D'Ohbama!: If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan...

Wow this thread has taken a turn for the bizarre.

 

Seriously they make prescription drugs for your leg falling asleep?

 

If Pfizer controls the government, why didn't they shut down the judges and kill the lawsuit and save themselves $3.6 billion? Seems like a pretty crappy puppet master if they couldn't stop that.

 

This isn't true at all. The purpose of the tax is to reduce or eliminate those plans rather than generate any kind of useful revenue.

 

So the democrats want to eliminate good plans? I thought the democrats were for creating a better health care for everyone...or do you just mean the semi-poor? Or you don't think that paying tax on 40% of your Employer paid plan won't generate useful revenue?

Though I do agree that the plans will be eliminated because corps won't pay. Buy why penalize those people that have good policies?

 

Read my post from the previous page - health care economists on both sides theorize that the cadillac plans lead to higher costs for everyone by creating excess strain on the health care system. It is just a theory though, so hard to say how this will play out.

 

I still can't really figure out how they would strain the system. They are really expensive so that means they are also paying a lot in premiums. If they weren't economically viable then the insurance company would raise the rates. What am I missing?

 

I dont follow this logic either. Is this similar to those on medicare using the ER for minor things like the flu instead of urgent care or doctors to prevent from paying money?

 

If the Cadillac plans are never challenged ever, if they always pay the doctor,the doctor does not have to show discretion on charges. They can charge whatever. They encourage charging anything. Its a cycle because you then have to buy that plan to make sure you're covered

 

The theory is that because they often have no co-pays and low deductibles, there's no incentive to be "smart" about your use of the healthcare system. Every time you sprain an ankle, might as well get an MRI just in case because it doesn't cost you anything - things like that. (In theory, the doctor should discourage this, but since we pay by procedure, the doctor has an incentive to go with it.)

If people overuse the system, it creates more demand and thus MRIs cost more for everyone. Same with getting tested for all sorts of other things or just visiting the doctor too much without good reason. The theory is that if you have to pay a co-pay or deductible, you are going to more judicious in how you approach health care and that will lessen the strain on the system.

So while the expensive premium may cover the cost of the person's actual usage, the increased total of use the system leads to inflation of costs for everyone. The real problem with our system is not that insurers are gouging us - they are only paying what we spend in the system. It's that the costs of individual procedures are going up. Basically, the costs being charged by the doctors and hospitals are rising; insurers pay that; so then insurers raise premiums. So you have to figure out how to control costs at the doctor/hospital level and what they bill to insurers and reducing demand is one of the ideas.

Again, it's only a theory - but when it comes to bending the long-term cost curve, almost everything is a theory because no one really knows for sure how to do it. So Obamacare basically has incorporated tests of a lot of these theories in the hopes of finding out what works. Other examples are changing payment methodology, paying for outcomes rather than procedures, etc.

 

When healthcare costs started going up a decade a human resources director where I worked said people over use the system. She was hearing that from the industry.

 

So if I get an MRI whether justified or not, that makes healthcare costs go up? I don't see that. Premiums for the employees on that policy yes, but how does that affect the costs of someone outside that policy? Insurance companies pay for the services and charge dearly for the services and they don't lose money.

Don't you think the flip side is more true. Going to the dr before something more serious crops up actually saves cost?

It's a flawed theory that disguises a tax and fees that will hit pocketbooks of those that have care to help fund those that didn't...plain and simple.

Let's say that I pay for car insurance that has 0 deductible. I get a scratch and get the car repaired. Another scratch, another repair. Will body shops start charging everyone more since I keep coming back? Or will the insurance company charge me more for my 0 deductible policy? Only if it creates a shortage will it raise costs and I don't know of any shortages. Are hospitals full? Is there a long line at the MRI machine where they need to buy another to keep the line moving? Overuse causes THAT employer's rates to go up for those that are overusing...not that actual cost or others premiums.

 

Its simple supply and demand. If you don't understand you need to take first year economics

 

There is a limited supply of healthcare professionals if you over use their services you drive up their value.

 

Simple supply and demand. If there is more demand for MRIs, there would be upward pressure on the cost of an MRI. That means when someone else needs an MRI, they may have to pay more. On a larger scale, if a lab has too many MRI customers, they will have to get more MRI machines - which means more fixed costs in terms of the machine itself, the space in the building to host it, the staff to run it, etc. Those added costs will be split between all lab patients, rather than just the people getting the MRI. So it could creep into inflating costs for all the procedures at the lab.

Or if MRIs are hard to visualize, imagine going to a specialist - they are often very busy and have waits as-is. If you have more people going unnecessarily, they are going to charge more for their limited time because they have too much demand.

Yes, absolutely - there's no question about this. The challenge is to find the sweet spot in between where you are going when there is good reason, but aren't going when its unnecessary.

 

I understand the basis of it, but it is ridiculous that this is only a theory. This information should be easily verifiable.

 

It doesn't really have anything to do with supply and demand. An MRI costs over $1000 in the US and around $280 if France.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...280-in-france/2011/08/25/gIQAVHztoR_blog.html

Prices don’t explain all of the difference between America and other countries. But they do explain a big chunk of it. The question, of course, is why Americans pay such high prices — and why we haven’t done anything about it.
“Other countries negotiate very aggressively with the providers and set rates that are much lower than we do,” Anderson says. They do this in one of two ways. In countries such as Canada and Britain, prices are set by the government. In others, such as Germany and Japan, they’re set by providers and insurers sitting in a room and coming to an agreement, with the government stepping in to set prices if they fail.
In America, Medicare and Medicaid negotiate prices on behalf of their tens of millions of members and, not coincidentally, purchase care at a substantial markdown from the commercial average. But outside that, it’s a free-for-all. Providers largely charge what they can get away with, often offering different prices to different insurers, and an even higher price to the uninsured.

 

the information is available. Just look at the rise in healthcare costs. Its outgrowing inflation. No need to look further. KISS. Keep it simple.

 

Are you saying it is clearly being caused by high premium plans? If you are then please send me to some studies or links that show that. I'd love to read up on it.

 

employee plans are cadillac plans. You can figure it out from there.

Xyz corp does not funnel joe employee into cheap plans. Its in its best interest for joe employee to get well and his doctor to get paid