Your Medical Plan $Changes/Increases for 2011?

[air_ogi]

[quote=bearishgurl]
air_ogi, SOMEBODY has to subsidize the premiums of the frequent health-care users and the sick who will all soon be “covered.” This $$ will come off the backs of employers, employees and individual policy holders. There will be no more rewards (in the form of a low premium) for taking care of oneself and using exercise and alternative therapies (out-of-pocket) instead of running to the doctor constantly. Health insurance won’t work like other forms of insurance anymore.[/quote]

And that is why the requirement to have insurance goes along with removal of pre-existing conditions.

So over last couple years, salaries of doctors have been relatively constant as have been the prices of the medical equipment.

And yet we had insurance increase by 10+% every year. So that means that either insurance companies are making way more money or insured people are way sicker.
After looking the financial reports for several insurance companies, I can tell you that none of them are having significant increases in profit.

So what is going on is that as prices are rising, more and more healthy people are leaving the insurance pool. And it’s an interesting cycle, since as more healthy people leave the pool, the higher the rise in the insurance rates, resulting in more healthy people leaving the pool.
If you look at insurance rates for a large corporation, which has a nice captive pool, the price increase have been nowhere near small business and individual market.

I have absolutely no idea why you would blame Obamacare for this.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=PatentGuy]. . . Bearishgurl, you are being a bit hard on the “newly insurable.” Do you feel this way about people you already subsidize with food stamps or medicare or [fill in the blank]? . . . [/quote]

PatentGuy, I think everyone who doesn’t have an employer-paid health plan should be entitled to health coverage . . . for an appropriate price relative to their health care usage. If the “appropriate price” is more than they can afford and the care they are seeking is absolutely necessary, then there should be government program(s) in place to assist them in paying their premiums (w/o affecting ALL insureds’ premiums). I don’t believe people who have EARNED low premiums (thru prudence, good genes or luck or a combination of any of these) should be required to subsidize those who didn’t (very often through their own current and prior addictions/abuse/neglect). This huge “neglectful” demographic is what comprises most of my “age group” that I am lumped-in with (for insurance rating purposes).

I could go on and on here but as ONE example, it might be a lot more fun for me to spend my time socializing, eating and drinking in “happy hour” 3 eves a week instead of spending those hours instead at the gym. But I choose to do what is best for my health. This doesn’t make me “perfect” but it’s where one of my priorities lie and my health care usage reflects this mindset.

I believe by age 50, most people’s past decisions are a reflection on their current state of health.

Why don’t you study the schedules for HDHP premiums with the various insurance companies for the 50-65 year old demographic, patentguy? You might be very surprised how little coverage is actually accessible for each premium category before out-of-pocket expenses in the thousands are required. And then study the premiums for a comprehensive plan (with lower copays and lower deductibles). They’re in the stratosphere!!

Regarding social security (OASDI and death benefits), I have posted before that I believe the current laws unjustly enrich those who never worked, did not work the required amount of quarters and minors whose deceased parent did not work enough or for a high enough wage to justify the benefits paid to them. For these reasons, I am wondering if the fund is sustainable enough for those who DID contribute the required amount of quarters of FICA to be able to receive OASDI benefits when their time comes. SS has been totally mismanaged, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=PatentGuy]. . . Bearishgurl, you are being a bit hard on the “newly insurable.” Do you feel this way about people you already subsidize with food stamps or medicare or [fill in the blank]? . . . [/quote]

PatentGuy, I think everyone who doesn’t have an employer-paid health plan should be entitled to health coverage . . . for an appropriate price relative to their health care usage. If the “appropriate price” is more than they can afford and the care they are seeking is absolutely necessary, then there should be government program(s) in place to assist them in paying their premiums (w/o affecting ALL insureds’ premiums). I don’t believe people who have EARNED low premiums (thru prudence, good genes or luck or a combination of any of these) should be required to subsidize those who didn’t (very often through their own current and prior addictions/abuse/neglect). This huge “neglectful” demographic is what comprises most of my “age group” that I am lumped-in with (for insurance rating purposes).

I could go on and on here but as ONE example, it might be a lot more fun for me to spend my time socializing, eating and drinking in “happy hour” 3 eves a week instead of spending those hours instead at the gym. But I choose to do what is best for my health. This doesn’t make me “perfect” but it’s where one of my priorities lie and my health care usage reflects this mindset.

I believe by age 50, most people’s past decisions are a reflection on their current state of health.

Why don’t you study the schedules for HDHP premiums with the various insurance companies for the 50-65 year old demographic, patentguy? You might be very surprised how little coverage is actually accessible for each premium category before out-of-pocket expenses in the thousands are required. And then study the premiums for a comprehensive plan (with lower copays and lower deductibles). They’re in the stratosphere!!

Regarding social security (OASDI and death benefits), I have posted before that I believe the current laws unjustly enrich those who never worked, did not work the required amount of quarters and minors whose deceased parent did not work enough or for a high enough wage to justify the benefits paid to them. For these reasons, I am wondering if the fund is sustainable enough for those who DID contribute the required amount of quarters of FICA to be able to receive OASDI benefits when their time comes. SS has been totally mismanaged, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=PatentGuy]. . . Bearishgurl, you are being a bit hard on the “newly insurable.” Do you feel this way about people you already subsidize with food stamps or medicare or [fill in the blank]? . . . [/quote]

PatentGuy, I think everyone who doesn’t have an employer-paid health plan should be entitled to health coverage . . . for an appropriate price relative to their health care usage. If the “appropriate price” is more than they can afford and the care they are seeking is absolutely necessary, then there should be government program(s) in place to assist them in paying their premiums (w/o affecting ALL insureds’ premiums). I don’t believe people who have EARNED low premiums (thru prudence, good genes or luck or a combination of any of these) should be required to subsidize those who didn’t (very often through their own current and prior addictions/abuse/neglect). This huge “neglectful” demographic is what comprises most of my “age group” that I am lumped-in with (for insurance rating purposes).

I could go on and on here but as ONE example, it might be a lot more fun for me to spend my time socializing, eating and drinking in “happy hour” 3 eves a week instead of spending those hours instead at the gym. But I choose to do what is best for my health. This doesn’t make me “perfect” but it’s where one of my priorities lie and my health care usage reflects this mindset.

I believe by age 50, most people’s past decisions are a reflection on their current state of health.

Why don’t you study the schedules for HDHP premiums with the various insurance companies for the 50-65 year old demographic, patentguy? You might be very surprised how little coverage is actually accessible for each premium category before out-of-pocket expenses in the thousands are required. And then study the premiums for a comprehensive plan (with lower copays and lower deductibles). They’re in the stratosphere!!

Regarding social security (OASDI and death benefits), I have posted before that I believe the current laws unjustly enrich those who never worked, did not work the required amount of quarters and minors whose deceased parent did not work enough or for a high enough wage to justify the benefits paid to them. For these reasons, I am wondering if the fund is sustainable enough for those who DID contribute the required amount of quarters of FICA to be able to receive OASDI benefits when their time comes. SS has been totally mismanaged, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=PatentGuy]. . . Bearishgurl, you are being a bit hard on the “newly insurable.” Do you feel this way about people you already subsidize with food stamps or medicare or [fill in the blank]? . . . [/quote]

PatentGuy, I think everyone who doesn’t have an employer-paid health plan should be entitled to health coverage . . . for an appropriate price relative to their health care usage. If the “appropriate price” is more than they can afford and the care they are seeking is absolutely necessary, then there should be government program(s) in place to assist them in paying their premiums (w/o affecting ALL insureds’ premiums). I don’t believe people who have EARNED low premiums (thru prudence, good genes or luck or a combination of any of these) should be required to subsidize those who didn’t (very often through their own current and prior addictions/abuse/neglect). This huge “neglectful” demographic is what comprises most of my “age group” that I am lumped-in with (for insurance rating purposes).

I could go on and on here but as ONE example, it might be a lot more fun for me to spend my time socializing, eating and drinking in “happy hour” 3 eves a week instead of spending those hours instead at the gym. But I choose to do what is best for my health. This doesn’t make me “perfect” but it’s where one of my priorities lie and my health care usage reflects this mindset.

I believe by age 50, most people’s past decisions are a reflection on their current state of health.

Why don’t you study the schedules for HDHP premiums with the various insurance companies for the 50-65 year old demographic, patentguy? You might be very surprised how little coverage is actually accessible for each premium category before out-of-pocket expenses in the thousands are required. And then study the premiums for a comprehensive plan (with lower copays and lower deductibles). They’re in the stratosphere!!

Regarding social security (OASDI and death benefits), I have posted before that I believe the current laws unjustly enrich those who never worked, did not work the required amount of quarters and minors whose deceased parent did not work enough or for a high enough wage to justify the benefits paid to them. For these reasons, I am wondering if the fund is sustainable enough for those who DID contribute the required amount of quarters of FICA to be able to receive OASDI benefits when their time comes. SS has been totally mismanaged, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=PatentGuy]. . . Bearishgurl, you are being a bit hard on the “newly insurable.” Do you feel this way about people you already subsidize with food stamps or medicare or [fill in the blank]? . . . [/quote]

PatentGuy, I think everyone who doesn’t have an employer-paid health plan should be entitled to health coverage . . . for an appropriate price relative to their health care usage. If the “appropriate price” is more than they can afford and the care they are seeking is absolutely necessary, then there should be government program(s) in place to assist them in paying their premiums (w/o affecting ALL insureds’ premiums). I don’t believe people who have EARNED low premiums (thru prudence, good genes or luck or a combination of any of these) should be required to subsidize those who didn’t (very often through their own current and prior addictions/abuse/neglect). This huge “neglectful” demographic is what comprises most of my “age group” that I am lumped-in with (for insurance rating purposes).

I could go on and on here but as ONE example, it might be a lot more fun for me to spend my time socializing, eating and drinking in “happy hour” 3 eves a week instead of spending those hours instead at the gym. But I choose to do what is best for my health. This doesn’t make me “perfect” but it’s where one of my priorities lie and my health care usage reflects this mindset.

I believe by age 50, most people’s past decisions are a reflection on their current state of health.

Why don’t you study the schedules for HDHP premiums with the various insurance companies for the 50-65 year old demographic, patentguy? You might be very surprised how little coverage is actually accessible for each premium category before out-of-pocket expenses in the thousands are required. And then study the premiums for a comprehensive plan (with lower copays and lower deductibles). They’re in the stratosphere!!

Regarding social security (OASDI and death benefits), I have posted before that I believe the current laws unjustly enrich those who never worked, did not work the required amount of quarters and minors whose deceased parent did not work enough or for a high enough wage to justify the benefits paid to them. For these reasons, I am wondering if the fund is sustainable enough for those who DID contribute the required amount of quarters of FICA to be able to receive OASDI benefits when their time comes. SS has been totally mismanaged, IMO.

[Aecetia]

It is not sustainable unless something changes drastically: a big die off of old people, change the age at which people are eligible, more people paying into the system and paying higher percentages. Any combination of those may not set off riots, but it will certainly alienate those who are trying to eke out a living in this economy. This one is going to get ugly.

“This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.”

[Aecetia]

It is not sustainable unless something changes drastically: a big die off of old people, change the age at which people are eligible, more people paying into the system and paying higher percentages. Any combination of those may not set off riots, but it will certainly alienate those who are trying to eke out a living in this economy. This one is going to get ugly.

“This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.”

[Aecetia]

It is not sustainable unless something changes drastically: a big die off of old people, change the age at which people are eligible, more people paying into the system and paying higher percentages. Any combination of those may not set off riots, but it will certainly alienate those who are trying to eke out a living in this economy. This one is going to get ugly.

“This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.”

[Aecetia]

It is not sustainable unless something changes drastically: a big die off of old people, change the age at which people are eligible, more people paying into the system and paying higher percentages. Any combination of those may not set off riots, but it will certainly alienate those who are trying to eke out a living in this economy. This one is going to get ugly.

“This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.”

[Aecetia]

It is not sustainable unless something changes drastically: a big die off of old people, change the age at which people are eligible, more people paying into the system and paying higher percentages. Any combination of those may not set off riots, but it will certainly alienate those who are trying to eke out a living in this economy. This one is going to get ugly.

“This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.”

[PatentGuy]

BG:

PG here. We’re more of like minds than not. It’s just that the “Brian’s” have been in charge of the asylum, and the result is that more and more Americans feel entitled to have an equal outcome, be it health care, house, car, clothes, bank account, whatever, without having to put in an equal amount of work.

Why study your ass off to be an engineer, when you can major in art appreciation, and then complain that your are burdened with student loans you cannot afford to pay back?

The point you make about going to a bar instead of the gym – I can make the same point that I worked 80 hour weeks for the last 30 years (between grad schools and professional life), and as a result I make good (not great, but good) money. So, when Obama vilifies me based on my income in order to suck up to some labor union, yeah I get frosted about it. When I see some Brian or BGG types explain that the 50% of my income that I (self employed) already pay in Federal, Medicare, SS, CA, unemployment, workers comp insurance, property and sales taxes (not counting health insurance) is not “my fair share”, well … it’s probably similar to how you feel about subsidizing America’s legion of self-made (type II) diabetics.

But, let’s be fair. It is one thing to subsidize “victims” of their own bad decisions, but quite another thing if someone is simply born with a medical condition. Maybe in another society where medical care was reasonably priced based on the service provided, they and their family could afford their care. But in this society, the rates for the uninsured cannot be paid by mere mortals and no one pretends they expect anyone to pay. I don’t mind paying a piece of that care, which in and of itself is trivial next to the amount of taxes I pay to the drug companies to fill a tackle box full of pills for every old person.

We’re an entitlement culture. Everyone is a victim. If you can figure out how to “change” this, you get my vote.

[PatentGuy]

BG:

PG here. We’re more of like minds than not. It’s just that the “Brian’s” have been in charge of the asylum, and the result is that more and more Americans feel entitled to have an equal outcome, be it health care, house, car, clothes, bank account, whatever, without having to put in an equal amount of work.

Why study your ass off to be an engineer, when you can major in art appreciation, and then complain that your are burdened with student loans you cannot afford to pay back?

The point you make about going to a bar instead of the gym – I can make the same point that I worked 80 hour weeks for the last 30 years (between grad schools and professional life), and as a result I make good (not great, but good) money. So, when Obama vilifies me based on my income in order to suck up to some labor union, yeah I get frosted about it. When I see some Brian or BGG types explain that the 50% of my income that I (self employed) already pay in Federal, Medicare, SS, CA, unemployment, workers comp insurance, property and sales taxes (not counting health insurance) is not “my fair share”, well … it’s probably similar to how you feel about subsidizing America’s legion of self-made (type II) diabetics.

But, let’s be fair. It is one thing to subsidize “victims” of their own bad decisions, but quite another thing if someone is simply born with a medical condition. Maybe in another society where medical care was reasonably priced based on the service provided, they and their family could afford their care. But in this society, the rates for the uninsured cannot be paid by mere mortals and no one pretends they expect anyone to pay. I don’t mind paying a piece of that care, which in and of itself is trivial next to the amount of taxes I pay to the drug companies to fill a tackle box full of pills for every old person.

We’re an entitlement culture. Everyone is a victim. If you can figure out how to “change” this, you get my vote.

[PatentGuy]

BG:

PG here. We’re more of like minds than not. It’s just that the “Brian’s” have been in charge of the asylum, and the result is that more and more Americans feel entitled to have an equal outcome, be it health care, house, car, clothes, bank account, whatever, without having to put in an equal amount of work.

Why study your ass off to be an engineer, when you can major in art appreciation, and then complain that your are burdened with student loans you cannot afford to pay back?

The point you make about going to a bar instead of the gym – I can make the same point that I worked 80 hour weeks for the last 30 years (between grad schools and professional life), and as a result I make good (not great, but good) money. So, when Obama vilifies me based on my income in order to suck up to some labor union, yeah I get frosted about it. When I see some Brian or BGG types explain that the 50% of my income that I (self employed) already pay in Federal, Medicare, SS, CA, unemployment, workers comp insurance, property and sales taxes (not counting health insurance) is not “my fair share”, well … it’s probably similar to how you feel about subsidizing America’s legion of self-made (type II) diabetics.

But, let’s be fair. It is one thing to subsidize “victims” of their own bad decisions, but quite another thing if someone is simply born with a medical condition. Maybe in another society where medical care was reasonably priced based on the service provided, they and their family could afford their care. But in this society, the rates for the uninsured cannot be paid by mere mortals and no one pretends they expect anyone to pay. I don’t mind paying a piece of that care, which in and of itself is trivial next to the amount of taxes I pay to the drug companies to fill a tackle box full of pills for every old person.

We’re an entitlement culture. Everyone is a victim. If you can figure out how to “change” this, you get my vote.

[PatentGuy]

BG:

PG here. We’re more of like minds than not. It’s just that the “Brian’s” have been in charge of the asylum, and the result is that more and more Americans feel entitled to have an equal outcome, be it health care, house, car, clothes, bank account, whatever, without having to put in an equal amount of work.

Why study your ass off to be an engineer, when you can major in art appreciation, and then complain that your are burdened with student loans you cannot afford to pay back?

The point you make about going to a bar instead of the gym – I can make the same point that I worked 80 hour weeks for the last 30 years (between grad schools and professional life), and as a result I make good (not great, but good) money. So, when Obama vilifies me based on my income in order to suck up to some labor union, yeah I get frosted about it. When I see some Brian or BGG types explain that the 50% of my income that I (self employed) already pay in Federal, Medicare, SS, CA, unemployment, workers comp insurance, property and sales taxes (not counting health insurance) is not “my fair share”, well … it’s probably similar to how you feel about subsidizing America’s legion of self-made (type II) diabetics.

But, let’s be fair. It is one thing to subsidize “victims” of their own bad decisions, but quite another thing if someone is simply born with a medical condition. Maybe in another society where medical care was reasonably priced based on the service provided, they and their family could afford their care. But in this society, the rates for the uninsured cannot be paid by mere mortals and no one pretends they expect anyone to pay. I don’t mind paying a piece of that care, which in and of itself is trivial next to the amount of taxes I pay to the drug companies to fill a tackle box full of pills for every old person.

We’re an entitlement culture. Everyone is a victim. If you can figure out how to “change” this, you get my vote.

[Author]

Posts