Him and Obama will be together sipping them soon. Did you see the video the two of them made together of what Obama will be doing after he leaves office? It was funny.
Anyone that didn’t see it: Funny Video
1 Like
There are about half a dozen different plan groups grandfathered including Samaritan. Yes you do need to be a practicing religious person. It was worth my TIME to investigate all the plans.
I just wasted a bunch of time at healthcare.gov finding out what I already knew. First off, there are only 3 companies left in my state with the site versus a half dozen or so last year. The 1st plan that covered my Endo would cost $8500 premiums per year (unless I apply for subsidies) and a deductible of $6850 before any insurance payments started with me paying ~30% of everything and Dexcom is not covered. $10,000 to $15,000 will buy me a lot of Dexcom and Insulin with the freedom to use Who & What I please.
There are non-marketplace plans I could investigate in my area but off-hand my best choice last year seems fairly consistent with healthcare.gov expenses. And an agent I had worked with last year advised me that all her plans were HMO (which I detest).
I will admit that I am the type that will pay 10% more for ‘Made in America’ AND will pay ??% more to avoid that which government tries to push me into.
You will get a notification that you are entitled to purchase the policy you have right now under the COBRA program. It may not be cheap because you have to pay the full premium… the ex-spouse’s employer will not contribute to the premium for you. But it’s probably cheaper and better than any of the available Obamacare policies. COBRA eligibility in the case of a divorce lasts 36 months (I believe). Your ex-spouse’s insurance carrier will send you the notification. When I got divorced I carried the COBRA coverage the full length of the eligibility.
I’m pretty sure the COBRA extension is a little pricier than an ACA alternative. But I’ll look into it.
Unfortunately, I’ll probably end up with a K-P plan that includes dental so I can put aside enough $ for my daughter’s undergraduate education (which will begin in four not-so-short years).
1 Like
All the people looking and wanting coverage of pre existing conditions and no life time maximum… can you explain to me like a 5 year old , who is gonna pick up that tab?
1 Like
That easy, we all will and that’s the way it should be. In our society, with our moral standards, it would be unthinkable not to. It would be unthinkable to allow someone to suffer and die because their condition is pre-existing. The question is how should this be done.
We have two options, we can do it on the backs of the insured, which is ACA tried to do, or you can do it on the backs of all taxpayers.
I think you’re asking the wrong question (and so are most other people.). I think the questions that need to be asked are how can mechanisms be developed that cover the needs of all people without those mechanisms contributing to the escalating costs.
There is no reason on earth that basic standard of care maintenance supplies and medication for a person with diabetes should cost more than about $1000/ year for basic sterile needles and insulin supplies plus test strips. The fact that we’ve created a system that’s escalated those prices ten-fold is what needs to be addressed.
And yes I do think that for those who desire more than the basic standards of care-- those who want pumps, and cgms, and other advanced treatment protocols should be willing to entertain the notion that some of those additional costs should be carried by themselves instead of society.
Sometimes we think of health insurance as a “health payment plan,” but it isn’t, it is health insurance. And insurance is a “risk management” tool. In the same way that you share risk, paying for sicker patients with the premiums of healthy patients you do the same to deal with pre existing conditions and not unreasonable risk limits.
When we think of pre existing conditions why should some people with diabetes get coverage and others be denied. In particular, why would lower income people who generally don’t have employee provided insurance (which covers pre existing conditions) be discriminated against. Much of this is about making health insurance and the health system a fair and even playing field.
1 Like
We currently have a system that uses an insurance middleman and pharmacy benefit manager that unreasonably boost our costs. If we used a single payer plan and cut out the unaffordable parasites in the current plan, we could afford to cover everyone. Every other advanced industrial country in the world has figured out how to do this with less money per capita and cover everyone. What makes us so smugly special??!
Some healthy people complain that they should not be forced to buy health access since they don’t use it. What they don’t realize or concede is that a plan that covers everyone provides management of risk for us all. While some people will not need health care access, they still receive sound value for the peace of mind that universal health care access provides.
I’d be happy to pay for some of my needs out of pocket if I was relieved of the $6k per year I currently pay. I would also argue that things like an insulin pump and a CGM actually costs less in the long run.
1 Like
[quote=“Stemwinder_Gary, post:46, topic:57237, full:true”]
That easy, we all will and that’s the way it should be. In our society, with our moral standards, it would be unthinkable not to. It would be unthinkable to allow someone to suffer and die because their condition is pre-existing. The question is how should this be done.
[/quote]Gary, while I agree largely with the spirit, and ethics, of what you say above, I disagree strongly with one thing you said, and it is my belief that lack of candor on this is at the heart of our difficulties in achieving a more compassionate, and yes, cost-effective health care system.
That statement is this: “we all will”.
This is simply untrue. We all will not, in fact, bear the cost. Indeed, a small fraction of our citizenry is being asked to bear these costs in most solutions, particularly those that rely on taxation to fund health care spending, as you propose.
Please clearly understand that I am not criticizing this approach. Indeed, I too favor a heavily publicly subsidized system, funded through taxation. However, as long as we pretend this is not an outright program of income redistribution, any solution will be forever mired in side-arguments over spin.
1 Like
[quote=“Terry4, post:49, topic:57237, full:true”]
We currently have a system that uses an insurance middleman and pharmacy benefit manager that unreasonably boost our costs. If we used a single payer plan and cut out the unaffordable parasites in the current plan, we could afford to cover everyone. Every other advanced industrial country in the world has figured out how to do this with less money per capita and cover everyone. What makes us so smugly special??![/quote]Terry, I would counter, what makes government employees so special?
You are not eliminating the middle-man. You’re trading one for another. Just because Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, etc. are govt.-run single-payer systems hasn’t made their formularies any simpler, broader, or easier to challenge.
In fact, many people would argue, worse.
The answer is, as it almost always is universally, get the government out of the way of any decision-making. Trust The People to make their own decisions. Will some people make bad ones? Yes. But overall, it is so far the best approach we’ve found organizing society to maximize the most people making the best decisions for themselves possible.
The way to do that is reduce govt to simply a subsidy mechanism, and let the rest of the “system” work through the private market. Just as education should be handled through funding vouchers, so should health insurance.
Tax unequally to raise the funding, according to politics, distribute the funds equally for education and health insurance. Let parents decide where to educate their children, individuals what health insurance best meets their needs.
1 Like
Private players are not up the moral challenge of respecting the commons above their profit motive. In some areas like healthcare we can’t afford paying for both the underlying service and the greed of the capitalist. I feel this way about infrastructure like clean water, clean air, roads, and airways. Some things just make more economic sense with a public provider. I don’t want a corporation owning Yosemite National Park, either!
The private marketeers made a mess of this economy in 2008. The Wall Street boys had to be bailed out with trillions of dollars that the Fed printed to permit them to remain in business.
3 Likes
I agree that we will not all do it willingly. The idea that everyone is good in their heart is naive. My statement “we all will” was a bit of sarcasm that was poorly executed. My point is that if we are going to have what we wish it must be paid for in someway.
The idea that everyone will pay is not what I mean, I will clarify my statement to mean everyone that is able to pay. This is our tax system where the amount you pay is determined by your ability to pay.
Its funny but I agree with you here. It would be wealth redistribution if you chose to see it that way. ACA is a redistribution of wealth. Every social program is redistribution of wealth. The question becomes are we willing to fund it. I’m still waiting for someone to step up and say I’m not willing. Some people do feel that way but not many are willing to admit it, they would rather hide their feelings behind spin.
I’m not willing to fund it. If there’s a place I can get on the list of people not required to fund things for which only others benefit, I’d love to know about it. I’ve found myself at the far opposite end of that spectrum for my entire adult life… and it’s actually one of the primary reasons I plan to retire as early as I possibly can-- so that I will be able to dictate my own taxable income level and therefore stop being forced to pay for everyone else’s problems.
No spin there at all.
I truly do not believe that you mean that Sam. It is a harsh statement that says I only care about me and mine, everyone else be damned. That statement does not reconcile with the Sam I have seen in this forum.
I will say this about myself, I am not willing to fund it for those that do not deserve it. Something makes me believe that you feel the same.
It’s not intended to be a harsh statement. I care deeply about my fellow human beings and have done more than my fair share of humanitarian work in my life. That said, I truly object to pouring my hard earned money, without any say in it, into this disgustingly corrupt and broken system that in turn just uses it to further drive the prices of healthcare beyond the reach of those who need it, ensuring further and more dependency on said broken system.
I guess the last sentence of my previous statement about other people’s problems sounded a little harsh now that I reread it…
2 Likes
The answer is, as it almost always is universally, get the government out of the way of any decision-making. Trust The People to make their own decisions. Will some people make bad ones? Yes. But overall, it is so far the best approach we’ve found organizing society to maximize the most people making the best decisions for themselves possible.
The way to do that is reduce govt to simply a subsidy mechanism, and let the rest of the “system” work through the private market. Just as education should be handled through funding vouchers, so should health insurance.
This is an assumption, and one that has never been tested and shown to operate well in very many scenarios. In fact, in many scenarios direct government control is shown to be more efficient.
Subsidies distort the pricing in the market without any mechanism to make sure prices aren’t artificially inflated. For instance, think of college grants and loans. The cost of higher education has far outpaced the inflation rate over the last several decades because the government is essentially subsidizing college price hikes. Similarly, if you give people a subsidy for health care, insurance companies will simply jack up their prices in proportion to that subsidy. The market will still bear whatever price people are willing to pay; it’s just that price may be bumped up 20 or 30 percent.
Also, the difference between the government and an independent middleman is that a middleman does not have obligation or expectation to be in your corner as a consumer. The government is at least supposed to have the best interests of all its citizens at heart.
1 Like
So would the healthcare provided to our veterans through the VA be a good Case Study on what we should expect from a public option?
1 Like
Jeez guys - exactly who doesn’t deserve health care? Got a list? Cause I believe it’s a fundimental right - not a privilege. if you can parse access down by qualifications you leave the system open to morally corrupt actions. Start from that position and work your way through the economics.
1 Like
@Bowie. I’m not sure what you mean by your statement so I will clarify my position. I’m not willing to pay for those that do not use the system fairly, I’m not willing to pay for a corrupt system that takes unfair advantage in the name of profit. I believe in profit but not greed.
1 Like