Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Comments

  • >> tell me, why should a couple in their early sixties with grown kids be required to pay for maternity care?

    I know! Same as property taxes for schools!

    More seriously, it's not really clear this guy knows what insurance is and how it works. Group pooling etc. Unless you think pregnancy is like living in a flood zone. (rimshot here.)

    Where are the money details? Did I miss where he does all the dollar-crunching and -shifting his cool-sounding proposals entail and any, oh, I don't know, problems they might produce? He makes it sound like savings only. May it be so.
  • >> tell me, why should a couple in their early sixties with grown kids be required to pay for maternity care?

    I know! Same as property taxes for schools!

    More seriously, it's not really clear this guy knows what insurance is and how it works. Group pooling etc. Unless you think pregnancy is like living in a flood zone. (rimshot here.)

    I'm shocked! You are against people not planing or can't (men/unmarried) to have children paying for maternity care AND people without children paying for schools.

    Wow! What would Krugman say?

  • @davidrmoran- Recommend ignoring trolls.
  • Just wondering: if only pregnant women were required to pay for maternity care, what would that do to their premiums? Right. Astronomical. We need to get from ME to WE. Yes, there will always be stoopid people who fail to plan or just prefer to be careless. I recall Groucho on "You Bet Your Life." Talking to a contestant who said she had 16 kids. He said: "I like my cigar, too. But sometimes, I take it out." Contraception could obviate the whole issue. But then, you have employers (and individuals?) not wanting to pay for contraception. In the 21st century, that's just nuts. But as long as it's AVAILABLE, men and women must USE it! Duh.
  • "How is this fair? Should billion-dollar corporations get special health insurance tax breaks while regular American families struggle"

    IMHO, he's got this one right. Level the playing field. And while you're at it, don't distort the marketplace by providing tax subsidies to corporations (unless they're earning under 4 times the poverty rate). Corporations are people, give them the same breaks as people, no more, no less.

    While some of that may sound flippant, I'm serious about getting rid of these corporate tax breaks. The Cadillac tax is a move in that direction, which might explain why Congress is acting as we speak to delay it. Labor unions and corporations are trying for outright repeal. It's an equal opportunity target.

    There are admittedly problems with its structure - it's an excise tax passed through to employees, as opposed simply eliminating the corporate tax break (making the insurance non-deductible). Corporations are the ones selecting these plans. So they're the ones who need to shop better, spurred by exposure to the full cost of the insurance plans..

    "Let insurers incentivize healthy behavior"

    They already do this. Many insurers subsidize gym memberships, often requiring proof of frequent use to receive those subsidies. Oscar Insurance pays subscribers for walking a certain amount per day, providing a free wearable to track this.

    There's more flexibility built into the ACA than people realize. States set their own standards (subject to minimum ACA requirements), and insurers are also able to offer multi-state plans conforming to federal rather than state standards. Insurers can tailor their plans, adding freebies, incentives, etc. And so on.
  • @OJ, thanks; it is plenty lolz that he does not know what 'more seriously' means, but more important, note that he's still batting 1000 for typos.

    @msf, do you ever not talk sense?
  • msf said:

    "How is this fair? Should billion-dollar corporations get special health insurance tax breaks while regular American families struggle"

    IMHO, he's got this one right. Level the playing field. And while you're at it, don't distort the marketplace by providing tax subsidies to corporations (unless they're earning under 4 times the poverty rate). Corporations are people, give them the same breaks as people, no more, no less.

    @msf Thank you! I feel the same way!

    I debated posting this link because I think we have rehashed this topic ad nauseum...and I'm currently suffering from caffeine withdrawal, so I don't have much energy to argue...sad, but true. I want to be caffeine free by 1/1/2016.

    Pregnancy and flood zones are both voluntary. Property taxes are not...unless you choose to rent...in which case, it will be included in your rent..unless you have a very benevolent landlord or live with Mommy and Daddy. And we chose to send our sons to private schools, but again, it was our choice to pay tuition, in addition to property taxes.

    BTW, who is Oscar and where can I buy his insurance?;) I'm a fitness fanatic and would love to be rewarded for my efforts.

  • Crash said:

    Just wondering: if only pregnant women were required to pay for maternity care, what would that do to their premiums? Right. Astronomical. We need to get from ME to WE.

    What intrigued me was that buried deep in the rhetorical question about why a couple in their sixties should pay for maternity care was the slightest glimmer of a WE concept.

    The key word was "couple". Why should the husband's plan have to cover maternity care (regardless of age)? Is he going to be pregnant? Is he going to be nursing?

    Yet underlying the question was a perception that a husband of a pregnant woman was somehow involved in the health and wellbeing of another. I'm hopeful that reflected more than an archaic view that the husband must be the breadwinner, the provider. That it encompassed the start of WE.
  • Your point is a stretch, but I agree. Your example is not incorrect, just very limited in scope. How about a TRULY universal plan, which REVERSES the individual mandate--- which is the opposite of UNIVERSAL, in the first place?
  • >> Pregnancy and flood zones are both voluntary.

    if only
  • @little5bee Just say "Hi, Oscar".

    Really, that's how the company promotes itself, and is also the company's website:
    http://hioscar.com

    It's a VC darling, a new insurance company targeting millennials. Well priced (and losing money), with some interesting ideas and some gimmicky ones. It started in NY and NJ; next year (2016) it is expanding into limited parts of Southern California and Texas (Dallas, San Antonio).

    I'm not sure I completely buy into it, but it's an example of the type of insurance experimentation that would likely not have happened but for ACA. (That's because of the expanded individual insurance market and associated regulations.)

    Regarding decaffeination - best wishes. Been there, done that. In college I was a Coke® addict, and kicking the habit was painful.

    Did I really write that?:-) That's Coke® as in Coca-Cola®, as in 44 oz a day - 16 at lunch, 16 at dinner, 12 for an evening snack. Endured a week of bad headaches when I stopped. Hardly anything as far as withdrawals go, but it did give me a sense of appreciation of how hard it is for people to get off of "real" drugs.

  • edited December 2015
    Well, I'll avoid the sad chuckle that was the FEHBP (federal employee) open season this year as seniors got what they wanted, a self+1 plan, so they could avoid pregnancy payments and large families. Sad that it blew up in their face with (mostly) equal to or greater than the cost than the family plans. But the Cadillac tax came up during a Washington Post discussion of open season. The q/a was:

    http://live.washingtonpost.com/fehb-open-season-2014.html
    Q: Federal Employee & Annuitant Health Plans
    Are there any plans to tax that portion of the FEHB premium that is paid by the Federal Government?
    A: Yes, that is coming under the Affordable Care Act, under the so-called "Cadillac Plan" tax starting in 2018. It won't tax the whole employer share, but more and more of it over time. Plans can reduce this hit by reducing benefit generosity (e.g. higher deductibles).

    So, plans remain expensive but a cost shift to deductible is anticipated. This hits the old and ill the most. I guess not paying early in life is, in the future, a savings account for higher payment later except such plans don't usually have savings account options. My prediction is that there will be little interest in these plans eventually except by the older workforce/annuitants who didn't have time to plan for the changes and bit themselves in the buttocks by not wanting to pay for pregnancies and children under the family plans. [I have spoken before about the one database observation of this program over the years as the workforce pool was broken into esoteric (at the time) new choices.]

    I am beginning to think that our healthcare system will morph into a high deductible/catastrophic system as the ACA and future changes to it play out. Of course, this pattern is more of interest to people with non-ACA plans and subsidies. (I don't think ACA subsidies are considered hidden income but I could be wrong.) I admit this is cynical but I always assume the insurance and medical industries will make sure they come out on top.
  • edited December 2015
    @msf Thanks! Headaches are subsiding, but just don't have my usual energy/alertness/attention span. I've never smoked, but I've heard that's a lot tougher. I've quit caffeine before (eg., pregnancy) and have always reverted when stressed...my drug of choice. Need to modify my behavior.

    Was it regular Coke or diet? That's a lot of calories, too, if it was regular.;)
  • msf said: "How is this fair? Should billion-dollar corporations get special health insurance tax breaks while regular American families struggle"

    @msf & @little5bee- I'm with you guys on this one, too.
  • Come on guys. A person who does not want kids HAS to pay for OTHER's kids education because those same kids will then pay Social Security because which will pay HIM in his twilight years.

    In a society, we do things for each other. Otherwise called Socialism. Yes we do have it in our country. Medicare, Medicaid, all socialism. Bank bailouts - socialism. No wait, what am I saying...that's undescribable combination of Objectivism and Oligarchy.

    And just so we are clear, 20 something's should not say why I am paying 65 year olds Social Security. Even if they don't plan to themselves live till 65, they still have to do it. Or they can quit working and spend all day on F***book. Might guaranty me a job till I am 65.
  • >> In a society, we do things for each other.

    whoa, whoa, you bad, be careful what you write
  • edited December 2015



    In a society, we do things for each other. Otherwise called Socialism. Yes we do have it in our country. Medicare, Medicaid, all socialism. Bank bailouts - socialism. No wait, what am I saying...that's undescribable combination of Objectivism and Oligarchy.

    And just so we are clear, 20 something's should not say why I am paying 65 year olds Social Security. Even if they don't plan to themselves live till 65, they still have to do it.

    Maybe the time has come for Medicare recipients to also pay for maternity care and pediatric vision and dental....since we are ALL part of society. I know many of them who contribute to this forum would be happy to see their Medicare premiums go up 20% - 30%/year in order to help their fellow Americans.

  • Quite frankly if we eliminated private insurance altogether and put everyone on Medicare, medical costs per capita would most likely go down. Medicare has long had much greater bargaining power than private insurers with pharmaceutical companies and hospitals for drug costs and procedures because they know it is a giant who will crush them if they fail to negotiate. So they have no choice but to lower their costs. If everyone was on Medicare, these companies would not be able to charge someone who ends up in an emergency room $200 for getting a band aid from an out of network provider. The problem is that Obama's administration had to strike a devil's bargain with these companies to get the law passed. The law helps partially solve the demand side of the problem--more people are insured--but does little to solve the supply side--drug, hospital and private insurer companies can still gouge consumers. I don't really know how we move past that supply side problem.
  • There appears to be and sounds as if there remains much discontent with Obamacare. A health plan promoted by some in congress and prior administrations has been the health savings account. An HSA, the promoters say, create a market based plan with the consumer being more attuned to costs and getting the best deal they can obtain for their monies. It also may contribute to fewer expensive medical exams and less use of health care in general. Those in congress have premium quality health care paid for by taxpayers with contributions from the congress. Congress should replace its current health insurance with health savings account thereby leading by example and proving the value of an HSA as the way to improve Obamacare. Up till now, however, congress remains stalwart supporters of the status quo of which they are the beneficiaries.
  • "but does little to solve the supply side--drug, hospital and private insurer companies can still gouge consumers. I don't really know how we move past that supply side problem. "

    Outsourcing is the solution. People all over the world are using medications which may be cheaper than corresponding drugs here, so procure from there. There is a hospital in Bangalore where 2 doz+ open heart surgeries are done PER DAY where doctors work for 10-12 hrs, 6 days a week, so hospital overheads per patient are low.( search for narayana hridayalaya in google). IVF is done in Baroda, India at a very low cost. You have to look around a bit for deals. Medical tourism is a great thing to save money and see places.
  • edited December 2015

    Quite frankly if we eliminated private insurance altogether and put everyone on Medicare, medical costs per capita would most likely go down.

    @LewisBraham At this point, I think we should try it. Obamacare obviously is not what was advertised...lower costs, better care, etc. In your opinion, do you think government would get overly involved, i.e., taxing junk food, large sodas, more than 2 children, etc?
    varmint said:

    Those in congress have premium quality health care paid for by taxpayers with contributions from the congress. Congress should replace its current health insurance with health savings account thereby leading by example and proving the value of an HSA as the way to improve Obamacare. Up till now, however, congress remains stalwart supporters of the status quo of which they are the beneficiaries.

    @varmint Yes, they are quite adept at feathering their own nests, aren't they?

  • @little5bee, I'm not sure the government would get involved with taxing junk food and sodas, but if you consider that right now the government is subsidizing junk food/soda as its primary ingredient is corn--corn syrup, corn chips, etc.--it would be pretty funny if they taxed it too so the money would go in a big circle. Farm subsidies to corn cost tax payers billions.
  • How long did it take before they taxed the (tar) out of cigarettes? Let's get'er done !
    Derf
  • Derf said:

    How long did it take before they taxed the (tar) out of cigarettes? Let's get'er done !
    Derf

    Fine by me...but not before Jan 1, please...still decaffing:(

  • @little5bee, I'm not sure the government would get involved with taxing junk food and sodas, but if you consider that right now the government is subsidizing junk food/soda as its primary ingredient is corn--corn syrup, corn chips, etc.--it would be pretty funny if they taxed it too so the money would go in a big circle. Farm subsidies to corn cost tax payers billions.

    Over half the states already tax candy and/or soda, and have for many years (Bloomberg aside):

    Facts and Figures 2012: Sales Tax Treatment of Groceries, Candy and Soda, As of January 1, 2012

  • @MSF, States do, and they should in my view given the obesity epidemic and health care costs from that, but I think Little5Bee was asking if the federal government would tax. Since the federal government gives subsidies to corn farmers, to tax junk food and soda would have an amusing circular affect in which the government is giving away money and then recollecting it for the same end product. Then again, the parties taxed and subsidized would be different--consumers taxed, farmers subsidized. Still, the ideal situation would be to get rid of the subsidies and create a junk food/soda tax to help cover the costs of treating people who become obese from junk food. That way those buying junk food would help pay for their own medical costs. It would have the ancillary benefit of reducing the consumption of these foods.
  • Still, the ideal situation would be to get rid of the subsidies and create a junk food/soda tax to help cover the costs of treating people who become obese from junk food. That way those buying junk food would help pay for their own medical costs. It would have the ancillary benefit of reducing the consumption of these foods.

    @LewisBraham Makes too much sense, therefore, it will not be considered.

  • I'm happy to see that a reasonable conversation and exchange of ideas on potentially controversial subjects is still possible here if we just totally ignore trolls.

    We're gone for the weekend- everyone take care and try to have a little fun.
  • edited December 2015
    Old_Joe said:

    I'm happy to see that a reasonable conversation and exchange of ideas on potentially controversial subjects is still possible

    Yes, me too!:) May the Force be with you!;)



Sign In or Register to comment.