<p>If you don’t want to be relying on your employer for coverage, you really don’t want to rely on government for who and what gets treated.</p>
<p>I wish everybody realize that. Apparently, most are not in this boat. But we are going to drawn, in a boat or out of it. Just like others who are crossign the border after taking new mortgages on their homes. BTW, where they will go with additon of us? I guess, the only place is India and will be China soon as some MDs will go back home.</p>
<p>
So true! Here a glitch, there a glitch, everywhere a glitch, glitch…</p>
<p>[The</a> (Not So) Affordable Care Act ? Get Ready For Some Startling Rate Increases | The Health Care Blog](<a href=“http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2012/12/05/the-not-so-affordable-care-act-get-ready-for-some-startling-rate-increases/]The”>The (Not So) Affordable Care Act – Get Ready For Some Startling Rate Increases – The Health Care Blog)</p>
<p>[ACA</a> Glitch Could Mean Some Families Will Be ?Priced Out? Of Coverage | Benico, Ltd.](<a href=“http://benico.com/2013/01/aca-glitch-could-mean-some-families-will-be-priced-out-of-coverage/]ACA”>http://benico.com/2013/01/aca-glitch-could-mean-some-families-will-be-priced-out-of-coverage/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Couldn’t disagree more. Both before and after ACA, most Americans’ health care is at the whim of their employer. Before and after ACA, some employers are generous and some are not. Before and after ACA, any employer can change their minds about insurance any time, for any reason. </p>
<p>If we had single-payer, we would not have to hope and pray for generous employers in order to be assured of decent health care. And if you’re saying that you don’t want “government bureaucrats” deciding about your health care – what do you think is the purpose of your insurance company’s Claims Department? Their one and only job is to find a way to deny your claim. Every time they refuse to pay for a test or procedure, that goes straight to the bottom line. </p>
<p>No other country has this problem. The world over, developed countries have figured out how to get health care to their citizens at less than half the cost we pay. Are you saying we alone cannot solve this problem, which everyone else managed to solve decades ago? Could it have anything to do with the fact that we as a society value protecting the profit margins of Big Insurance more than we value making sure all Americans have access to medical care?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. Which is why nothing will change until we address campaign finance.</p>
<p>To fully understand the level of control the employer has, consider the case where both spouses have access to the same general plan via the same insurer. It won’t be the same cost wise, coverage wise, or any other wise. If employer is relatively benevolent then premiums go a long way. If not…</p>
<p>We were lucky to have orthodontics, speech, acne treatments, and other “frivolities” covered very well by Benevolent Inc…</p>
<p>“Our enlightened leaders will solve the cost problem very easily, no treatment after certain age. It has been done in other places. Nothing is new. The smaller number of sick, the smaller cost of medicine, there is no magic. Got sick? Here is a box waiting for you and everybody is happy.”</p>
<p>It’s amazing that every other industrialized nation in the world survives perfectly fine with universal health care. It’s not like insurance companies here already don’t have a great deal of say over what treatment one can or cannot get, along with one’s employer who gets to choose what type of health coverage they want to offer their employees. Not everyone’s plan offers carte blanche coverage for any treatment under the sun, not to mention the lifetime caps on every policy before ACA.</p>
<p>Honestly, I don’t know how anyone can defend employer-sponsored health care. It stifles free-market competition and keeps many people from going out on their own in business, since the alternatives for the self-employed are usually onerously expensive.</p>
<p>We don’t have employered sponsored health care. We have a society not willing to get care unless an insurance company pays for it.</p>
<p>^Nobody needs anybody to pay for loosing weight (just one example). Most expanses in health care system are caused by overwieght, by far. The whole medical care system would be much cheaper and more accessible to those who have no control over their conditions. Nothing we can do, we are not in police state (not yet, but it is coming according to very well known mayor, just wait a bit). We cannot do anything within our families. But this is a real cause of the problem that nobody is talking about because it is politically incorrect. The cost will continue going up, no matter who pays. But more bureaucracy will add to the cost, nobody is working for free, very simple concept.</p>
<p>^It’s not about adding bureaucracy, it’s about encouraging free-market choice. Why wouldn’t you want that? We have it in most other areas of our lives. Name one other thing that you can only buy when you are part of a group, and in which you have no say in the selection process.</p>
<p>I do agree with you 100% about the obesity epidemic, though. I don’t care if it’s PC to discuss it or not. It’s out of control and costing everyone no matter what kind of insurance we have.</p>
<p>Love the typo…“expanses” when talking about weight loss. Would this really be “expenses”?</p>
<p>Poor preventative care and things like poor eating habits (eating excessively things like donuts) can CONTRIBUTE to health woes for SOME people.</p>
<p>And just for the record, the folks in this household are not overweight by any measure or means. Three of us have a medical issue that has NOTHING to do with weight…NOTHING.</p>
<p>Insurers are well aware that obesity is a major health hazard, and most, even Medicare, cover bariatric services. Many cover dietary services as well.</p>
<p>A lot of employers, separate from medical insurance, offer gym memberships, nutrition services and some even offer Weight Watchers at Work, which is very successful for some people.</p>
<p>One scientist found that you can lose weight by eating a lot of Twinkies. When it comes down to it, it’s calories in and calories out. When you’re in subsistence mode, you’re trying to get calories cheap. Good calories cheap is the next step up.</p>
<p>There are lots of studies out there that put a dollar cost on various aspects of the obesity problem. You may have issues unrelated to obesity but the CDC says that 69% of adults in the US are overweight or obese and that’s got to cost a few bucks in dealing with the health problems that come along with excess weight.</p>
<p>To follow up on what Zoos said, many employers offer wellness programs both on line as well as the benefits zoos mentioned (assistance with gym memberships, nutrition, exercise, smoking cessation, etc). Some employers have facilities on site, or have recreation areas with things like ping pong, billiards, foosball, etc for their employees. </p>
<p>Many also offer EAP services for mental health issues, child/eldercare, etc-- other major causes of missed work days.</p>
<p>That’s exactly right jym. My current firm even has a benefit (and I find this amazing, so excuse me if I’m ignorant) for long-term care insurance that can even include the employee’s parents and parents-in-law. It is expensive, of course, but not so expensive as to be prohibitive and a real bargain compared to paying for the care out of pocket.</p>
<p>Anyway, back to fitness, there is some anecdotal evidence that the Weight Watchers at Work program is very effective and I’ve personally seen the evidence of that.</p>
<p>Companies get breaks on the cost of their coverage when they offer those types of incentives to their employees - at least they did when I was involved in negotiating price with the insurance companies. Companies don’t give these bennies out of the kindness of their heart.</p>
<p>Right, but some of these bennies really do significantly reduce days that employees miss work, and that is a goal of many employers. Maybe now with telecommuting its less of an issue in some fields, but still, reducing missed days is an important target.</p>
<p>^absolutely. But if there wasn’t a significant cost savings on the companies cost of insurance they wouldn’t probably be as inclined.</p>