[deleted]
The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence
281–290 of 431 posts
Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
What percentage of Australian society is net-positive tax payer? That’s your real number, not this pretend 5 out of 5 as you claim.
If everyone costs the system $10, and the five people pay $8, $9, $10, $11, and $12, respectively, I think it’s a mistake to say only the last two net-positive taxpayers are paying for the system.
Agreed. It is a small proportion of people who do not contribute to their own healthcare in this way.
Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps my language was too imprecise. My argument is that specifically the best care in the US is the best in the world. We have the best doctors and the best technology and the best treatments. This is not completely universal but it is also generally accurate. Whether or not this care is accessible or the median quality is care is good, that is different. I’m just saying we do get something for the money, it’s not…
> the best care in the US is the best in the world For a few Americans. Not for all Americans, and probably not even for most Americans. There's far more to the United States than New England and Southern California. Don't get me wrong, if I had some rare cancer or other strange disease, chances are I'll want to try and get in to one of these few rare ultra premium hospitals. But if I break my leg or get some normal…
> if I break my leg or get some normal infection or have a child or any of the other normal kinds of issues people have? Will that still be the best tier of care?
Does it need to be? I imagine it's far easier to treat a broken bone, in most cases, vs a rare complex disease
I'd have different standards when researching where to have teeth cleaning vs oral surgery
Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dude, you don't even have your own facts straight and you are embarrassing yourself. It's clear you have no experience, don't understand your own sources you provided, or any clue how child birth actually works from a medical billing standpoint. Edit: what do I have to gain from spreading "misinformation?" I just want better / more options?
I don't know what you have to gain from it, but you're wrong. 42 U.S. Code § 18022, (b)(1)(D). ACA plans are required to cover childbirth.
That's not what the link the OP included said and not what I said either, but I concede your point - that's my fault for checking individual health care marketplaces (like eHealthInsurance and Aetna direct) or not looking closely enough on healthcare.gov.
Looking through some plans now, but TBH these are genuinely not much of an improvement in the cost department and a massive downgrade in the provider selection department. Hence my whole section on trade-offs.
Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know what you have to gain from it, but you're wrong. 42 U.S. Code § 18022, (b)(1)(D). ACA plans are required to cover childbirth.
That's not what the link the OP included said and not what I said either, but I concede your point - that's my fault for checking individual health care marketplaces (like eHealthInsurance and Aetna direct) or not looking closely enough on healthcare.gov. Looking through some plans now, but TBH these are genuinely not much of an improvement in the cost department and a massive downgrade in the provider selection depa…
The logic you're using about out-of-pocket costs versus your deductible appear also not to be valid, and are causing you to misstate your out-of-pocket liability by a factor of roughly 4x.
Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
I skimmed your 2400-word article a second time just now, and I still don't understand why your math is allocating 100% of your family's health insurance premiums to childbirth. And now I additionally don't understand your abrasive tone in answering this fairly straightforward question. Multiple commenters are raising this point, so perhaps you should consider that you aren't conveying this information well?
1. I mentioned, in multiple places, that this is the cheapest PPO offered to me through a limited selection of potential brokers / marketplaces - and that's important because it covers our current health care providers AND child birth as a benefit. 2. If we weren't trying to have kids, our options for purchasing health insurance expand drastically. Individual marketplace plans become a viable, for instance, since the…
> If we weren't trying to have kids, our options for purchasing health insurance expand drastically.
Yes, but crucially none of those expanded options cost $0, so I still don't understand your math at all. I feel like we're talking in circles here.
You should be deducting a substantially non-zero number from the amount in the headline to account for your "normal" non-childbirth-year best-case medical insurance premiums (or out-of-pocket cash costs if foregoing insurance altogether).
Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair, he's lucky enough to have not been in a major car accident that year, so he can attribute it all to the cost of giving birth. What would have been the out-of-pocket cost of a normal birth without health insurance? It's still your choice to go without.
No one is forcing you to give birth in a hospital. Rational people do it at home all the time to this day.
Maybe we're living in a failed society if we cannot provide the basic, bare minimum of pregnancy care for women. Like I assume you're the same kind of person that would be equally baffled as to why the fertility rate has been going down and can't connect the two dots. As well as the child mortality rate in the US skyrocketing.
Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence
#288Hmm, counting the insurance premiums 100% towards the birth of the child is a bit misleading. Presumably, you'd be paying those even if you didn't have the child. That said, the cost of health insurance for a family is pretty outrageous. My premiums are along the same lines as the ones here (although less noticeable since they're paid by my employer).
I think OP here is just keeping a completely dominated plan (and his health insurance company knows it). He has less than 50 employees, he is not required to offer health insurance to his employees and he should go on the ACA market. Given he has 3 children, 400% of FPL in 2026 is $150,600 so he's easily eligible for ACA subsidies (which, by the way, in 2021-2026, were available to everyone) by tweaking his income (e…
Welcome to healthcare plans in Texas.
This same price gets you a platinum plan with Sharp or Kaiser in San Diego and wouldn't have those gigantic deductibles.
He moved his business from California to Texas and is now complaining about pricing problems in markets caused specifically by the lack of regulatory environment in Texas.
Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what the link the OP included said and not what I said either, but I concede your point - that's my fault for checking individual health care marketplaces (like eHealthInsurance and Aetna direct) or not looking closely enough on healthcare.gov. Looking through some plans now, but TBH these are genuinely not much of an improvement in the cost department and a massive downgrade in the provider selection depa…
The logic you're using about out-of-pocket costs versus your deductible appear also not to be valid, and are causing you to misstate your out-of-pocket liability by a factor of roughly 4x.
I can assure you they are, if anything, understated - as I am not including the expenses my health insurance will not cover. So no, you are fully in the wrong there. What do I have to do to prove it? Show you itemized receipts?
Moreover, what are you even trying to accomplish by asking for this? Please provide me with a forthright defense of the modern U.S. health insurance markets and why it makes sense for me to have to pay this much to keep our population above replacement level.
Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you explain how this would help? I'm struggling to understand where you're coming from here, besides perhaps a reflexive libertarian reaction to government.
Massive government subsidies for health care consumption not only eliminate, but disincentivize price discovery. If your biggest consumers of health care (seniors) have access to the best health insurance plan in the world (Medicare), that's going to drive costs up
Have you ever looked into the way the market works for medical devices? And what happens if the implant or device you need to live is from a company that went bankrupt?
If you've ever spent even five minutes reading up on that stuff you would understand that health and medical cannot be a free market. It can never be a free market.