You're 100% right..."Some people" will see their plans change. However, it continues to be a small minority - and it is again offset by people who will spend less because they have also received improved coverage.

 

Some of which they will never, ever use or need, like a male being covered for a pregnancy.

No, it's not totally. But my point was we should be designing a system whereby if you do choose to do those things (smoking, drinking excessively, eating horribly) and develop the known associated illnesses because of it, in general sense, I don't agree that the rest of society should just pick up the tab.

 

We have excise taxes on those types of things, why can't we do the same when it comes to healthcare? In fact, don't we already? Especially with smoking?

I'd absolutely be in favor of some sort of tax on high-fat fast food. I think Bloomberg's "size limit" on beverages is poorly done...but I would like to see a similar tax on products that include large amounts of sugar or hfcs. Hell, the taxpayer already pays a ridiculous fraction of the cost of producing corn syrup and hamburger meet anyway.

 

If we're going to have farm subsidies, I think those subsidies should overwhelmingly go towards the healthiest foods, which is exactly the opposite of the system we have right now.

Some of which they will never, ever use or need, like a male being covered for a pregnancy.

Individual states do this differently but many states still allow different prices to be charged for males and females on account of this fact.

No, it's not totally. But my point was we should be designing a system whereby if you do choose to do those things (smoking, drinking excessively, eating horribly) and develop the known associated illnesses because of it, in general sense, I don't agree that the rest of society should just pick up the tab.

 

We have excise taxes on those types of things, why can't we do the same when it comes to healthcare? In fact, don't we already? Especially with smoking?

 

I'm going to agree with what I believe is jenk's goal here. The way I would do it is by taxing those products and applying the tax towards insurance subsidies. Now that all Americans are required to carry insurance, it could actually work. Prior to this it would not because of the people who never have any intentions of paying for the health services they consumed.

 

 

I'd absolutely be in favor of some sort of tax on high-fat fast food. I think Bloomberg's "size limit" on beverages is poorly done...but I would like to see a similar tax on products that include large amounts of sugar or hfcs. Hell, the taxpayer already pays a ridiculous fraction of the cost of producing corn syrup and hamburger meet anyway.

 

If we're going to have farm subsidies, I think those subsidies should overwhelmingly go towards the healthiest foods, which is exactly the opposite of the system we have right now.

 

The issue with this, is once again, you end up punishing the very people you're trying to help. Fast food, as sucky/bad as it is, is more affordable than healthy alternatives (by a lot)...so this tax you're charging, you're merely charing to the poor people you're trying to help in the first place.

 

People with means often eat healthier than those without.

 

If they want to truly change this trend, they have to bring the costs of healthy foods down. The average person eating at McDonalds cannot afford to shop at Whole Foods, and if they could, they most likely would.

The issue with this, is once again, you end up punishing the very people you're trying to help. Fast food, as sucky/bad as it is, is more affordable than healthy alternatives (by a lot)...so this tax you're charging, you're merely charing to the poor people you're trying to help in the first place.

 

People with means often eat healthier than those without.

 

If they want to truly change this trend, they have to bring the costs of healthy foods down. The average person eating at McDonalds cannot afford to shop at Whole Foods, and if they could, they most likely would.

Read my 2nd statement there.

Really? Every employee pays the exact same rate? The CEO making 5 million a year pays the same as the mail clerk making 15/hour?

 

In 40 years I have never been in a plan where the health insurance premiums were basd on income. I have been in disability plans where the benefits and premiums were based on income, but never a health insurance plan.

Read my 2nd statement there.

 

I agree with that part of it, but the first part simply punishes the very people we're trying to help...and it won't stop them from eating fast food, since it would STILL be more affordable for them despite that added punishment tax.

In 40 years I have never been in a plan where the health insurance premiums were basd on income. I have been in disability plans where the benefits and premiums were based on income, but never a health insurance plan.

 

I've seen it multiple times at multiple companies now.

Individual states do this differently but many states still allow different prices to be charged for males and females on account of this fact.

 

How? That's a requirement of Obamacare.

The issue with this, is once again, you end up punishing the very people you're trying to help. Fast food, as sucky/bad as it is, is more affordable than healthy alternatives (by a lot)...so this tax you're charging, you're merely charing to the poor people you're trying to help in the first place.

 

People with means often eat healthier than those without.

 

If they want to truly change this trend, they have to bring the costs of healthy foods down. The average person eating at McDonalds cannot afford to shop at Whole Foods, and if they could, they most likely would.

 

I recently read (and wish I could find) and article that challenged that claim. The main points were cost per calorie and preparing (not necessarily applying heat and cooking) healthy at home meals versus fast food meals. They also showed examples that used dollar menu versus organic, etc.

 

But it is a challenge that involves training our tastebuds, being more involved in food aquisition and preperation.

 

 

Also there's this, for controlling costs:

 

http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/news/econo...octor-payments/

 

Just stop paying doctors what you had promised. That'll surely lower costs for the rest of us.

I agree with that part of it, but the first part simply punishes the very people we're trying to help...and it won't stop them from eating fast food, since it would STILL be more affordable for them despite that added punishment tax.

I think we're basically agreeing with the summation of that part of the problem, the only question would be how to make the price changes actually work correctly.

 

Heck, I have no problem with forcing people to actually pay a larger share of their income on food if the end result is improved diets - the average person spent like 50% more on food in this country 30 years ago. People are spending less money on food because their diets are getting worse and because the government is picking up a large portion of the cost of that worse food.

I recently read (and wish I could find) and article that challenged that claim. The main points were cost per calorie and preparing (not necessarily applying heat and cooking) healthy at home meals versus fast food meals. They also showed examples that used dollar menu versus organic, etc.

 

But it is a challenge that involves training our tastebuds, being more involved in food aquisition and preperation.

 

Those studies, while often correct, don't really take into consideration that a person living on a more meager means, often isn't "home", but stopping to grab lunch between their first and second low wage job.

 

It's simply not reality to assume in these studies that a person making 14$ an hour is "home" as often as say, I am. My friend, who makes 18$ an hour, often works 12-14 hour days. So, the times he's not working, he sure as hell isn't shopping and then going to home to cook.

How? That's a requirement of Obamacare.

You're right, Gender has been removed as something you can base costs on. My bad (although, I can't really disagree with that).

I've seen it multiple times at multiple companies now.

 

So the company subsidizes to a greater degree the cost for lower paid employees. That is an awesome benefit. Usually where I worked the employee was free, the employee paid for spouse, kids, or family coverage. Everyone paid the same based on the plan you picked. How much the company picked up varied from company to company. One, paid 100% no matter what coverage you needed. We had single employees request a raise because other employees were receiving better benefits.

You're right, Gender has been removed as something you can base costs on. My bad (although, I can't really disagree with that).

 

So women are payng for coverage for men illnesses? So it balances. I'll bet insurance companies are sophisticated enough to know that the only man needing OB/GYN services was Arnold Schwartzenager (too lazy to look up the correct spelling).

 

So the company subsidizes to a greater degree the cost for lower paid employees. That is an awesome benefit. Usually where I worked the employee was free, the employee paid for spouse, kids, or family coverage. Everyone paid the same based on the plan you picked. How much the company picked up varied from company to company. One, paid 100% no matter what coverage you needed. We had single employees request a raise because other employees were receiving better benefits.

 

It is, and I think it's a fair/good idea.

 

How insurance works, I'm not sure you know or not (so don't take this as preaching), is you will come to us, and show us your employment roster...what's the average age of your employees, etc...the premium cost is based on these factors...and the negotiated group cost is then given to your employer.

 

Now, how your employer divides that cost is completely up to them. That said, any employer that charges everyone the same amount of money, IMO, aren't being very nice. If you're CEO is paying the same for healthcare as your janitor, for example...you're CEO is a dick.

Those studies, while often correct, don't really take into consideration that a person living on a more meager means, often isn't "home", but stopping to grab lunch between their first and second low wage job.

 

It's simply not reality to assume in these studies that a person making 14$ an hour is "home" as often as say, I am. My friend, who makes 18$ an hour, often works 12-14 hour days. So, the times he's not working, he sure as hell isn't shopping and then going to home to cook.

 

Again, they looked at meals that did not required cooking or refrigeration.

So the company subsidizes to a greater degree the cost for lower paid employees. That is an awesome benefit. Usually where I worked the employee was free, the employee paid for spouse, kids, or family coverage. Everyone paid the same based on the plan you picked. How much the company picked up varied from company to company. One, paid 100% no matter what coverage you needed. We had single employees request a raise because other employees were receiving better benefits.

At the university I'm currently at, if you're covered, the costs of the plan are the same (although there is an option to get cheaper rates by keeping yourself in better health). I don't know if the janitorial staff is covered under that plan though.

 

At my last university the situation was the same - the grad students and the faculty were on the same plan and paying the same rates, so the grad students were paying a much larger fraction of their possible earnings. Interestingly, this situation was an absolute boon to the faculty members because "having 1/2 of the insurance pool be people in their 20's" made the insurance pool on average a lot healthier and reduced the per-person cost of the plan significantly.

So women are payng for coverage for men illnesses? So it balances. I'll bet insurance companies are sophisticated enough to know that the only man needing OB/GYN services was Arnold Schwartzenager (too lazy to look up the correct spelling).

Yes, women now have to pay for prostate cancer screenings in the same sense that men are paying to cover childbirth.

So women are payng for coverage for men illnesses? So it balances. I'll bet insurance companies are sophisticated enough to know that the only man needing OB/GYN services was Arnold Schwartzenager (too lazy to look up the correct spelling).

 

Nope. There are 10 basic requirements for each healthcare plan in this country. Pregnancy/maternity/newborn care is the only gender-specific one.

 

Essential health benefits must include items and services within at least the following 10 categories: ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

 

The "substance abuse" services is sorta bulls*** too. Why should I have to pay more because you chose to do heroin?

It is, and I think it's a fair/good idea.

 

How insurance works, I'm not sure you know or not (so don't take this as preaching), is you will come to us, and show us your employment roster...what's the average age of your employees, etc...the premium cost is based on these factors...and the negotiated group cost is then given to your employer.

 

Now, how your employer divides that cost is completely up to them. That said, any employer that charges everyone the same amount of money, IMO, aren't being very nice. If you're CEO is paying the same for healthcare as your janitor, for example...you're CEO is a dick.

 

When you hire someone you are looking at the total cost of their salary plus all benefits. How you want to divide that number is up to the employer. If I want to give you $20,000 in salary and $5,000 in benefits or $21,000 in salary and $4,000 in benefits, doesn't really make a difference. I don't think it means the CEO is a dick. Plus, I was responsible in two companies for compensation plans for the salespeople so I am well aware of the fully loaded cost of employees.

Why should I have to pay more because you chose to do heroin?

Well...it's a helluva lot cheaper than paying for the prison cell.

Nope. There are 10 basic requirements for each healthcare plan in this country. Pregnancy/maternity/newborn care is the only gender-specific one.

 

 

 

The "substance abuse" services is sorta bulls*** too. Why should I have to pay more because you chose to do heroin?

 

 

So they can leave out testicular cancer in policies that are written for women?