Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Companies To Drop Healthcare Insurance Due To Obamacare

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Companies To Drop Healthcare Insurance Due To Obamacare

    Another benefit of "free" healthcare.

  • #2
    Another benefit of "free" healthcare.

    Comment


    • #3
      Meanwhile back in the real world...the GOP's plan for Medicare Reform appears to be a surefire winner for them...NOT!

      Majority gives thumbs down to Ryan plan

      A new national poll indicates that a majority of Americans don't like what they've heard so far about congressional Republicans' plans to change Medicare.

      "Half of those we questioned say that the country would be worse off under the GOP Medicare proposals and 56 percent think that GOP plan would be bad for the elderly," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Opposition is highest among senior citizens, at 74 percent , suggesting that seniors are most worried about changes to Medicare even if those changes are presented as ones that would not affect existing Medicare recipients."

      "A majority of all demographic groups don't favor the GOP Medicare proposals," Holland adds. "That includes conservatives - 54 percent of them don't like the plan. As a result, rank-and-file Republicans are split right down the middle, with 48 percent favoring the GOP plan and 50 percent opposed."

      CNN.com
      "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

      Comment


      • #4
        The cost of health insurance rose dramatically in the past 10 years. From mere $20 pay check deductions per week with zero to $10 deductibles to hefty $900 per month for a family of four nowdays.
        As if it wasn't enough, with the beginning of Obamacare debate the coverage providers introduced 20% out of pocket cost on top of increased deductibles.
        And all this 3 years before Obamacare kicks in!
        Who would buy health insurance now? How do you pay $900 per month plus 20% out of pocket for each screening/testing procedure , with multiple bills making total out of pocket cost $900 X 12 + (PLUS!) $1000-$2000 for routine checks that you may need even if you are perfectly healthy?
        If average American makes around $30K per year, what is he or she going to live on after paying taxes and insurance costs?

        Consider the inflation in past 20 years (never forget cost of gasoline and housing that rose at significantly higher rate than the rest of the basket) , and you will see that today's average American after deducting health-care costs is not better off than a welfare recipient in pre-welfare reform era.

        How do you explain that?
        http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

        "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

        Comment


        • #5
          The cost will rise whatever (or not) is done. 87% increase in healthcare premiums over a 10 year period and that's in a private for-profit healthcare run market with no government subsidies. Hardly a stellar record.

          With or without Obamacare, the rates will continue to increase. Eventually few will be able to afford it as you say and the whole for-profit system will collapse and government will be forced to pick up the tab.

          The cost must be contained now. Allowing an open-ended check system to continue will result in a healthcare bubble which will eventually burst much the way the financial one burst 3 years ago.
          "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

          Comment


          • #6
            The 'government' will pick up the tab? As if to say it's now somehow free. Why not disclose the source of the funds you think should pay for it?

            Look into it before speaking. The truth is we don't have enough doctors. A shortage of them causes per patient time to be very high. No, we don't need to lower the standard and increase H1 quotas. We need to force the controlling entities over med school admissions to allow more people wanting to be doctors to become them.

            Next is the cost of medicine. This is one of, if not only country that does not have price controls on medicine. Because of this cross border fraud we carry the burden for the rest of the world that doesn't pay their share for medicine. That is why medicine costs anywhere from 500 to 10,000% more here than what it costs somewhere else. We're subsidizing another country's welfare state.

            Last is litigation. Do away with the ability to sue for frivolous malpractice and that alone will lower the income requirements per doctor. They won't have to allocate 250,000 a year for lawsuit insurance.
            This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

            Comment


            • #7
              What will happen if/when the doctors and hospitals go bust because so few can afford the insurance premiums? No treatment unless the government steps in much the way they did with bailing out the banks. If you say they shouldn't do it because that's unfair then you condemn millions of people to no healthcare at all. Is that what you would like??

              You listen to yourself. "We're subsiding other countries welfare state". BS. Turn it around. Why don't we do what those countries do and control the costs for their own population?? Why should we allow Big Pharma to get away with out of all proportion drug price increases?

              Fewer doctors is likely more because Med School has gotten so expensive here that few USCs can afford it now. There has always been a market for medical staff from abroad and that will always be the case...in almost any country. Check that out.

              Lower standards? BS. Tell that to an NHS doctor. I've posted the qualifications required on here before. As usual you ignore that and go off into your fantasy wingnut view of the world.

              As for liability insurance, 3% is the likely difference it will make by doing away with "frivolous lawsuits", most of which already get thrown out long before it would see the light of day in a court anyway.
              "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

              Comment


              • #8
                Obviously you don't understand the impact of socialized medicine price controls. Perhaps an example will cure what ills your economic ignorance. Lets say Bayer makes aspirin and it's cost is 5.00 a bottle. There are 100 bottles made and distributed world wide. In a non-socialist world everyone would pay the same 5.00. No complaints.

                What we have though is 90 of those bottles being sold for 50 cents in the socialist cost controlled countries because they know the good ole U.S. of A will pick up the tab. For those 10 bottles sold here they each become about 45.00 just to stay even. That's what created the huge price disparity.

                The reason it's so expensive in Med school is because of the few seats permitted. Another lesson in economics is needed. It a teacher makes 80k and only 5 students per class are allowed, how much will each pay? Make it 20 students and how much will each of them fork out?

                The reason most lawsuits never see a jury panel is because they are settled in pretrial. They don't get 'thrown out'. It's exceedingly rare for a judge, state or Fed, to dismiss a civil case as being meritoriously void. It doesn't mean the doctor or his insurance company didn't get shafted if it's settled without a trial. They most assuredly paid thru the nose.

                Get rid of the socialized nonsense and make each country pay their share for medical progress and you'll see medical cost drop substantially. Get more doctors in the ER and you'll see the cost per visit drop. Stop the legal wrangling and that will impact your out of pocket quite a bit.
                This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

                Comment


                • #9
                  <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
                  Obviously you don't understand the impact of socialized medicine price controls. Perhaps an example will cure what ills your economic ignorance. Lets say Bayer makes aspirin and it's cost is 5.00 a bottle. There are 100 bottles made and distributed world wide. In a non-socialist world everyone would pay the same 5.00. No complaints.

                  What we have though is 90 of those bottles being sold for 50 cents in the socialist cost controlled countries because they know the good ole U.S. of A will pick up the tab. For those 10 bottles sold here they each become about 45.00 just to stay even. That's what created the huge price disparity.

                  The reason it's so expensive in Med school is because of the few seats permitted. Another lesson in economics is needed. It a teacher makes 80k and only 5 students per class are allowed, how much will each pay? Make it 20 students and how much will each of them fork out?

                  The reason most lawsuits never see a jury panel is because they are settled in pretrial. They don't get 'thrown out'. It's exceedingly rare for a judge, state or Fed, to dismiss a civil case as being meritoriously void. It doesn't mean the doctor or his insurance company didn't get shafted if it's settled without a trial. They most assuredly paid thru the nose.

                  Get rid of the socialized nonsense and make each country pay their share for medical progress and you'll see medical cost drop substantially. Get more doctors in the ER and you'll see the cost per visit drop. Stop the legal wrangling and that will impact your out of pocket quite a bit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                  davdah, where do you get this stuff from? can you site sources?
                  ok, let's say those 'socialist' countries have price controls , but do they control American drug manufacturers? Do they force American drug manufacturers to export to their countries under rigid price control?
                  Or is it European or Japanese pharmaceutical companies who export here at exorbitant prices in order to cover their losses where they originally manufacture and forced to sell?
                  Sounds odd. i don't know much about the whole health industry so i won't make any bets here, but it seems like something is missing in your explanation.

                  As to lawsuits, why any have the merit to begin with?
                  If you are a doctor and if you can prove that you followed each step of procedure by the book and your patient later have died (of natural or incurable causes), then how could anyone ever win a lawsuit against you? Judges mostly aren't doctors, but they aren't stupid people either. As to juries, i am sure the insurance companies or even doctors themselves can afford to hire lawyers good enough to tear apart any frivolous lawsuit in the courtroom and make the cost of frivolous suits prohibitively high to discourage anyone else from going the same path.
                  That would leave doctors truly liable only in the cases where they have knowingly neglected or caused an injury to the patient.
                  Now, why would any such doctor be allowed to practice to begin with? Second, why the number of such errors so great that each doctor has to dole out $250.000 to cover the cost of existing lawsuits and the risk of potential ones?
                  http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

                  "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">davdah, where do you get this stuff from? can you site sources?
                    ok, let's say those 'socialist' countries have price controls , but do they control American drug manufacturers? Do they force American drug manufacturers to export to their countries under rigid price control?
                    Or is it European or Japanese pharmaceutical companies who export here at exorbitant prices in order to cover their losses where they originally manufacture and forced to sell? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


                    I just did a quick search in google for price caps on medicine. There are lots of articles and I grabbed the first one.

                    The way the scam works is this. The drug companies have to abide by the price caps on the drugs or they can't sell any of their products in the country. Gun at your head economics.

                    Do you recall the movie 'Love of Capitalism'? Remember the scene where those people went to Cuba and got a prescription inhaler for 20 cents that costs around 40 or 50 bucks here? It was the same exact medicine right down to the label. That's a perfect example of this. That inhaler costs a lot more than 20 cents but the Cuban government forces the maker to sell it at 20 cents otherwise they can't anything in their country. The maker has no choice but to make up the cost at the only country left that doesn't have price controls. That same approach is used in most countries.

                    Brit would say, "We should have price controls here". Good, do that and watch all the geniuses who make the drugs abandon their laboratories looking for work where they will get paid for the miracles they produce. They're not trying to gouge anyone but if 90% of the users are paying 10% of the cost. Where does that leave us?
                    This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:


                      I just did a quick search in google for price caps on medicine. There are lots of articles and I grabbed the first one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                      It's from Indiatimes. About India imposing price caps and phrama industries contending against it.


                      <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The way the scam works is this. The drug companies have to abide by the price caps on the drugs or they can't sell any of their products in the country. Gun at your head economics.

                      Do you recall the movie 'Love of Capitalism'? Remember the scene where those people went to Cuba and got a prescription inhaler for 20 cents that costs around 40 or 50 bucks here? It was the same exact medicine right down to the label. That's a perfect example of this. That inhaler costs a lot more than 20 cents but the Cuban government forces the maker to sell it at 20 cents otherwise they can't anything in their country. The maker has no choice but to make up the cost at the only country left that doesn't have price controls. That same approach is used in most countries. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                      I still don't get it. I understand that any country may impose a price cap. But they surely can't force anyone to go and sell their products there.
                      They can say "davdah, if you are coming to sell your hat in India, we won't allow you to charge more than $5 for it." But they can't say "davdah, you must now come and sell your hat here for $5".
                      The choice to enter or not enter the market is yours. Why would you still choose to go there and sell your hat for $5 if it costs you $10 to produce it in the first place?

                      If those drugs are voluntarily exported to those markets (even under price caps) this could mean either:

                      A) Actual cost of production is still lower than what is redeemed under price cap.

                      OR,

                      B) The marketing departments of those drug companies are ran by dimwits who are doing something totally irrational. Why go to Cuba and sell drugs for $0.20 a bottle, so that you can make up for the loss by selling the same at $2000 per bottle to your own consumers here?

                      So, which one is it?
                      http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

                      "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It's neither. Not all drugs are subjected to those price controls and the amount of the cap varies from item to item.

                        If India tells Pfizer you have to sell the following list of drugs at the prices we decide and it stopped there, of course the manufacturer wouldn't oblige. But, the problem is the Indian government says if you don't sell it here and at the price we say, you can't sell anything you make in our country. So now they have to capitulate on the price controls or lose the entire market for everything they make.

                        The controls are graduated and the amounts vary per item. Some may be at ridiculous discounts while others are a lot less. Regardless, this creates extra overhead that is made up for in other places where there aren't price controls, like here.
                        This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by davdah:
                          It's neither. Not all drugs are subjected to those price controls and the amount of the cap varies from item to item.

                          If India tells Pfizer you have to sell the following list of drugs at the prices we decide and it stopped there, of course the manufacturer wouldn't oblige. But, the problem is the Indian government says if you don't sell it here and at the price we say, you can't sell anything you make in our country. So now they have to capitulate on the price controls or lose the entire market for everything they make.

                          The controls are graduated and the amounts vary per item. Some may be at ridiculous discounts while others are a lot less. Regardless, this creates extra overhead that is made up for in other places where there aren't price controls, like here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

                          I think what you are debating is the issue of price controls on drugs vs free market in foreign lands.

                          I was asking something else. My question was: how come that in America, where average Citizen makes 30K per the employer subsidized insurance cost rose to $900 deductions from paycheck per month[ for a family of four]? And, as if this wasn't enough, by dubbing such a costly policy a "Cadillac" (an equivalent of unnecessarily luxury), it was further reduced to 80% of coverage, with greater deductibles per visit and treatment as well.

                          Concept of free market is good, i am all for it and i detest when some third party pokes its' nose telling you what you should produce and at what price you should sell it.

                          But $900 deduction per month to get 80% coverage for a full time employee making 30+K a year (statistically the average compensation of working US Citizens) is an ultimate way of making most of population go bankrupt or die of illnesses unable to afford the medical treatment.

                          90% taxes imposed in peacetime on wealthiest were wrong. But so are $900 a month 80% coverage insurance plans on those making 30K+ per year.
                          http://www.anbsoft.com/images/usflag_med.jpg

                          "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            First of all, the movie was Sicko not Love of Capitalism. The main reason they went there was because their own insurance had either expired or became too expensive for them to afford and they couldn't get assistance here. The fact the drug cost less than here was an added bonus.

                            One thing davdah conveniently forgets to mention (which we've mentioned before on here) is that pharmaceutical companies aren't always American. Europe has plenty of home grown companies and they seem to make money quite well without charging exorbitant rates for their drugs whether the drug is sold here, in Europe or elsewhere.

                            Also the NHS buys in large bulk so it can negotiate a discount rate something that medicare is banned from doing directly although it does affect the price indirectly. Insurance companies here of course also negotiate a lower rate for their members and quite often buy from Canada.

                            Drug prices here seem to bear little relationship to the market. For example, I have a prescription drug which I've been taking for 10 years now. In 2001 the retail cost was about $200pm. By last year, that had become over $1200pm. No change in the drug, same manufacturer so how come more than a 5x increase well above inflation?

                            One explanation I've heard is that sometimes they will increase it before the patent runs out however in this case, there is still no generic version available. It doesn't make sense unless they simply want to make more money from it.
                            "What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organized visual lying."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One thing davdah conveniently forgets to mention (which we've mentioned before on here) is that pharmaceutical companies aren't always American. Europe has plenty of home grown companies and they seem to make money quite well without charging exorbitant rates for their drugs whether the drug is sold here, in Europe or elsewhere. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



                              You still don't get it do you? When was the last time you took a peak at the balance sheet of any drug manufacturer? It doesn't matter who or where they are located. The same rules apply to European as here. They all know where the market is that makes up for the welfare states.

                              The reason your drug costs more is because of what I just explained. Take an hour and find out what the cost of it is in those bastions of socialism. Then, find out how much is sold there versus here and do the math to see how much you're getting screwed for having to pay for someone's welfare prescription. I bet if everyone paid what it costs your next month's supply would be about 50.00
                              This message brought to you by the vast right wing conspiracy.

                              Comment



                              Working...
                              X