How Many States Alreday Offer Insurance for Pre X

[Winter_123]

Exactly! What they do is price fixing..

Not so. The provinces are allowed to negotiate separately with the pharma companies for the best deal.

 

[somarco]

provinces are allowed to negotiate separately with the pharma companies for the best deal.

As well as which meds will be offered.

 

[Josh]

Just because they (and you) say it doesn't make it true. Show me one minimum wage worker that does not have access to taxpayer and charity funded free clinics or Medicaid.

I'll show you 100 or 1,000. When do you want to come up to NY? There are plenty of other places it's exactly the same.

No argument here, but the cost of health care goes hand in hand with the cost of health insurance. For all the political rhetoric about health care reform there is virtually nothing in the legislation that addresses the cost of health care.

But it doesn't have to. The cost of health insurance is only adding another layer (or two or three) to the cost of healthcare.

Bring down the cost of care and utilization, and premiums drop. Eliminate mandates and the bottom falls out of health insurance premiums.

Do that and everyone is happy.

You're neglecting to note that some of the mandates are just a good idea and there are folks that are uninsurable that still need access to healthcare. That is not a solution that makes everyone happy.

And once more, no, I am not confusing health care with health insurance. I have beat that drum longer than almost anyone. The things you suggest to tweak the cost of health care will have a minimal effect on the cost of care and almost negligible effect on health insurance.

Just exactly how much drinking did you do in school? Not college, high school. If the cost of drugs gets cut to even 35% of what it is now, people start eating healthier or pay into the healthcare system, and rather than paying insurance companies to pay provider groups obscene fees the government actually managed or heavily subsidized free-standing clinics the actual cost of a doctors visit would be half the current cost or less. How exactly is that negligible? Also, I'm not talking about lowering the cost of health insurance, it's reducing the cost of healthcare and making it more accessible.

Actuarial studies prove that incentives built in to plan design and cash rewards for healthy lifestyle (diet, exercise, stop smoking) all have a dramatically better result than penalizing "bad" behavior.

Show me the studies. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but we need some sort of a stick too. The government shouldn't be paying people to be healthy.

 

[somarco]

The cost of health insurance is only adding another layer (or two or three) to the cost of healthcare.

Health insurance is simply one way of financing the cost of health care. True health insurance is not needed for routine health care any more than putting copays on auto insurance.

One of the reasons why health care in general is expensive is because we pay so little for our actual care. Americans on average pay 12% of the total cost of care. The rest is paid for by taxpayers and insurance.

Eliminate copays, set minimum deductibles of $2500 per person before the carrier pays anything and watch the total cost of care come down.

mandates are just a good idea and there are folks that are uninsurable

Coming from a GI state I can understand that position. But there are 52 other states that don't have GI and they have a solution for uninsurables that do not penalize the entire population.

The government shouldn't be paying people to be healthy.

I never said that.

Health insurance plan design always drives utilization. Always.

When I was a carrier "insider" I saw quite a few studies that illustrated carrots vs sticks. Don't have access to that any more, but here are some real world situations to justify offering incentives.

Employer Health Incentives - February 03, 2009 -Winter 2009 - Harvard Public Health Review - Harvard School of Public Health

John Mackey: The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare - WSJ.com

http://www.worldcongress.com/news/Mackey_Transcript.pdf

 

[agentinsure]

By golly gee whiz from reading these posts Id say for the first time most everyone on here is somewhat in agreement whether you belive in publix option, funded abortions or what have you. The bottom line is no one seems to think what congress just did is a great deal.

So tell me anyone why are we letting our state govt's slowly abdicate our authority and rights to a federal authority whose powers are explicitly stated and limited by the constitution?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

We should each begin meeting our state legislators and putting some pressure on them, because they are accessible, they do live in our home towns down the street and begin pushing them on this topic, that they are giving up too much of what is ours to a federal monarchy. Something the founding fathers repeately warned against.

 

[Winter_123]

By golly gee whiz from reading these posts Id say for the first time most everyone on here is somewhat in agreement whether you belive in publix option, funded abortions or what have you. The bottom line is no one seems to think what congress just did is a great deal.

So tell me anyone why are we letting our state govt's slowly abdicate our authority and rights to a federal authority whose powers are explicitly stated and limited by the constitution?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

We should each begin meeting our state legislators and putting some pressure on them, because they are accessible, they do live in our home towns down the street and begin pushing them on this topic, that they are giving up too much of what is ours to a federal monarchy. Something the founding fathers repeately warned against.

Without disagreeing with your point, I would note that one of the problems (at least in the north) is that many of the states are now even pinker than the mess going on in Washington. We can't just fall back on the knee-jerk belief that everything at the state level is anti-big government and we can fix it all by bringing it home closer to the states. That all worked quite well for a couple hundred years. Not so much or so easily now.

The big spenders, and social experimenters at the state levels have dug themselves into a hole and are playing on the same team with many in Washington who are willing to keep helping them to do that. They throw rocks at washington and blame them for everything one day, and then the next day washington gives them some money and they dig themselves in even deeper rather than using it as a helping hand to begin digging themselves out. Stimulus program is a classic example. States used the funds to fund their current state payrol and medicaid programs which were going off a cliff, and never cut back a dime. So that means that we either must have a permanent stimulus program or when the cuts come they will be even more draconian.

There is not that much difference between state budgets and federal budgets now. They are all mushed together. You go to a state department of education or human services and find that its running a major deficit. So you take out the ax to cut some employees and you find that you cant save a dime of state funds because they are all being reimbursed by the feds.

Places like Maine and Vermont used to be very, very, thrifty, level-headed, town-meeting run type places with lots and lots and lots of common sense. Now I am represented in Congress by Che Guevera's sister who is from Michigan and her daughter is the speaker of the house in the state legislature. Progress?

 

[agentinsure]

Without disagreeing with your point, I would note that one of the problems (at least in the north) is that many of the states are now even pinker than the mess going on in Washington.

Yes many states especially here in the north have become increasingly so, through the promise of rich fed govt programs, cleaner air and cheaper energy or whatever goodies they are doleing out this week. I belive there is a growing restlessness and contempt for what has been occuring and we will someday reach a tipping point. How long do you think our kids will work with a 20 or 30 % payroll tax before wising up. A 50 to 60% income tax rate? I think Im staying home today, screw that.

Do a search for "unfunded liabilites" owed by the Fed. You dont have to be an accnt major to figure out with a 2+:1 debt ratio and rising rates what is about to happen here, even in our own streets. We are on borrowed time at this point. Our current economy or lack have has been sustained by the largest deficit spending of any county in history. And yet the job rate declines, foreclosures go up, and so on.

We can't just fall bac k on the knee-jerk belief that everything at the state level is anti-big government and we can fix it all by bringing it home closer to the states. That all worked quite well for a couple hundred years. Not so much or so easily now.

Hey, a politician is a politician. None think small. But at least at the state level you and I can be there along with our neighbors when necessary, to enforce our rights and to let our desires, wishes and beliefs made know. This is part the reason for such as the 2nd, 4th and 10 amendments. We have the right, the ability and responsibility to protect ourselves from tyranny in whatever form it occurs.

This is nothing new, it has occurred time and again in every empire, centralized authority, appeasement of the masses and finally a debasement of the currency accompanied by the fall. Greece, Rome, Ottomans, etc. Read the "Rise and Fall of Nations" for an empirical study of the sequence of events.

I say we, as any good American business man would, cut the money loser off and send here down her way. Yes Im speaking of the fed govt. Besides anything we'd loses in that process we had no constitutional right to in the first place. Then we go to work here at home in our legislative hallways crafting our communities through the voices and the rights bestowed upon us originally by the founding fathers. And if I live in a dipstick state which is trying to spend money it don't have, I can move to Texas or to your state. That was the planning to begin with and neither of us shoed assumed to be so wise or let a Pelosi or Reid change any of that. Rights, or the right way to educate your children, etc.

The big spenders, and social experimenters at the state levels have dug themselves into a hole and are playing on the same team with many in Washington who are willing to keep helping them to do that. They throw rocks at washington and blame them for everything one day, and then the next day washington gives them some money and they dig themselves in even deeper rather than using it as a helping hand to begin digging themselves out. Stimulus program is a classic example. States used the funds to fund their current state payrol and medicaid programs which were going off a cliff, and never cut back a dime. So that means that we either must have a permanent stimulus program or when the cuts come they will be even more draconian.


There is not that much difference between state budgets and federal budgets now. They are all mushed together. You go to a state department of education or human services and find that its running a major deficit. So you take out the ax to cut some employees and you find that you cant save a dime of state funds because they are all being reimbursed by the feds.


There are a couple of differences; first the states have been unable to spend themselves to a point of no return such as the fed has. And second, we should stop funding these federal programs which are meant for the states exclusively in the first place and there would not be a federal dept of human or education. The fed has no authority granted it by the constitution.


Places like Maine and Vermont used to be very, very, thrifty, level-headed, town-meeting run type places with lots and lots and lots of common sense. Now I am represented in Congress by Che Guevera's sister who is from Michigan and her daughter is the speaker of the house in the state legislature. Progress?

Again, return authority to the local level, is it perfect? No, but I guarantee anyone this, with the spending binge the fed is on, we will be lucky if in 10 years from now we are as well off as Britain, and not Venezuela or Weimar Republic.

 

[HomeService]

By golly gee whiz from reading these posts Id say for the first time most everyone on here is somewhat in agreement whether you belive in publix option, funded abortions or what have you. The bottom line is no one seems to think what congress just did is a great deal.

So tell me anyone why are we letting our state govt's slowly abdicate our authority and rights to a federal authority whose powers are explicitly stated and limited by the constitution?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

We should each begin meeting our state legislators and putting some pressure on them, because they are accessible, they do live in our home towns down the street and begin pushing them on this topic, that they are giving up too much of what is ours to a federal monarchy. Something the founding fathers repeately warned against.

correct. it is because the feds are trying to destroy this republic, and the states are finding themselves with less and less power. the republic is being destroyed so that we shall have a one world government, or a new world order. but that's a different subject- but it will explain why we are destroying the republic by design.

 

[scagnt83]

True but they also negotiate a better price with the drug companies. Not so much here.

Not only does Canada do that, but a lot of other countries do this as well.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Health insurance is simply one way of financing the cost of health care. True health insurance is not needed for routine health care any more than putting copays on auto insurance.

Eliminate copays, set minimum deductibles of $2500 per person before the carrier pays anything and watch the total cost of care come down.

Heres the thing about that. Its true for most of the upper middle class and above. But there is a huge amount of people in this country that simply just cannot afford to pay the current rates out of pocket for routine health care... especially if they have kids.
And forget about a $2500 deductible, even $1000 is a large sum to meet for a lot of people who are just above the FPL.

For people with lower incomes who can afford reasonably priced health insurance, copay plans are pretty much required for the plan to be of any value to them.


Things have become so bad because we have a growing gap that cannot afford to pay their share of healthcare even when they have insurance. Then there are the people who plain just cant afford insurance, or can not qualify.

Yes there are free clinics and ERs. They do help, but ERs are terribly inefficient; and both fall short of providing the quality of care that an insured individual will receive.
Free clinics pretty much only provide routine type care, with minor emergency care. If its serious you usually have to go to an ER.
The ER is inefficient and not designed with routine care in mind. It is also extremely costly. Its can also be difficult to receive specialist care and diagnostic testing for non life threatening conditions as well.

There is medicaid, but the rules and regs are state specific. You have to be close to homeless in most states to be able to qualify if your not pregnant, under 18, disabled, or old.
There is a huge gap of families that do not qualify for medicaid but can not afford health insurance.

 

[Alston]

Connecticut has 2 GI programs. One called Husky that is for children. Another called the Charter Oak. The Charter Oak Plan will take both children and adults.

Both plans are reasonably priced, but have limited networks and limited benefits.

Charter Oak has a $100,000 annual cap. I wouldn't sell a policy with a $100,000 annual cap since there are so many policies that have much more favorable limits. However, I will admit that it is more than enough for most people.

(The plans I sell have no annual caps and $3 million, $5 million or no lifetime caps.)