FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

OK, so it turns out that there is a catastrophic option on the table, but I can't nail down the details (in part because the details really aren't available, given the mechanisms by which this thing's supposed to work). But, it is true that there is to be a very low deductible option, but only for those who are under 30. Once you hit 30, in your next enrollment period you HAVE to go on one of the others (which will offer more benefits, but they'll be much more expensive).

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

The problem with that is so-called routine medical procedures and even some office visits are still too expensive. Cost is the biggest issue.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Has it ever occurred to you that these are so expensive because they're typically paid for with insurance?

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

I'm talking about out-of-pocket expenses. Please don't try to tell me the market ought to set rates for health care.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

I thought there was going to be also, but like you I could not really pin down. I would imagine that high deductible / lower premium plan would be a drain on the expected cash flow to subsidize the uninsured.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Oh, I would never do that, because there are so many better ways to set those ...

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

When you start paying $1500 a month for your insurance those out of pocket medical expenses will seem cheap.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Hey, show some respect! Obamacare (which has not been fully implemented yet) saved Lancey's life! Gives me a thrill up my leg just thinking about it.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

I hope that never happens and while $1,500 is outrageous everything about health care costs too much.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

Are you making fun of Lancey's situation?

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

I don't think so. I think he's making light of the interpretation of Lancey's situation. I am sure he/she is, like me, pleased that Lancey's condition was treatable (rather easily, it seems) and is not a serious cause for immediate and/or long-term concern.

I'll be the first to admit here that the whole pre-existing conditions challenge is a tough nut to crack. At my age I've seen this play out numerous times, and I certainly understand this as a root of dissatisfaction with the current (actually, the on-the-way-out) system. Most recently I had a first cousin whose older (late teens) son was diagnosed with cancer. Fortunately for him the cancer was caught early and the surgery/chemo regimen was (apparently) very successful. Unfortunately for him, he'll always have that pre-existing condition, which means that unless he goes to work for: 1) the government; or 2) some big firm, he's going to have both the cancer shadow AND the insurance shadow chasing him. I have serious problems with any system set up that way.

On the other hand, our health care system as it is emerged under a regime of insurance as primary financing mechanism, which means that an alternative approach (i.e., one in which insurance really is insurance, rather than prepaid health care) can't, as a practical, political matter, get a fair hearing. I think this is terribly unfortunate since what evidence there is (and there's not much, but there's some) suggests such a transition would be a very, very positive outcome.

 

Re: THE 2012 POLITICS THREAD

That's some good analysis. I just don't it's right for people to be bankrupted by medical bills. It's immoral. For starters, fee-for-service has got to go.