New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by TylerLieberman

Lol another thread gone off topic

To recap, California mandating EVs => statements about California having too many regulations => conversation about the benefits of more regulations versus less regulations => focusing on one category—healthcare.

Healthcare is one of those subjects that radiates with everyone. It affects everyone. It is a subject that is harder to apply normal economic/capitalistic principles. If I say I have a pill that can save your life then what is that worth to you? It is harder than quantifying a car or phone or TV. It is harder to quantify than the price for a hair cut, for an Uber ride or to have someone install a turbo kit on your car. If radiation could save your wife from cancer then what is that worth to you? If your child needs an emergency appendectomy for a ruptured appendix then what is that worth to you? If you have a hard time pricing out these items then congratulations you or whoever reading this is human. That is why healthcare is different. People will pay anything to have more time alive and with their loved ones and for their health, when it matters like this. This is why everyone has a vested interest in this conversation, and why we can’t treat it like any other industry. Healthcare at the hospital level and all the way to the pharmaceutical level requires a different approach.

FWIW, the EV mandate is likely not necessary or going to happen, but it may encourage more development, investment and planning, which may accelerate us getting there even faster. I think we might get there through public interest that fast without the mandate, assuming there are the already planned investments in green utilities to support such a transition. In another 5-10 years, EVs will be cheaper and just be a better vehicle for the masses. The enthusiasts aside of course, but even some of them will change their tune.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Another thing to consider: you may be thrilled with your employer-provided insurance, but if you get sick enough to lose your job, guess what...

They will gladly take your money for years and decades, but if something really serious happens you are selectively removed, as most employers will just let people go if they are too sick to produce for them.

A lot of big companies have medical leave buckets that are employee donation oriented which require a certain number of hours of leave to be donated to be a member in case something like this happens. Kind of like insurance for leave. It’s a cool new thing.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tomm

I’m aware of you feel about, I just want to know how someone who has actually enrolled in ACA feels ab their service.

Do you mean do people like their version of Kaiser or Blue Cross insurance through the ACA market in terms of coverage, deductibles and premiums?

Some states didn't set up their own exchanges. Some insurance providers wanted the ACA to fail. Some state’s governors didn’t support the ACA. California set up their exchanges:

California has an individual mandate as of 2020, and state-based premium subsidies for enrollees earning up to 600% of the poverty level. Average rate increase for 2021 is the lowest in CoveredCA history.

Premium increases across the 11 Covered California insurers averaged less than 1% for 2020 (new individual mandate is keeping premiums stable).

More than 1.5 million people are enrolled in individual plans through Covered California

For 2019, the average rate hike was 8.7%, but would have been only 5% without the federal mandate penalty elimination.

https://www.healthinsurance.org/cali...ance-exchange/

The ACA was suppose to be the start—not some final solution. Single-payer is likely the final solution, but even if that is a state decision like California might do, states were suppose to adapt the programs to their specific markets. We see the difference in states that went all in. More have coverage. Outcomes are better. Costs are more controlled.

[TylerLieberman]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

To recap, California mandating EVs => statements about California having too many regulations => conversation about the benefits of more regulations versus less regulations => focusing on one category—healthcare.

Healthcare is one of those subjects that radiates with everyone. It affects everyone. It is a subject that is harder to apply normal economic/capitalistic principles. If I say I have a pill that can save your life then what is that worth to you? It is harder than quantifying a car or phone or TV. It is harder to quantify than the price for a hair cut, for an Uber ride or to have someone install a turbo kit on your car. If radiation could save your wife from cancer then what is that worth to you? If your child needs an emergency appendectomy for a ruptured appendix then what is that worth to you? If you have a hard time pricing out these items then congratulations you or whoever reading this is human. That is why healthcare is different. People will pay anything to have more time alive and with their loved ones and for their health, when it matters like this. This is why everyone has a vested interest in this conversation, and why we can’t treat it like any other industry. Healthcare at the hospital level and all the way to the pharmaceutical level requires a different approach.

FWIW, the EV mandate is likely not necessary or going to happen, but it may encourage more development, investment and planning, which may accelerate us getting there even faster. I think we might get there through public interest that fast without the mandate, assuming there are the already planned investments in green utilities to support such a transition. In another 5-10 years, EVs will be cheaper and just be a better vehicle for the masses. The enthusiasts aside of course, but even some of them will change their tune.

Cool story. Two thumbs up.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tomm

It’s not that I don’t trust Gallup it’s that I don’t believe it is an accurate representation of the truth. Go visit of a VA hospital and tell me that 78% of that lobby is happy with their service.

You are confusing VA insurance with VA medical services.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Do you mean do people like their version of Kaiser or Blue Cross insurance through the ACA market in terms of coverage, deductibles and premiums?

Some states didn't set up their own exchanges. Some insurance providers wanted the ACA to fail. Some state’s governors didn’t support the ACA. California set up their exchanges:



https://www.healthinsurance.org/cali...ance-exchange/

The ACA was suppose to be the start—not some final solution. Single-payer is likely the final solution, but even if that is a state decision like California might do, states were suppose to adapt the programs to their specific markets. We see the difference in states that went all in. More have coverage. Outcomes are better. Costs are more controlled.

Honestly, I’m just looking for anyone that enrolled, at all. I’m not picky. I’m hesitant to listen to rationales until after I hear from someone who had it and heard their opinions.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Tomm

A lot of big companies have medical leave buckets that are employee donation oriented which require a certain number of hours of leave to be donated to be a member in case something like this happens. Kind of like insurance for leave. It’s a cool new thing.

That most people don't have access to...

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

You are confusing VA insurance with VA medical services.

Well I’ve never used VA insurance without the VA medical. I’m not sure you can unless you have specialty care that the VA can’t handle - a rarity.

I don’t even think I’ve interacted with them. All of your insurance info is on file because it’s all taken care of in house.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by ZDan

That most people don't have access to...

. . . Social security disability . . .

. . . Unemployment . . .

There are options.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Tomm

. . . Social security disability . . .

. . . Unemployment . . .

There are options.

That's funny, because apparently about 30 million have no coverage...

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Tomm

Honestly, I’m just looking for anyone that enrolled, at all. I’m not picky. I’m hesitant to listen to rationales until after I hear from someone who had it and heard their opinions.

I'm not enrolled but one of my adult sons uses AHA. It's a high deductible plan that includes dental. The plan closely matches the one I have through work in terms of benefits, although his out of pocket is higher as are his deductibles, it is administered by United Healthcare (under a different brand name), and is cheaper than what I get through my employer. He uses the same Doctors my wife and I use. He gets a minor subsidy because of his income level.

Anyone can go to healthcare.gov and look through the available plans if you are really interested in them.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tomm

Well I’ve never used VA insurance without the VA medical. I’m not sure you can unless you have specialty care that the VA can’t handle - a rarity.

I don’t even think I’ve interacted with them. All of your insurance info is on file because it’s all taken care of in house.

I see it all the time. Often I call the VA to see if they have beds for a transfer or to get an authorization to allow admission here. Back in the day, 1 out of 10 got transferred, and then a year or more in Trump’s term that changed. It could have been because of him or not. I assumed he wanted, or put someone in power who wanted, to try to control costs better by not paying other hospitals. It honestly could have been something that was before him related or unrelated to the ACA. It is so hard to know. Now 9 out of 10 patients are transferred to the VA. Although with COVID that number has fluctuated. Regardless, VA insurance often pays other hospitals to admit their patients when their hospitals are full. It is sometimes tied to a service that is outside of their care, but not necessarily.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I see it all the time. Often I call the VA to see if they have beds for a transfer or to get an authorization to allow admission here. Back in the day, 1 out of 10 got transferred, and then a year or more in Trump’s term that changed. It could have been because of him or not. I assumed he wanted, or put someone in power who wanted, to try to control costs better by not paying other hospitals. It honestly could have been something that was before him related or unrelated to the ACA. It is so hard to know. Now 9 out of 10 patients are transferred to the VA. Although with COVID that number has fluctuated. Regardless, VA insurance often pays other hospitals to admit their patients when their hospitals are full. It is sometimes tied to a service that is outside of their care, but not necessarily.

Yea that happens when they can’t handle it, the active duty side does the same thing when their systems are so overloaded that the medical readiness is suffering or it causes increases in non-deployable troops. It happens but guess who gets stuck with the bill when they try to go outside the network without any justification? They do and 100% of the bill at that.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I'm not enrolled but one of my adult sons uses AHA. It's a high deductible plan that includes dental. The plan closely matches the one I have through work in terms of benefits, although his out of pocket is higher as are his deductibles, it is administered by United Healthcare (under a different brand name), and is cheaper than what I get through my employer. He uses the same Doctors my wife and I use. He gets a minor subsidy because of his income level.

Anyone can go to healthcare.gov and look through the available plans if you are really interested in them.

Typically plans on the exchange are slightly higher for what you get. Mostly this is because the group is a higher risk group than employees from certain employers. The insurance on the plans can’t exclude anyone, and they can’t jack up the price based on someone’s pre-existing conditions like before ACA. What they might learn over time is that there are less people who are high risk on the exchange than they thought because those people are likely on medicaid or medical, and there may be more affluent/low-risk people on the exchange than they thought. These could be contract workers or people that own their own business (no employees). That could be why the prices on California’s exchange went up less than 1%.