Cancer drives employer healthcare cost increase

Medicare works reasonably well. Rising costs mean it will face some challenges. I think we all recognize that many fall between the cracks between Medicade and the Affordable Care Act. That leaves many uninsured and in need of charity care or none.

Finding a way to fill that gap is the goal. Universal coverage with less than Cadillac benefits is a workable approach. Germany uses a two tier insurance system. Basics and supplemental care. Which by the way is the way we do Medicare.

1 Like

I’m pretty sure that Germany doesn’t attempt to fund basic care with any sort of scheme that has a $5,000 cap.

I’ll bet Germany and England don’t have private insurance companies like UnitedHealthcare with CEOs that retire with a $1,600,000,000 retirement package ( McGuire)

There probably are…just not quite so many and with more barriers to dipping their bread in the healthcare gravy boat.

There were 3.6MM births in the US in 2021. That’s 1.11% of the population or 3.33% of families assuming 3 per family average family size. That’s $628/yr or $52/mo to insure all births.

They tell us premature births are a major cost. Many could be avoided with adequate prenatal care. That $5000 would go a long way to cover those prenatal care costs for the uninsured.

Its an example of insurance we can easily afford.

1 Like

Seems that one of the affronts listed in the Declaration of Independence has been privatized.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

Steve

1 Like

One or other of us is confused here. I’m not sure what you mean by Cadillac benefits…but, for sure, traditional Medicare, is certainly not bare bones, basics only coverage. Far from it.

Supplemental plans provide insulation from out of pocket costs for covered care…not a top up for anything Medicare doesn’t cover

Well, hopefully, over time, they could transition to something that is actually productive for the overall economy. Because tapping on a keyboard all day simply to increase the overall cost of medical care is hardly productive in an overall sense.

(Lookup the broken window fallacy. This is yet another example of it.)

1 Like

I’m not sure there’s room in the economy for all of them. For some extraordinary reason, my husband is plagued by phone calls and emails from locum provider companies offering him temporary gigs in various parts of the country…for Serious Money!! Now, given that these folk aren’t doing this out of the goodness of their hearts and at great personal inconvenience, you have to ask just how much it costs to pay their rates in addition to what they’re offering to potential recruits. Likewise for “travel nurses” etc.

You couldn’t design a more haphazard system if you tried.

2 Likes

These kinds of transitions don’t happen overnight. They take a generation, sometimes two, to happen. So, the older folks working these unproductive jobs will eventually retire. The middle-aged ones will muddle through until retirement, or near retirement. And the younger ones will transition out of a “dying profession”. The same will apply to truckers if fully automated truck driving ever begins to take off. And truckers comprise the largest number of people employed in any single profession in the USA.

1 Like

<34 week term babies account for 3% of total live births in the US.


This is where there are significant costs. I’m not sure if adequate prenatal care can reduce that number or that reduced number would reduce the overall average of the cost of live births. However, In the U.S., the average cost of a non-C-Section birth is $13,024, standard full term, and another $6,500 if the baby requires a C-Section. In addition, prenatal care will run another $2,500 at least. I’m hard pressed to believe that you can find an obstetrician charge for under $165.00 per visit, on average it’s probably double that. Add to that a 20 week ultrasound and blood work, $2,500 is probably cheap.
So, your $5,000 cap may help cover prenatal care, but it still leaves a young couple with a $10,000 bill to pay out of pocket. Although, this still doesn’t answer my question. Your concern is to limit the total cost of healthcare, or the taxpayer burden of healthcare costs, are you willing to limit your annual Medicare Cap at $5,000? Because, the real burden of healthcare costs is cardiovascular care which in 2017 was about $330 billion, compared to the cost of live births at $65 billion. Furthermore, a family having a child will be here for another 5 decades, but an 80 year-old getting an implantable defibrillator on average will live three years. While the average cost for a pregnancy may be $18,865, the average initial costs of an implantable ICD is $44 600.
So, again, my question is, are you willing to live with a $5,000 Medicare Cap?

The ultimate Cadillac benefit is buying health insurance uncapped the day after you were diagnosed with a serious medical condition. The seriously ill eagerly buy this insurance making it expensive. When the Affordable Care Act needs young healthy adults to buy insurance. They refuse because of the high cost for high deductible insurance.

Closing the preexisting condition loophole would be a good beginning.

Otherwise, insuring the uninsured is a major step forward. Capping benefits or prioritizing benefits is politically difficult, but is one way to make universal coverage affordable.

VeeEnn,

Lets focus on the graduating doctors. Those folks are young. They often have some English or can gain it. They have the energy to leave. The young med students are wanted everywhere.

America will take Western European med school grads really fast.

I am not suggesting 50 year old doctors pack up and leave.

Meanwhile Ireland and other countries are not worrying about their poor rich folks. They pay doctors. Those countries take care of people who are sick.

England is cheap and often bigoted. What bigots forget is they get the same treatment from the powers that be, treatment they are wishing on the “others”.

1 Like

That is politicians talking. It is meaningless.

An indemnity policy is the best coverage anyone can get. But for the general public universal care with options for supplemental policies is just. The Germans and French spend a massive amount on this and get very good care. The US spends far more on this to keep the system private and we have 30k people in 2019 dying of being uninsured or underinsured. It is very unjust. Also most of our bankruptcy cases are medically related.

Sorry we have layoffs all the time when workers are unproductive because the company is unproductive. Why is anyone special when their job has been born of corruption?

Oh I get they are white collar workers. We are trying to care for ourselves not our nation again and damn the working poor.

1 Like

Health insurance companies cannot refuse coverage or charge you more just because you have a “pre-existing condition” — that is, a health problem you had before the date that new health coverage starts.

Health insurers can no longer charge more or deny coverage to you or your child because of a pre-existing health condition like asthma, diabetes, or cancer, as well as pregnancy. They cannot limit benefits for that condition either. Once you have insurance, they can’t refuse to cover treatment for your pre-existing condition. You can thank President Obama for that… Before the ACA was passed, 80% of employer provided healthcare coverage denied the cost of childbirth and prenatal care, pregnancy was regarded as a prëexisting. Not too soon should you forget that there have been over 25 attempts in congress to repeal and discontinue the ACA provisions, included in that is the pre-existing condition clause which curtails insurers from this provision.

3 Likes

That certainly is not true

Sir,

I am impressed by your confidence.

Meanwhile…

3 Likes

I stand corrected
I stand corrected
I stand corrected
I stand corrected (gotta have 20 character)

4 Likes

I agree this is a flaw in the law and comes from Congress.

Putting some limits on preexisting conditions. Such as limiting coverage for say 3 years would encourage patients to buy insurance before they are seriously ill. This would help keep premiums affordable. And make insurance more attractive to those young healthy people we would like to buy insurance and help fund the whole program.

1 Like