Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Health Law Costs: Employers Eye Bare-Bones Plans - WSJ.com

  1. #21
    Sage
    blackjack50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:10 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,386

    Health Law Costs: Employers Eye Bare-Bones Plans - WSJ.com

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    there are a lot of potential choices. we should study the systems of other first world countries, pick the best parts of each one, and custom fit a solution for the US.
    You are aware of the population difference right?
    The Crowd is not the sum of its parts.

  2. #22
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Health Law Costs: Employers Eye Bare-Bones Plans - WSJ.com

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    that hasn't really been the case in other first world countries. we're paying much more money for poorer outcomes, and on top of that, health care is currently employer-specific.
    Other countries are much smaller, have much less population diversity, and are much healthier to begin with. The rate of obesity in the US is 2-3 times that of other countries, and is a hugely significant factor in overall health.

    But guess what? We don't begin to "pay much more" until people reach retirement age (when health care shifts from an employer-based model to a government-based model). By the time people reach 70, we're paying 3 times more. By the time people reach 80, we're paying 6-7 times more. When you look at the data, we're spending much more money for slightly better outcomes after age 65, but not enough to justify the cost.

    If you think we should be spending less on health care, Medicare is without question the best place to start.
    Last edited by Taylor; 05-20-13 at 01:47 PM.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: Health Law Costs: Employers Eye Bare-Bones Plans - WSJ.com

    Obamacare has absolutely nothing to do with giving adequate healthcare and everything to do with dictating outcomes both socially and economically.

    If the government can control your healthcare then they can control you, businesses and just about every facade of our nation.

    This is nothing more than a back door to control people and businesses.

    For example - they well tell you that you are overweight then attack businesses (all businesses that contribute down the line of production) as a contributor to collective obesity. Of course they (or progressive government) will attempt to sell our FORMAL INDIVIDUAL PROBLEM as a "collective problem" to the people, in which the sheeple will say "shut down McDonalds and kill those jobs because I'm not paying for fat people to get fatter." So of course the government will push bans and regulations (which in turn will dictate economic outcomes) and the people who support that loony bull**** will be the victims of their attempt to dictate social outcomes.

    This has nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with dictating outcomes both socially and economically.

  4. #24
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,114

    Re: Health Law Costs: Employers Eye Bare-Bones Plans - WSJ.com

    Quote Originally Posted by stonewall50 View Post
    You are aware of the population difference right?
    of course there are differences, but that doesn't change the fact that it's stupid and inefficient to make health insurance specific to employment. every time we change jobs, we lose our health care, and our choices for coverage are artificially limited.

    secondly, we treat everyone, but those without insurance have an access point at the absolute most expensive end of the spectrum. then the rest of us pay for that care.

    finally, care is so expensive that most people avoid seeking treatment until the condition has reached a level of severity that it ends up being even more expensive to treat. imagine if everybody went to the doctor for a physical and bloodwork twice a year. our costs would probably plummet, because we'd catch expensive diseases when they are easier to treat. it's simply good policy to make sure everyone has access to routine medical procedures without fear of bankruptcy.

  5. #25
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,114

    Re: Health Law Costs: Employers Eye Bare-Bones Plans - WSJ.com

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Other countries are much smaller, have much less population diversity, and are much healthier to begin with. The rate of obesity in the US is 2-3 times that of other countries, and is a hugely significant factor in overall health.

    But guess what? We don't begin to "pay much more" until people reach retirement age (when health care shifts from an employer-based model to a government-based model). By the time people reach 70, we're paying 3 times more. By the time people reach 80, we're paying 6-7 times more. When you look at the data, we're spending much more money for slightly better outcomes after age 65, but not enough to justify the cost.

    If you think we should be spending less on health care, Medicare is without question the best place to start.
    but it's not just the elderly. last i checked, if your kid breaks his arm falling out of a tree, it can cost multiple thousands of dollars to fix; sometimes $10k. i had a routine diagnostic procedure in 2009, and the full price was five grand. i'm nowhere near 65. the costs are simply unsustainable.

    honestly, i'd prefer medicare to be the single payer for basic care for everyone to the system we have now.

  6. #26
    Professor
    wbcoleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    06-07-16 @ 11:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,833

    Re: Health Law Costs: Employers Eye Bare-Bones Plans - WSJ.com

    Obamacare supporter shocked that employers moving to bare bones coverage Hot Air

    Over at National Review, Veronique de Rugy highlights a recent Wall Street Journal article which brings home yet again the law of unintended consequences. (Assuming that the consequences of Obamacare are “unintended” based on the Pelosi theory of needing to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.) The short version of the analysis – and I know this will come as a massive shock to many of you – shows that employers will flock to lower cost, bare bones medical plans to avoid the increased costs and mandates of Obamacare, turning implementation into even more of “a train wreck”. Yes… yes… I know. Who could possibly have seen this coming?
    Zionism is the National Liberation Movement of the Jewish People.

  7. #27
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,887

    Re: Health Law Costs: Employers Eye Bare-Bones Plans - WSJ.com

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    but it's not just the elderly. last i checked, if your kid breaks his arm falling out of a tree, it can cost multiple thousands of dollars to fix; sometimes $10k. i had a routine diagnostic procedure in 2009, and the full price was five grand. i'm nowhere near 65. the costs are simply unsustainable.

    honestly, i'd prefer medicare to be the single payer for basic care for everyone to the system we have now.
    We make insurance companies cover everything that can happen, and then we wonder why the premiums, co pays, and deductibles are so high.

    Turn insurance back into actual insurance and not only will it be less expensive, but the things that no insurance policy would cover can now be governed by the free market(i.e. bring in one child for a wellness visit, the second one is half off! )

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •