Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 31

Thread: Obamacare Causes HUGE Increases in Insurance Overhead

  1. #1

    Obamacare Causes HUGE Increases in Insurance Overhead

    I can't find the Obamacare forum, so perhaps a benevolent mod can graciously move it for me.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/102707721

    Obamacare is set to add more than a quarter-of-a-trillion—that's trillion—dollars in extra insurance administrative costs to the U.S. health-care system, according to a new report out Wednesday.
    The $273.6 billion in additional insurance overhead represents an average of of $1,375 per newly insured person, per year, from 2012 through 2022.
    The overhead cost equals a whopping 22.5 percent of the total estimated $2.76 trillion in all federal government spending for the Affordable Care Act programs during that time, according to the authors of the online report on the Health Affairs blog.
    Gee, who could have foreseen this? But the liberals don't care. They gots to haz "their" insurance.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    I have Blue Cross/Blue Shield and last year my normally free checkup cost me almost $300. I won't be getting those anymore.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I have Blue Cross/Blue Shield and last year my normally free checkup cost me almost $300. I won't be getting those anymore.
    Did you follow-up with them? They did the same thing to me but eventually they covered the cost.
    Support Justin Amash for Congress
    Michigan Congressional District 3

  5. #4
    Obamacare is totally useless. It covers nothing until you shell out the first 5 or 6K from your own pocket yearly. Then it will cover 80% of your expenses thereafter. It is virtually no coverage at all, yet the taxpayers are subsidizing $500.00 per month in premiums for me because I'm forced to buy the chit.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I have Blue Cross/Blue Shield and last year my normally free checkup cost me almost $300. I won't be getting those anymore.
    I just got nailed for $189 for an office visit to get my blood pressure checked. That was the negotiated United Healthcare cost. They originally tried to charge me $325 and wanted me to get a refund from the insurance company. That same visit used to be about $80. Then the doctor wanted me to come back to get some blood work done. I said forget it..I'm not getting double dipped.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlybee View Post
    I just got nailed for $189 for an office visit to get my blood pressure checked.
    http://www.amazon.com/Santamedical-W...+pressure+cuff $20.00

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by EBounding View Post
    Did you follow-up with them? They did the same thing to me but eventually they covered the cost.
    Yup. They wouldn't budge. I had to pay a $20 copay, $70 for the office visit and $180 for the routine blood work. I used to just pay the $20 copay.

    Obamacare is great, just don't get sick.

    I should mention that our health care system was already $#@!ed up, but Obamacare is taking it to another level.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Carlybee View Post
    I just got nailed for $189 for an office visit to get my blood pressure checked. That was the negotiated United Healthcare cost. They originally tried to charge me $325 and wanted me to get a refund from the insurance company. That same visit used to be about $80. Then the doctor wanted me to come back to get some blood work done. I said forget it..I'm not getting double dipped.
    You probably need to recheck it after you got the bill.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    For those who do not care to give a hit to this unapologetic propaganda for fully socialized medicine, kudos. And here you go:

    That sure is a lot of paper clips.

    Obamacare is set to add more than a quarter-of-a-trillion—that's trillion—dollars in extra insurance administrative costs to the U.S. health-care system, according to a new report out Wednesday. (Tweet this)

    The $273.6 billion in additional insurance overhead represents an average of of $1,375 per newly insured person, per year, from 2012 through 2022.

    The overhead cost equals a whopping 22.5 percent of the total estimated $2.76 trillion in all federal government spending for the Affordable Care Act programs during that time, according to the authors of the online report on the Health Affairs blog.

    In contrast, the federal government's traditional Medicare program has overhead of just 2 percent, according to the report.

    "Insuring 25 million additional Americans, as the [Congressional Budget Office] projects the ACA will do, is surely worthwhile," the authors of the Health Affairs blog post write. "But the administrative cost of doing so seems awfully steep, particularly when much cheaper alternatives are available."

    The eye-popping Obamacare overhead tally cited by the Health Affairs blog report comes from calculations based on data posted online in July 2014 by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Office of the Actuary.

    Dr. Steffie Woolhandler told CNBC that she and her blog co-author Dr. David Himmelstein only became aware of the projected spending data earlier this year. Their blog said this data allowed "calculation of the incremental insurance overhead costs directly attributable the reform."

    But subsequent postings of National Health Expenditure Projections by CMS no longer include separate tables projecting costs with and without the ACA, the blog post noted.

    "I am pretty sure we're the first we're bringing it to light," said Woolhandler, who like Himmelstein is a City University of New York School of Public Health professor as well as a lecturer in medicine at Harvard Medical School. "This is the first time there's been a number, and it's a pretty shocking number."

    "We're seeing 22 percent of federal spending on the program is actually going to be eaten up by bureaucracy," she said.

    A CMS spokesman had no comment when CNBC asked about the blog post.

    The large amount of spending devoted to administrative costs both in dollar terms and as a percentage of total ACA spending is a reflection of Obamacare's "use of private health insurance for most of the coverage expansion," said Woolhandler. Private insurance, she said, is "associated with high overhead costs."
    "The national average is about 13 percent," Woolhandler said.

    Her blog post noted that $172.2 billion, nearly two-thirds of total new ACA overhead spending, "will go for increased private insurance overhead," in the form of insurers' administrative costs and profits.

    The remaining administrative overhead is due mainly to government programs, primarily from the cost of expanding Medicaid benefit coverage to previously ineligible poor adults, the blog post said.

    "But even the added dollars to administer Medicaid will flow mostly to private Medicaid HMOs [health maintenance organizations]," the blog said.

    "Traditional Medicare is a bargain compared to the ACA strategy of filtering most of the new dollars through private insurers and private HMOs that subcontract for much of the new Medicaid coverage," the blog said. "Indeed, dropping the overhead figure from 22.5 percent to traditional Medicare's 2 percent would save $249.3 billion by 2022."

    Obamacare is designed to expand health coverage in three primary ways: the sale of private insurance plans on government-run marketplaces, with federal financial assistance available to most customers; allowing more poor adults to qualify for Medicaid than before; and allowing people under age 26 to stay on their parents'private insurance plans.

    Woolhandler, like Himmelstein, is a proponent of a single-payer health system that would have the federal government insure all Americans. Both are co-founders of a leading advocacy group for that goal, Physicians for a National Health Program.

    A single-payer system was not seriously debated in Congress before the implementation of the ACA. But advocates for such a scheme had argued that it would give "a bigger bang for your buck" than expanding coverage primarily through the use of private insurance, Woolhandler noted.

    But until the CMS data came to light, she said, advocates could not point to official estimates of how much Obamacare would actually cost in terms of administrative overhead. If such an estimate had been available, it might have helped sway Congress to save the so-called public option for the ACA, she said.

    The public option would have involved the government offering its own insurance coverage as one of the options for customers of government-run Obamacare exchanges, which currently offer only private insurance plans. The public option ended up being removed from the final ACA bill voted upon by Congress.

    Woolhandler said she expects the public option, like Medicare, would have had much lower overhead costs than private insurance.
    She also said that the massive amount of money that will be spent on administrative overhead in Obamacare hobbles the law's stated goal of providing expanded, affordable coverage to uninsured Americans.

    "You're getting less of it if you're covering 22 percent in overhead," she said.

    If the program had much lower administrative overhead costs, then people insured under the ACA could have lower co-payment and deductibles as part of their insurance, she said.

    Those costs, which a customer must personally pay out of their pocket before their plan covers a medical service, can lead people to avoid seeking health care because of financial concerns, Woolhandler said.
    'I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag.'--Molly Ivins

    'Well, you can get no more liberty than you give.'--Will Rogers

  12. #10
    Supporting Member
    Phoenix, AZ
    Cleaner44's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    4
    Posts
    8,498
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    This is how healthcare is made more affordable don't cha know...
    Citizen of Arizona
    @cleaner4d4

    I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.

  13. #11
    Who could have foreseen it? Anyone who was paying enough attention to know that "Obamacare" was authored by industry lobbyists. This was wholly predictable and was predicted by quite a few people.

  14. #12
    no problem. Just cut the cost of meds 80%, along with diagnostic prices.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    For those who do not care to give a hit to this unapologetic propaganda for fully socialized medicine, kudos. And here you go:
    Hahahahaha! They are holding medicare out as a "role model" for Obamacare? Medicare is without a doubt the single greatest fiscal black hole in all of history. Medicare makes Social Security look good. The unfunded liabilities of medicare can NEVER be paid. So let's make it bigger! Hahahahahaha!
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  16. #14
    Best way to lower "overhead" is a single-payer system. When you have hundreds of different insurance plans with thousands of different rules for what is covered and how you get re-imbursed it takes lots of time and money just to handle all the paper work. One example of where competition (among insurance companies) actually increases the costs of something. About half the costs of our healthcare system is paperwork. In Canada (which has single payer along with private plans), that is just 16% of their costs and things are cheaper.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Best way to lower "overhead" is a single-payer system.
    Horsefeathers. Just the kind of bull I'd expect from a socialist.

    The best way to lower overhead is to motivate people to lower overhead. And the best way to do that is through competition. Making a monopoly doesn't do that thing, and making a government monopoly has exactly the opposite effect as people getting their nose out of joint because they think they got unfair treatment from their government leads to an ever (sometimes exponentially) increasing amount of paperwork.

    Competition knows that lowering overhead gives one an advantage in the marketplace. That is a tremendous motivation. Government lacks that motivation, and in fact lacks any motivation at all to lower overhead.
    'I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag.'--Molly Ivins

    'Well, you can get no more liberty than you give.'--Will Rogers

  18. #16
    The problem is all the different paperwork it creates. Each treatment needs approval from a different entity. Each insurer needs a different form for the exact same treatment. Each form must be sent with different documents to be able to get compensated. If there is one set of rule for what is covered and what approval is needed and one place to send the forms it lowers those costs significantly. The only way to reduce it is to reduce the number of forms and the number of places you have to send them to. More competition means more forms sent different places and more time to process all of them. This is in addition to the costs of the actual medical treatment. On the treatment side, competition can lower costs. On the administration side, it makes things worse.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Best way to lower "overhead" is a single-payer system. When you have hundreds of different insurance plans with thousands of different rules for what is covered and how you get re-imbursed it takes lots of time and money just to handle all the paper work. One example of where competition (among insurance companies) actually increases the costs of something. About half the costs of our healthcare system is paperwork. In Canada (which has single payer along with private plans), that is just 16% of their costs and things are cheaper.
    I hate the term "single-payer". "Single-Payer" is just fancy way of saying Communism. Why should we all get the same health care? Should we get the same food? Housing? Transportation? Why should a responsible person have his income stolen from him to pay for an irresponsible person?

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    The problem is all the different paperwork it creates. Each treatment needs approval from a different entity. Each insurer needs a different form for the exact same treatment. Each form must be sent with different documents to be able to get compensated. If there is one set of rule for what is covered and what approval is needed and one place to send the forms it lowers those costs significantly. The only way to reduce it is to reduce the number of forms and the number of places you have to send them to. More competition means more forms sent different places and more time to process all of them. This is in addition to the costs of the actual medical treatment. On the treatment side, competition can lower costs. On the administration side, it makes things worse.
    Complete bull$#@!. We haven't had anything close to a free market health care system for 50 years. The overhead you're talking about is from government regulations and screwed up tax codes. Free market competition lowers costs. Look at cosmetic surgery where there's much less regulation. Prices have come down. Back in the 1950s before the govt really got involved you could get health insurance for something like $30 a year! Even adjusted for inflation it was a minor cost. Now it's like the 2nd or 3rd biggest expense for most people.

  22. #19
    Supporting Member
    Phoenix, AZ
    Cleaner44's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    4
    Posts
    8,498
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Best way to lower "overhead" is a single-payer system. When you have hundreds of different insurance plans with thousands of different rules for what is covered and how you get re-imbursed it takes lots of time and money just to handle all the paper work. One example of where competition (among insurance companies) actually increases the costs of something. About half the costs of our healthcare system is paperwork. In Canada (which has single payer along with private plans), that is just 16% of their costs and things are cheaper.
    Have you ever read a Ron Paul book?

    Does it hurt your feelings that Ron Paul thinks socialists are idiots?
    Citizen of Arizona
    @cleaner4d4

    I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.

  23. #20
    I did not say I prefer a single payer system but did point out that in terms of overhead and paperwork it is more efficient. It does have other problems. No system is perfect. In a completely free system people are allowed to die if they do not have money to go to a doctor. I think we need to be somewhere in between. I think Ron Paul being a doctor and caring person would not like to see poor die for that reason as well.

    Ron Paul has not called anybody an idiot. That is not his way. Why should I feel sad? I am not a socialist anyways. But I do appreciate your concern for my emotional well- being. Thank you!

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Best way to lower "overhead" is a single-payer system. When you have hundreds of different insurance plans with thousands of different rules for what is covered and how you get re-imbursed it takes lots of time and money just to handle all the paper work. One example of where competition (among insurance companies) actually increases the costs of something. About half the costs of our healthcare system is paperwork. In Canada (which has single payer along with private plans), that is just 16% of their costs and things are cheaper.
    No it's not. The government would steal from the fund and pretty soon it would be like Medicare. Yeah Medicare is great IF you can find a good doctor who accepts it. And Canada's system is going broke. My in laws live there. It's great if you don't die before you get your procedure done. My father in law had to wait 6 months for cancer surgery. Also our government would just raise our taxes every year to where we might be able to go to the doctor but we're living on beans. The middle class will pay for it, like we pay for everything until we truly become in effect serfs. Once the govt has complete power over healthcare let the eugenics begin! Seriously do you think those idiots could be trusted at all?......?....?

  25. #22
    That is an issue of what gets approved and how- not of how you pay for it. However, if you allow people to get any treatment or see any doctor about anything without approval, you will have an extremely expensive system. The lower costs the customer pays and the more services they are allowed to use, the more they will demand to use and that raises the costs.

    All insurance plans have limits on what they cover and delays in approvals.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 06-03-2015 at 12:48 PM.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Best way to lower "overhead" is a single-payer system. When you have hundreds of different insurance plans with thousands of different rules for what is covered and how you get re-imbursed it takes lots of time and money just to handle all the paper work. One example of where competition (among insurance companies) actually increases the costs of something. About half the costs of our healthcare system is paperwork. In Canada (which has single payer along with private plans), that is just 16% of their costs and things are cheaper.
    Bull$#@! on a stick. The best way to lower overhead is through competition, innovation and free markets. Canada's system is heavily subsidized by ours, and was in a death spiral until they started allowing private insurers to compete in the marketplace.

    Drugs are cheaper because of price controls, not competition. Price controls create shortages, which is why Canadians have to wait for long periods of time for services. Canadians who opt not to wait often come across the border and get treated in the USA.

    Also figure that the population of the whole damned country is basically the same as the populations of our 3 largest cities combined. Their small problems will be much more obvious in a nation with a population that's literally 10 times the size of theirs.

    One size never fits all. That's absolutely ridiculous, and you know it.
    .
    Last edited by angelatc; 06-03-2015 at 11:51 AM.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    I did not say I prefer a single payer system but did point out that in terms of overhead and paperwork it is more efficient. It does have other problems. No system is perfect. In a completely free system people are allowed to die if they do not have money to go to a doctor. I think we need to be somewhere in between. I think Ron Paul being a doctor and caring person would not like to see poor die for that reason as well. !
    That's more socialist bull$#@!. From the humanatarian perspective, if you think that humans are such callous and horrid people that they won't move to help the needy, then by all means - please stop sending humans to Washington to care for us.

    The free market provides the best solutions in the form of charity and volunteerism. Government spending mucks up the market. Without downward pressure on prices, they won't come down. And people get poorer.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Rising prices IS affordability, Comrade!
    Dishonest money makes for dishonest people.

    Andrew Napolitano, John Stossel. FOX News Liberty Infiltrators.


    Quote Originally Posted by Inkblots View Post
    Dr. Paul is living rent-free in the minds of the neocons, and for a fiscal conservative, free rent is always a good thing
    NOBP ≠ ABO

  30. #26
    This is precisely why I pay more for healthy food and avoid the doctor.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post

    Also figure that the population of the whole damned country is basically the same as the populations of our 3 largest cities combined. Their small problems will be much more obvious in a nation with a population that's literally 10 times the size of theirs.
    Great point. 100% agree.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Best way to lower "overhead" is a single-payer system. When you have hundreds of different insurance plans with thousands of different rules for what is covered and how you get re-imbursed it takes lots of time and money just to handle all the paper work. One example of where competition (among insurance companies) actually increases the costs of something. About half the costs of our healthcare system is paperwork. In Canada (which has single payer along with private plans), that is just 16% of their costs and things are cheaper.
    The best way to lower overhead and costs on all sides is to get insurance companies out of the medical business. And Mexico, where one pays cash, is far superior to Canada in both medical costs and service.
    There is no spoon.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    This is precisely why I pay more for healthy food and avoid the doctor.
    Yep that is one of the best ways to keep the doctors away.
    Proverbs 29:18
    "Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he."

    Hosea 4:6
    "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."

    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another. ~ Charles Dickens

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    The best way to lower overhead and costs on all sides is to get insurance companies out of the medical business. And Mexico, where one pays cash, is far superior to Canada in both medical costs and service.
    According to a WHO ranking in 2000- Mexico ranked #61 in terms of their healthcare system. US ranked #37. Canada was #30. http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Health Insurance Companies Seek Big Rate Increases for 2016
    By Suzanimal in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-07-2015, 10:53 AM
  2. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-01-2014, 09:41 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-28-2013, 11:02 PM
  4. LDS Church Home Storage Centers - huge price increases imminent.
    By Original_Intent in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-01-2011, 06:19 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-21-2010, 02:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •