6 ms·

Guaranteed strategy for a progressive wave 2020 and a democratic president. Expect massive executive action to address climate change and end corruption. There'

Guaranteed strategy for a progressive wave 2020 and a democratic president. Expect massive executive action to address climate change and end corruption. There's nothing more evident than the greed of the insurance companies, it cuts bipartisan. Finally the hope of adults in the reigns again

mythrwy 7y ago
IDK, the last "progressive" action on insurance more than doubled my rates and I had a distinct feeling of some kind of corruption like insurance companies were cashing in.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > IDK, the last "progressive" action on insurance more than doubled my rates... Sounds like you might've had one of the useless plans cited in the article. Sure, they've got low rates - they don't cover anything when you actually need it.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    Obamacare was better than nothing but it really avoided all difficult issues so I think it was a bad law. Problem is that the republicans want to make it even worse. Right now I’m for Medicare for All. This seems to be the most sane and possible approach.
    - Retric 7y ago
      It dealt with the preexisting condition loophole which was the largest issue with private insurance.
      - Ididntdothis 7y ago
        True, that was a good thing. But it didn't address the cost side.
        u801e 7y ago
        I wonder if that would have been the case had the public health option been part of the ACA?
        Ididntdothis 7y ago
        the public option would basically have been Medicare for All.
  - EvanAnderson 7y ago
    I had a plan that covered inpatient care 100% after my deductible. Tests, doctor visits, etc., weren't covered. My HSA and other savings were fine for that. Along came thr ACA and killed it. My premiums skyrocketed and my money went into premiums instead of savings or investment.
    - chillwaves 7y ago
      Anyone can claim anything. What state do you live in? Lucky for us, there are published guidelines for which plans did not qualify.
      - EvanAnderson 7y ago
        I live in Ohio. I had this plan from 2003 to 2014. I paid a bunch of stuff out-of-pocket over the years. I also saved a lot of money in my HSA and paid off debts. Had I been paying the kind of premiums I paid from 2014 to date all those years I would have far less net worth.
        ceejayoz 7y ago
        The shitty plans work out really well for folks who don't wind up needing them. That's how they succeed - 90% of people are satisfied customers! The problem is, it's like having car insurance that'll only pay out $100 if you have an accident. Fine if you never have one, but not if you do. They give you the illusion of insurance.
    - tunesmith 7y ago
      Your prior plan was part of what made care more expensive for sick people.
      - EvanAnderson 7y ago
        Absolutely. And we should have just gone to a single-payer system. Instead we have this useless compromise that further transfers wealth from the middle class to the rich. I don't want what I had back, but I don't want what we have now either.
rayiner 7y ago
I'm a proponent of universal healthcare, but pointing to "insurance industry greed" is a dishonest narrative. Health insurers are having a banner year, and that means their profit margins are approaching 6%. (By contrast, Facebook is regularly over 40%.) For the year ending Q3 2018, health insurer profits amounted to $25 billion, industry wide, which is about the same as Google alone makes in a year. If running a business that makes 6% profit margins is "greedy" then the word literally means nothing. The only reason health insurer profits are even part of the discussion is because Democrats reflexively lean to anti-corporatism to explain any societal problem. But it's like republicans blaming everything on the decline of two-parent households. It's rah-rah narrative that has no basis in reality.
- chillwaves 7y ago
  People are dying over healthcare, not over facebook.
  - bmarquez 7y ago
    With Instagram contributing to a decline in young adult mental health[1] perhaps Facebook should be taxed so their profit margins drop down to similar levels as health companies. [1]https://time.com/4793331/instagram-social-media-mental-health/ https://time.com/4793331/instagram-social-media-mental-healt...
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Does the fact that people might die create an obligation to run your business like a charity? What even is your moral theory? That a company that makes 6% profits saving lives is evil, but a company that makes 40% profits and doesn't save any lives in the process is not evil? Apple makes laptops that, for the price of a single one, could save someone in Africa from malaria. The opportunity cost of every MacBook Pro is a death in Africa. If there is an affirmative obligation to save lives, how evil is Apple? This is an incoherent--but extremely common--ideology. It would be one thing if these people followed their ideas to the logical conclusion. It's evil for anyone to make more than 6% profits because that money could be spent saving lives. But it makes no sense to impose that moral obligation on a selected group.
Pinckney 7y ago
If Democrats in California can't muster the votes to outlaw something as uniformly hated as balance billing while they have the Governor's office and a supermajority in both houses, I'm afraid I don't have much faith in their ability to fix any of this at the federal level.
- blackflame7000 7y ago
  In 2009 California SC ruled that Balance Billing for emergencies is illegal https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1001051.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1001051.html In 2017, a state law extended it for non-emergency services https://californiahealthline.org/news/you-are-now-protected-from-nasty-surprise-bills/ https://californiahealthline.org/news/you-are-now-protected-... The bill in question is for self-funded health insurance which is pretty rare https://californiahealthline.org/news/for-millions-of-insured-californians-state-health-laws-dont-apply/ https://californiahealthline.org/news/for-millions-of-insure... Overall Summary https://www.benefitspro.com/2019/07/11/hospitals-block-californias-balance-billing-legislation/?slreturn=20190818232708 https://www.benefitspro.com/2019/07/11/hospitals-block-calif...
thomasjudge 7y ago
Everybody likes a simplistic explanation of the high cost of health care like "blame the insurance industry" but the reality is more complicated. Yes they are middlemen and need to make profits which adds cost. But look at doctor salaries, particularly specialists, many of whom make over $1m/yr. Look at testing costs, often run by private companies (sometimes owned by the doctors who order the tests) that also need to make a profit. Look at the costs of hospital and hospital systems whose administrative and facilities costs rival that of higher education. And not to mention the whole pharmaceutical-industrial complex. Reducing healthcare costs is going to have to happen at the input side of the industry, not just by taking out payer inefficiencies.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

mythrwy 7y ago

IDK, the last "progressive" action on insurance more than doubled my rates and I had a distinct feeling of some kind of corruption like insurance companies were cashing in.

ceejayoz 7y ago
> IDK, the last "progressive" action on insurance more than doubled my rates... Sounds like you might've had one of the useless plans cited in the article. Sure, they've got low rates - they don't cover anything when you actually need it.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  Obamacare was better than nothing but it really avoided all difficult issues so I think it was a bad law. Problem is that the republicans want to make it even worse. Right now I’m for Medicare for All. This seems to be the most sane and possible approach.
  - Retric 7y ago
    It dealt with the preexisting condition loophole which was the largest issue with private insurance.
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      True, that was a good thing. But it didn't address the cost side.
      - u801e 7y ago
        I wonder if that would have been the case had the public health option been part of the ACA?
        Ididntdothis 7y ago
        the public option would basically have been Medicare for All.
- EvanAnderson 7y ago
  I had a plan that covered inpatient care 100% after my deductible. Tests, doctor visits, etc., weren't covered. My HSA and other savings were fine for that. Along came thr ACA and killed it. My premiums skyrocketed and my money went into premiums instead of savings or investment.
  - chillwaves 7y ago
    Anyone can claim anything. What state do you live in? Lucky for us, there are published guidelines for which plans did not qualify.
    - EvanAnderson 7y ago
      I live in Ohio. I had this plan from 2003 to 2014. I paid a bunch of stuff out-of-pocket over the years. I also saved a lot of money in my HSA and paid off debts. Had I been paying the kind of premiums I paid from 2014 to date all those years I would have far less net worth.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        The shitty plans work out really well for folks who don't wind up needing them. That's how they succeed - 90% of people are satisfied customers! The problem is, it's like having car insurance that'll only pay out $100 if you have an accident. Fine if you never have one, but not if you do. They give you the illusion of insurance.
  - tunesmith 7y ago
    Your prior plan was part of what made care more expensive for sick people.
    - EvanAnderson 7y ago
      Absolutely. And we should have just gone to a single-payer system. Instead we have this useless compromise that further transfers wealth from the middle class to the rich. I don't want what I had back, but I don't want what we have now either.

rayiner 7y ago

I'm a proponent of universal healthcare, but pointing to "insurance industry greed" is a dishonest narrative. Health insurers are having a banner year, and that means their profit margins are approaching 6%. (By contrast, Facebook is regularly over 40%.) For the year ending Q3 2018, health insurer profits amounted to $25 billion, industry wide, which is about the same as Google alone makes in a year. If running a business that makes 6% profit margins is "greedy" then the word literally means nothing. The only reason health insurer profits are even part of the discussion is because Democrats reflexively lean to anti-corporatism to explain any societal problem. But it's like republicans blaming everything on the decline of two-parent households. It's rah-rah narrative that has no basis in reality.

chillwaves 7y ago
People are dying over healthcare, not over facebook.
- bmarquez 7y ago
  With Instagram contributing to a decline in young adult mental health[1] perhaps Facebook should be taxed so their profit margins drop down to similar levels as health companies. [1]https://time.com/4793331/instagram-social-media-mental-health/ https://time.com/4793331/instagram-social-media-mental-healt...
- rayiner 7y ago
  Does the fact that people might die create an obligation to run your business like a charity? What even is your moral theory? That a company that makes 6% profits saving lives is evil, but a company that makes 40% profits and doesn't save any lives in the process is not evil? Apple makes laptops that, for the price of a single one, could save someone in Africa from malaria. The opportunity cost of every MacBook Pro is a death in Africa. If there is an affirmative obligation to save lives, how evil is Apple? This is an incoherent--but extremely common--ideology. It would be one thing if these people followed their ideas to the logical conclusion. It's evil for anyone to make more than 6% profits because that money could be spent saving lives. But it makes no sense to impose that moral obligation on a selected group.

Pinckney 7y ago

If Democrats in California can't muster the votes to outlaw something as uniformly hated as balance billing while they have the Governor's office and a supermajority in both houses, I'm afraid I don't have much faith in their ability to fix any of this at the federal level.

blackflame7000 7y ago
In 2009 California SC ruled that Balance Billing for emergencies is illegal https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1001051.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1001051.html In 2017, a state law extended it for non-emergency services https://californiahealthline.org/news/you-are-now-protected-from-nasty-surprise-bills/ https://californiahealthline.org/news/you-are-now-protected-... The bill in question is for self-funded health insurance which is pretty rare https://californiahealthline.org/news/for-millions-of-insured-californians-state-health-laws-dont-apply/ https://californiahealthline.org/news/for-millions-of-insure... Overall Summary https://www.benefitspro.com/2019/07/11/hospitals-block-californias-balance-billing-legislation/?slreturn=20190818232708 https://www.benefitspro.com/2019/07/11/hospitals-block-calif...

thomasjudge 7y ago

Everybody likes a simplistic explanation of the high cost of health care like "blame the insurance industry" but the reality is more complicated. Yes they are middlemen and need to make profits which adds cost. But look at doctor salaries, particularly specialists, many of whom make over $1m/yr. Look at testing costs, often run by private companies (sometimes owned by the doctors who order the tests) that also need to make a profit. Look at the costs of hospital and hospital systems whose administrative and facilities costs rival that of higher education. And not to mention the whole pharmaceutical-industrial complex. Reducing healthcare costs is going to have to happen at the input side of the industry, not just by taking out payer inefficiencies.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]