You are correct, the author mentioned HSA's. I read the article 2-3 weeks ago.
Look at pet ER's and insurance for some ideas on how the market might work.
Also, the insurance company is on the hook to pay ER bills, they will help negotiate the ER bill.
(Note I said "insurance", i.e. catastrophic insurance, not "HMO").
Lastly, don't assume that because you can't think of how the market might work, that it won't be better than a gov't / bureaucrat-run system. The market solves problems, precisely because you have thousands of people thinking of solutions to improve cost and service, in order to attract customers.

 

I am missing something. When my pet required mid-night emergency care, I took him to the nearest emergency vet. Actually, he ended up at the second closest because the first closest was closed. At no point did I bust open a Google browser and price shop, thinking, "Eh, if I drive an extra 30 minutes and he survives, I can save 10% on my bill..."

I did price shop his ongoing prescription medication, though, and switched "primary care" vets and saved a bunch on that (and other regular visit expenses). All of this is paid 100% out of pocket.

I think that is a 90% reasonable statement (other than the implication that current healthcare is totally a gov't / bureaucrat-run system without market forces involved). I was just thinking you had some idea of how it might work based on some reasonable ideas you had seen presented somewhere else.

 

Another system to look at is the USA in the 60s. ER's will probably end up with similar rates, and none of the multiple tiered pricing where the priciest tier is 10x the cheapest one.

 

Wow, thanks Obamacare:

Blue Shield of California seeks rate hikes up to 20% - latimes.com

 

pokerface

 

I fail to see the issue in terms of pointing the blame at Blue Shield here as long as they stay within the now federally-mandated profit margin.

If they hike 20% and the payout percentage doesn't go down (and it won't, because Obamacare), who's really to blame here? (Hint: Providers, being forced to take on the previously uninsured which statistically have higher health care costs, etc etc etc)

That said, Blue Shield of California is a ******* mess.



Catch22 in terms of Obamacare. Now that the payout percentage is federally regulated, any actual cost increase to the insurance companies is now passed directly to the consumer. Enjoy!

 

There's no issue really, we all know Obamacare would/will increase costs. I'm just playing Captian Obvious.

 

Sorry it's early and my brain is already fried from my stupid MX6 leaning out on the highway on the way in to work. (Think i've got a fuel leak or something... i can smell gas)

I fixed my post.

 

Little Canada man videotaped sheriff's deputies, and got charged for it - TwinCities.com


"Data privacy HIPAA violation."

 

Southwestern Pa. hospital to stop baby deliveries - New York News | NYC Breaking News

 

Obama Asks Doctors to Help Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standard

 

Brewer: Arizona Will Expand Medicaid Under Obamacare

 

and if I was gov, I'd do all the things I could to get as much money/suport from the fed as well...

 

And that is why you are a republican and not a libertarian.

 

Actually that would make him a good gov. He has a duty to provide the most benefit possible to his state. If the funds are there to take already then turning them down on principle just deprives your state of benefits. They even made sure to put in some safeguards to cut back benefits if the fed's withdrew funding beyond the point they promised.

You can fight a policy all you want before and after it is passed but while it is active you have a duty to use it to your own states advantage.

 

Ron Paul did it.

 

RP would veto every bill when it would actually come to a vote, you would not, and you know that.

 

i probably would. id work on repealing laws state laws and collecting federal funds.

 

Thanks for the less work hours Obamacare:

Universities Bludgeon Adjuncts With Obamacare Loophole | Via Meadia

“in order to avoid penalties under the Affordable Care Act… employees with part-time or adjunct status will not be assigned more than an average of 29 hours per week.”

 

Well, duh. Employers large and small have been using this technique to get out of paying all sorts of taxes and benefits for years. Unemployment, worker's compensation, paid time off, retirement benefits, etc... Full-time employees have always been more expensive than part-time employees.

Why would this be any different?