ticking time bomb

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,490
168
63
Bowling Green Ky
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/09/news/economy/healthcare_insurance_affordable.fortune/index.htm


By Shawn Tully, senior editor at largeApril 9, 2010: 3:31 PM ET


<!--startclickprintexclude-->Health care act's two ticking bombs

<!-- PURGE: /2010/04/09/news/economy/healthcare_insurance_affordable.fortune/health_care_bill_bombs.gi.top.jpg --><!-- KEEP -->
<!--endclickprintexclude--><!-- CONTENT -->
(Fortune) -- A week ago, a good friend -- let's call him Anthony -- related a remarkable story about shopping for health insurance in two states, New York and Arizona.
For Anthony and millions of other consumers, New York represents the ultimate nightmare for finding affordable coverage, pairing outrageously high prices with a tiny roster of offerings. By contrast, Anthony found fabulous bargains and a rich variety of policies in Arizona's desert sun.
<!-- REAP --><!--startclickprintexclude-->
So it would be wonderful for folks like Anthony if the historic health-care reform law scuttled the rules that created the disaster in New York, and made America's insurance markets a lot more like Arizona's.
But amazingly, the bill imposes a New York-style regime on the rest of the nation, then makes a gigantic bet that the results won't mimic those of the Empire State.

That's the problem with Obamacare: It's staking its entire success on a complex web of subsidies and penalties designed to pull young and healthy Americans into the insurance system, even as their policies get more expensive. As we'll see, that's an extremely risky wager.
Let's look at the great deals Anthony found, then handicap whether they'll flourish, or more likely, vanish under the new law. Anthony commutes back and forth from New York City to the Phoenix area, where he started a real estate business. He's a handsome, strapping six-footer in his early 40s.
Anthony first looked for individual health insurance in New York. The rates shocked him: around $1,200 a month for a basic HMO plan from carriers like Aetna and Empire, and over $1500 for a point-of-service policy that allow customers to choose out-of-network doctors in exchange for higher co-pays.
To make matters worse, Anthony wanted an inexpensive, high-deductible policy, but he couldn't find a suitable one in the New York individual market.
Crash diet
So Anthony went shopping where he works -- in Arizona. There, he found a far wider menu of offerings, including the inexpensive, high-deductible policies that best fit his needs. To obtain the lowest rates, Anthony needed a battery of tests to prove to the insurer that his health was excellent. From his annual checkup, Anthony learned his cholesterol was high.

So he went on a crash campaign to lower it, working out on the elliptical machine at his health club, swapping cheese omelets for oatmeal and raisins at breakfast, and devouring Fage Greek yogurt, a favorite discovery on his adventure in healthy eating.
Last year, thanks to his youth, good health history and newly tamed cholesterol, Anthony qualified for a $5,500 deductible plan with a premium of just $100 a month. (The policy in Arizona closest to the New York point-of-service coverage costs around $300, versus $1500.) "The system in Arizona gave me a major financial incentive to improve my health," says Anthony.
New York's fair pricing problem
What accounts for the huge price differences between Arizona and New York?
Two regulations enormously inflate prices in New York (and, incidentally, rates aren't much lower in Albany or Syracuse than in Manhattan), especially for young, healthy folks such as Anthony -- just the kind of people who must buy in for the insurance pools to succeed.
The first regulation is Guaranteed Issue. In New York, and several other states including Vermont, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, carriers must accept all customers regardless of their medical condition. It would be illegal in New York to offer the deal Anthony got in Arizona -- a lower rate in exchange for lowering your cholesterol.
The second premium-swelling rule is Community Rating. In New York, all customers pay the same rate regardless of either their age or medical status. As a result, someone Anthony's age or younger pays an identical premium for the same policy as a 64-year-old customer, although they actually cost a fraction as much in medical claims. So older patients effectively get a big subsidy, and the young pay far more then their actual cost.
It gets worse. Because of guaranteed issue, patients know they can enroll in a plan anytime they get cancer or diabetes, so they have little incentive to sign up when they're healthy. Community rating assures that they can re-enroll at premiums far lower than the actual costs of the tests and procedures they require. Hence, the pools of the insured in states like New York and Vermont consist of an extremely high proportion of sick people. (This PricewaterhouseCoopers report describes how the guaranteed issue and community rating could drive up premiums.)
As the old and ill flood the plans, the rates rise even further, pushing out more and more of the young and healthy in a cycle of rapidly rising premiums and sicker and sicker customers.
"There is no question that the combination of community rating and guaranteed issue drives up premiums in states that now have those regulations," says Thomas Snook of actuarial consulting firm Milliman Inc.
The Arizona bargain
By contrast, Arizona -- and most other states, from Pennsylvania to Tennessee -- doesn't have guaranteed issue or strict community rating. "The individual market is a bargain in states without those regulations," says health care economist John Goodman of Dallas think-tank the National Center for Policy Analysis.
Young, healthy customers like Anthony get a good deal on insurance for a simple reason: They don't cost much. But their premiums flow into a big pool that supports the patients who are getting older and sicker. That's how classic insurance is supposed to work.
Starting in 2014, Obamacare will impose both Guaranteed Issue and Community Rating on the entire nation, including Arizona and the other states that don't have those regulations now. The Community Rating law will not be as strict at the one in New York: Insurers will be able to charge three times as much to a 64 year old, versus someone 18 or 20.
But that will still raise rates for the young, since they normally cost just one-sixth of patients in their 60s. (To gauge the huge difference in premiums between states, check this report from AHIP, the health insurers' industry association.)
The Administration is convinced that even though premiums rise for the young, more of them will buy insurance. Why? Well, first, Americans who don't buy coverage are fined. Second, lower and middle-income Americans get lavish subsidies to help pay for the inflated health insurance costs.
All carrot, no stick
Making sure the stick and carrot work will require enormous calibration.
"Rates will go up for young people in states like Arizona, not enough to make them leave the system, especially with the new fines and subsidies," says John Sheils of the Lewin Group, a research group owned by UnitedHealth. "But the fines may be too weak to prevent the young and healthy from dropping their plans."
For now, the penalties start at $600 and by 2016 they will rise to $1500 for a someone making $60,000. And if the insuree can't find a policy that costs 8% of his income or less, he's exempted from all fines. That's just $400 a month.
Let's say Anthony's premium rises to over $300 a month by 2016. Will he keep his policy?
First, he's earning too much as a single -- say $60,000 -- to get any subsidy at all. And second, even if he has to pay a fine, it's a lot less than paying almost $4000 a year for insurance.
So the success or failure of ObamaCare depends on how much premiums rise for the young and healthy under the new rules. Be warned: They could explode. That's what happened in New York.
 

rusty

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 24, 2006
4,627
11
0
Under a mask.
I say if your at risk for cancer simply for the gene factor you should not be allowed to get insurance:rolleyes: .Insurance should have no conditions attached such as age,condition,race,etc.

As far as who is paying more overall.Thats a problem that has existed with the insurance companies a long time.Hopefully the new plan will address that issue,even if its the smallest of changes.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,490
168
63
Bowling Green Ky
CNSNews.com
Health Law Bans New Doctor-Owned Hospitals, Blocks Expansion of Existing Ones
Monday, April 12, 2010
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) ? The new health care overhaul law ? that promised increased access and efficiency in health care ? will prevent doctor-owned hospitals from adding more rooms and more beds.
These hospitals are advertised as less bureaucratic and more focused on doctor-patient decision making. However, larger corporate hospitals say doctor-owned facilities discriminate in favor of high-income patients and refer business to themselves.
The new rules single out physician-owned hospitals, making new physician-owned projects ineligible to receive payments for Medicare and Medicaid patients.
Existing doctor-owned hospitals will be grandfathered in to get government funds for patients but must seek permission from the Department of Health and Human Services to expand.
The get the department?s permission, a doctor-owned hospital must be in a county where population growth is 150 percent of the population growth of the state in the last five years; impatient admissions must be equal to all hospitals located in the county; the bed occupancy rate must not be greater than the state average, and it must be located in a state where hospital bed capacity is less than the national average.
These rules are under Title VI, Section 6001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The provision is titled ?Physician Ownership and Other Transparency ? Limitations on Medicare Exceptions to the Prohibition on Certain Physician Referral for Hospitals.?

?That?s a lot of access to communitieMore than 60 doctor-owned hospitals across the country that were in the development stage will be canceled, said Molly Sandvig, executive director of Physician Hospitals of America (PHA).s that will be denied,? Sandvig told CNSNews.com. ?The existing hospitals are greatly affected. They can?t grow. They can?t add beds. They can?t add rooms. Basically, it stifles their ability to change and meet market needs. This is really an unfortunate thing as well, because we are talking about some of the best hospitals in the country.?
The organization says physician-owned hospitals have higher patient satisfaction, greater control over medical decisions for patients and doctor, better quality care and lower costs. Further, physician-owned hospitals have an average 4-1 patient-to-nurse ratio, compared to the national average of 8-1 for general hospitals.
Further, these 260 doctor-owned hospitals in 38 states provide 55,000 jobs, $2.4 billion in payroll and pay $509 million in federal taxes, according to the PHA.
In one ironic aspect, President Barack Obama?s two largest legislative achievements clashed. The Hammond Community Hospital in North Hammond, Ind., got $7 million in bond money from the federal stimulus act in 2009. It will likely be scrapped because of the new rules on physician-owned hospitals, according to the Post-Tribune newspaper in Merrillville, Ind.
These hospitals have long been a target of the American Hospital Association, which represents corporate-owned hospitals as well as non-profit hospitals.
An AHA study from 2008 says that physician-owned hospitals ?lessen patient access to emergency and trauma case;? ?damage the financial health of full-service hospitals and lead to cutbacks in service;? ?are not more efficient than full service community hospitals;? ?use physician-owners to steer patients;? ?cherry pick the most profitable patients;? and ?provide limited or no emergency services.?
Meanwhile, one AHA fact sheet asserts that physician-owned orthopedic and surgical hospitals costs are 20 percent to 30 percent higher than average hospitals. Further, these hospitals just lead to higher profits for doctors, the AHA asserts.
?We don?t cherry pick patients, period, end of story. We take patients based on their need for care, not on their ability to pay,? Sandvig said. ?It [the health care reform] puts control outside the hand of physicians and patients and into bureaucrats? hands really.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is one of many organizations suing to have the law declared unconstitutional on the grounds that the federal government cannot compel someone to buy a product.
While the provision on physician hospitals is not part of the lawsuit, it will affect it, Dr. said Jane Orient, AAPS executive director.
?If the law is declared unconstitutional, then the prohibition is part of the bill,? Orient told CNSNews.com. ?There are vested interests in getting rid of physician-owned hospitals because they do a better job and are more affordable.?
The provision in the legislation and efforts opposing these hospitals can be simply explained from Sandvig?s view.
?It?s anti-competitive. I think it?s pretty clear,? Sandvig said. ?We?re a model that makes sense that?s affecting innovation. We?re trying to do something better than it has been done. Anytime you do that, there?s going to be a clash between the existing and the new. Unfortunately, it?s a real David and Goliath battle.?
CNSNews.com - Health Law Bans New Doctor-Owned Hospitals, Blocks Expansion of Existing Ones
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
48
I say if your at risk for cancer simply for the gene factor you should not be allowed to get insurance:rolleyes: .Insurance should have no conditions attached such as age,condition,race,etc.

As far as who is paying more overall.Thats a problem that has existed with the insurance companies a long time.Hopefully the new plan will address that issue,even if its the smallest of changes.

Rusty:

One really needs to think of healthcare in terms of the economics that result. After all, health insurance doesn't provide or deny care - anyone can get services anywhere and any time they want. Insurance is just the financing mechanism to pay for the services.

It is in our best interest to have the premiums correlate with the health care risk as closely as possible. People make economic decisions on whether to buy healthcare, in many cases, based on the perceived value - what they expect to incur in costs versus what the premiums are. This is very much true for young people - if it is too expensive, they will forgo insurance and use their money for other goods and services.

Another way to think about it - someone that is age 64 consumes much more medical care than someone who is 22. It makes sense that the age 64 year old should pay more - they are using more services, so they are getting good value for their insurance premium. A 22 year old uses very little healthcare services, so to incent (I hate the word "incentivize" - the word is incent) them to purchase coverage, the premium needs to be commensurate with the risk. They have to see "value" - and I don't believe they'll see it when their premiums are artificially inflated to vastly subsidize the older generation. Many young people don't buy insurance now, with premiums that are more reasonable than they will be - I doubt that they willl pay even more under the new system - even with a "mandate" - that they can avoid and pay a small ($95 to start) penalty.

In addition, rewarding people that live healthy lifestyles (as the example above) only makes sense - it rewards people for healthy behaviors. It has been shown that obesity is our biggest risk - and everyone has some degree of control over it. People have no problem seeing speeders and drunk drivers pay more for auto insurance - it is a similiar situation for obesity related risks. Not everyone can be thin, for sure, but everyone good work at improving their health - and $$$$ is one way to incent all to do so.

Regarding the cancer gene - this was a big unfair risk to the insurance industry when underwriting is allowed. Think of it this way - someone goes and gets a test to see if they have the cancer gene. If they do have it, they buy insurance. If they don't, they may not buy insurance. They know something that the insurer doesn't, and is anti-selecting against them. That wouldn't be right.

Now, in a guaranteed issue 2014 and later world, those type of situations won't occur - but they key is, we need EVERYONE covered. Penalties need to be much stronger to ensure that is so. Not only financial penalties (this doesn't work for all), but also criminal (read jail). I know this is extreme, but that is the only way this bill has a chance to work. And I still don't believe it will work - there will be way too many unintended consequences. One example (investors, keep an eye on this), the "unearned income" tax that was snuck in to pay for this bill. This will have a BIG effect on the stock market once enacted, in my opinion. You will likely see a selloff in the December before this tax becomes effective (I think 2012, but not sure).

Of course, the better course of action would be to repeal the bill, and replace it with something that is not as punitive to business and our economy, something that actually addresses the underlying cost drivers (doctors, hospitals, drugs), and something that the majority of Americans actually like and support (which most polls still show a majority of Americans want this bill repealed).
 

rusty

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 24, 2006
4,627
11
0
Under a mask.
Rusty:

One really needs to think of healthcare in terms of the economics that result. After all, health insurance doesn't provide or deny care - anyone can get services anywhere and any time they want. Insurance is just the financing mechanism to pay for the services.

It is in our best interest to have the premiums correlate with the health care risk as closely as possible. People make economic decisions on whether to buy healthcare, in many cases, based on the perceived value - what they expect to incur in costs versus what the premiums are. This is very much true for young people - if it is too expensive, they will forgo insurance and use their money for other goods and services.

Another way to think about it - someone that is age 64 consumes much more medical care than someone who is 22. It makes sense that the age 64 year old should pay more - they are using more services, so they are getting good value for their insurance premium. A 22 year old uses very little healthcare services, so to incent (I hate the word "incentivize" - the word is incent) them to purchase coverage, the premium needs to be commensurate with the risk. They have to see "value" - and I don't believe they'll see it when their premiums are artificially inflated to vastly subsidize the older generation. Many young people don't buy insurance now, with premiums that are more reasonable than they will be - I doubt that they willl pay even more under the new system - even with a "mandate" - that they can avoid and pay a small ($95 to start) penalty.

In addition, rewarding people that live healthy lifestyles (as the example above) only makes sense - it rewards people for healthy behaviors. It has been shown that obesity is our biggest risk - and everyone has some degree of control over it. People have no problem seeing speeders and drunk drivers pay more for auto insurance - it is a similiar situation for obesity related risks. Not everyone can be thin, for sure, but everyone good work at improving their health - and $$$$ is one way to incent all to do so.

Regarding the cancer gene - this was a big unfair risk to the insurance industry when underwriting is allowed. Think of it this way - someone goes and gets a test to see if they have the cancer gene. If they do have it, they buy insurance. If they don't, they may not buy insurance. They know something that the insurer doesn't, and is anti-selecting against them. That wouldn't be right.

Now, in a guaranteed issue 2014 and later world, those type of situations won't occur - but they key is, we need EVERYONE covered. Penalties need to be much stronger to ensure that is so. Not only financial penalties (this doesn't work for all), but also criminal (read jail). I know this is extreme, but that is the only way this bill has a chance to work. And I still don't believe it will work - there will be way too many unintended consequences. One example (investors, keep an eye on this), the "unearned income" tax that was snuck in to pay for this bill. This will have a BIG effect on the stock market once enacted, in my opinion. You will likely see a selloff in the December before this tax becomes effective (I think 2012, but not sure).

Of course, the better course of action would be to repeal the bill, and replace it with something that is not as punitive to business and our economy, something that actually addresses the underlying cost drivers (doctors, hospitals, drugs), and something that the majority of Americans actually like and support (which most polls still show a majority of Americans want this bill repealed).

We agree to disagree.Because if you base it on risk conditions your dragging race,genes among other factors to determine cost.That's not right.
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
48
We agree to disagree.Because if you base it on risk conditions your dragging race,genes among other factors to determine cost.That's not right.

Rusty, to be clear I never said base premiums on race or genes.

My point was those that lead healthy lifestyles, and maintain a healthy weight, should pay a lower premium than those of us who choose not to do so.

Basically a shared contract - you want something from the government (premium subsidies, government controlled insurance), then it is only fair to do something in return - keep yourself in good health to the best of your ability to keep the overall medical costs down.

Doesn't seem too unfair to me. And none of that has anything to do with race or genes.
 

rusty

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 24, 2006
4,627
11
0
Under a mask.
Rusty, to be clear I never said base premiums on race or genes.

My point was those that lead healthy lifestyles, and maintain a healthy weight, should pay a lower premium than those of us who choose not to do so.

Basically a shared contract - you want something from the government (premium subsidies, government controlled insurance), then it is only fair to do something in return - keep yourself in good health to the best of your ability to keep the overall medical costs down.

Doesn't seem too unfair to me. And none of that has anything to do with race or genes.

I understand that.But if that is implemented,which I am against it,it would lead to the things that I just mentioned.How could it not?Because MANY factors could lead to a so called low risk insurer and how could race or gene no be included with having a mark against so to speak of high or low risk insurer.

Another thing how does age factor in on a premium cost?Someone could have high blood pressure at age 34 or 84 what's the dif. genes always play a role in someones health.Understand what i'm getting at?

You could lower someones premium for a healthier lifestyle,but if that said patient cant lower his cholesterol no matter what he does because it runs in the family your system just won't work its flawed.Understand??
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
48
I understand that.But if that is implemented,which I am against it,it would lead to the things that I just mentioned.How could it not?Because MANY factors could lead to a so called low risk insurer and how could race or gene no be included with having a mark against so to speak of high or low risk insurer.

Another thing how does age factor in on a premium cost?Someone could have high blood pressure at age 34 or 84 what's the dif. genes always play a role in someones health.Understand what i'm getting at?

You could lower someones premium for a healthier lifestyle,but if that said patient cant lower his cholesterol no matter what he does because it runs in the family your system just won't work its flawed.Understand??

Rusty - I'm sure the rules will be set up (well, who knows what the Dems will do) based on controllable factors - such as weight and stuff like that.

It may be a simple as those who get a checkup once a year get a discount... who knows?

And, high blood pressure is a much bigger deal at age 84 than 34 - a huge difference......

FYI - genetic background plays a role for some, but probably not the large majority of people. But you are right, cholesterol and high blood pressure certainly have a genetic element to it. Obesity also to an extent - but this is one that is more controllable that the other 2 just mentioned....
 

ImFeklhr

Raconteur
Forum Member
Oct 3, 2005
4,585
129
0
San Francisco
Now, in a guaranteed issue 2014 and later world, those type of situations won't occur - but they key is, we need EVERYONE covered. Penalties need to be much stronger to ensure that is so. Not only financial penalties (this doesn't work for all), but also criminal (read jail). I know this is extreme, but that is the only way this bill has a chance to work.

Maybe we should have a $1500 fine for having an abortion. Or maybe even stronger (read jail).

We don't even have control over our own bodies anymore. Or are close to that being true. Fun stuff. kurby
 

Mags

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2000
2,813
27
48
Maybe we should have a $1500 fine for having an abortion. Or maybe even stronger (read jail).

We don't even have control over our own bodies anymore. Or are close to that being true. Fun stuff. kurby

I understand - my only point was, if we don't have a way to get all the healthy people into the system, premium rates will skyrocket - as just the sick people will be in the individual system - that's all I was getting at
 

kcwolf

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 1, 2000
7,224
21
0
Iowa City
We don't even have control over our own bodies anymore. Or are close to that being true. Fun stuff. kurby

ImFeklhr: Any chance you could list, in detail, how much less control you have over your body now versus before January 20, 2009?

Thanks!


:0corn
 

ImFeklhr

Raconteur
Forum Member
Oct 3, 2005
4,585
129
0
San Francisco
ImFeklhr: Any chance you could list, in detail, how much less control you have over your body now versus before January 20, 2009?

Thanks!


:0corn

I honestly can't answer that question, because I largely think the new health care bill is too complex for me to understand.

What concerns me is being coerced into buying something by the government.
I tend to think stuff like that operates on a slipperly slope. Well at this point we are somewhere in the middle of the slope. But the fact of the matter is the government never gives back control once it gets it. So you can rarely if every peacefully move back "up the slope". The die is cast, it is just a matter of time before the government controls every portion of our life. Probably won't happen in my lifetime, but yeah, it's not going back towards more freedom. Hasn't once in the past 75 years really.
 

rusty

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 24, 2006
4,627
11
0
Under a mask.
I honestly can't answer that question, because I largely think the new health care bill is too complex for me to understand.

What concerns me is being coerced into buying something by the government.
I tend to think stuff like that operates on a slipperly slope. Well at this point we are somewhere in the middle of the slope. But the fact of the matter is the government never gives back control once it gets it. So you can rarely if every peacefully move back "up the slope". The die is cast, it is just a matter of time before the government controls every portion of our life. Probably won't happen in my lifetime, but yeah, it's not going back towards more freedom. Hasn't once in the past 75 years really.

Some banks that borrowed money from the gov't have in fact paid back there loan and in fact are operating independently.In fact the healthcare bill itself DOES NOT have a gov't option.Healthcare company's will still be independent.

The gov't roll will be to make sure that EVERYBODY has healthcare.Does that mean the gov't will have rules in place ?Of course.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Insurance has had control. And it still will have some. But it wont be able to do what ever it wants. That is a blessing for us all.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top