ObamaCare Must Die

[somarco]

Although I still believe Obamacare was a poorly thought out plan put together by folks who have no clue about how health care and health insurance are intertwined, I believe adverse selection was never really considered in designing PCIP.

I also believe they never imagined anyone would consciously drop existing coverage to buy PCIP.

A lot of folks talk about how transparency will save money. I never have subscribed to that theory, at least as it applies to anything beyond primary care.

If you want individuals to take charge of their health care, take away copays and eliminate deductibles less than $2500.

 

[Norwayguy]

Since I have a HSA I'm on the hook. Last year I had a sharp pain that turned out to be a kidney stone.

Went to the ER and had one test - said it was a kidney stone and that it was small enough to pass.

Then they wrote out 4 prescriptions, said I needed to come back for more testing in a few days.

Since it was my nickle, I started asking a lot of questions. Turns out I only needed the one pain med - didn't need the other three and didn't need to come back.

Savings? A lot. And this is mainly what's wrong with our system.

I do the exact same thing. I also find it amazing how quickly and easily Drs back down off thier recommendations if you question it.

 

[Yagents]

3 words: Lasik Eye Surgery

No insurance ever involved. Only the consumer.

Last 10 years: Costs are way down, quality is way up because the consumer was spending their own money.

My wife paid $1000 per eye 10 yrs ago with less quality procedure. Now, you get both eyes for $595 with a groupon

 

[Ann H]

Agreed, YAgents. Cosmetic surgery and dental care are other examples. The costs are less now when you factor in general inflation than they were 10 years ago. That's because most people pay for it themselves.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

You know something's up when you can buy a car for less than some hospital procedures.

A hospital might say that a particular procedures is "$50,000." Really? Define that. Break that down.

Likely, on a pure open market, that same procedure would be $3,000.

 

[Ann H]

Likely, on a pure open market, that same procedure would be $3,000.

Pure open market. Those words ring true. That's one of the problems with our 3rd party payor system that also includes two more parties (employer and government). It's not a pure open market.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

Pure open market. Those words ring true. That's one of the problems with our 3rd party payor system that also includes two more parties (employer and government). It's not a pure open market.

Correct. Everyone, so far, has played with "other people's money" with no transparency.

And if you can get away with it, why not. The providers say "man, our costs are CRAZY - gotta charge more" to which carriers say "why do we care - we'll just raise premiums."

Without that entire magic show, the true cost of health care would be exposed - which is that's it not a fraction of what providers say it is.

Reference a few hospitals in MA after the attorney general's investigation. They stated they charged more since they have higher costs which resulted in better care.

No. It does not which the report exposed.

I don't mind capitalism. But capitalism is not breaking down in some remote town and being charged $2,000 for an alternator.