Some numbers on the Senate Health Care Bill

[30ashopper]

Try the same thing with your employer-selected group insurance card when you not in the same state in which your office is located.

My company is based in Atlanta, and I'm lucky that Sacred Heart participates in their preferred physician/hospital plan, because no one else in the area does.

The rest of them will see me if I pay for the visit in full and then wait for reimbursement - and then the rates are 30-100% higher than the "negotiated" rates my company will pay, and I am of course out of network.

So, when I need a referral, I have to wait until a SH specialist is available or soak up the difference in cost.

I'd suggest talking to your employer about switching insurers. I'm in a similar boat, I have blue cross from california. They link up with blue cross of florida so my network of preferred is pretty wide.

I think removing barriers that prevent insurers from competing across state lines (along with basic coverage regulation) will help address this. Both the house bill and the current senate draft support this. Some states are balking at this change however as it will undermine state level regulation. Tricky stuff.

 

[Here4Good]

I'd suggest talking to your employer about switching insurers. I'm in a similar boat, I have blue cross from california. They link up with blue cross of florida so my network of preferred is pretty wide.

I think removing barriers that prevent insurers from competing across state lines (along with basic coverage regulation) will help address this. Both the house bill and the current senate draft support this. Some states are balking at this change however as it will undermine state level regulation. Tricky stuff.

99.9% of our employees are in Atlanta. Why in the world should they change?

Which is why I think the tax break for employer-purchased health insurance should be eliminated, let the actual consumer of the insurance BUY the insurance, and watch the market take over.

 

[TechPyle]

99.9% of our employees are in Atlanta. Why in the world should they change?

Which is why I think the tax break for employer-purchased health insurance should be eliminated, let the actual consumer of the insurance BUY the insurance, and watch the market take over.

That might work but only if you think that the dollars that the company puts into an employee would then be transfered to the employee's paycheck (FAT CHANCE). The benefit from the employer purchased health care would go away but the employee would be stuck with the bill and no extra dollars to purchase with. That would probably be a boom for most employers and really stick it to the employee. Plus the employers are generally able to purchase health insurance at a group rate that is less than an individual would be able to obtain. Also the health insurance benifit is pre tax dollars so if the employer gives the employee the money as part of thier check the actual dollars to be used would be less because the employee would then pay taxes on the increase in the paycheck.

 

[30A Skunkape]

This reads more like a statement about the providers than about the type of insurance one carries.

Often times these forms of insurance, especially medicaid, result in a net loss of money for an encounter. Do you think the provider is greedy or making a sound financial decision?

Do you think providers should be forced to accept any and all insurance?

 

[30ashopper]

That might work but only if you think that the dollars that the company puts into an employee would then be transfered to the employee's paycheck (FAT CHANCE). The benefit from the employer purchased health care would go away but the employee would be stuck with the bill and no extra dollars to purchase with. That would probably be a boom for most employers and really stick it to the employee.

I disagree, there may be some disparity over the short term, but over the long term the same market forces at work today that define your pay rate would kick in.

Plus the employers are generally able to purchase health insurance at a group rate that is less than an individual would be able to obtain. Also the health insurance benifit is pre tax dollars so if the employer gives the employee the money as part of thier check the actual dollars to be used would be less because the employee would then pay taxes on the increase in the paycheck.

The feds have to finance this somehow. Money doesn't grow on trees. Employees who enjoy employer plans will have to kick-in some of the cost of insuring the uninsured. This will also help push costs down as employers will no longer have the incentive of giving part of an employees pay in the form of healthcare dollars.

 

[Lynnie]

Why is it conservatives will only point to the costs of national healthcare and never to any savings that could come from such a plan? Some studies show Americans spend an average of $7,290 a year on health care, more than twice the average for developed countries. Despite that, the United States lags in life expectancy, infant mortality and preventable deaths.
I don't understand why we can't study what does and doesn't work in these countries and apply what is learned in our country instead of screaming socialism everytime national healthcare is mentioned.
There must be some economic advantage to having a nation of happier healthier more productive citizens. The number one concern for parents is the health of their children, imagine employees reporting for work free from this worry.

I didn't know this. But, how much of a lag?

Life expectancy here is 78 and we are ranked #50 out of 195 countries. The highest life expectancy is 84 - a spread of six years......in looking at the countries, those diets rich in omega 3's are higher than us.

Infant mortality here is 6.3/1,000 and we are ranked #33 out of 195. The lowest rate is 2.9/1,000.

We are ranked 19 out of 19 on preventable deaths, but I couldn't find strong data on this.

I agree in that we should study what works and what doesn't. It's so simple, yet so divisive.

 

[30ashopper]

I didn't know this. But, how much of a lag?

Life expectancy here is 78 and we are ranked #50 out of 195 countries. The highest life expectancy is 84 - a spread of six years......in looking at the countries, those diets rich in omega 3's are higher than us.

Infant mortality here is 6.3/1,000 and we are ranked #33 out of 195. The lowest rate is 2.9/1,000.

We are ranked 19 out of 19 on preventable deaths, but I couldn't find strong data on this.

I agree in that we should study what works and what doesn't. It's so simple, yet so divisive.

Countries with homogeneous race & ethnic populations and lifestyles are always going to rank higher than those that don't. One of the dings we take for being more open minded about immigration.

 

[poppy]

Often times these forms of insurance, especially medicaid, result in a net loss of money for an encounter. Do you think the provider is greedy or making a sound financial decision?

Do you think providers should be forced to accept any and all insurance?

Greedy is not a word I would use to describe any doctor I have ever met although I'm sure there are many out there.
My own limited experience is the doctor my mother worked with for over 40 years. This man never turned away a patient with medicaid or medicare and often did not charge for services when he felt the person could not afford it. Probably not the most sound financial position to take but he still managed to reside in a fine home live a good life and provide for his family. I am in no way suggesting this is how it should be done, just portraying how one individual practiced medicine.

 

[poppy]

I didn't know this. But, how much of a lag?

Life expectancy here is 78 and we are ranked #50 out of 195 countries. The highest life expectancy is 84 - a spread of six years......in looking at the countries, those diets rich in omega 3's are higher than us.

Infant mortality here is 6.3/1,000 and we are ranked #33 out of 195. The lowest rate is 2.9/1,000.

We are ranked 19 out of 19 on preventable deaths, but I couldn't find strong data on this.

I agree in that we should study what works and what doesn't. It's so simple, yet so divisive.

Here is one site I visited, of course just like you I can't verify the accuracy of the contents.

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

 

[scooterbug44]

Countries with homogeneous race & ethnic populations and lifestyles are always going to rank higher than those that don't. One of the dings we take for being more open minded about immigration.

Looking around at all of the fat people stuffing their faces with fast food, eschewing vegetables, and going out of their way to avoid exercise, I don't think that "heterogeneous population" or "open minded about immigration" is the biggest factor in our life expectancy being shorter. :roll: