March 28, 2024, 11:28:18 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 'lower premiums' is not the same as 'reducing costs'  (Read 1336 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« on: February 12, 2010, 08:12:16 AM »

I listened to some politician on TV going on about 'lowering premiums'.

What is their definition of lowering premiums?
 

In the real world, if you are insurable, you can lower your premiums by reducing coverage -  fewer benefits, higher deductibles, and higher copays and coinsurance, fewer choices and more out of pocket expenses.  Insurance companies don't have a money printing press, they get the money to pay claims from policyholders.

Where are the REAL cost reductions that would lead to lower premiums in any healthcare reform proposal? 

Hmmm...let me think about that...

- Obama is adding millions of new people

- Obama is adding 'affordability' credits so that some get a free or almost free ride, no skin in the game

- Obama is reducing benefits for those on Medicare, presumably the elderly, disabled, and possibly early retirees


Obama is also offering some early retirees like those in the UAW VEBA, 'reinsurance', paid for by taxpayers.  'Reinsurance' that reimburses for claims, but only allows the money to be used for premiums, copays, and deductibles. 

When I read this section, this is what I imagine will happen - this creates a perpetual Cadillac fund for UAW retirees and their families.  Thanks to legislation, 'families' are allowed to keep their adult children on their insurance until age 27 or 30.  I can see a future where this age is raised over and over.  There isn't much description of what 'claims' qualify, so I image if the UAW Cadillac plan costs $20,000 or more, they'll accumulate claims until they reach the $15,000 mark, and ensure that reimbursement is quick, by limiting the outer limit to around $90,000.  Time limit?  I would imagine that with the money provided by the car companies, this fund will better funded than any other in America, with the exception of Wall Street and Washington.

Perpetual funding for UAW VEBA?  Perpetual funding for UAW VEBA families?   UAW VEBA type folks will have a fund as good as those in Congress, paid for by the rest of us.

Why aren't these folks fending for themselves, just like everyone else?

Obama want's to lower the premiums for UAW folks and some others, but the money has to come from somewhere.

Obama's lower premiums doesn't seem to be lowering ANY costs.  It just creates more money sucking government employees.

It relies on borrowed money or money taken from the pockets of hardworking Americans.

Look at Mass. or New Jersey.  Premiums seem to double every year for those that have to pay full price.  How is it fair and equitable for one family to pay say $2000 a month for coverage, while another making the same money pays just $125?

If you have a larger family than your neighbor, should you dig deeper in your own pocket to provide for them?

If you weigh more, should you pay more for your insurance?

In the REAL world, you pay more based on your individual circumstances.

Obama's bill seems to lower premiums by force/extracting money from hard working Americans and creating perpetual debt for future generations. 

Obama has a super sized solution that seems to destroy jobs, add to the tax (direct and indirect) burden of hard working Americans.  Are supersized servings of anything good for you?

Where does Obama's bill provide ANY cost savings that would result in REAL lowered premiums?

Tort Reform
Drug Pricing Reform
ALL participants having some skin in the cost control game?
Competition?
Options?  Choose a plan you can afford?  Like the TV commercials for car insurance?


'lowering premiums' is not the same as 'lowering costs'

Obama's lowered premiums mean some will pay increasingly more, and many will get a free or low cost ride.

Why isn't Obama working on reducing costs to make insurance affordable?

Who's premiums went up in MA and New Jersey?

Who's going to dig deeper?

Someone has to pay for Obama's lowered premiums. 

jmho
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2010, 08:18:32 AM »

The president seems to ignore the 'inconvenient truth' or disclosure about who has to pay more...

If healthcare was really free for everyone, it would be like the air we breath.

Ooops!!!  They want to tax that too.
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 1.405 seconds with 20 queries.