<p>“Someone should come up with a health insurance hedge portfolio.”</p>
<p>Hey, they’re working on a bitcoin ETF, so why not that?</p>
<p>UNH top 4 execs had compensation of $58 million for 2012. Yes, they are growing income and assets but $58 million? Their stock price has done well so I guess that they are doing their jobs as Wall St would want.</p>
<p>Ok, so here we are, a well educated bunch talking about how difficult (and impossible at times) it is to navigate this healthcare/insurance maze. This must be next to impossible for those who are less educated. Health insurance is a necessity and yet it’s impossible for many to navigate. This is nuts!!!</p>
<p>Oh and I do so wish that insurance would become separated from jobs. this would definitely open up the market to the many who do not get medical insurance from their jobs.</p>
<p>It is not a secret that healthcare companies would do well under ACA as other posters have suggested. </p>
<p>Look at Wellpoint. </p>
<p>“Oh no! Government is taking over healthcare. There goes the profits of the private insurance companies. The private sector always does things better. The private insurance companies are toast. The world as we know it is ending. How I wish for the old days…
when the private insurance companies ripped us off”. :)</p>
<p>Bookreader, you are too logical. :)</p>
<p>In Singapore, one of the big parts of their healthcare approach is to keep the supply-side strong to keep costs low. There’s also a component that the patient pays to reduce the moral-hazard problem. It doesn’t appear that cost-control (to the customer) is a major part of the ACA. It’s more about coverage than cost-control.</p>
<p>If anyone wants to be my financial backer, I have a plan for a new business.</p>
<p>Concierge doctors offices. Get a doc from each specialty to get together, and they charge patients a flat fee for unlimited visits for the year. With no need to bill or keep up with insurance mandates, costs can go down. It’s what will happen as we try and shove ourselves into a single payer system.</p>
<p>It would seem it’s spiraling into Animal Farm - we’re all equal, just some are more equal than others, and those who can afford it, will find a way to get premium healthcare.</p>
<p>As you know, I don’t like ACA. But having said that, ACA was always conceived of as a two-step process: first, get everyone covered, get rid of pre-existing conditions and maximum limits, get rid of outrageous spending that didn’t benefit patients, and make costs transparent, and, then, secondly, figure out how to control costs.</p>
<p>(Personally, I don’t think that will ever happen, as the main carrots for the insurance industry will have already been dispensed, and they’ll be making out just great, thank you.)</p>
<p>Our insurance broker said the real issue with spiraling health care costs is the lack of tort reform. Doctors are afraid of being sued for not catching a potentially dangerous disease, so they order more tests than would normally be considered necessary. Not sure if that’s accurate or not…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t fall for that myth. Insurance companies have been very successful at convincing people of this. Doctors order lots of tests because it plays well into the formula by which they are paid. Of course, some of the doctors are fooled by the insurance companies that continue to raise premiums based more on losses in investments than on paying malpractice claims.</p>
<p>How does eliminating employer coverage take care of low income folks? Aren’t they still going to try to pay lowest cost for crappy coverage- and they end up where they are now? Need some emergency service and can’t pay? </p>
<p>How does it help my kid? Why would someone be more likely to hire her or give her 40 hours because they didn’t have to cover her? Or do you think they would pay her a bit more because they saved on their portion of insurance? It sounds to me like that hangs a lot on the goodness of employers. Just explain if if I’m, not getting something.</p>
<p>This issue of docs ordering more tests is one thing insurance companies are trying to control. Hence some denied coverages. Some of it is the statistical necessity.</p>
<p>
</a></p>
<p>Not trying to be argumentative, but an HSA is a subsidy, as I said in post #166 in that the money is put into the account income tax-free (but not SS/medi/dis free) so all it does is allow the self-employed to have some tax advantage to their medical benefit just as do all the people who work for companies which provide benefits.</p>
<p>So, yes, it is a subsidy, the same way your mortgage is a subsidy, you deduct it from your income before applying the tax rate. It is not a subsidy the way the new exchange plan premiums will be subsidized by a tax credit.</p>
<p>I am only clarifying so that people reading this to learn are not confused. If I put $5000 in an HSA, at 15% tax bracket I save $750. If I am low income such that I qualify for a premium subsidy next year, and my premium is $10,000 and the government gives me 90%, then I get a $9000 discount on that premium. A significant difference. Let’s just be careful that the term subsidy is not taken to mean the same thing in all posts ;)</p>
<p>Little green boxes to Bookreader, I think that health care should be separated from work, if every person in the country were reviewing the info the OP is reviewing, we might see a different level of reform.</p>
<p>I always noticed my friends with low co-pays would flit to the doctor for every sniffle and scrape of their kids, whereas I always thought twice. More skin in the game as we CCers want our kids to have with their college experience could be a good thing for our health care costs, too.</p>
<p>Somemom, with all due respect, I wasnt confused . :)</p>
<p>I agree with mini. There is cost containment under ACA, but containing costs are very difficult because one person’s costs are another person’s revenues. </p>
<p>One of the biggest problems I have with eliminating private insurance companies, and I dont expect that to happen in my lifetime, is there will be fewer jobs. The private insurance companies employ lots of people.</p>
<p>eyeamom, we have concierge doctors here in NJ. I have no idea how widespread it is, but there is a practice near me. It is something like what you describe. However, you still need regular insurance because of hospital coverage.</p>
<p>lookingforward - low income people may or may not be affected by separating healthcare from employment. Remember that many low income jobs do not offer any healthcare plans. </p>
<p>But if insurance was separated from jobs, then everyone would be in the open market and then it’s more likely that market forces would drive prices down. </p>
<p>Right now gov workers have cadillac care because only the government can afford those premiums (thanks to the rest of us diligently paying our taxes).</p>
<p>Do doctors with concierge practices save patients money? I dont think so. You get better service.</p>
<p>Bookreader, market forces means some people dont get insured. Right? </p>
<p>If I came down with stomach cancer, insurance companies would be lined up around the block to insure me. Right ?</p>
<p>I’m not worried about paying for doctors. They’re the least of my worries. It’s the darned costs of labwork, diagnostic tests, procedures, emergency room visits, operations, hospital bills, etc. This is the stuff that one can’t predict. One day you think you’re fine and the next your diagnosed with something that’s going to put you in the poor house.</p>