Obamacare

The premiums at my two businesses have gone down since we got an ACA policy. Our premiums used to be $1,900-something/employee+kids. Now they are high $1,300- something/employee+kids. Saved he a shitload of money for me. Over $100,000 extra in my pocket. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

You are the very first businessman I have ever heard to make that claim. Since small business has not been regulated yet, I presume your employees were taken off a good plan and replaced with a silver Obamacare and are earning less than 30,000 a year so they are subsidized by the rest of us. You get the $ 100,000 we pay for. That's smart. OOPs Poor employees . They have a 6,000 annual deductible. So they pay as well as us . But more tail for you, lucky guy. PS I am a small business guy and dread what will befall my business in 2016 when the personal mandates are imposed on small business. My people still enjoy the great low deductibles and copays until then. My hope is we get a Tea Party President and Republican Congress in 16.

That is nearly a billion a year. Hell yes, they say no. The doctors and hospitals won't take medicaid patients anyway. We are going to take over the Senate in the midterms and defund this crap. Originally Posted by OldLRRP

Most docs and hospitals in my part of the state would be flat fucking broke without Medicaid!

Which Democrat? None on the scene yet. Questionable if a Republican Establishment or Libertarian would. A Tea Party Republican certainly. Vote for Ted Cruz. Originally Posted by doug_dfw

Hillary is going to win the nomination, and likely the election. She won't even think about repealing the ACA.

You are the very first businessman I have ever heard to make that claim. Since small business has not been regulated yet, I presume your employees were taken off a good plan and replaced with a silver Obamacare and are earning less than 30,000 a year so they are subsidized by the rest of us. You get the $ 100,000 we pay for. That's smart. OOPs Poor employees . They have a 6,000 annual deductible. So they pay as well as us . But more tail for you, lucky guy. PS I am a small business guy and dread what will befall my business in 2016 when the personal mandates are imposed on small business. My people still enjoy the great low deductibles and copays until then. My hope is we get a Tea Party President and Republican Congress in 16. Originally Posted by doug_dfw

Gold. I have zero employees who make under $30,000. But, yes, the previous insurance was very good, as is the ACA policy.

Small employers who were providing EXCELLENT insurance before the ACA are, in general, saving money with the ACA. The ones complaining are the ones who provided the most barebones policies just so they could say that they "offered benefits". The bronze level of ACA is pretty basic (too basic to me, we have silver). So if a business's policy didn't meet that minimum standard, then they had to change. But if it met the minimum standard, they weren't forced to change. Ergo, those doing the "right thing" for their employees at the very least didn't see an increase-- and some saw a decrease.

You aren't gonna hear as many stories about those who are better off with the ACA than without. That doesn't make a good, sensational story on Fox news.

Gold. I have zero employees who make under $30,000. But, yes, the previous insurance was very good, as is the ACA policy. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

That being the case I would appreciate the contact for you broker and I will fire mine.

That being the case I would appreciate the contact for you broker and I will fire mine. Originally Posted by doug_dfw

Both policies were with BCBS of Texas. ACA mandated that they provide rates for ACA policies with renewal quote. They did, and it was cheaper ($1,900-something v $1,300-something/Mo.). Are you paying more than that? I'd be curious. Given how little health care we use, I still think the premium is too high. But it is better. But there is no way our group costs the insurance company $15,000/employee/year. Jessie James had to carry a gun to make money like that.

I think one minor change would fix all this. Make patients pay doctors when they are healthy not when they are sick. Doctors visits should be more regular and more thorough with the doctors focus on keeping the person healthy instead of visiting doctors only when their is a problem. A once a year annual is probably not enough to keep that information up to date. When the doctors lose pay for illness they have an incentive to keep people healthy. Are their some problems with this that need to be worked out, sure their are. It would be better than what we have though.

I think one minor change would fix all this. Make patients pay doctors when they are healthy not when they are sick. Doctors visits should be more regular and more thorough with the doctors focus on keeping the person healthy instead of visiting doctors only when their is a problem. A once a year annual is probably not enough to keep that information up to date. When the doctors lose pay for illness they have an incentive to keep people healthy. Are their some problems with this that need to be worked out, sure their are. It would be better than what we have though. Originally Posted by mydallas1

So part of the idea of getting everyone on insurance is that they can theoretically go in for regular checkups and more focus can be placed on preventative care as opposed to uninsured people going to the expensive ER every time they get sick (which was what was happening before).

So part of the idea of getting everyone on insurance is that they can theoretically go in for regular checkups and more focus can be placed on preventative care as opposed to uninsured people going to the expensive ER every time they get sick (which was what was happening before). Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Not the same, imo. I don't know exactly how it would work. Let's just say, something like $1,000 a month goes to the doctor. He seems the patient once a month. Every month he is doing some different test. Allergy tests, blood tests, mris, whatever is out their. His job is to keep a person healthy. The moment a person gets sick, they pay nothing until healthy. The choice doctors should make is what is the best for the patient to keep them happy, healthy and living a long lif not what insurance will cover or what steps insurance requires them to do first. Doctors should run medicine, not insurance companies.

Not the same, imo. I don't know exactly how it would work. Let's just say, something like $1,000 a month goes to the doctor. He seems the patient once a month. Every month he is doing some different test. Allergy tests, blood tests, mris, whatever is out their. His job is to keep a person healthy. The moment a person gets sick, they pay nothing until healthy. The choice doctors should make is what is the best for the patient to keep them happy, healthy and living a long lif not what insurance will cover or what steps insurance requires them to do first. Doctors should run medicine, not insurance companies. Originally Posted by mydallas1

What if the patient doesn't agree to the treatment the doctor prescribes? Under the current system, patients have the freedom to take medication / treatments if they want to or get a second opinion. There often also isn't a clear "best choice" in treatment or treatments without risks.

Ultimately, we can't have a system where people are given whatever treatment is necessary to keep them alive. There has to be some limit as to what treatments can be given based off of how cost effective they are.

No one should be paid for doing essentially nothing. If a patient is healthy (we're not even going to get into a discussion about what "healthy" means), a doctor shouldn't be paid just because of that. Even if they run tests, if the patient is healthy, you're just wasting resources that could've been diverted to sick patients. You also can't control when a person gets sick or injured, even if you saw a doctor every day.

The Unaffordable Care Act is a POS, just like the traitor Muslim POS occupying a certain building in D.C. on Pennsylvania Avenue. Originally Posted by TrailBlazer

Muslim? Traitor? Been watching too much Fox News there Bubba? From quotes he made on the campaign trail he most likely is a closet atheist, but with idiots like you out there, little wonder huh? I am out in the open, but I carry weapons in case I run into stupid bigots like yourself.

Both policies were with BCBS of Texas. ACA mandated that they provide rates for ACA policies with renewal quote. They did, and it was cheaper ($1,900-something v $1,300-something/Mo.). Are you paying more than that? I'd be curious. Given how little health care we use, I still think the premium is too high. But it is better. But there is no way our group costs the insurance company $15,000/employee/year. Jessie James had to carry a gun to make money like that. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Thanks I will check their rates for my employees.

Hog is right on the money. People hate government healthcare and support except for Medicare, SS, etc.... And weren't those programs sponsored by Dem admins? Just sayin

What if the patient doesn't agree to the treatment the doctor prescribes? Under the current system, patients have the freedom to take medication / treatments if they want to or get a second opinion. There often also isn't a clear "best choice" in treatment or treatments without risks.

Ultimately, we can't have a system where people are given whatever treatment is necessary to keep them alive. There has to be some limit as to what treatments can be given based off of how cost effective they are.

No one should be paid for doing essentially nothing. If a patient is healthy (we're not even going to get into a discussion about what "healthy" means), a doctor shouldn't be paid just because of that. Even if they run tests, if the patient is healthy, you're just wasting resources that could've been diverted to sick patients. You also can't control when a person gets sick or injured, even if you saw a doctor every day. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

All these questions work pretty much the same way now.
If one doesn't agree with the doctors opinion, get a second one. And either keep the current doctor or switch to the new one. Their will always be doctors with differing opinions sooner would just pick a doctor they agree with.

I don't know about you. For me, I love living. I don't want my decision to stay alive or success rates to be based on what's most cost effective. I want it to be made on what is going to work. At some point though, hopefully logic would take over and a 90 year old that needs a new heart wouldn't request that from his doctor. Although I don't see why it shouldn't be his right.

What do you think incsurance companies get paid for? They get paid do to nothing until something tragic happens. They get paid incase shit happens. The thinking is similiar, the doctor gets paid to keep you healthy until something happens. then it is free. Now a doctor doesn't get paid until something bad happens. I would rather the incentive be to keep me healthy. It would be impossible to control all sickness or injury. A lot of sickness could be helped. Just a few examples. Say someone went to the doctor monthly and the doctor noticed weight gain or weight loss every visit. That could be a discussion that their might be some things to so now to prevent long term health issues. So instead of going to the doctor and him saying you need to lose fifty pounds. He the doctor says lose 5 lbs. Second example, what if someone is a closet alcoholic. The doctor might see a trend in change in liver enzymes and be able to get the patient help before they go into kidney failure.

The minor shift from changing a doctor to treating illness, to preventing illness would be huge.
Instead of paying an insurance company those payments would go to a doctor. I would guess their would be some kind of required reserves the doctor was required to maintain like a bank.

It would work.