Author Topic: Healthcare premiums (Read 579 times)

Corwin · « **on:** August 28, 2003, 08:50:34 AM »

I work for a fairly large publicly traded company. Not that this is any big deal but when it comes to negotiating deals with insurance providers they should be able to have some clout. Anyway, I just received word that the amount the company contributes to my pension every year was being cut by 1% (of my salary) in order to keep my health insurance out-of-pocket increase to 10% for next year as opposed to 18%. I realize that this is a strategy that also benefits the company in that they are minimizing their expense increase as a result.

What pains me is that I don't see any of our elected officials doing boo about rising healthcare costs. What I do see them doing is sticking their heads in the sand as more and more boomers line up to receive Medicare from an already bankrupt system. We won't talk about the vote gathering folly of adding a Rx drug benefit.

All this to say that I'm afraid this is a harbinger of really bad poop on the horizon and I think we're all going to feel it.

Eagler · « **Reply #1 on:** August 28, 2003, 09:02:46 AM »

recieved a bill from the hospital yesterday for my kidney stone visit to the ER. seems there was some sort of mess up with the insurance co and the hospital wanted more than my $50 deductible.

so how much do you think a 7 hour visit to er would cost? Granted they did an x-ray, ultrasound and a mri - i guess they had to or they just wanted to pork the bill..

grand total was over $8200

they did throw in a free case of thrombophlebitis - think that occured when nurse helga ran over my iv with the wheelchair yanking it outa my arm on our way to x-rays...

ra · « **Reply #2 on:** August 28, 2003, 09:04:35 AM »

Quote

What pains me is that I don't see any of our elected officials doing boo about rising healthcare costs.

If you were an elected offial what would you do to prevent healthcare costs from rising?

Ripsnort · « **Reply #3 on:** August 28, 2003, 09:11:43 AM »

Personally, I don't mind paying alittle more knowing that R&D costs are extremely high in this country, at the benefit of having tackled some of the worse types of bugs out there in the last 100 years and having the worlds best doctors and surgeons. Small price to pay if you ask me.

Corwin · « **Reply #4 on:** August 28, 2003, 12:58:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by ra
If you were an elected offial what would you do to prevent healthcare costs from rising?

IMHO the current scheme is not sustainable. I'd damn sure not add a drug benefit on top of a system that is already under funded and faces budget busting deficits in the relatively near term. The feds are the largest single payer in healthcare today. If you don't think they are ratcheting down every year on re-imbursements to doctors and hospitals you are dreaming. They know the system is busted but no one has the courage to say it. Meanwhile the feds keep squeezing the providers where they can to keep from having to raise taxes or cut benefits - both of which are political suicide. Where do you think the industry goes to meet their increased costs and decreasing payments? How about the private sector (i.e. you)?

The fact is that the population curve will make more people eligible for benefits than wage earners paying in to the system. How many folks out there are planning on having to fund their own healthcare costs in retirement? I'd bet damn few.

I believe the feds have a role to play in providing for the sick and aged who might otherwise be uncared for. I hope the hard, cold reality is not a nationalized system.

What would you do?

ra · « **Reply #5 on:** August 28, 2003, 01:15:30 PM »

Quote

What would you do?

IMHO health insurance should cover catastrophic events only, say anything above 10% of the insured's annual income. We could then pay much lower premiums, and still be protected from bankruptcy in the case of serious illness or injury. It would also bring market forces into play, as people would shop around for cheaper healthcare rather than just whipping out their insurance card every time they sprain an ankle or get poison ivy.

But there isn't much elected officials can do to make this happen. Their role is to spew hot air about how they will create a bureaucracy to eliminate all our healthcare problems if we just vote for them.

Maybe you could ask your HR rep if you can opt for a much higher deductible in exchange for a lower premium.

ra

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #6 on:** August 28, 2003, 06:21:03 PM »

If you did that RA then folks would not seek preventative screenings that alleviate those big ticket events.

miko2d · « **Reply #7 on:** August 28, 2003, 07:02:05 PM »

rabbidrabbit: If you did that RA then folks would not seek preventative screenings that alleviate those big ticket events.

Not true. You probably change oil in your car on a regular basis and pay for it out of your own pocket.

If someone really chose to save a few bucks on his preventative screenings, why would anyone care? His big ticket event would be covered by his insurance.

I am sure that insurance would offer reduced premiums to people who signed an obligation to regularly undergo preventative screenings. That's just good business.

If average healthcare expence is $5,000 per person per year, it does not make sence to pass that money through the insurance. It would be much more effectively spent if one paid the doctors directly.
As ra said, insurance is coverage against a catastrophic expence.

Of course one can say that some people would not be able to afford $5,000 per year and need to be subcidised by others. That is a valid claim but it has nothing to do with insurance but rather than with redistribution/welfare.

Insurance is when people voluntarily pool the risks with a company taking a cut for organising the whole affair.

Welfare is when people are coerced by the state to part with their property under threat of violence.

And of course there is charity...

miko

rc51 · « **Reply #8 on:** August 28, 2003, 10:42:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler
recieved a bill from the hospital yesterday for my kidney stone visit to the ER. seems there was some sort of mess up with the insurance co and the hospital wanted more than my $50 deductible.

so how much do you think a 7 hour visit to er would cost? Granted they did an x-ray, ultrasound and a mri - i guess they had to or they just wanted to pork the bill..

grand total was over $8200

they did throw in a free case of thrombophlebitis - think that occured when nurse helga ran over my iv with the wheelchair yanking it outa my arm on our way to x-rays...

Dude I feel for ya .
I went to the ER with A huge stone stuck up there where the eurethra comes out of the kidney.
Got a CT scan and lots of good drugs.
And twoo days later passed the Buick I mean stone:)

rabbidrabbit · « **Reply #9 on:** August 28, 2003, 10:43:11 PM »

Miko, there is a difference between your opinion, my opinion and whats true or not. Many studies have shown that making preventive care available has dramatically cut medical expenses since most times the expensive events where either preventable or could have been mitigated if caught earlier. Yes I change my oil properly but thats does not mean others do and when they have Diabetes or other disease that could have been prevented by a proper diet we all get to pay. Not to mention people are far more likely to pay 15 bucks for an oil change then see their doctor once a year as well as get the proper scans.

Tarmac · « **Reply #10 on:** August 28, 2003, 10:55:49 PM »

Next time you're at your doctor's office, ask them what they think of their malpractice/liability insurance policies. I can't even imagine what the costs are at a hospital.

It's the lawyers' fault.

Someone asked what the legislature can do... tort reform. Unfortunately, it probably won't ever happen, since the legislators and their aides and everyone else under the sun is a lawyer with $$$ in their eyes.

Lawyers are a self-perpetuating virus. You need lawyers to defend yourself from the lawyers. And then someone else needs a lawyer to defend themselves from your lawyer. And the lawyers are making the rules of the game, so of course they'll never be kicked out of it.

rc51 · « **Reply #11 on:** August 28, 2003, 10:58:45 PM »

Tarmac I am afraid you are right as rain my friend.

Corwin · « **Reply #12 on:** August 29, 2003, 11:16:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tarmac
Next time you're at your doctor's office, ask them what they think of their malpractice/liability insurance policies. I can't even imagine what the costs are at a hospital.

It's the lawyers' fault.

Someone asked what the legislature can do... tort reform. Unfortunately, it probably won't ever happen, since the legislators and their aides and everyone else under the sun is a lawyer with $$$ in their eyes.

Lawyers are a self-perpetuating virus. You need lawyers to defend yourself from the lawyers. And then someone else needs a lawyer to defend themselves from your lawyer. And the lawyers are making the rules of the game, so of course they'll never be kicked out of it.

One thing to keep on the radar screen when it comes to ANY type of insurance premiums is that most of the insurers have seen their investment portfolios go to hell. Without decent returns on their cash reserves (the cash they accumulate through premium collection) their tolerance for risk must be much lower. Thus premiums rise, coverages are limited and deductibles go up too. I've never seen any credible analysis that looks at this aspect of the industry and compares it to the losses that result from malpratice litigation.

loser · « **Reply #13 on:** August 29, 2003, 12:04:08 PM »

Premiums? Deductibles?

Fully Covered Services:

All Medically Necessary Services provided by Physicians
Physiotherapy or Occupational Therapy
Screening Mammography for Women Aged 50 to 69
Immunization Services
Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD) Treatment
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Testing
Optometric Services
Services for Treating Alcohol and Drug Abuse Problems
Mental Health Services
Problem Gambling Services
Supplementary Health Program
Family Health Benefits

Partially Covered Services:

Air Ambulance Service
Senior Citizen's Ambulance Assistance Program
Home Care
Long-Term Care
Chiropractic Services
Podiatry (Chiropody) Program
Hearing Health Services
Dental Services
Prescription Drug Services
Saskatchewan Aids to Independent Living (SAIL) Program

Toss subsidized daycare and preschool, free primary and secondary school in there too.

The "premium?" 6 percent on everything I buy except food. I'm happy with that.

miko2d · « **Reply #14 on:** August 29, 2003, 12:20:20 PM »

rabbidrabbit: Miko, there is a difference between your opinion, my opinion and whats true or not. Many studies have shown that making preventive care available has dramatically cut medical expenses since most times the expensive events where either preventable or could have been mitigated if caught earlier.

You are right, but only because your position is based on lot of assumptions like this:

we all get to pay.

Why should we have to pay for a person who chose to neglect his health? Especially since we have no autority over his behavior and lifestyle? Talk about "taxation without representation".

A private company in a free market might set conditions on providing insurance but a taxpayer or a client of regulated insurance cannot tell a pregnant mother to stop smoking, even though he will have to pay for her kid's diabetes - through taxes or inflated premiums out of proportion to his risks.
So we would try to bribe her with even more money in order to save some money in the future. What happened to "millions on defence, not a penny for ransom".

And could it be that he was neglecting his health exactly because the society guaranteed the healthcare for him and removed necessity to think for himself? It's called the "moral hazard".

Sure, once you've turned people intro mindless idiots by paternalistic policies, you could argue that they would temporarily suffer more once those policies were removed.

miko