<p>Forty million people getting subsidies? Where did that number come from?</p>
<p>There is another way to get hospitals to reduce prices: it’s called competition. Eliminate employer-provided plans, sell insurance across state lines, require HSA plans for everyone, forbid the govt to reimburse hospitals at less than their costs thereby forcing hospitals to shift the costs to private insurers and pass a law requiring full transparency of prices.</p>
<p>I thought I saw it in another post. What is the number?</p>
<p>I have been researching off exchange plans in California for 2014. I cannot find out anything about underwriting or open enrollment periods. All plans have to be ACA compliant, which would essentially mean pre-existing conditions cannot be used against applicant in underwriting process. </p>
<p>What am I missing?</p>
<p>The number getting subsidies has been estimated at 26-million by Families USA. Then there’s Medicaid. It’s a lot.</p>
<p>What’s with HSA? HSA is a subsidy. I dont understand why that subsidy is ok.
We arent getting rid of employer based healthcare. Another subsidy. </p>
<p>Cracks me up. People like their subsidies. They dont like other people’s too much. :)</p>
<p>“insurers and pass a law requiring full transparency of prices.”</p>
<p>We are starting to get transparency. Insurance plans are becoming more transparent. Dont waste my time GP . If you dont understand this use google.</p>
<p>We see that Cedars IS one of the most expensive hospitals in the US. And you want others
to cover your costs if you want to go to Cedars. So much for transparency.</p>
<p>Samurai, except for slightly different copays and deductibles (Anthem non-mirror plans) , there is no difference between on and off exchange plans. Well, there is one difference. You will be paying much more than the people who have exchange plans.</p>
<p>“Busdriver, I know for a fact that Children’s Hospital in Seattle was dropped from some employer-group coverage before ACA-- or that some employers opted to shift to plans that did not include Children’s in order to save costs. I know because that was what happened to my son: his employer plan covered Children’s when he signed his wife onto it, but during the company’s next open enrollment that plan was no longer available. However, my son & wife were allowed to stay on the old plan (or at least continue with the planned delivery at Children’s) because she was already pregnant”</p>
<p>This is not just Children’s Hospital that isn’t being covered. This is about several major hospitals in the region. </p>
<p>Why would anyone need to go to the Children’s Hospital to give birth? Unless it was a very young mother.</p>
<p>Think of how cheap it would be if people could just go to their local military hospital. $8 for a box lunch, and you don’t need any pain killer meds or epidurals, soldier. Doctors and nurses are on salary whether anyone shows or not. So much cheaper.</p>
<p>Samurai, you may see different information on the provider web sites in March, closer to the end of the open enrollment period.</p>
<p>The military hospital is paid for by taxpayers.</p>
<p>“Assuming that insurers are forced to accept these expensive hospitals into their networks, who is going to pay for it?”</p>
<p>Well, for the insurers who paid for it last year, who paid for it then?</p>
<p>Now if people get these more expensive hospitals back in their networks, maybe they aren’t just paying higher prices and higher deductibles for less coverage with a narrowed network. Perhaps they’d get the network they used to have for their increased prices.</p>
<p>
But my point is that there have been moves to restrict networks for years, going back before ACA. The particular hospitals don’t matter; it may have been achieved in the past more through the use of HMO’s and managed care plans, but its one way of controlling costs.</p>
<p>“The military hospital is paid for by taxpayers.”</p>
<p>I’m guessing the taxpayers get a lot more for their money with the military hospitals than paying for the pricey insurance coverage allowed to government workers, and that of teachers/fire fighters/police officers/etc.</p>
<p>“But my point is that there have been moves to restrict networks for years, going back before ACA. The particular hospitals don’t matter; it may have been achieved in the past more through the use of HMO’s and managed care plans, but its one way of controlling costs.”</p>
<p>The particular hospitals don’t matter? These are the most popular hospitals around here.
Not everyone has a managed care plan or HMO.</p>
<p>dstark, I am talking about provider prices and fees. Right now no one understands the prices hospitals charge their customers, mainly because of all the cost shifting This needs to be fixed. I like HSA’s because everyone has skin in the game and for those people who really need subsidies, it would be an easy way to do it. If you want to phaseout the tax subsidy for wealthier people, that would be okay with me.</p>
<p>We have two choices: a consumer-driven healthcare system or a top-down govt system without any real choice.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The short answer: nobody. Because the sick people who would have used the expensive hospitals couldn’t buy individual insurance. The plan that GP had didn’t admit sick people.</p>
<p>But now, sick people can buy individual insurance. And if insurers put Cedars Sinai in GP’s plan, sick people will go there to get care, and GP will have to pay for them.</p>
<p>GP, when you ask, what about competition, I say, this IS competition. Hospitals are competing to be included in the insurers’ networks. Expensive hospitals are losing that competition, because they are expensive.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t go to a VA hospital in a million years.</p>
<p>I’ll tell you who understands the prices hospitals charge their customers: insurers. And the insurers are looking at the prices expensive hospitals charge, and saying, Nope. Nope, that’s too expensive, we won’t pay it, goodbye. This IS competition.</p>
<p>How’s this CF: If you are getting subsidies for your insurance plan or have Medicaid, then you should have your network restricted. All full-paying customers should have their 2013 networks.</p>
<p>Competition as defined under ACA</p>