U
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I am planning on a trip and may need to know before then.
It's important.
The rate went down, but the employer contribution also went down, so I'm paying an extra $3.15 twice a month. Damn Obamacare!!!My rates went down at work, about 17 percent. I was surprised. I haven't yet looked at the exchange, but will.
How many have had rates lowered through your employer provided healthcare? I am curious.
Mrs. E's and my premiums have gone crazy in the last year and a half...as well as coverage being much less, prescriptions and co-pays going up...we are in the midst or seeing what we can do, as her employer offers insurance, but pays nothing toward it, mine pays for me, but I have to cover her...
I remember posting something a couple years ago, when we were looking to get my son a separate policy...we were paying appx $330 a month ($150 or so subsidized by my employer) for just the 2 of us, $130 for our son...his is now $148, going up to $186 in November...same coverage...ours is now (or will be) $673 if we go with hers (100% out of pocket), or $425 if we go for mine, NOT including the boss paying my part...
She has 2 prescriptions, that used to be on the $4 generic chart, but if we use my or her insurance, they will not do the $4 deal, and one is $13, the other is $15...
If we hadn't looked at it close, and kept both policies we are offered, we would be paying $1,100 a month for health insurance...for 2 healthy people...$13,200+ per year...
When she was with a large telecom company 5ish years ago, we paid $67 every 2 weeks for medical, dental, vision, prescription...
By the same token, it's what I found most absurd about the objections to government-underwritten care. Add up what you pay in taxes and your private medical expenses. That's what you pay each year, regardless of which portion is tax and which is not. We've all become too special to pay taxes.This is what I find to be the silly part of government mandated insurance arguments.
"I pay taxes through the nose..."
and then, I go to the doctor and only pay a small fee.
What?
Ah. We agree, yes.I should have expounded.
What I meant was, why not just pay it all in the tax?
Why the "small fee?"
I don't know.
...Speaking of ObamaCare, the Federal Exchanges are due to begin operations in a couple of weeks. There are likely to be some glitches at the start and one can be sure that all missteps will be magnified in the media. There will be some unwanted rate increases for some of the most healthy and some of the least healthy but for most, life will go on. Some corporations are reacting by moving some or all of its current and former employees to these exchanges in order to cap their costs. That trend could accelerate in coming weeks, months or years depending on how well the exchanges operate. In the meantime, reports show that healthcare inflation has fallen by 2% below the national average. That has happened as companies have shifted some of the burden of health care costs to employees who now are in a situation where they become personally invested in the economics of health care choice. We saw this happen when Medicare Part D was introduced for drug purchases.
In time, the government’s Medicare and Medicaid programs are going to do the same. Sure there will be some very liberal members of Congress who will fight this to the end. But if interest rates normalize over the next four years, the size of our nation’s debt service costs will rise by $200-400 billion per year. The only places to extract savings even approaching that magnitude are through savings in entitlement programs. Said in simple English, soon we will get to the point where our government, at both state and Federal levels, will have to cap what it can afford to pay for entitlements. Any excess cost will be shifted to the recipient through co-pays and deductibles. That is exactly what market forces have done in the private sector. What I have just noted isn’t a political statement of choice, it is an economic reality.
And speaking of economic realities, the exact same thing is beginning to happen in higher education. Enrollment is down because the cost/benefit is down. Enrollment declines are accelerating and a few colleges are now in dire economic straits. More will follow. States will cap what they can afford to spend. In higher education, the disrupting force will be technology. More and more classes will be taught via the Internet, supplemented by physical classes monitored by teaching assistants and adjunct professors. The two big costs of higher education are salaries and infrastructure maintenance. As the Internet is used more, there will be less need for professors and classrooms. Costs will come down. The status quo will be disrupted. Teachers will fight back just as typesetters fought back changes in how newspapers were assembled in the 1960s, but they won’t win. The next decade will see radical changes in education and the beneficiaries will be all of us. Students will get lectures from the best teachers with some dollars diverted to more hands-on support. The details are still far from clear but the outcome is inevitable. Once again, natural economic forces are the instigator of change and the results will be a better and more efficient system...
The fee is there so hypocondriacs don't crowd the clinics and demand an MRI every time they sneeze.This is what I find to be the silly part of government mandated insurance arguments.
"I pay taxes through the nose..."
and then, I go to the doctor and only pay a small fee.
What?
The fee is there so hypocondriacs don't crowd the clinics and demand an MRI every time they sneeze.
No, they penalize the frivolous over users. Try to pay attention.So they penalize everyone because of a few.
No, they penalize the frivolous over users. Try to pay attention.
You know it as copay.
If they didn't do that, they'd just raise the tax with the equivalent. THAT would be penalizing everyone.
I have no copay.