What would happen we all decided to stop paying for private health insurance?

[Freeper]

Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Fri Oct-14-11 07:27 PM
Original message
What would happen we all decided to stop paying for private health insurance?
   
What if we could, as the 99%ers, decide, as of 1/1/2012, we'll no longer be paying for private health insurance. Instead, we'll be putting our monthly premiums we pay into a medical savings account. (If you have private health insurance as a corporate benefit, you tell them, "no, I want the cash equivalent benefit, and I'll put in my private medical savings account".)

What happens then?

(1) Private health premiums revenue plummets, premiums start escalating, then the private insurers go bankrupt
(2) Public healthcare and single payer becomes the only viable option for all people that can coordinate and maintain an orderly healthcare system. Taxes will increase, but probably less than what e currently pay if everyone had to pay their fair share.
(3) Eventually we get a better healthcare system that's inline with per capita quality and costs of other developed countries.
(4) Collective action by individuals can drive the change if we really want it. "Occupy Single-Payer" has a nice ring to it


Seems like a powerful 99% solution to me...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2119311

Good luck with that DUmmy, you seem to forget that Pelosi, Reid, and 0bama made it mandatory that you purchase health insurance.

dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Fri Oct-14-11 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. Who has the opportunity to get a cash equivalent benefit?   Updated at 2:14 AM
   
Is that normal?

I was wondering about that too.

daggahead (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Fri Oct-14-11 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. While we're at it ...
   
For those of us that pay on a mortgage, what would happen if we all "forgot" to make a payment one month?

Then you will be whining about late fees and all the other things that happen when you don't pay back the money that you borrowed.

[Chris_]

What if we could, as the 99%ers, decide, as of 1/1/2012, we'll no longer be paying for private health insurance. Instead, we'll be putting our monthly premiums we pay into a medical savings account. (If you have private health insurance as a corporate benefit, you tell them, "no, I want the cash equivalent benefit, and I'll put in my private medical savings account".)

President Bush proposed a similar plan for Social Security.  You goons tried to run him out of town on a rail.

HSAs have been around long before Obamacare.  What was stopping you then?

[BEG]

I thought Obamacare was going to do anyway with HSA's?

[Celtic Rose]

I think the more likely scenario is that those who stop paying for health insurance will go bankrupt when a major medical expense comes up.

I'll be honest, I would really like to see more reasonable health care prices.  I recently spent close to $200 on a dental exam and cleaning.  One of the reasons that health care prices are so high is that insurance companies can pay higher prices, so medical professionals charge them. 

[IassaFTots]

I thought Obamacare was going to do anyway with HSA's?

Yup.  They are going away.  FSA's are running a close second.  It doesn't have anything to do with healthcare, it has everything to do with the govt wanting our taxes.  Everything that qualifies as a Section 125 is in the crosshairs of our govt right now.

[Freeper]

Yup.  They are going away.  FSA's are running a close second.  It doesn't have anything to do with healthcare, it has everything to do with the govt wanting our taxes.  Everything that qualifies as a Section 125 is in the crosshairs of our govt right now.

You said "crosshair" why do you have to be so violent?
 

[IassaFTots]

You said "crosshair" why do you have to be so violent?
 

I calls it as I sees it.   

[Freeper]

I calls it as I sees it.   

Why can't you be peaceful like those OWS people who want to eat the rich and bring out the guillotine?
 

[DumbAss Tanker]

Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Fri Oct-14-11 07:27 PM
Original message
What would happen we all decided to stop paying for private health insurance?

Then you wouldn't be insured, dumbshit.  You could still get medical treatment for emergent conditions, of course, but you'd be screwed on anything chronic, or requiring extended therapy.  Your choice.

[NHSparky]

I thought Obamacare was going to do anyway with HSA's?

Don't give him any ideas.  It was bad enough that we can't use HSA's for OTC meds any more.

Nah, my doc says get some fish oil in your diet.  OTC meds at $10/bottle, or get the prescription Lovaza at $200/bottle.  I'm paying either way, but guess what most people are going to do if given a choice between paying OTC or getting "free" scripts?

Nope, no unintended consequences there.

[miskie]

Well, I would imagine getting appointments would be much easier, so yeah, you do that DUmmies....

[NHSparky]

Well, I would imagine getting appointments would be much easier, so yeah, you do that DUmmies....

Try again.  Romneycare made wait times and premiums in MA among the longest/highest in the nation.

And people wonder why I'll never vote for the guy.

[formerlurker]

Try again.  Romneycare made wait times and premiums in MA among the longest/highest in the nation.

And people wonder why I'll never vote for the guy.

????   Wait times?    What ya talking about Willis.

[formerlurker]

daggahead (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Fri Oct-14-11 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
2. While we're at it ...
   
For those of us that pay on a mortgage, what would happen if we all "forgot" to make a payment one month?

Oooh, one better - what would happen if your employers "forgot" to give you misfits your paychecks for a month? 

[NHSparky]

????   Wait times?    What ya talking about Willis.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-20/health/pho.doctor.shortage_1_universal-coverage-primary-care-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH

http://www.wbur.org/2011/05/09/doctors-survey

http://www.merritthawkins.com/pdf/mha2009waittimesurvey.pdf

And this one was from two weeks ago:

http://www.gazettenet.com/2011/10/03/primary-care-md-shortage-labeled-critical-in-wmass?SESS0cedce82a7a3855de2b4a240d2ab7add=gnews

[formerlurker]

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-20/health/pho.doctor.shortage_1_universal-coverage-primary-care-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH

The Massachusetts Medical Society reported that the average wait time for a new patient looking for a primary care doctor ranged from 36 to 50 days, with almost half of internal medicine physicians closing their doors entirely to new patients. And when you consider that Massachusetts already has the highest concentration of doctors nationwide, wait times will likely be worse in other, less physician-abundant parts of the country, should universal coverage be enacted federally.

Ah, hold up here.   The reason for the long wait is that internal medicine doctors are a rare breed -- no one is going into it anymore.   They are scarce for that reason.   A good friend of mine is family doctor, and she only went into that because medical school was greatly discounted if she chose that field (and she went to medical school in Maine).    We have the highest concentration of SPECIALISTS as we have some of the best hospitals in the world.  

http://www.wbur.org/2011/05/09/doctors-survey

The study also found that while the vast majority of primary care physicians in Massachusetts accepted Medicare, only 53 percent of internists and 62 percent of family physicians accepted MassHealth, the state’s Medicaid plan.

Only 43 percent of internists and 56 percent of family physicians accepted Commonwealth Care, the state-administered program that provides subsidized care for those earning up to three times the federal poverty level.

Ooops, that contradicts your claim.

http://www.merritthawkins.com/pdf/mha2009waittimesurvey.pdf

Uh, look at the shortest time for each speciality -- days, which means they all have slots for patients who need to be seen immediately.  

And this one was from two weeks ago:
http://www.gazettenet.com/2011/10/03/primary-care-md-shortage-labeled-critical-in-wmass?SESS0cedce82a7a3855de2b4a240d2ab7add=gnews

Thank you for visiting GazetteNET.
 

In order to provide access to occasional visitors you must enable "cookies" in your browser.  Please try the link again after enabling cookies.

No  thanks.

By this time you might know that New Hampshire has some of the highest health insurance rates in the country. The state is among the 10 most expensive places in the US to buy health insurance. At the same time we rank second in the nation, right behind Massachusetts, for high numbers of private  employers who offer health coverage for their workers.

http://stateimpact.npr.org/new-hampshire/2011/09/30/new-hampshires-small-employers-grapple-with-higher-health-insurance-rates-and-getting-less-for-more/

There is another article I just clicked out of without copying URL that has Maine as #1, MA #2, RI #3, NY #4 -- all because of costly mandates of coverage, which Romney tried to have removed so policies would be affordable.    Not worth rehashing.   The leftist statehouse destroyed whatever his intent was, which he should have realized would occur.

Health insurance premiums are out of control because of mandates throughout the entire country.    MA isn't special in that regard whatsoever.    Those folks who didn't have health insurance prior to Romney's health overhaul where getting it for free from hospital ERs to the tune of $1+ billion/year to the MA taxpayer.  




 

[NHSparky]

Look at the average times, dearest.  You can't really use shortest/longest because they are in fact OUTLIERS.

The sad fact is that it DOES take much longer than average to see not only a PCP but a specialist in MA, and that the premiums in MA are among the highest, if not THE highest, in the nation.

All thanks to Romneycare.  It doesn't matter that the Dems perverted it, he should have know that before he ever signed it.  Again, that whole thing of unintended consequences and all that.

Face it--your boy owns this, and it has been hung around his neck like an albatross.  The only way he wins the primaries is if the RINO establishment does exactly what they're trying to do now--push up as many of the primaries as early as possible in order to minimize the "look" we get at Romney.

If he gets the nomination, it'll be IN SPITE of Romneycare, not because of it.  And don't think the Dems are salivating for a Romney/Obama matchup.  That's their best chance of winning in 2012 right now.

[NHSparky]

And seriously, you have to dig down to using NPR to try to give a backhanded jab at NH?  Is that all you have left?

Oh, a few more for ya:

http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/23/skyrocketing-massachusetts-health-costs-could-foreshadow-high-price-of-obamacare/

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/state/x1852604642/Massachusetts-individual-health-premiums-highest-in-Nation

And I'm sure this won't help your blood pressure.  Better up your dosage of Linsinopril while you can still get it...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/9042-study-romneycare-killed-18000-massachusetts-jobs

RomneyCare became the model for Obama's national health care reform legislation Congress passed in 2010, including an individual mandate, tax penalties for companies that don't offer care, a health insurance exchange, and several other similar key components.

Whoops.

[I_B_Perky]

Oooh, one better - what would happen if your employers "forgot" to give you misfits your paychecks for a month? 

Nothing. They ain't employed. Now if you was to say they forgot to give you your government check... well now that would have them in the streets rioting. That would be fine by me, BTW... the easier to round them up and send them to Cuba where the healthcare is free!!!

[formerlurker]

Look at the average times, dearest.  You can't really use shortest/longest because they are in fact OUTLIERS.

The sad fact is that it DOES take much longer than average to see not only a PCP but a specialist in MA, and that the premiums in MA are among the highest, if not THE highest, in the nation.

All thanks to Romneycare.  It doesn't matter that the Dems perverted it, he should have know that before he ever signed it.  Again, that whole thing of unintended consequences and all that.

Face it--your boy owns this, and it has been hung around his neck like an albatross.  The only way he wins the primaries is if the RINO establishment does exactly what they're trying to do now--push up as many of the primaries as early as possible in order to minimize the "look" we get at Romney.

If he gets the nomination, it'll be IN SPITE of Romneycare, not because of it.  And don't think the Dems are salivating for a Romney/Obama matchup.  That's their best chance of winning in 2012 right now.

It really isn't thanks to Romneycare Sparky -- not one of your articles states this.    Prior to Romneycare we had the highest premiums, or were in the top ten. 

It is because of mandates.    Period. 

It takes about a year + (when you hit the call right, as most of the time you are placed on a waiting list) to see a neuropsychologist in MA for autism.    This has NOTHING to do with health insurance as 90% of them don't take health insurance ($3,500 evaluation thank you).     Ditto for gastros in that the demand is extremely high.    There just isn't enough doctors. 

Romneycare is a siv on the state's budget, but the number of people treating is the same as prior to that they just went to the ER and received free care (it's still free, but organized free). 

New Hampshire doesn't have Romneycare, and they are right behind MA.    Your residents also travel to MA to be treated by the doctors in our hospitals, as does most of New England, and for that matter the world when it comes to Children's Hospital, Dana Farber, MA General, etc.  which are some of the best hospitals in the world. 

I have zero problems pointing out the errors in the healthcare overhaul, insane mandates being one of them.   However equating wait times to that is a stretch.  I would love to see the age group of those who are waiting, and a demographic background.    Just not making the comparison.

[formerlurker]

And seriously, you have to dig down to using NPR to try to give a backhanded jab at NH?  Is that all you have left?

Oh, a few more for ya:

http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/23/skyrocketing-massachusetts-health-costs-could-foreshadow-high-price-of-obamacare/

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/state/x1852604642/Massachusetts-individual-health-premiums-highest-in-Nation

And I'm sure this won't help your blood pressure.  Better up your dosage of Linsinopril while you can still get it...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/9042-study-romneycare-killed-18000-massachusetts-jobs
 

Whoops.

Well for one, you could read the articles you post and not just the headlines. 

your first article:

The problem, the hospitals allege, is that the state has diverted funds from reimbursements to prop up health plans for the uninsured. Under state law, those plans must in effect be “Cadillac” models, loaded with mandates for costly nonessentials like in-vitro fertility treatment. The plans are expensive, and therefore heavily subsidized. Hospitals are bearing much of the cost.

Hmmm, yeah that's what I said.  Romney wanted those mandates removed.    It was the foundation of his overhaul plans.

2nd article:

States like Massachusetts may have higher premiums due to reforms that allow people with pre-existing health conditions to enroll, for instance, while premiums in other states reflect a healthier-than-average population because some states permit insurers to exclude people with expensive illnesses. Also, residents of states with lower premiums may face higher copayments or deductibles, according to the analysis.

Oh my look at that, mandates again.  Cadillac plans for all. 

Third article (hit piece):

By willingly signing this bill into law, Mitt went against a core Republican principle of personal responsibility. And this GOP betrayal served as the inspiration for Obamacare. On the day of the bill signing, Romney claimed this is the “Republican way of solving a problem which we face as a nation.”

That is the valid complaint -- except of course there is no personal responsibility for much of the populace in this bluest of states.   

Let's look at the vetoes and overrides, from a leftist MA site:

The provisions overrode were:

- Restoration of dental coverage, eyeglasses, and other benefits to adults on MassHealth (vote was 147-10)
- The employer Fair Share assessment on businesses that don’t provide coverage (vote was 135-20)
- Preventing changes in MassHealth mental health services until a report is completed (vote was 139-18)
- A study on the impact of the employer assessments (vote was 136-18)

Here’s some excerpts (from State House News) from the debate on two key overrides:

1. Benefits Restoration:

Rep. Walrath (D-Stow): The governor said he vetoed this section because it would cost $75 million and was unsustainable. We disagree with that estimate. We’ve done careful estimates, and that would amount to $42 million, reaching to a high of $52 million in FY09. All conferees agreed that they want those services back. When we cut those services, the eyeglasses, dental, it was not something we wanted to do. We had to make a lot of uncomfortable cuts. I was at a senior center in my district two weeks ago, and one lady came up to me and said, we’re going to get the dental back, aren’t we? I said, the governor vetoed it. And she started crying. That’s how important this is. They can’t get jobs if they don’t have teeth.

Rep. Rogeness: It’s difficult to ask that a benefit not be provided. It is ambitious to change the way everyone gets health care. We don’t know what the cost is going to be. We have our estimates. It seems unwise to add a benefit that has come and gone. This might cost $42 million, it might cost $75 million. It’s my experience most health care mandates go up in cost as time goes on. I hope you do not override this veto. It’s easier if we don’t have this mandate tacked on to a $200 million item.

2. Employer Assessment:

Rep. Mariano (D-Quincy): I hope the governor’s veto is overridden. This is a foundation of our plan. This section assesses all employees who use the free care pool. We have arrived at a number of those who have used the free care pool and haven’t contributed. Last year we spent about $620 million on free care in the state. We had employers use the pool to the tune of $279 million. Large employers: Friendly’s, Wal-Mart, McDonalds. This forces everyone to participate. We may hit disagreement, but it is an attempt to spread the cost and do more for employees than any other plan in the past. I hope it is overridden.

Rep. deMacedo (R-Plymouth): … I disagree on this jobs tax. I ask you to sustain the governor’s veto. Massachusetts is one of the most expensive places to do business in the country. We have the highest energy costs. We have the highest wages costs. We have the highest unemployment insurance costs. Now they’re talking about raising the minimum wage. We just heard about giving maternity leave to employees for 12 weeks. All these things have impacts on our business community, which creates jobs. … This is a $1.3 billion bill. This assessment for $45 million is so small that the need to do this is not imperative….This assessment will have a chilling effect on job growth in the Commonwealth.

Rep. Perry (R-Sandwich): I hope the governor’s veto is not overridden today. I’m one of two of us who voted against this bill. … Why don’t we start this effort without a new tax? Let’s try it. Let’s do everything else and let’s not do it with a new tax. … We’re losing people. And if we’re going to straddle people with a new tax and discourage people from coming here to do business, it’s not going to get better. … We should take the next step without imposing a new tax.

Rep. O’Brien (D-Kingston): … If you vote not to override the veto, you’re voting to have government bear the cost and provide health care. Everyone has to play a part. Everyone has to come to the table. The governor says individuals should come to the table. Hospitals should come to the table. But we don’t want employers to come to the table. It doesn’t make any sense….

Rep. Jones (R-North Reading) … I’ve heard members talk about how we need everyone to pay. I read the bill and I thought that everyone under 11 employees is exempt. When I look in the dictionary, everyone means everyone, no exemptions. … If you’re really looking for consistency, you’ve accepted the argument that this is bad for the economy by virtue of the fact that you’ve exempted employers with under 11 workers. A recurring question to me has been, why don’t these employers offer health insurance? Is it really the difficulty in competing because of the high cost of doing business? Don’t let the new math change the definition of everyone. It’s not right. It’s not accurate. And it’s not fair.

Rep. Webster (R-Hanson): … Many people suggest we lost the Taxachusetts tag. I certainly have not seen that. We continue to send the message to business that we don’t want you here. We tax any business more than most other states and we need to put a stop to that. We have the highest unemployment tax rate. Now we will tax employers for not providing insurance to their employees? … Government can not and should not be all things to all people. … Let’s stand up here today and let’s do the right thing and not send the message to businesses in the state that we don’t want you. The more jobs we create the more revenue we raise, and the more revenue we raise the more we can support those we represent.

http://blog.hcfama.org/2006/04/25/house-overrides-4-health-reform-vetoes/

HEALTH BILL – WAIVER NEGOTIATION INFORMATION: Question came on whether to override or sustain the governor’s veto of section 112 health reform bill. Rep. Walrath said she hopes the veto is overridden. The governor vetoed this because he said it imposes inappropriate controls on the executive branch. The concern was the secrecy with which the administration conducted negotiations with the CMS. We weren’t able to get the papers we needed, the type of information we needed. It was a detriment to the best interests of the Commonwealth and impeded the resolutions we were trying to reach. The language requires the administration to consult with a member of the House and a Senate appointee.

BY A VOTE OF 137-19, VETO OVERRIDDEN

HEALTH BILL – PUBLIC HEALTH COUNCIL SECTION: Question came on whether to override or sustain the governor’s veto of section 5 Public Health Council. Rep. Walrath said this deals with the Public Health Council. The governor believes this gives private organizations the authority to appoint members and this violates separation of powers. House counsel does not agree. The language was crafted so that it did not. The work of the department is important and deserves diverse, excellent membership. The old provisions made very few demands on the governor. We expand membership to 18 members from nine including the five deans of the state schools of public health, six providers, long term care facilities and a variety of individual providers, six non providers with expertise in preventing medical errors, veterans health care, health care consumers and community outreach. I hope section 5 is overridden.

BY A VOTE OF 137-19, VETO OVERRIDDEN

http://blog.hcfama.org/2006/04/25/house-overrides-final-4-health-reform-vetoes/

Prior to Romneycare:

How bad are Massachusetts’ insurance regulations? One good indicator is that it’s one of few states in which eHealthinsurance doesn’t sell policies in the individual market. eHealthinsurance is an Internet insurance brokerage that makes it easy for people in most of the 50 states to find out what kind of coverage is being offered in their areas. We tried to price coverage in the Bay State and came up empty. So we called the company to ask why. “Guaranteed issue,” was Chief Operating Officer Bob Fahlman’s instantaneous reply.

Guaranteed issue is the name of a regulation that requires insurance companies to sell policies to all comers, even those who wait until they’re sick to seek coverage. Naturally the requirement to accept free riders makes insurance more expensive for everyone else. It also means insurance companies aren’t eager to be found by consumers, even though they are generally required to sell in the individual market to be able to offer coverage through employers. Yes, you read that right, they don’t want customers.

http://blog.hcfama.org/2006/04/24/mitt-under-attack-by-wall-street-journal-defended-by-hcfa/

Heritage foundation's Hailsmaier on the plan:

http://www.heritage.org/Multimedia/Video/2007/11/Ed-Haislmaier-on-Massachusett-s-health-plan

The original plan (aside from the mandate removing personal responsibility) was worthy of support.   The end result looks NOTHING like the original plan.   Romney should have realized that, and not pursued this in a blue state with a super-super-majority.

There is an old WSJ editorial from Romney (prior to its passing) where his original blueprint is entirely laid out.   I can't find it, but if you take that and compare it to what is in place today you will see this plan shouldn't have his name attached to it.

[67 Rover]

Oooh, one better - what would happen if your employers "forgot" to give you misfits your paychecks for a month? 

Don't forget we are the employers to most of those clowns and if we forget to pay them the IRS will be right there to "remind" you.

[JohnnyReb]

What would happen we all decided to stop paying for private health insurance?

I don't really know what would happen now days...but my daddy supported a family of 5 without the aid of health insurance and we all spent some serious time in the hospital at some point....me, several times....and he paid every "damn dime" of the bills....unlike the "give it to me free" DUmmies.

All that was in the 40's, 50's and 60's before the government got so deep into the medical profession.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Stepping back for a second, the DUmmie's dreadful 'What-if' is probably EXACTLY what will happen under Obamacare given mandatory coverage of pre-existing conditions and mandated insurability.  Why have insurance at all, until you're actually sick or injured?  Rational economic analysis says you shouldn't waste your money on it.

[tanstaafl]

Don't forget we are the employers to most of those clowns and if we forget to pay them the IRS will be right there to "remind" you.

Not if you pay the IRS. They're only interested in the tax withholding. The Dept of Labor on the other hand....