Jump to content
Why not, that is why the premium for health insurance is so much higher for low deductibles. You have a layer of insurance company b.s. that is taking its share.
I suppose you have tried and have seen it first hand. On my back surgery, I got hosed by the insurance company. I did not know that I would face two deductibles and so while in severe pain I found a doctor I trusted and found the least expensive place for him to preform the surgery. Unfortunately that was at a kaiser facility, which was out of network. So in addition to the $10,000 deductible in network, I was fortunate enough to get to pay a $20,000 out of network deductible also.
As my premium is about $2,500/year for the plan (a family) and was able to save $4-5k/year in a tax deferred HSA. To compare apples to apples (this site www.kff.org/insurance/090210nr.cfm) says a families health insurance plan is over $13,000/year. So the difference in premium for a year covers the entire deductible. From my research when I was seeking out the information, the difference was about 50-60% of my total deductible.
Given this scenario, the fact that insurance companies actuaries are trying to ensure that they do not lose money, excluding some individuals, most will prosper in this scenario. Those individuals that fall on hard times the rest of society can come together to help them out, while we move to a more sound system.
The idea of the health savings account is that the difference in premium is placed into a HSA and used for those relatively large events. After several years one would have enough in the HSA to cover the deductible.
I also stated that it would take time to migrate to that system. However, without taking that first step - you never get to where you want to be.
That is the point of a large deductible, with a HSA, to reward people for taking care of themselves and getting those oil changes (exercising, eating right, etc.).
Those larger risks come about from subsidized cheap calories, poor lifestyle choices (smoking, drinking, etc.), etc.. Other factors involve toxins in the environment that arise from process' which externalize their costs (mercury from power plants).
Heck, it is about taking that first step to where you want to be. Trying to stop cold turkey places some in a bad position - those with very bad health. Somehow you figure out a way to help them, still leaving them with an incentive to reduce their health care costs.
We are where we are, but we would all like health care costs not to be spiraling out of control. Trying to give people an incentive for staying healthy is one step in the right direction.
The Iron Horse Inn is the perfect example of why government should try and stay to core services or things that private enterprise can not provide. They are playing with other peoples money and face little consequences for mistakes that are made.
Unfortunately, the debate of health care always centers around treating illness, which for the most part comes about from something else. Where real reform needs to happen is much before the current medical system.
The government subsidizes poor food choices, those poor food choices lead to poor health.
Personally we need to go back to high deductible programs that were the norm in the 70's, not the fixed payment per visit. That tends to take the end user out of the equation in determining a fair price for the services received. Yes it does not work in an emergency - however with many procedures when I requested a price for the service they could not disclose it - yet I want to know as I carry a $10,000 deductible and it comes out of my pocket.
Moving the school employees to a high deductible with a HSA would lead to an empowerment of the employees and encourage them to live healthier lifestyles and take better care of themselves. This as extra money left in the HSA could be used for retirement when that time comes.
Those people that wait for the problem to become so bad are not the issue here. But on that issue, front range hospitals have gotten together to subsidize organizations like the VNA so that people do not wait to enter the ER.
Ron Paul going back to dirt roads, probably not as he thinks that the states should be the ones making the decisions on roads. You ought to look up some policy positions prior to making uneducated statements.
The problem is that no person suited for the presidency wants to be the president (Obama included). Too bad H Ross Perot was scared from running for the office. Hopefully Ventura steps up and runs as an independent as you would have a choice of Obama, and probably Obama lite in Mitt.
Unfortunately the media and establishment is giving us these whack jobs - Paul is not one as John Stewart has clips of the media talking about how they wont interview him.
While yes the fed has been printing money, the velocity of money has been collapsing which is deflationary, which in order to prevent a deflationary depression the fed is trying everything it can to stop that from happening.
The common belief that people should get a pay raise every year is based on the inflation caused by the increases in monetary and credit supplies. If that did not occur then annual pay increases would not need to happen to maintain the same quality of consumption.
The "fed's" hidden tax on the destruction of the purchasing power of the dollar is a major issue that most do not even think about. They just assume that prices are going to rise over time - which does not need to occur.
-- But if we are unnecessarily more or less forced to waste it through poor construction, what's the downside to building with that in mind in the first place? Ultimately we all pay the price for wastefulness.--
Wastefulness is what a free market tries to eliminate. One does not need to look much further than the comparative house size in old town to see that over time home sizes grew (stories of settlers living in tents or caves also tells a story).
Housing lost its basic premise of shelter over time. Heck living in a house/apartment is not the only option. One can live in a camper/yurt/etc. though the government might yell child abuse if you have kids in that situation.
Much of our life is spent just paying for our technology and do we really need all of it. Would life be more enjoyable without all the ipads, laptops, fancy cars, etc.. many in the city go to work, to pay for their gym memberships, parties, etc. when if one worked in a physical job with others they could almost fill all of those needs without the expense - maybe more contently.
In conjunction with what sled said that person that needs a home is going to build a very small home which by nature consumes a lot less energy and probably is heated with wood. So that home is using a more renewable energy supply - however with the methane digesters out there natural gas is pretty much a renewable resource.
I cringe at the CAFOs that are responsible for the creation of most of the inputs for them. However, they are able to operate because of government subsidies for grains - a distortion to free market forces.
Heck even oil is renewable. Oil is simply a battery - a store of energy via a hydro carbon. This battery requires a reaction to free the hydrogen from oxygen - which plants do via photosynthesis and we can do via electrolysis. Though we need to combine that hydrogen with carbon, which the Germans did by heating the mixture under pressure with coal. Today we can use solar concentrators which, if not mistaken, have created temperatures far high than what the Germans used in WWII.
I am not a chemical/mechanical engineer and do not have time to actually put my mind to solving this problem or I would.
With this you have a renewable energy source that does not require the entire countries infrastructure to be thrown out the window via electric cars which if off the lead acid battery type off gas toxins that could pose a problem if large enough numbers were concentrated.
-- Why build homes to last 200 years if, in 20 years, the neighborhood is going to be purchased by Wal-Mart and all those structures leveled anyway--
So the broader question here is what efficiencies did wal-mart create that makes it in need of regional super centers? Personally it is the banking system which has given rise to the corporations - via government intervention vis a vie tax breaks for savings in 401ks which can not be invested for ones own benefit (primarily they are invested in stocks or bonds - which benefit the corporations).
Throw in the wage controls in the 40s which gave rise to pensions, which are now guaranteed by a creation of the federal government - giving rise to more cheap capital that the small guy does not have access to.
Thinking radically the government is the cause of many of our problems. Returning to a more limited government structure and a sound monetary system would give rise to a more egalitarian and sustainable world.
Without that government intervention people would not build things that they did not hope were going to last for 200+ years. It is the cheap money that the fed has created which has fueled the insanity that is the disposable world we live in today.
Superpower - that is fading quickly as just like the fall of the German wall was caused by economic collapse, the current deficits are turning the US into a super pauper.
I agree that the carbon credits are simply a transfer of wealth and should not be the course of action - having investigated the whole program benefits and how they are calculating stored carbon.
Last login: Thursday, June 6, 2013
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |