MPI Health Plan - Premiums for Dependents!

[Jeff Wexler]

This topic has morphed into the more general (and incredibly important) discussion of the state of health care, worldwide and particularly here in the U.S. There always seems to be a major focus on WHO should pay for all this health care and a lot less attention to WHY health care costs so much. Larry Fisher had a lot of good points to make in his post:

"The real problem has nothing to do with Republicans, Democrats, doctors or businesses. The population is getting older, Americans are incredibly unhealthy (fat) and the rest of the world is catching up (thank you McDonalds), miracle medicine costs fantastic money, and there are fewer young punks to pay into the systems."

This is all true, certainly the part about an aging population and the deplorable state of relative health/un-healthiness of our whole population. But when Larry talks about "miracle medicine costs fantastic money" and concludes that there aren't enough people paying into "the systems", this is where relevant and meaningful explanations start to fall apart. We need to understand WHY all this "miracle" and not so miracle health care costs so much --- by explaining that there is no easy way to fund this "system" you are closing the door to answering the all important and fundamental questions.

"You don't have to imagine all kinds of nasty people to explain the constantly escalating costs of health care. Remember, 50 years ago you didn't have kidney dialysis (100k/year), MRI machines, (millions), heart transplants, (600k+), hip, knee, shoulder, elbow replacements (100k), so on and so forth. Health care systems all over the world are looking a fiscal cliff in the face, be it French, Greek, Japanese, Canadian or American. Everyone wants to save money until they are in pain or on death's door and then cost is no object. Particularly if some one else is paying for it."

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

This is not the case. Individuals in need of basic plain and simple health care are not the enemy. A system of health care delivery that is driven by PROFIT over just about any other consideration, is the enemy. This profit motive dictates that our health care system functions on fees for service, procedures performed, rather than the systems utilized in almost every other country where you pay NOTHING for the routine visit to your general practitioner (remember those kinds of doctors we used to see before being sent to a "specialist") who may actually be able to help you be healthy. That simple visit to a GP may very well render that MRI your doctor suggested when you went to medical facility for that little pain you have in your arm. If the facility has purchased that MRI machine (which incidentally is far more expensive than it has to be --- this is a whole other discussion as to why these devices cost what they do) they're going to want to use it as often as they can. If the medical industry and the health care delivery system were built on the model of performance --- promoting health and keeping people healthy, healing people who are sick, rather than maintaining and growing itself as the billions of dollars profitable business that it is, proper national health for every single citizen in this country would work. As for paying for it all, how about taking our tax dollars, everyone's tax dollars (including the ones that the mega-corporations should be paying) and give the people national health. The government HAS our money already, they've always had it, they just don't spend it in the right places. There was a statistic during one of the years of our over a decade long "war" in Iraq and Afghanistan that if we tok the money that was being spent during just one month it could pay for health care for every single American for a year (and at the unbelievably high costs of medical care). If anyone still thinks that we're doing anything right here in the U.S. in regards to health care (and I would certainly include the incredibly flawed AHCA) just watch the documentary "Sick Around the World".

[Henchman]

As far as more peopel being older. This is also the case in other countries. Yet they still can provide national helathcare.

So, the number one issue, as Jeff pointed out, is that our tax dollars are NOT being spent correctly.

Stop wasting money on unneeded, useless wars, that only benefit and enrich army contractors.

Take money from the military budget, and spend it on a nationla healthcare pan.

Period.

[Jeff Wexler]

Take money from the military budget, and spend it on a nationla healthcare pan.

Period.

The budget for "National Security" should go towards those things which actually make us secure. A healthy, educated, and involved population, encouraged to participate in a true democracy with some degree of economic equality, would go much further to insure our security than having over 150,000 troops stationed all over the world in foreign countries. I know, spoken like the idealist/realist that I am.

[Henchman]

The budget for "National Security" should go towards those things which actually make us secure. A healthy, educated, and involved population, encouraged to participate in a true democracy with some degree of economic equality, would go much further to insure our security than having over 150,000 troops stationed all over the world in foreign countries. I know, spoken like the idealist/realist that I am.

Definitely NOT an idealist,

Absolutely a realist.

As an aside. I am currently in Hollland as my mom has declined to the point where she needs to be in at least, an assisted living situation.

Arrived on Sunday. And it's now Wednesday. Was waiting for a doctor to see her, so she could put things in motion that will get my mom the help she needs. She made a house call today (yes, unlike the "fantastic" American medical system, doctors still make house calls here), and it took her five minutes to see that the situation requires immediate attention. We are meeting her this afternoon to discuss the immediate placement of my mother.

How much is all this costing her, me and my remaining siblings, including the assisted living where she will be going to?

Nada, zip, Nothing.

I can return home this Sunday, knowing my mother is secure, safe and in good hands.

And it took less than a week to make all this happen, with minimum effort.

Now. Please explain to me why national healthcare is a bad thing.

Please. I invite every right leaning, anti healthcare, hardcore Republican, libertarian to explain me why the above scenario is bad, and not possible in America.

Bring it on.

[RPSharman]

It is the responsibility of government to provide basic health care and education to its population. Period. End of story.

An argument can be made for "elective" care, like new hips or knees, being privatized. But basic care should be a given. This care should include nutritional counseling and perhaps incentives of some sort for maintaining a low BMI.

No public health system can handle an increasingly "growing" and aging population.

[studiomprd]

" We need to understand WHY all this "miracle" and not so miracle health care costs so much -- "

lawsuits are a major part of this

[Jeff Wexler]

It is the responsibility of government to provide basic health care and education to its population. Period. End of story.

Robert, your socialism is showing. There are a whole lot of people in this country that for whatever reason they have come up with would completely disagree with your statement. The comment made during the last election regarding the pitiful two parties we have in this country, that the Democrats see us as all in this together and the Republicans see it as everyone is on their own. Neither is completely correct nor are these sentiments embodied in any proper way when it comes to health care policy.

[Richard Lightstone, CAS]

"The Dutch really have it together on health care, they have a system that has been proposed as a model for the US to emulate. In stark contrast to many other European systems, it’s actually based entirely on private insurers, rather than a single-payer or entirely national system. Yet the Dutch system is universal, has far superior rates of satisfaction with quality of care and access, and still costs a fraction of what we pay for health care per capita in the US.

So, how does the Dutch system work?

Their system is fairly simple, everyone is required to purchase insurance from highly-regulated private providers. They describe it as “private health insurance with social conditions”. Insurers are tightly regulated for quality, provision of basic services, and to prevent discrimination, as they are required to accept everyone in their coverage area at a flat rate, no matter what their health status. To prevent loss of profitability from chronically-ill patients, they have a risk equalization system so that rather than losing profits from recruiting sicker patients, insurance companies are compensated for providing service to those patients who need it most. And if a citizen wants to change companies, or buy additional insurance they are free to. It’s a system that encourages competition, but is regulated to prevent the companies from selecting only healthy patients, or otherwise abusing the system to prevent health care provision to sick people."

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/26/what-is-healthcare-like-neth/

[Jeff Wexler]

"Their system is fairly simple, everyone is required to purchase insurance from highly-regulated private providers. They describe it as 'private health insurance with social conditions'."

Isn't this one of the main features of Obamacare? The requirement that everyone have insurance from private (for profit) insurance companies? For me personally, this is what I feel is wrong with Obamacare --- the power stays in the hands of the for profit insurance companies and we will continue to be at the mercy of these giant corporations --- we know that REGULATING them does not work at all in the U.S. (but of course it does work well in a country like Holland). I am all for the concept of insurance and that everyone pays in whether they are in need of care at the time, spreading the risks, etc. If we actually could regulate the insurance companies, as AHCA is hoping to do, then I would favor this sort of system.

[studiomprd]

" so that rather than losing profits from recruiting sicker patients, insurance companies are compensated for providing service to those patients who need it most "

??

[Henchman]

Of which strike do you speak ?When was the last time there was a national I.A.T.S.E. strike ?

J.D.

You want to pretend the writers strike 4 years ago didn't affect the entire industry?

[Henchman]

It is the responsibility of government to provide basic health care and education to its population. Period. End of story.

An argument can be made for "elective" care, like new hips or knees, being privatized. But basic care should be a given. This care should include nutritional counseling and perhaps incentives of some sort for maintaining a low BMI.

No public health system can handle an increasingly "growing" and aging population.

Health care, is health care.

I don't consider new hips or knees elective.

Since when should only people with money have the insurance of continued quality of life?

Sorry, but its all or nothing.

And it's all.

[Laurence]

Returning to the original topic, it should be made clear that in contrast to many worker health plans, the IA plan is still completely free for members. The people reading this pay NO monthly premiums. Health costs have gone up dramatically but at least for the time being, our members will continue to get free health care. Our employers are paying for the health plan but at issue here is the health care provided family members who don't work in the industry and thus don't have employer contributions made for them... the spouses and children of working IA members. Offering them free coverage has been an incredibly good deal but rising costs make such a benefit hard to maintain. Paying $25 for one extra person and $25 more for ALL ADDITIONAL family members does not sound unreasonable. Yes, it's a slippery slope if the premiums keep going up but on the face of it, the deal we are facing now is not at all bad.

[studiomprd]

" completely free for members. "

completely free for qualifying members.

" Offering them free coverage has been an incredibly good deal "

one could even argue it discriminates against qualifying members with no family members...

and keep in mind, children are now covered up to their mid-twenties!

not at all bad ? I repeat: it would be a good deal at double the price!

[Philip Perkins]

And as a probably unnecessary aside, keep in mind that the members of LA based IA locals generally have a much better health plan at far low cost (still) than those of locals in other cities. My local is doing its level-best to SHED members on its health plan these days--they have pretty much successfully shed me as of Jan 1. Hello, COBRA.

philp

[jrd456]

You want to pretend the writers strike 4 years ago didn't affect the entire industry?

It didn't totally cripple the industry, just more reality shows.Almost everyone that's good is in the IATSE.We could cripple the industry.We need to shrug and show them the power of organized labor before it's too late.

J.D.

[studiomprd]

" Almost everyone that's good is in the IATSE. "

while that may arguably be true, a majority of IATSE (members who even voted) approved the contracts...

actually, I believe its the majority of IATSE members who don't care ...

[Henchman]

It didn't totally cripple the industry, just more reality shows.Almost everyone that's good is in the IATSE.We could cripple the industry.We need to shrug and show them the power of organized labor before it's too late.

J.D.

Yes, it crippled a big part of the industry.

Maybe not for you. But I know a lot of people who are still recovering from that.

No matter how you twist it turn it, Producers have more money to hold out with.

It won't affect their year end. N they'll still be picking up that new Bentley, while other people are losing their homes and burning through their savings.

And you want to strike because of a measly $25 a month charge?

I think a reality check is in order.

[jrd456]

Yes, it crippled a big part of the industry.

Maybe not for you. But I know a lot of people who are still recovering from that.

No matter how you twist it turn it, Producers have more money to hold out with.

It won't affect their year end. N they'll still be picking up that new Bentley, while other people are losing their homes and burning through their savings.

And you want to strike because of a measly $25 a month charge?

I think a reality check is in order.

I didn't mention the $25 a month charge,I actually think thats reasonable.Actually,it's all the other things that have been given away in the last 25 years.The producers have the highest profits in history and yet they want more.Hey,I'm at the end of my run--It's YOUR future.

J.D.

[johnpaul215]

I'm with Dave. I was paying over $200/month for Blue Cross personal choice (considered good insurance), but no dental, vision. I'm in my 30s with no medical conditions, no family history of anything expensive (heart transplants etc). On top of that monthly bill, they changed my plan to have a $1,000/year deductible for doctor/ER visits and $1,000 for prescriptions. Needless to say I was paying for everything out of pocket.

I also 100% agree with Larry that there is an impending tidal wave of older Americans, and they are coming in an age when people don't believe the "eh, I'm getting older" thing and want things like knee/hip replacements. I'm not saying they are not entitled to such procedures, but insurance companies survive by looking at the long game. Add the terrible effects of our diets and that's another wave of health problems.

It's speculation, but I can see the argument that everyone having access to health care is in fact much cheaper. I bet it's cheaper to prevent, or get control of type 2 diabetes early instead of cutting off somebody's feet and the long term costs of that. Same way it's cheaper to help somebody from becoming an alcoholic than to pay for a liver transplant, or to get people off cigarettes than treat them for cancer.

I will never defend his actions, but I have an old highschool friend that had a "weird ulcer-like thing" on his tongue. He didn't have insurance and ignored it. Few months later he is diagnosed with cancer. It spread to his lymph nodes. Fast forward a year and a half and he's still alive, but had 2 surgeries and lost 2/3 of his tongue, had his throat slit open twice (leaving a massive scar from ear to chin), went through chemo and radiation. To be blunt, he was stupid to wait that long, and he learned his lesson. He was hoping he was being paranoid and didn't want to pay $200 for a doctor to spend 2 minutes looking at him to say "dude, less spicy food". Instead he spent well over $200,000 on medical bills. There are a LOT of Americans that do the same thing he does. Knowing that, I can absolutely see how everyone having basic affordable medical access will in face save the country money. Doctors will always have tons of work, let's have them work on people that really need it.

[johnpaul215]

And you want to strike because of a measly $25 a month charge?

I think a reality check is in order.

I'm sure the thinking is that once there is ANY contribution, it's easy to raise it every time the contracts are reworked. If it went from $0 to $25, then it won't be a big deal to go from $25 to $27 to $30 to......

[Henchman]

And again basic insurance is or good enough.

If Soemoen has worked hard, but develops hip problems, that have nothing to do with lifestyle and everything's to do with their job, they deserve e medical help.

Everyone deserves full medical help. Not wether they can afford it.

There's no reason to classify things that aren't cosmetic, as elective.

The rich shouldn't have better health benefits than those less well off.

[Nima]

Off topic here... but reading this I'm just thinking: How Americans put up with the current health care system is truly beyond me! When I was a teen, living in Sweden, I always dreamed of moving to the U.S. one day. Fast forward to a little more political awareness and having lived in Canada for 5 years, I think I'll just stay here. Unless I choose to return to Europe one day. But oh how nice it would if Canada or Sweden were tropical countries.

[jrd456]

Off topic here... but reading this I'm just thinking: How Americans put up with the current health care system is truly beyond me! When I was a teen, living in Sweden, I always dreamed of moving to the U.S. one day. Fast forward to a little more political awareness and having lived in Canada for 5 years, I think I'll just stay here. Unless I choose to return to Europe one day. But oh how nice it would if Canada or Sweden were tropical countries.

Well----there's always global warming, if you're patient.

J.D.

[OmahaAudio]

It is the responsibility of government to provide basic health care and education to its population. Period. End of story.

And all insurance should be of the "mutual" variety. i.e. not-for-profit and for the benefit of policy holders.