[hillm...@aol.com]

Lynda is right that there are a lot of changes coming and many details are not worked out -- and it's good that we discuss what we don't like and what we do agree with. One recent question: if a worker gets insurance (private coverage) through the insurance exchange at a subsidized rate, will his/her family also be able to get coverage at a subsidized rate? Are the conditions that insurance cos. have to satisfy unreasonable?  It'll be a mess in many ways and some employers are firing workers to keep below 50 employees BUT on the other hand having 25% of workers with no health coverage is also a problem.  Retailers usually don't offer much in the way of coverage to salespeople -- are we satisfied that they don't have and can't afford coverage? Most employers in MS, in fact, don't offer coverage -- too expensive.  No answer is easy, but the % of those without coverage has been increasing for years....Eventually, we'll work things out and get to a situation all can live with, as we did with Social Security. It was also thought by many in Congress and the country that offering Social Security to seniors was a big mistake -- too expensive, hurt independence etc....Marianne 

[Emily Mosley]

Someone please remove me from the center stage google groups! No offense. Love to all. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 23, 2013, at 10:16 AM, hillm...@aol.com wrote:

Lynda is right that there are a lot of changes coming and many details are not worked out -- and it's good that we discuss what we don't like and what we do agree with. One recent question: if a worker gets insurance (private coverage) through the insurance exchange at a subsidized rate, will his/her family also be able to get coverage at a subsidized rate? Are the conditions that insurance cos. have to satisfy unreasonable?  It'll be a mess in many ways and some employers are firing workers to keep below 50 employees BUT on the other hand having 25% of workers with no health coverage is also a problem.  Retailers usually don't offer much in the way of coverage to salespeople -- are we satisfied that they don't have and can't afford coverage? Most employers in MS, in fact, don't offer coverage -- too expensive.  No answer is easy, but the % of those without coverage has been increasing for years....Eventually, we'll work things out and get to a situation all can live with, as we did with Social Security. It was also thought by many in Congress and the country that offering Social Security to seniors was a big mistake -- too expensive, hurt independence etc....Marianne 

--
 
 
 

[hillm...@aol.com]

That's a lot to say -- and I certainly agree that the basic problem that needs to be addressed, and that hasn't been addressed, is the skyrocketing cost of health care.Reforms in Massachusetts worked for a while, but then costs started rising again...  I expect that you'd probably agree that the billions of federal dollars going to Medicare and Medicaid help drive up demand and contribute to the higher prices. Canadian drugs, and same drugs in European Union, cost less in part because of govt regulation there, but is true that regulations (favored by the health industry) prevent us from importing drugs from Canada. Medical lawsuits could better be heard by a board of professionals rather than laypersons, doctors shouldn't have to go into such debt to get educated, pay per service contributes to costs rising compared to systems like at the Mayo Clinic where there is a basic wage plus rewards on outcomes for doctors, etc. Might send a link tomorrow....there are some good studies out there   Marianne

-----Original Message-----
From: Lynda McNamee <lynda....@comcast.net>
To: centerstagechorus <centerst...@googlegroups.com>; hillmarros <hillm...@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Jan 23, 2013 8:23 pm
Subject: RE: {Center Stage Chorus}

No, Marianne, I don't believe the mandated coverages are unreasonable.....AS LONG AS the insurance company is not prohibited from factoring the cost of paying claims on these broadened coverages into its pricing structure.  And, as far as I can tell, there is no such prohibition in place. 

 

The fact of the matter is, an insurance policy can be written to cover anything you want to cover.....for a price.  The REASON policies don't cover certain things and imposes limits on other things is in order to make them affordable.  The BUYER ultimately dictates what he's willing to pay for through the buying choices he makes.  Insurance companies simply try to provide products that meets buyers demands.  Doesn't matter whether its a health insurance policy or a homeowners policy.  You can buy basic coverage or you can buy all the bells and whistles and everything in between.   Its just a matter of how much can you afford and how much are you are willing to pay.

 

 

 

The PROBLEM with the insurer  being forced to include these broadened coverages is that we are all going to have to pay more for our health insurance because our policies will have to include these coverages, whether we want them or not.  That's the equivalent of me forcing you to include comprehensive coverage plus towing & labor coverage plus rental car coverage on your car insurance policy.   If your car is 15 years old and paid for, you’ll pay more for the coverage than the car is worth.   If you have more than one car, you wouldn't need to rent a car if yours was out of commission.  And, if it only costs $100 or so to have your car towed, maybe you’d prefer to save money on your car insurance knowing that, in the unlikely event that it should need to be towed, you can afford the cost.  These are choices that you, as a free person of sound mind, SHOULD be allowed to make for yourself.  Health insurance is no different.   Not everybody needs or wants birth control pills.   Not everybody needs or wants to cover their adult children.  Some don't even HAVE children.   But EVERYBODY is being required to buy a health insurance policy that provides coverage for these things.  EVERYBODY is being forced to buy something they don't want or need. 

 

And the cost of these mandated coverage is going to hurt the middle class most of all.  The poorest among is will not have to pay for anything, same as now.  The wealthy can afford the added expense.  But hardworking, cash strapped families will take it on the chin.  To add insult to injury, most of the middle class already had access to good health insurance at a cheaper cost.  So they gain nothing but end up paying more. 

 

Lastly, Obamacare is like trying to fix a leaky roof by painting the ceiling.  Healthcare INSURANCE cannot be made more affordable unless the cost of healthCARE is reduced.  That can only be accomplished by protecting healthcare providers from lawsuits when the outcome is not what was desired.   Doctors and nurses are not gods so we should not expect them to deliver perfect results every time.  Healthcare can not be made affordable unless we remove the shackles of overly burdensome government regulations that provide little, if any benefit but add significant cost & effort to the process (example: the privacy notice your doctor is required to give you every time you walk through the door.   How many pieces of paper, how many trees, and how much human effort has been wasted in compliance with Gram, Leach, Bliley.  And how much cost has this one stupid regulation added to the cost of healthcare over the past 14 years?   How many notices have you received and how many have you actually read?).  Why are prescription drugs SO expensive in the good olé USA when the exact same drug can be bought in Canada at 1/10 the cost???  Because of excessive government regulations plus a run-away tort system that punishes drug manufacturers for the negligence and/or stupidity of the user or because the drug doesn't deliver a perfect outcome 100% of the time, never mind that thousand upon thousands got good results.

 

Unless we fix the things that continue to drive the cost of health care up and up and up, it will not be possible to control the cost of healthcare insurance.  And since there appears to be no interest in fixing these underlying issue, it is most likely that we will all end up with no choice but government-provided medical care where THEY will decide what treatments you will receive.

 

And that's all I have to say on this subject.

[Lynda McNamee]