Adding more insurance companies is not going to decrease the price of insurance.
Amy Barrett
- Thread starter SHUSA
- Start date
Adding more insurance companies is not going to decrease the price of insurance.
shh its part of the well documented easy to implement master plan that ensures people arent going broke within 2 months of removing aca.
Sounds like you don't have an open mind or haven't been paying attention. Two most significant things you can do is create price transparency and really allow the consumer to shop their healthcare. That creates more competition and lower costs. That goes for providers, insurers, etc. Healthcare is one of the few industries where the consumer has no idea what they are being charged and the industry wants to keep it that way.
There are models that are working in other countries/globally that produce the same outcomes for cardiac, orthopedic, etc. procedures at 25-50% of the cost of what we pay. Trump is also onto one thing with the most favored nations pricing in the U.S. No reason why we shouldn't have the lowest price, but since we consume 38-40% of the worlds Rx', will be a lot of pushback from big pharma on that one.
Some on this board tout "single payer" or "Medicare for All" solutions. That would be the worst thing that could happen IMO for the consumer.
Here is main issue at least for usa, now more than ever, healthcare directly tied to employment, yeah there is COBRA extortion too.
We have a lot on this board that like to press the co morbidities issue....suppose there is a person who is single mid to late 20s, lost a job had one heredity condition that a monthly Rx prescription is needed, abides by good diet and fitness, no smoking, minimal booze.
A sound healthcare plan would afford this person the ability to seek any pcp they research and choose, find any speciality doctors with mimimal red tape associated coverage cost should be no more than 400 per month, add in another 2k deductible and for 6800 a year this person should be able to see all doctors and get all medicines needed....its currently not possible
which is why i get there is opportunity for change, but you dont just quit one thing wihtout another lined up
the insurance companies are basically cartels which eliminates any sort of price decrease or competition you suggest. consumers already are really allowed to shop for their healthcare. all options stink. if big pharma pushes back how will price transparency ever happen? even still you have no idea what a service costs or facility actually costs. im ignorant as why we cant push for transparency under ACA, need you to explain that. whatever problem we have now we will have in the future.
if youre saying that its unlikely we can make the US replicate the global model because of big pharma lobby then youre just setting up a scenario where people no longer have the premium cost relief AND nothing has really changed.
trumps been in office for 4 years, why didnt he create price transparency?what about the ACA made it impossible for him to do so?
No offense, but your explanations just indicate how little you know about what drives the cost of healthcare. You asked for potenial solutions might be which I gave you and you just don’t like the answer. Can’t help you there. And I have explained earlier why Trump likely did not address healthcare with a solution in his first term.
Last edited:
So essentially, you are asking for a bridge type coverage plan. Why couldn’t we legislate that companies are required to provide Healthcare coverage for 90 to 120 days after an employee is outplaced or terminated? If you enable more competition maybe there would be companies that could provide bridge coverage like you are suggesting.
i dont have medicaid and id be on the express train to broke town without the assistance i get at the moment.
trump didnt address healthcare because he has no thought of his own, just delete anything with the name obama attached. that much is clear. the driving cost of healthcare is that people NEED it like their lives depend on it it and the medical manufacturers can control the prices regardless of transparency. insurance companies can charge high premiums and deductibles (which should be illegal) regardless of how much competition there is. because the consumer simply has no option to forgo health insurance. our health is the #1 important thing. we already know how much they are making. theyre using peoples healths a tool for rent. big pharma are the actual drug cartels.
and i hope your (keyword) possible solution works out, but based on your own words there are so many factors to render it unlikely. its not that i dont like your answers, im trying to learn more about them, i just arent convinced it could play out like that and leave people in a worse state then they were prior.
Cobra should still be an option for those who can afford it, however i am saying there should be common ground to have legitimate coverage not married to being employed.
Please give us your solver plan on this.
All I did was suggest you move somewhere that has what you want (and it’s in the Western Hemisphere and same continent). Not sure why that makes you think I’m a terrible person. Easy to say behind a keyboard
fwiw, here is where I believe we are heading.
Watered down Medicare for all. Provides coverage for preventative and catastrophic coverage as well as maintenance medicines.
Full Medicare for free for the elderly and poor.
Full buy in to Medicare available for a % of income.
Private plans still available to offer an alternative/workplace benefit to bridge the gap from catastrophic coverage.
If you saw someone struggling in a pool or ocean would you say, eh should have learned to swim years ago?
I dont understand why there cant be a universal path to having health care that an individual seeks to actually pay for without red tape and bureaucracy
There is no indication that people will go without healthcare. If more of the ACA get struck down then it will be the states responsibilities to provide coverage for those in need. Not sure where you live but you will have to turn to Murphy or Cuomo probably for that solution. For what it’s worth, the case that will be presented before the Supreme Court is pretty weak.
Right, we did expand it. I don't really see a need for the differentiation between that and Medicare though. Just painting a broad brush with where I believe we are heading.
i basically just hope to see something that addresses the switch off aca. im not a huge fan of it anyway. i dont trust there are "the best people working on it, very hard" in the shadows with peoples best interest in mind.
of course i might feel like this because its what you expect from this president.
1) an application doesnt mean acceptance
2) there are cheaper options, but cover nothing and dont hit until youve spent 7k deductible for example
3) youre hands are tied with any prexisting or recurring condition
4) the actual medical expenses factor in here too. insurance will only ever cover so much.
5) health insurance isnt the only cost in life?
anyway. im not complaining. just trying to have a conversation make me more knowledgable. i think open enrollment might change my status this month.
Got it. Thanks. I agree. But I don’t think it’s a good solution. I will opt out and pay for better healthcare. Medicare for all will widen the gap like all other progressive programs.
It’s Yet another kind hearted good liberal idea that will have unintended consequences.
It’s why I rail on pols and is why I switched from dem to trump supporter (trump, who, again, is quite liberal compared to other republicans).
If you just want to replace the ACA, just expand Medicaid to cover the 25–30M people.
Why cant there be a system in which coverage/insurance is 4800 to 7200 a year and then for individual use you either are coverered up to 70 percent or have a copay/deductible system that is under 10k per year for an individual not tied to any employer.
Wish we could find presidential candidates closer to this age than their sunset.
You don't have to add companies to increase competition. Just let them compete across state lines.
That would kind of be the point though.
The government paying for catastrophic coverage and preventative care would reduce the risk to insurance companies which would allow them to reduce their pricing. Competition from Medicare would drive private companies to offer better quality products or keep prices low. It's kind of win win in the current environment.
Adding more options is not going to reduce costs though.
For any benefit at all, we have to first assume the ACA is overturned. The primary argument for selling across state lines is that people in NJ might not want all of the coverage we get and could shop around for the lowest level of coverage in a state with very few minimum requirements. Since the ACA enforced a national minimum, opening up state lines doesn't really accomplish much.
If the ACA is overturned, it is possible you could see lower prices for healthy individuals concentrated from one state where regulations are the lowest, but that will only raise the cost for everyone else. All insurance companies will move to that state or lobby other states to offer bad coverage as well.
I just don't really see the innovation we need coming from the insurance side of this.
.
