic you quoted showed HSA’s tied to high deductible plans, NOT HSA’s forced due to an unavailability of lower deductible options. Do you understand the difference? This is child’s play study work Ron! And you call the people you debate ignorant? I cannot put into words the ignorance of your three links.
I might add there is some degree of debatability that this would be the solution to get entrance into the insurance market for people who would otherwise end up without insurance and becoming a pre-existing condition scenario.
If you get a high deductible plan for a worst case scenario, say $5,000, and the max out of pocket is $10,500 with a co pay of 60/40 and the coverage limit for cancer is say $250,000, if you have cancer, you will end up paying say $10,500. Buying a $1,000 deductible plan to pay for minor operations, and jacking the cost up to $500 per month instead of say $150 per month for one that is $5k deductible and then you can use an HSA to get a tax credit to help pay for it (something republicans are pushing for, it was either going to be an HSA or a tax credit in general) you then help the most vulnerable buy plans and you move forward with options for others.
Now, this is relevant because the real questions are these:
Did the ACA cause CARRIERS to offer higher deductible options, because costs of the lower deductible options were too expensive and not palatable in the market
And did the ACA FORCE insureds who would otherwise CHOOSE to have a lower deductible to settle for a higher one faster than would have otherwise occurred? I think the answer to this is a resounding YES. In the past, a huge portion of those moving to HSA’s, and this is why they were made, did so in order to get tax credit areas to pay for healthcare. Now, these people aren’t choosing it nearly as often. Higher deductibles are pretty much the norm due to costs increases, and Obama removing lower cost plans that he constantly said are junk plans which should never be sold (except for people who are young and just need a catastrophic plan…Sooo…He’s wrong), and the people using them now are taking advantage of it to shelter their lack of choice. This is something you have not pointed out.
By the way, one of your garbage charts shows that since 2009 the enrollment has continued to shoot up, initial shoot ups are expected, but going from 2 million to say 8 million, is entirely different than 8 million to 22 million from 2009 to 2018, even if the percentage is smaller. Do you know why? It’s because there are only so many people in the population in which it would make sense to get to, a threshold of sorts. 22 million is getting to an absurdly high percentage of the population, and you would not expect for it to continue to grow as fast as it has. So while you say it’s part of a trend, the trend is based on a scenario which would have thresholds, and should not be constant. That is another area of ignorance on your part. You don’t interpret these worth a darn. That’s from your second chart/study.
You may as well be saying: Look! After the HSA credits were passed in 2004 people continued to choose them and they continued to grow over time!
Thank you captain obvious, but again the question is what percentage of those people choose them back then, and what percent are being forced into them now?
The answer to that is obvious.
This ignorance is inexcusable on your part, especially with the snide behavior that goes with it, while you say how much these darn conservatives just don’t understand them maths and numbers.
No. You don’t.
June 28, 2018 at 2:27 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
6
1
bob,
Re-read my post and try again.
I guess you’re just another “stable genius”.
June 28, 2018 at 2:59 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
come on ron! why are you asking bob to re-read your post? you know he doesn’t read your posts anyway :)
June 28, 2018 at 3:07 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Good point!
June 28, 2018 at 4:18 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
3
@bob; I agree that Ron is layering data on this page without understanding what he is posting. I would have challenged it earlier if I had time this morning to reply in full. See my replies this afternoon. I did not bother to repeat or append to your points. Your replies have valid and insightful points.
The approach I have argued for is a Health Expense Account, which has a subtle but important distinction from an HSA. That is the only thing I can reveal now about HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS.
June 28, 2018 at 4:58 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
There’s FSAs, HRAs, HSAs, HFSAs and MSAs. Is your HEA one of those or is it a brand new type of health account that doesn’t exist now?
June 29, 2018 at 9:05 pm
SuPolaReme Bear says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
@UW; I couldn’t care less what you think my credential are, and you have no way of proving your claim.
June 28, 2018 at 3:59 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
Ron; the stats you provided in the first reply shows an ‘S-curve’ process, as can be expected for the ‘new product’, HSA combined with high deductibles. The raw numbers I saw were:
2005: 1.0 million participants
2006: 3.2 m [+220%]
2007: 4.5 m [+25%]
2008: 6.1 m [+36%]
2009: 8.0 m [+31%]
2010: 10.0 m [+25%]
2011: 11.4 m [+14%]
2012: 13.5 m [+18%]
2013: 15.5 m [+15%]
2014: NA
2015: 19.7 m [+12.7% annualized, over 2013-2015]
2016: 20.2 m [+3%]
Over 2006-2016, the annualized growth rate =(20.2/4.5)^.01 – 1 = +.162 = +16.2%.
This represents an ‘S-curve’ process, as I said above, with the process now approaching a ‘plateau’ where the growth rate will level off to approach 0%. I cannot see how you could argue that the ACA did not push up HSA participation relative to the projected plateau in the early 2010’s; i.e. years 2011-2013 seem to sustain a +12% growth rate rather than decrease monotonically as would an S-curve reaching the plateau point… The likely conclusion is a disruption of the S-curve process through an external force that sustains the +12% growth rate; i.e. ACA.
You incorrectly assume a level growth rate for HSA whereas the population is nearly fixed (i. e constant; 330 million US citizens), yielding a ceiling for growth (rates of increase must decrease toward zero).
Ask the sources for an explanation of the growth rates they posted and you pasted, and their interpretation. I just gave you mine.
Upon closer look the 2011-2013 growth rate average is closer to +13% than the +12% I stated above.
June 28, 2018 at 4:14 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Ooops! Correction to the above correction; the average growth rate is closer to 16% ( 15.5/10 ^ (1/3) = 1.157 ) than the +13% I said because I looked at the raw numbers (11.4, 13.5, 15.5) by mistake. Bear culpa.
June 29, 2018 at 8:31 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
All I said was that high deductible plans with HSAs pre-dated the PPACA and have been increasing since. What have you presented that disproves that statement?
You and bob are trying way too hard.
June 29, 2018 at 1:44 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
3
“All I said was that high deductible plans with HSAs pre-dated the PPACA and have been increasing since. What have you presented that disproves that statement?”
You said this in reply to someone saying that since the ACA high deductibles have become more prevalent, and it’s due to the ACA jacking up costs, as if to prove that because there were initial increases, it is the same as the increases now.
You’re full of it. You were trying to make agent look foolish, like he knew nothing.
The plans people chose back when the plan was passed to help people afford plans is not the same thing as the plans chosen now because people cannot afford lower deductibles, whereas they could before the ACA and did not choose the HSA credit at the time.
We aren’t trying to hard. You’re trying too hard to get Agent and the low intellect conservatives. Now you’re back pedaling because I cut you off at the knees and even you know it.
June 29, 2018 at 2:23 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
5
0
bob,
Please stop putting words in my mouth just so can you make a point.
Where in my original post did I provide any analysis. I was just providing a simple fact.
Grow up you ignorant child.
June 29, 2018 at 8:59 pm
SuPolaReme Bear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
@Ron; why not admit that your simple fact ignores the simple analysis that the ACA pushed health insurance purchasers to higher deductibles than they would have chosen had not the ACA been enacted. You shouldn’t have tried to make the simple point you did. We read the words that you wrote about the 2003 Medicare Part D Act, in your attempt to deflect from the point Agent made…. and I wouldn’t let you get away with it.
June 29, 2018 at 9:04 pm
PolaRepeal Bear says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
@Ron; we see your post as you wrote it as being a meager attempt to deflect attention from the point made by Agent. The idea that the MediCare Part D plan of 2003 was the source of the growth of deductibles seen in years since ACA was enacted is wrong, as I demonstrated in my post about the sustained growth contrary to the S-curve process resulting from introduction of a new product or process in a closed population (i.e. $330 million US citizens).
July 6, 2018 at 12:05 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
Ron, are you prepared to admit that you made a huge mistake voting for the former POTUS twice who has basically ruined the healthcare system of this country. This is not to mention his terrible economic plans which held the country back for 8 very long years. In a year and a half, our current great POTUS has almost completely rescued the country from the morass of Progressive Socialism. Had we elected the wicked witch of the East, she would have made things infinitely worse and enacted Hillarycare, the single payer nightmare of Biblical proportions. Not enough money in the world to pay for that.
Do you think all individuals have an option when it comes to choosing a health plan? Some employers, like mine, only gives you two choices for health insurance – take it or leave it. I had to take a $2,000 deductible plan (thank goodness it went down from $2,500 compared to last year), but I still can’t afford to pay $2,000 out of my pocket for medical bills. And I’m not eligible for a HSA since my husband has a FSA.
No mention of HSA accounts in this article. The other big part that is missing is what would the cost be if there was a low deductible? What would the out of pocket cost be with the lower deductible and co-pay? What are people prepared to pay for their medical expenses? This article goes out of its way to show the impact of relatively small expenses on some folks. This does not make a strong case against high deductible plans. They would write a story about someone who can’t pay their auto deductible too. I have had a high deductible plan by choice for a number of years and I like it. I would probably feel differently if it were rammed down my throat though.
The higher costs under ACA is forcing insureds to take higher deductibles to be able to afford SOME coverage under mandated coverage packages per ACA. The mandated coverages include some coverages that many do not need and will not ever need.
Not all employers give their employees the options. Many companies have made the switch to high deductible plans across the board and not all offer HSAs.
Health insurance needs to be made affordable for ALL!. I am a self employed insurance agent. Try to eat right & exercise. I had to sell my home a few years back to pay medical bills and get out from under the debt! Checked myself out of ER AMA last year when they wanted to admit me. Figured I would go home and take my chances.
What about Medicare? My spouse is on Medicare and because of my income, which is not that great, we average about $500 a month for two medications, insulin and a blood thinner. It is breaking us.
The deductibles mentioned in the article – $1,000 and $3,000 – are not usually seen as “high” deductibles (although they are more than my budget can handle). With the co-pays added on top of the deductibles, the true amount paid by the patient is much higher.
The newer true high deductible policies have much higher deductibles – those are the ones that qualify for the special HSA account. Given the option of a $1,000/$3,000 deductible or a plan with a $10,000/$30,000 deductible, I chose the lower deductibles. Still had to take a loan from my 401K to pay surprise bills on time but am in better shape then if I had selected the true High Deductible plan.
Here is a preview: HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS. Were you paying attention to the various components I discussed her over the last 3 years?
PS You will have to wait until the new Republicans replacing incumbent Democrats defeated in Nov. 2018 are seated in Jan., 2019. ACA will be repealed and replaced with freedoms given to the private market through the replacement plans. Note that I used the plural ‘plans’.
‘discussed here’, not ‘discussed her’. Bear culpa.
June 27, 2018 at 9:52 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
11
2
Uh huh…..suuuuuuuuuuuure it will buddy.
You said the HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS were supposed to be released immediately after Trump won the election. Then it was supposed to be right after he was inaugurated. Then it became early 2018. Now it’s after the mid-term elections.
Who knows how far you’ll kick the can down the road after the mid-terms? You might as well be predicting the end of the world with your “oops, didn’t happen when I said it would, but trust me, it’ll be soon!” shifting time frames.
June 28, 2018 at 4:08 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
4
@Rosenblatt; the delayed release of the HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS does not invalidate them… it merely shows more thought is going into the approach to implementation of a private market solution tied to the health care industry. The latter is the source of the high costs, when coupled with Medicare and Medicaid. The Federal govt needs to address the influence of M/M on health care costs before the private HI industry can control costs of the HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS approach. Legislation is needed, and it is being sidelined by other ‘politics’ in DC; e.g. Mueller’s fake investigation.
June 28, 2018 at 4:50 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
I will give you $1,000,000 in November 2017. No, wait, make that January 2018. Actually, let’s make it May 2018. My bad – I actually have 4 different plans to get you the money about 3-4 weeks after May 2018. Now that it’s June, I really meant you’d get paid December 2018.
I’ve been delaying paying you for over a year and always tell you after the “due date” has passed. Do you have ANY confidence that I’ll give you $1,000,000 next year or do you just expect me to keep kicking the can down the road until I die and don’t have to pay up?
June 28, 2018 at 6:25 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
“Uh huh…..suuuuuuuuuuuure it will buddy.
You said the HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS were supposed to be released immediately after Trump won the election. Then it was supposed to be right after he was inaugurated. Then it became early 2018. Now it’s after the mid-term elections.
Who knows how far you’ll kick the can down the road after the mid-terms? You might as well be predicting the end of the world with your “oops, didn’t happen when I said it would, but trust me, it’ll be soon!” shifting time frames.”
Health care specifics were released.
I’m getting really tired of this argument.
June 29, 2018 at 8:39 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Bob – not that I expect you to read my reply or respond, I was NOT talking about the plans the Republicans have released.
I was talking about PolarBeaRepeal’s constant “HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS – I can’t tell you what everything is until a certain date” nonsense.
June 29, 2018 at 1:46 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
“That is what President-elect Donald trump said, not me.
“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.””
As much as this ticks you off: This doesn’t matter.
Move on. Stop with the he said she said. It matters as little as Obama’s blatant lie on the $2,500 saved. Now lets focus on plans, not what you say someone said.
June 29, 2018 at 2:25 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
bob,
It matters biggly because this a president who was sold as someone who keeps his promises, makes deals, tells it like it is, is not a typical politician, and gets things done.
As soon as he releases his plan that satisfies his promise, we will discuss it.
June 27, 2018 at 11:10 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
6
2
confused,
Don’t forget the part where it will be provided to all, regardless of their ability to pay.
That is what President-elect Donald trump said, not me.
“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”
@Ron; the replacement phase hasn’t yet begun. Talk to us after it does.
June 26, 2018 at 2:14 pm
Michael says:
Like or Dislike:
8
3
I’ve been in the business over 30 years and this is one of the most meandering “insurance” articles I’ve read of late. It’s a little disappointing that the Insurance Journal felt this was newsworthy.
Michael, IJ has been pushing Obamacare for years without success. That comes from looking at things from the liberal perspective. Somehow, doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different result is how they think.
Nope; those were ‘false failures’. They were intended to get the Dems on the Congressional vote record, so their votes could be used against them in the subsequent elections. Did you notice how Dems have lost hundreds of seats in their states, and in The congress, over the time since ACA went into effect? THAT is success, not failure!
All of those votes occurred after the Republicans took over Congress in 2010.
In the 3 congressional elections since, Democrats gained seats in 2 of the 3.
Just admit that is was a waste of time since, if nothing else, the PPACA is still law.
June 30, 2018 at 7:56 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
The votes occurring after 2010 is correct. Who was POTUS then, with VETO power, a pen, and a phone? Waste of time is YOUR judgement. Did you miss the part of my post wherein I stated the votes were needed to get Democrats on the vote record, to be used against them in subsequent elections…. many of which they lost to Republican opponents… ?
July 2, 2018 at 7:55 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“Did you miss the part of my post wherein I stated the votes were needed to get Democrats on the vote record, to be used against them in subsequent elections…” That is great for the first time, maybe the next, but not 60+. At that point, it was a waste of time.
Did you miss the part of my post where I pointed out that Democrats actually gained seats in 2 of the 3 Congressional elections after the Republicans started wasting our time and tax dollars in 2011?
June 28, 2018 at 6:34 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
You try to lift a log. You fail. You try to lift a log and are stronger. You fail. You try to lift a log, you’re even stronger, you fail.
3 months pass, you lift the log.
The 60 months may have well been needed to get rid of the ACA. Failing any time doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have been done. Failing at lifting the log 60 times doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have been done. Success is measured in what you do, not how many times you fail. You’re talking about this just as ignorantly as Agent, but on the other side, so you lost by default. You are both now losers.
Agent had a weakness in what he said, but you chose instead false equivalency, and you lost it. You act just like your liberal cohorts, and it’s why even if there is a blue wave in November, democrats will continue to be faring badly, as they have since 1995. Since then they’ve done god awful.
Allow me to help you Ron:
Agent,
It doesn’t matter. What you just said, doesn’t matter. Who cares who pushed what and failed or succeeded. The question is how is the ACA bad or good and how can we improve it?
Let’s work on something new.
Bam.
THAT is how the democrats will win the next election.
If they did that when Trump went to scrap the ACA, I guarantee you they would have won the battle. Trump sounds buffoonish, he would lose by default the moment someone like Chuck Schumer said: I agree. This law is bad. President Trump, here are my ideas to add to your new bill.
Instead of saying: I refuse to work on any bill that isn’t the ACA, people will die, Trump is a hypocrite, let’s look at what he said about healthcare for all, blah blah blah.
It’s sad to watch you fall for the same pitfalls. “You mean like this?” always the ah ha you too! It’s stupid Ron.
1. Good thing you stopped reading my posts.
2. The log is still on the ground.
June 29, 2018 at 9:30 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
The Republicans have been telling us for nearly a decade that they’ve been working out and know exactly how to lift the log.
Even though they have Classes 1, 2 & 3 of levers since January 2017 (using that date since it’s when the Republicans held all 3 branches of government), the log is still on the ground.
June 29, 2018 at 1:54 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
“The Republicans have been telling us for nearly a decade that they’ve been working out and know exactly how to lift the log.
Even though they have Classes 1, 2 & 3 of levers since January 2017 (using that date since it’s when the Republicans held all 3 branches of government), the log is still on the ground.”
Holding all branches does not allow you to change the rules, they have not had a super majority. When all democrats block a plan, they are more responsible than the 3 republicans who do, and this literally just occurred. You claimed there were no plans. In this scenario they weren’t allowed to lift the log. Someone came in, and sat on it.
Just because that happens, it doesn’t mean they don’t know how to lift the log.
Your side is dishonest. You don’t agree with republican solutions. Run with that, and then debate. Don’t go with the: They are stupid, they have no plans! Ignoramus statement while digging your feet into the ground. I will NOT vote democrat while idiots like you do that. Want me on your side? Then stop this nonsensical method of arguing! Trump LITERALLY just won from it Rosenblatt! Look in the mirror! I don’t like politics, I don’t like conservatives, I just reamed Agent, and as much as I don’t like low level intellect conservatives, I despise dishonest people like you!
It’s not that hard to admit plans exist, and you just don’t agree with them, but you would rather take the ignorant path of saying they have none, and while you do, like I said, it’s a lie, and I won’t join your side.
Your side needs to learn to say “Here is what I don’t like about the republican plan” but you can’t, because it’s obvious you haven’t even looked it up or tried to understand it, and that’s on you!
June 29, 2018 at 3:04 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Again, you are wrong about what I meant and to whom I was responding with my “where’s the plan” comment. Take 2:
*Bob – not that I expect you to read my reply or respond, I was NOT talking about the plans the Republicans have released.
*I was talking about PolarBeaRepeal’s constant “HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS – I can’t tell you what everything is until a certain date” nonsense.
Now I fully expect you to either not reply, or (1) tell me what I wrote was not actually what I meant, and/or (2) insult me, and/or (3) raise a dozen unrelated questions, and/or (4) tell me I’m arguing incorrectly.
June 30, 2018 at 7:59 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
@Ron; the log isn’t on the ground. You refuse to see that TRA-17 removed the mandate to buy HI and the resulting acceleration of the Death Spiral.
July 3, 2018 at 9:30 am
Someguy says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
@bob
I can tell you what our side wants (at least what the voters want, admittedly a lot of elected democrats have had to be dragged to this position and plenty still aren’t in favor of it), medicare for all. Every other developed country has some form of it, and in all of them it covers everyone and costs less than our system. The republicans keep trying to sell the idea that the free market is a cure all for this. There isn’t going to be a free market solution to healthcare that ever comes close to a single payer system because there is zero financial incentive to cover anyone with a chronic/long term condition.
Seriously, to any republicans, if you were an insurer trying to make a profit, why would you ever cover someone who was born with a genetic disease, or developed a chronic illness at a young age, or got cancer at some point in their life, even if the cancer is in remission. You’re going to avoid covering those people as much as possible, and the ones you do cover you’ll try to limit their benefits as much as possible to control costs.
June 26, 2018 at 3:32 pm
Agent1 says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29
1
Not until somebody has the intestinal fortitude to tackle the elephant in the room nobody talks about will they be able to do anything about the healthcare crisis. That’s right, HEALTHCARE Crisis, not Health Insurance crisis. When are the Healthcare providers going to be looked at, when will they have to justify their charges. I don’t see much, if any competition between hospitals & clinics. Most Docs work for the big networks so they have become a smaller part of the non-conversation. Ask why a cat scan cost $1500 and another $1000 to have it read……you’ll be hard pressed to get an answer!! Its all smoke and mirrors. Even the “Not for Profits” just keep getting bigger and bigger. They even own their own collection agencies.
Ugh, yet another politically biased article from Insurance Journal. Notice the active language: “It started in 2003 when President George W. Bush and congressional Republicans passed a change to the tax code that encouraged employers to experiment with high-deductible plans,” and then the change to passive language: “…the arrival of Obamacare.” No mention of who passed this heinous law that forced everyone to buy insurance and forced insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.
Is there any question who passed that law? I mean, the dude’s name is right there in the first 5 letters of Obamacare. Do you really need more clarification than that??
You missed or ignored the word ‘experiment’. Unfortunately, so did some employers, who felt it was a license to reduce their costs through higher deductibles that weren’t in the best interest of their employees, and which discriminated, albeit indirectly, against older workers and older job applicants. Their experimenting was limited to their cost analysis, not the costs to employees. That’s a potential adverse impact of the language that was never intended by Republicans. They intended the legislation to allow more freedom of choice, but the choices were restricted by some greedy employers OR employers faced with the failure of their business during the economic meltdown of 2008 that pushed them to skew their plan choices to save overhead costs.
I didn’t miss or ignore “experiment” because that was referencing the 2003 actions.
Your rant has NOTHING to do with what I was saying to Krispy, who wrote “the arrival of Obamacare.” No mention of who passed this heinous law” as I simply replied saying Obama’s name is right there, so it doesn’t need to mention who is responsible for the failure that is the ACA.
The US Congress wrote the text of the law, and it passed it for Obama to sign. The law is nick-named after Obama because he was POTUS at the time, and he signed it into law. He also lied 29 times about it during his campaign for POTUS… If you like credit (blame) for it, you can keep your credit (blame) for it.
The issues the others were discussing was the blame put on Republicans for ‘experiementing’ with various deductibles… (with the author implying that later resulted in ACA being enacted with higher deductibles).
June 28, 2018 at 10:27 am
Karen says:
Like or Dislike:
6
0
It is not right that in the U.S., sick people cannot afford care.
Agreed. That is why numerous changes must be made, starting with the REPEAL of ACA, and continuing with legislation that allows private companies in the healthcare and health insurance industrial complex to compete, thus forcing them to innovate and find more efficient ways to do their business. The resulting cost savings will be passed back to consumers, including sick people, through market competition, not rolled into profits to be distributed to stockholders and executives as Socialists / Communists claim will happen. The HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS details provides an outline as to how this can happen, if Congress heeds those clues.
These big association plans have merit to negotiate prices on health premiums. We will see a lot more of that in the coming years. Also, across state lines which was one of the rejections of the leftist Democrats.
Please educate the class on how theses policies sold across state lines (interstate commerce) will be regulated? Feel free to cite the Constitution in your response. Trust me, it’s in there.
Employers who provide their employees with limited coverage or high deductible medical insurance plans do not value their employees. They view employees as a business expense and care little about an employee’s health or the health of the employee’s family, and they view an employee as totally replaceable. Welcome to the current world of business.
I forecast that in the next 5 years or so provided the economy continue to move in a positive direction we will start to see change. The only reason that employers can only offer these plans is a direct result of over supply in the labor market. Now that we are seeing unemployment numbers as we do eventually employers will start to absorb more of the costs and provide either lower deductible plans and or higher deposits into flexible medical spending accounts. As employers see employee’s as a resource employee’s will see themselves in the same way and seek out employment with benefits that fit the individuals needs. With the last 12 plus years of stagnant or decreasing employment opportunity employers could do as the wanted as the employee had no choice but to keep the job they had as there were so few other options.
I see the next 10 years being very interesting in our industry as more and more of my generation retire.
I am now in my 50s and have had employer provided healthcare since graduating college. Three years ago my employer was forced to go to high deductable health care because we could no longer have PPO “cadillac” plans mandated by ACA. Wow what a load of crap. Not only do I and my employer pay premiums over 20k a year, I am also wacked for eveything to 5k dollars. Cant even get a physical because the always talks about something pre existing so now its not preventative and you get billed for the visit. I and my family just stopped going to doctor at all to stop paying thousands of dollars for BS. Worst plan Ive ever had!!!! Thanks Obama for ruining healthcare for the American worker.
High deductible health insurance policies are supposed to be coupled with Health Savings Accounts so that insureds can accumulate savings to pay the high deductibles. If you can’t afford to put money into a savings account you shouldn’t have a high deductible policy.
What if you get sick the first year into your high deductible plan and have not had the time to save enough in your HSA? What if the only plan available to you you is a high deductible policy? What if you had savings in your HSA and were then diagnosed with cancer and it wiped out your HSA and then the cancer came back 18 months later, before you could rebuild your savings?
The HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS approach solves that problem and many others that result from the lack of / theft of freedoms by government mandated HI or employer sponsored group HI plans.
With more choices and freedom to chose, as exemplified by Ted Cruz’s proposal earlier this year, the market will correct all these ‘mistakes’ in judgement by the federal govt swamp creatures and bottom-line oriented HR Managers who decide on Group HI plan benefits. The latter group have incentive to discriminate against senior employees and older job applicants, thus, creating adverse selection in ACA plans that capture the ‘residual market’ of older, unemployed people, created in part by ACA provisions imposed on employers.
The solution that should be obvious to all but the most stubborn Socialists by now is greater / complete freedom of choice by HI consumers.
Oh Goody, I was thinking the exact same thing when I read this article. I chose a medical plan with a high deductible to save on the premiums and opened an HSA to cover the deductibles. It worked the way it was supposed to.
Anyone remember when Obamacare was passed and people got the plans they liked cancelled to populate the Mandated plan they didn’t want? In the face of all the huge rate increases, companies had to offer the high deductible plans and cost share with employees. Proper planning with HSA’s could have saved the day for many to pay normal medical expenses.
High deductible plans with HSAs started with the passing of the Medicare Prescription Drug Modernization Act in 2003.
They did become more prevalent after the passing of the ACA, but had been growing every year since 2004.
You and others often DEMAND the stats behind statements. Give us the stats showing the increases you mention in passing without stating their magnitude. We won’t be surprised why you didn’t post the actual stats in your original post.
I was going to reply with your usual response of Google it. Then i realized, I actually have a source. Unlike you.
https://conference.afponline.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/sp/cdhc-a-complete-legislation-history-and-its-impact-on-receivables-session-59.pdf
Here is another
https://www.ahip.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2016_HSASurvey_Draft_2.14.17.pdf
But wait, there’s more
https://www.ahip.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/HSA_Report_4.12.18.pdf
“You and others often DEMAND the stats behind statements.”
And then you pretend to analyze them with your fake statistics degree you lie about getting.
This is sheer ignorance. Again a swing and a miss, from a kid, a whiny kid, who doesn’t know what statistics matter. You’re quoting numbers but you’re not interpreting what is important. Polar, you should have caught this, so this is on you too.
So then, a plan is passed to push people toward HSA’s, which is a high deductible type of tax credit scenario. So what happens when you get an HSA plan and an increased tax credit? You’re insuring for a worst case scenario, BY CHOICE. You seek out the high deductible plan, or you did more back then rather. The HSA was of course available for people who were trapped with them, but every statistic you quoted showed HSA’s tied to high deductible plans, NOT HSA’s forced due to an unavailability of lower deductible options. Do you understand the difference? This is child’s play study work Ron! And you call the people you debate ignorant? I cannot put into words the ignorance of your three links.
I might add there is some degree of debatability that this would be the solution to get entrance into the insurance market for people who would otherwise end up without insurance and becoming a pre-existing condition scenario.
If you get a high deductible plan for a worst case scenario, say $5,000, and the max out of pocket is $10,500 with a co pay of 60/40 and the coverage limit for cancer is say $250,000, if you have cancer, you will end up paying say $10,500. Buying a $1,000 deductible plan to pay for minor operations, and jacking the cost up to $500 per month instead of say $150 per month for one that is $5k deductible and then you can use an HSA to get a tax credit to help pay for it (something republicans are pushing for, it was either going to be an HSA or a tax credit in general) you then help the most vulnerable buy plans and you move forward with options for others.
Now, this is relevant because the real questions are these:
Did the ACA cause CARRIERS to offer higher deductible options, because costs of the lower deductible options were too expensive and not palatable in the market
And did the ACA FORCE insureds who would otherwise CHOOSE to have a lower deductible to settle for a higher one faster than would have otherwise occurred? I think the answer to this is a resounding YES. In the past, a huge portion of those moving to HSA’s, and this is why they were made, did so in order to get tax credit areas to pay for healthcare. Now, these people aren’t choosing it nearly as often. Higher deductibles are pretty much the norm due to costs increases, and Obama removing lower cost plans that he constantly said are junk plans which should never be sold (except for people who are young and just need a catastrophic plan…Sooo…He’s wrong), and the people using them now are taking advantage of it to shelter their lack of choice. This is something you have not pointed out.
By the way, one of your garbage charts shows that since 2009 the enrollment has continued to shoot up, initial shoot ups are expected, but going from 2 million to say 8 million, is entirely different than 8 million to 22 million from 2009 to 2018, even if the percentage is smaller. Do you know why? It’s because there are only so many people in the population in which it would make sense to get to, a threshold of sorts. 22 million is getting to an absurdly high percentage of the population, and you would not expect for it to continue to grow as fast as it has. So while you say it’s part of a trend, the trend is based on a scenario which would have thresholds, and should not be constant. That is another area of ignorance on your part. You don’t interpret these worth a darn. That’s from your second chart/study.
You may as well be saying: Look! After the HSA credits were passed in 2004 people continued to choose them and they continued to grow over time!
Thank you captain obvious, but again the question is what percentage of those people choose them back then, and what percent are being forced into them now?
The answer to that is obvious.
This ignorance is inexcusable on your part, especially with the snide behavior that goes with it, while you say how much these darn conservatives just don’t understand them maths and numbers.
No. You don’t.
bob,
Re-read my post and try again.
I guess you’re just another “stable genius”.
come on ron! why are you asking bob to re-read your post? you know he doesn’t read your posts anyway :)
Good point!
@bob; I agree that Ron is layering data on this page without understanding what he is posting. I would have challenged it earlier if I had time this morning to reply in full. See my replies this afternoon. I did not bother to repeat or append to your points. Your replies have valid and insightful points.
The approach I have argued for is a Health Expense Account, which has a subtle but important distinction from an HSA. That is the only thing I can reveal now about HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS.
There’s FSAs, HRAs, HSAs, HFSAs and MSAs. Is your HEA one of those or is it a brand new type of health account that doesn’t exist now?
@UW; I couldn’t care less what you think my credential are, and you have no way of proving your claim.
Ron; the stats you provided in the first reply shows an ‘S-curve’ process, as can be expected for the ‘new product’, HSA combined with high deductibles. The raw numbers I saw were:
2005: 1.0 million participants
2006: 3.2 m [+220%]
2007: 4.5 m [+25%]
2008: 6.1 m [+36%]
2009: 8.0 m [+31%]
2010: 10.0 m [+25%]
2011: 11.4 m [+14%]
2012: 13.5 m [+18%]
2013: 15.5 m [+15%]
2014: NA
2015: 19.7 m [+12.7% annualized, over 2013-2015]
2016: 20.2 m [+3%]
Over 2006-2016, the annualized growth rate =(20.2/4.5)^.01 – 1 = +.162 = +16.2%.
This represents an ‘S-curve’ process, as I said above, with the process now approaching a ‘plateau’ where the growth rate will level off to approach 0%. I cannot see how you could argue that the ACA did not push up HSA participation relative to the projected plateau in the early 2010’s; i.e. years 2011-2013 seem to sustain a +12% growth rate rather than decrease monotonically as would an S-curve reaching the plateau point… The likely conclusion is a disruption of the S-curve process through an external force that sustains the +12% growth rate; i.e. ACA.
You incorrectly assume a level growth rate for HSA whereas the population is nearly fixed (i. e constant; 330 million US citizens), yielding a ceiling for growth (rates of increase must decrease toward zero).
Ask the sources for an explanation of the growth rates they posted and you pasted, and their interpretation. I just gave you mine.
Upon closer look the 2011-2013 growth rate average is closer to +13% than the +12% I stated above.
Ooops! Correction to the above correction; the average growth rate is closer to 16% ( 15.5/10 ^ (1/3) = 1.157 ) than the +13% I said because I looked at the raw numbers (11.4, 13.5, 15.5) by mistake. Bear culpa.
All I said was that high deductible plans with HSAs pre-dated the PPACA and have been increasing since. What have you presented that disproves that statement?
You and bob are trying way too hard.
“All I said was that high deductible plans with HSAs pre-dated the PPACA and have been increasing since. What have you presented that disproves that statement?”
You said this in reply to someone saying that since the ACA high deductibles have become more prevalent, and it’s due to the ACA jacking up costs, as if to prove that because there were initial increases, it is the same as the increases now.
You’re full of it. You were trying to make agent look foolish, like he knew nothing.
The plans people chose back when the plan was passed to help people afford plans is not the same thing as the plans chosen now because people cannot afford lower deductibles, whereas they could before the ACA and did not choose the HSA credit at the time.
We aren’t trying to hard. You’re trying too hard to get Agent and the low intellect conservatives. Now you’re back pedaling because I cut you off at the knees and even you know it.
bob,
Please stop putting words in my mouth just so can you make a point.
Where in my original post did I provide any analysis. I was just providing a simple fact.
Grow up you ignorant child.
@Ron; why not admit that your simple fact ignores the simple analysis that the ACA pushed health insurance purchasers to higher deductibles than they would have chosen had not the ACA been enacted. You shouldn’t have tried to make the simple point you did. We read the words that you wrote about the 2003 Medicare Part D Act, in your attempt to deflect from the point Agent made…. and I wouldn’t let you get away with it.
@Ron; we see your post as you wrote it as being a meager attempt to deflect attention from the point made by Agent. The idea that the MediCare Part D plan of 2003 was the source of the growth of deductibles seen in years since ACA was enacted is wrong, as I demonstrated in my post about the sustained growth contrary to the S-curve process resulting from introduction of a new product or process in a closed population (i.e. $330 million US citizens).
Ron, are you prepared to admit that you made a huge mistake voting for the former POTUS twice who has basically ruined the healthcare system of this country. This is not to mention his terrible economic plans which held the country back for 8 very long years. In a year and a half, our current great POTUS has almost completely rescued the country from the morass of Progressive Socialism. Had we elected the wicked witch of the East, she would have made things infinitely worse and enacted Hillarycare, the single payer nightmare of Biblical proportions. Not enough money in the world to pay for that.
Do you think all individuals have an option when it comes to choosing a health plan? Some employers, like mine, only gives you two choices for health insurance – take it or leave it. I had to take a $2,000 deductible plan (thank goodness it went down from $2,500 compared to last year), but I still can’t afford to pay $2,000 out of my pocket for medical bills. And I’m not eligible for a HSA since my husband has a FSA.
No choice means no / little freedom. Are you finally understanding the root of the problem?
No mention of HSA accounts in this article. The other big part that is missing is what would the cost be if there was a low deductible? What would the out of pocket cost be with the lower deductible and co-pay? What are people prepared to pay for their medical expenses? This article goes out of its way to show the impact of relatively small expenses on some folks. This does not make a strong case against high deductible plans. They would write a story about someone who can’t pay their auto deductible too. I have had a high deductible plan by choice for a number of years and I like it. I would probably feel differently if it were rammed down my throat though.
The higher costs under ACA is forcing insureds to take higher deductibles to be able to afford SOME coverage under mandated coverage packages per ACA. The mandated coverages include some coverages that many do not need and will not ever need.
Not all employers give their employees the options. Many companies have made the switch to high deductible plans across the board and not all offer HSAs.
Health insurance needs to be made affordable for ALL!. I am a self employed insurance agent. Try to eat right & exercise. I had to sell my home a few years back to pay medical bills and get out from under the debt! Checked myself out of ER AMA last year when they wanted to admit me. Figured I would go home and take my chances.
What about Medicare? My spouse is on Medicare and because of my income, which is not that great, we average about $500 a month for two medications, insulin and a blood thinner. It is breaking us.
The deductibles mentioned in the article – $1,000 and $3,000 – are not usually seen as “high” deductibles (although they are more than my budget can handle). With the co-pays added on top of the deductibles, the true amount paid by the patient is much higher.
The newer true high deductible policies have much higher deductibles – those are the ones that qualify for the special HSA account. Given the option of a $1,000/$3,000 deductible or a plan with a $10,000/$30,000 deductible, I chose the lower deductibles. Still had to take a loan from my 401K to pay surprise bills on time but am in better shape then if I had selected the true High Deductible plan.
Thank you Obamacare for messing up the Healthcare of the country. Your Progressive scam is imploding all over the country.
still waiting on the trump plan of affordable coverage for everyone!
Here is a preview: HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS. Were you paying attention to the various components I discussed her over the last 3 years?
PS You will have to wait until the new Republicans replacing incumbent Democrats defeated in Nov. 2018 are seated in Jan., 2019. ACA will be repealed and replaced with freedoms given to the private market through the replacement plans. Note that I used the plural ‘plans’.
‘discussed here’, not ‘discussed her’. Bear culpa.
Uh huh…..suuuuuuuuuuuure it will buddy.
You said the HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS were supposed to be released immediately after Trump won the election. Then it was supposed to be right after he was inaugurated. Then it became early 2018. Now it’s after the mid-term elections.
Who knows how far you’ll kick the can down the road after the mid-terms? You might as well be predicting the end of the world with your “oops, didn’t happen when I said it would, but trust me, it’ll be soon!” shifting time frames.
@Rosenblatt; the delayed release of the HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS does not invalidate them… it merely shows more thought is going into the approach to implementation of a private market solution tied to the health care industry. The latter is the source of the high costs, when coupled with Medicare and Medicaid. The Federal govt needs to address the influence of M/M on health care costs before the private HI industry can control costs of the HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS approach. Legislation is needed, and it is being sidelined by other ‘politics’ in DC; e.g. Mueller’s fake investigation.
I will give you $1,000,000 in November 2017. No, wait, make that January 2018. Actually, let’s make it May 2018. My bad – I actually have 4 different plans to get you the money about 3-4 weeks after May 2018. Now that it’s June, I really meant you’d get paid December 2018.
I’ve been delaying paying you for over a year and always tell you after the “due date” has passed. Do you have ANY confidence that I’ll give you $1,000,000 next year or do you just expect me to keep kicking the can down the road until I die and don’t have to pay up?
“Uh huh…..suuuuuuuuuuuure it will buddy.
You said the HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS were supposed to be released immediately after Trump won the election. Then it was supposed to be right after he was inaugurated. Then it became early 2018. Now it’s after the mid-term elections.
Who knows how far you’ll kick the can down the road after the mid-terms? You might as well be predicting the end of the world with your “oops, didn’t happen when I said it would, but trust me, it’ll be soon!” shifting time frames.”
Health care specifics were released.
I’m getting really tired of this argument.
Bob – not that I expect you to read my reply or respond, I was NOT talking about the plans the Republicans have released.
I was talking about PolarBeaRepeal’s constant “HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS – I can’t tell you what everything is until a certain date” nonsense.
“That is what President-elect Donald trump said, not me.
“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.””
As much as this ticks you off: This doesn’t matter.
Move on. Stop with the he said she said. It matters as little as Obama’s blatant lie on the $2,500 saved. Now lets focus on plans, not what you say someone said.
bob,
It matters biggly because this a president who was sold as someone who keeps his promises, makes deals, tells it like it is, is not a typical politician, and gets things done.
As soon as he releases his plan that satisfies his promise, we will discuss it.
confused,
Don’t forget the part where it will be provided to all, regardless of their ability to pay.
No, forget that part. It won’t fly.
That is what President-elect Donald trump said, not me.
“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-obamacare/trump-vows-insurance-for-everybody-in-replacing-obamacare-idUSKBN15005C
@Ron; the replacement phase hasn’t yet begun. Talk to us after it does.
I’ve been in the business over 30 years and this is one of the most meandering “insurance” articles I’ve read of late. It’s a little disappointing that the Insurance Journal felt this was newsworthy.
Michael, IJ has been pushing Obamacare for years without success. That comes from looking at things from the liberal perspective. Somehow, doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different result is how they think.
“Somehow, doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different result is how they think.” Like 60+ FAILED attempts to repeal the law?
Nope; those were ‘false failures’. They were intended to get the Dems on the Congressional vote record, so their votes could be used against them in the subsequent elections. Did you notice how Dems have lost hundreds of seats in their states, and in The congress, over the time since ACA went into effect? THAT is success, not failure!
All of those votes occurred after the Republicans took over Congress in 2010.
In the 3 congressional elections since, Democrats gained seats in 2 of the 3.
Just admit that is was a waste of time since, if nothing else, the PPACA is still law.
The votes occurring after 2010 is correct. Who was POTUS then, with VETO power, a pen, and a phone? Waste of time is YOUR judgement. Did you miss the part of my post wherein I stated the votes were needed to get Democrats on the vote record, to be used against them in subsequent elections…. many of which they lost to Republican opponents… ?
“Did you miss the part of my post wherein I stated the votes were needed to get Democrats on the vote record, to be used against them in subsequent elections…” That is great for the first time, maybe the next, but not 60+. At that point, it was a waste of time.
Did you miss the part of my post where I pointed out that Democrats actually gained seats in 2 of the 3 Congressional elections after the Republicans started wasting our time and tax dollars in 2011?
You try to lift a log. You fail. You try to lift a log and are stronger. You fail. You try to lift a log, you’re even stronger, you fail.
3 months pass, you lift the log.
The 60 months may have well been needed to get rid of the ACA. Failing any time doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have been done. Failing at lifting the log 60 times doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have been done. Success is measured in what you do, not how many times you fail. You’re talking about this just as ignorantly as Agent, but on the other side, so you lost by default. You are both now losers.
Agent had a weakness in what he said, but you chose instead false equivalency, and you lost it. You act just like your liberal cohorts, and it’s why even if there is a blue wave in November, democrats will continue to be faring badly, as they have since 1995. Since then they’ve done god awful.
Allow me to help you Ron:
Agent,
It doesn’t matter. What you just said, doesn’t matter. Who cares who pushed what and failed or succeeded. The question is how is the ACA bad or good and how can we improve it?
Let’s work on something new.
Bam.
THAT is how the democrats will win the next election.
If they did that when Trump went to scrap the ACA, I guarantee you they would have won the battle. Trump sounds buffoonish, he would lose by default the moment someone like Chuck Schumer said: I agree. This law is bad. President Trump, here are my ideas to add to your new bill.
Instead of saying: I refuse to work on any bill that isn’t the ACA, people will die, Trump is a hypocrite, let’s look at what he said about healthcare for all, blah blah blah.
It’s sad to watch you fall for the same pitfalls. “You mean like this?” always the ah ha you too! It’s stupid Ron.
bob,
1. Good thing you stopped reading my posts.
2. The log is still on the ground.
The Republicans have been telling us for nearly a decade that they’ve been working out and know exactly how to lift the log.
Even though they have Classes 1, 2 & 3 of levers since January 2017 (using that date since it’s when the Republicans held all 3 branches of government), the log is still on the ground.
“The Republicans have been telling us for nearly a decade that they’ve been working out and know exactly how to lift the log.
Even though they have Classes 1, 2 & 3 of levers since January 2017 (using that date since it’s when the Republicans held all 3 branches of government), the log is still on the ground.”
Holding all branches does not allow you to change the rules, they have not had a super majority. When all democrats block a plan, they are more responsible than the 3 republicans who do, and this literally just occurred. You claimed there were no plans. In this scenario they weren’t allowed to lift the log. Someone came in, and sat on it.
Just because that happens, it doesn’t mean they don’t know how to lift the log.
Your side is dishonest. You don’t agree with republican solutions. Run with that, and then debate. Don’t go with the: They are stupid, they have no plans! Ignoramus statement while digging your feet into the ground. I will NOT vote democrat while idiots like you do that. Want me on your side? Then stop this nonsensical method of arguing! Trump LITERALLY just won from it Rosenblatt! Look in the mirror! I don’t like politics, I don’t like conservatives, I just reamed Agent, and as much as I don’t like low level intellect conservatives, I despise dishonest people like you!
It’s not that hard to admit plans exist, and you just don’t agree with them, but you would rather take the ignorant path of saying they have none, and while you do, like I said, it’s a lie, and I won’t join your side.
Your side needs to learn to say “Here is what I don’t like about the republican plan” but you can’t, because it’s obvious you haven’t even looked it up or tried to understand it, and that’s on you!
Again, you are wrong about what I meant and to whom I was responding with my “where’s the plan” comment. Take 2:
*Bob – not that I expect you to read my reply or respond, I was NOT talking about the plans the Republicans have released.
*I was talking about PolarBeaRepeal’s constant “HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS – I can’t tell you what everything is until a certain date” nonsense.
Now I fully expect you to either not reply, or (1) tell me what I wrote was not actually what I meant, and/or (2) insult me, and/or (3) raise a dozen unrelated questions, and/or (4) tell me I’m arguing incorrectly.
@Ron; the log isn’t on the ground. You refuse to see that TRA-17 removed the mandate to buy HI and the resulting acceleration of the Death Spiral.
@bob
I can tell you what our side wants (at least what the voters want, admittedly a lot of elected democrats have had to be dragged to this position and plenty still aren’t in favor of it), medicare for all. Every other developed country has some form of it, and in all of them it covers everyone and costs less than our system. The republicans keep trying to sell the idea that the free market is a cure all for this. There isn’t going to be a free market solution to healthcare that ever comes close to a single payer system because there is zero financial incentive to cover anyone with a chronic/long term condition.
Seriously, to any republicans, if you were an insurer trying to make a profit, why would you ever cover someone who was born with a genetic disease, or developed a chronic illness at a young age, or got cancer at some point in their life, even if the cancer is in remission. You’re going to avoid covering those people as much as possible, and the ones you do cover you’ll try to limit their benefits as much as possible to control costs.
Not until somebody has the intestinal fortitude to tackle the elephant in the room nobody talks about will they be able to do anything about the healthcare crisis. That’s right, HEALTHCARE Crisis, not Health Insurance crisis. When are the Healthcare providers going to be looked at, when will they have to justify their charges. I don’t see much, if any competition between hospitals & clinics. Most Docs work for the big networks so they have become a smaller part of the non-conversation. Ask why a cat scan cost $1500 and another $1000 to have it read……you’ll be hard pressed to get an answer!! Its all smoke and mirrors. Even the “Not for Profits” just keep getting bigger and bigger. They even own their own collection agencies.
I should have become a bankruptcy attorney rather than an insurance agent. Ha.
Ugh, yet another politically biased article from Insurance Journal. Notice the active language: “It started in 2003 when President George W. Bush and congressional Republicans passed a change to the tax code that encouraged employers to experiment with high-deductible plans,” and then the change to passive language: “…the arrival of Obamacare.” No mention of who passed this heinous law that forced everyone to buy insurance and forced insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.
Is there any question who passed that law? I mean, the dude’s name is right there in the first 5 letters of Obamacare. Do you really need more clarification than that??
You missed or ignored the word ‘experiment’. Unfortunately, so did some employers, who felt it was a license to reduce their costs through higher deductibles that weren’t in the best interest of their employees, and which discriminated, albeit indirectly, against older workers and older job applicants. Their experimenting was limited to their cost analysis, not the costs to employees. That’s a potential adverse impact of the language that was never intended by Republicans. They intended the legislation to allow more freedom of choice, but the choices were restricted by some greedy employers OR employers faced with the failure of their business during the economic meltdown of 2008 that pushed them to skew their plan choices to save overhead costs.
I didn’t miss or ignore “experiment” because that was referencing the 2003 actions.
Your rant has NOTHING to do with what I was saying to Krispy, who wrote “the arrival of Obamacare.” No mention of who passed this heinous law” as I simply replied saying Obama’s name is right there, so it doesn’t need to mention who is responsible for the failure that is the ACA.
The US Congress wrote the text of the law, and it passed it for Obama to sign. The law is nick-named after Obama because he was POTUS at the time, and he signed it into law. He also lied 29 times about it during his campaign for POTUS… If you like credit (blame) for it, you can keep your credit (blame) for it.
The issues the others were discussing was the blame put on Republicans for ‘experiementing’ with various deductibles… (with the author implying that later resulted in ACA being enacted with higher deductibles).
It is not right that in the U.S., sick people cannot afford care.
Agreed. That is why numerous changes must be made, starting with the REPEAL of ACA, and continuing with legislation that allows private companies in the healthcare and health insurance industrial complex to compete, thus forcing them to innovate and find more efficient ways to do their business. The resulting cost savings will be passed back to consumers, including sick people, through market competition, not rolled into profits to be distributed to stockholders and executives as Socialists / Communists claim will happen. The HEALTH CARE SPPECIFICCS details provides an outline as to how this can happen, if Congress heeds those clues.
These big association plans have merit to negotiate prices on health premiums. We will see a lot more of that in the coming years. Also, across state lines which was one of the rejections of the leftist Democrats.
Please educate the class on how theses policies sold across state lines (interstate commerce) will be regulated? Feel free to cite the Constitution in your response. Trust me, it’s in there.
Employers who provide their employees with limited coverage or high deductible medical insurance plans do not value their employees. They view employees as a business expense and care little about an employee’s health or the health of the employee’s family, and they view an employee as totally replaceable. Welcome to the current world of business.
I forecast that in the next 5 years or so provided the economy continue to move in a positive direction we will start to see change. The only reason that employers can only offer these plans is a direct result of over supply in the labor market. Now that we are seeing unemployment numbers as we do eventually employers will start to absorb more of the costs and provide either lower deductible plans and or higher deposits into flexible medical spending accounts. As employers see employee’s as a resource employee’s will see themselves in the same way and seek out employment with benefits that fit the individuals needs. With the last 12 plus years of stagnant or decreasing employment opportunity employers could do as the wanted as the employee had no choice but to keep the job they had as there were so few other options.
I see the next 10 years being very interesting in our industry as more and more of my generation retire.
He was wrong. Can we just focus on the current liar-in-chief?
I am now in my 50s and have had employer provided healthcare since graduating college. Three years ago my employer was forced to go to high deductable health care because we could no longer have PPO “cadillac” plans mandated by ACA. Wow what a load of crap. Not only do I and my employer pay premiums over 20k a year, I am also wacked for eveything to 5k dollars. Cant even get a physical because the always talks about something pre existing so now its not preventative and you get billed for the visit. I and my family just stopped going to doctor at all to stop paying thousands of dollars for BS. Worst plan Ive ever had!!!! Thanks Obama for ruining healthcare for the American worker.