Obama care website is finaly working.

[Henning]

I wonder if we'll see the use of H-1B visas for doctors?

Why? We flat out give them Green Cards..

 

[AcroGimp]

The fact is that including coverage for those items DECREASES the cost of insurance to you. Math. It is simply far more cost effective to provide preventative care than restorative care. Since the members of the same policy you take out get the same benefits as you get, providing them with preventative care costs you less. Math.

[Edit] Oops. I just read further. What you really want is a policy that excludes women altogether. Who was it that asked me to support my claim of discrimination against women. That is what you really want.

Wow, that is some amazing mental gymnastics there - I want my individual coverage to address my individual needs, as a male. I want my wife and daughter to have plans that address their needs as women, and for each of those plans to be developed based on the approairate risk-pool/actuarial data - why is that so hard for you comprehend?

Do you actually believe I have ever once said that I want women to go without coverage - if so please provide a specific direct quote - once you acknowledge I never said or intimated any such thing and you apologize for deliberately mis-stating my position, please refrain from further histrionics and try to address the actual statements made and facts/positions offered.

Again, I am saying I don't want my personal premiums to go up due solely to a government requirement that my plan include coverages that I personally CAN NEVER USE - in a misguided and obviously totally failed attempt to 'spread the risk around' to borrow a phrase.

Again, I want a policy that reflects my risk as a 43 yr old, non-smoking, non-drinking, non-drug-using responsible male, below knee amputee - IN OTHER WORDS, THE COVERAGE I HAD, THAT I LIKED, THAT THE PRESIDENT SAID ON ROUGHLY 4 DOZEN OCCASIONS IN FRONT OF CAMERAS THAT I COULD KEEP - even though he knew since at least 2010 that was never going to be true due to how the law was actually written.

If my costs are going down as you insist with ZERO facts about my actual situation, why are they ACTUALLY exploding upward (premiums +60%, deductibles +50% and out-of-pocket +100%).

That is all real-world data, not some academic philosophical discussion, real dollars from real people. Nearly 4 million people have already lost the plans they liked, over a million in the last week and a half by some accounts, with projections now running to as many as 123 million to ultimately lose their current coverages.

Further replies which do not actually address specifics and facts, or which make wild and inflammatory accusations will be ignored.

'Gimp

 

[JoseCuervo]

Why don't you as a family member sell your plane and buy her the new pump? If buying their own pump means no soccer fine... how is that a problem? Why do I have to pay for it when clearly your family has the means to pay for it them selves?

Is that where we should be headed in this country? To a medical system that only provides quality services/technology/advancements/lifesaving care to those who come from the richest families? And the rest of the country should be resigned to substandard care.

Are there any other civilized countries that use this model? Old South Africa, maybe??

 

[JoseCuervo]

Wow, that is some amazing mental gymnastics there - I want my individual coverage to address my individual needs, as a male. I want my wife and daughter to have plans that address their needs as women, and for each of those plans to be developed based on the approairate risk-pool/actuarial data - why is that so hard for you comprehend?

Do you actually believe I have ever once said that I want women to go without coverage - if so please provide a specific direct quote - once you acknowledge I never said or intimated any such thing and you apologize for deliberately mis-stating my position, please refrain from further histrionics and try to address the actual statements made and facts/positions offered.

Again, I am saying I don't want my personal premiums to go up due solely to a government requirement that my plan include coverages that I personally CAN NEVER USE - in a misguided and obviously totally failed attempt to 'spread the risk around' to borrow a phrase.

Again, I want a policy that reflects my risk as a 43 yr old, non-smoking, non-drinking, non-drug-using responsible male, below knee amputee - IN OTHER WORDS, THE COVERAGE I HAD, THAT I LIKED, THAT THE PRESIDENT SAID ON ROUGHLY 4 DOZEN OCCASIONS IN FRONT OF CAMERAS THAT I COULD KEEP - even though he knew since at least 2010 that was never going to be true due to how the law was actually written.

If my costs are going down as you insist with ZERO facts about my actual situation, why are they ACTUALLY exploding upward (premiums +60%, deductibles +50% and out-of-pocket +100%).

That is all real-world data, not some academic philosophical discussion, real dollars from real people. Nearly 4 million people have already lost the plans they liked, over a million in the last week and a half by some accounts, with projections now running to as many as 123 million to ultimately lose their current coverages.

Further replies which do not actually address specifics and facts, or which make wild and inflammatory accusations will be ignored.

'Gimp

Will you be happy if a future employer chose not to employ your daughter because insurance for females would cost more then men?

 

[pilot_dude]

Is that where we should be headed in this country? To a medical system that only provides quality services/technology/advancements/lifesaving care to those who come from the richest families? And the rest of the country should be resigned to substandard care.

Are there any other civilized countries that use this model? Old South Africa, maybe??

That's exactly where ACA is taking us. Me, and others of means, will continue to have better health care than those of lesser means. Hell, the system is set up precisely for that purpose or there wouldn't be copper, aluminum, gold, platinum or whatever metal is being used to identify coverage.
Besides that, my PCP is cash on the barrel head only as of earlier this year. There won't be a single Medicaid person in the office.

 

[AcroGimp]

Will you be happy if a future employer chose not to employ your daughter because insurance for females would cost more then men?

Since that would be against the law it doesn't matter whether or not I would hypothetically be personally offended.

I think anyone who is intellectually honest with themselves should recognize by now that the days of employer sponsored health plans are numbered, as are individual health plans, as has been the plan since day 1.

The strawman arguments/distractions are not going to answer the actual issues with respect to the nature of this 'overhaul' and the real-world impact it is having on millions of people who were covered before and are now scrambling to find something they can afford.

'Gimp

 

[JeffDG]

Why? We flat out give them Green Cards..

Um, no we don't.

Well, to be specific, you can get a GC pretty easily as an MD, unless you're from India or China.

Due to per-country caps in "Employment Based" categories, and the fact that MDs are part of what's called "EB-2" (employment based, second priority), it takes upwards of a decade for an MD from India to get a Green Card, during which time, they need to be covered under something like an H1B.

MD's are actually lumped in the same category as anyone else with an advanced degree. So, the same quota that covers MDs from India, also covers folks in IT with Masters degrees. Except for India, and to a lesser degree, China, EB-2 takes approximately 6 months from start to end.

 

[DavidWhite]

ITT: dumb liberals support and defend broken policies that my generation will get to deal with and fix, while running up a deficit that won't need to be dealt with until they are 6 feet under.

When the collapse happens, we will remember who caused it.

 

[Matthew]

That's exactly where ACA is taking us. Me, and others of means, will continue to have better health care than those of lesser means. Hell, the system is set up precisely for that purpose or there wouldn't be copper, aluminum, gold, platinum or whatever metal is being used to identify coverage.
Besides that, my PCP is cash on the barrel head only as of earlier this year. There won't be a single Medicaid person in the office.

We've dealt with nursing home issues for several years in our family. There is a big difference in what at least appears to be quality of care between patients with private insurance vs Medicaid. I think we'll see more of that in normal care with more doctors dropping all government insurance patients and taking cash only. But then that two-tier approach will be made illegal because it isn't "fair". So we'll see back-alley heart surgery for those who can pay cash. There will always be those that have and those that don't have, no matter how many regulations get written.

 

[AcroGimp]

We've dealt with nursing home issues for several years in our family. There is a big difference in what at least appears to be quality of care between patients with private insurance vs Medicaid. I think we'll see more of that in normal care with more doctors dropping all government insurance patients and taking cash only. But then that two-tier approach will be made illegal because it isn't "fair". So we'll see back-alley heart surgery for those who can pay cash. There will always be those that have and those that don't have, no matter how many regulations get written.

This +1000.

Then we'll get the real-world equivalent to Ayn Rand's Directive 10-289 requiring Dr's to treat patients they will literally lose personal money on due to Gov't spend limits. People who would have othwerwise survived will die, as they do currently in the larger social-medicine countries, none of which have even 1/5 our population and where the systems are already collapsing.

It's a brave new world.

'Gimp

 

[JeffDG]

We've dealt with nursing home issues for several years in our family. There is a big difference in what at least appears to be quality of care between patients with private insurance vs Medicaid. I think we'll see more of that in normal care with more doctors dropping all government insurance patients and taking cash only. But then that two-tier approach will be made illegal because it isn't "fair". So we'll see back-alley heart surgery for those who can pay cash. There will always be those that have and those that don't have, no matter how many regulations get written.

Saw that myself.

Back in Saskatchewan, they had a "single payer" system where the provincial government set reimbursements. Doctors addressed the fact that the reimbursements were too low by using a practice called "extra billing", essentially charging the patient for that that was above the provincial reimbursement.

Well, the socialists couldn't have that, so they banned the practice of extra billing, but they permitted doctors to, by the date the new ban took effect, opt out. That meant that they opted out entirely, they would receive no reimbursement from the province at all, but they could charge patients whatever the market would bear.

Well, whole specialties had all, or substantially all, of their doctors opt-out. Then the socialists simply took away the option to opt out.

Democrats are already advocating this:

FYI last night at the Great Falls Grange debate, Democrat delegate candidate Kathleen Murphy said that since many doctors are not accepting medicaid and medicare patients, she advocates making it a legal requirement for those people to be accepted. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3087112/posts?page=56

 

[RJM62]

With a college age daughter, you might not want to think about it, but you might need those benefits in less than a year. And at 43, you can still have kids....

The POINT of insurance is spreading risk, especially the unlikely but catastrophic risks.

Right. But it's supposed to spread risk among people in the same actuarial cohort. How can a childless person be in the same actuarial cohort as a married couple with four kids? Or how can a male be in the same actuarial cohort as a female?

A childless person has zero chance of needing pediatric services. A woman has zero chance of needing a prostatectomy. A man has zero chance of needing maternity services. Those things are impossibilities, and by any sane interpretation, sufficiently differentiate the groups that they should be considered different cohorts.

As an analogy, would it make sense to require non-drivers who don't own cars to purchase car insurance in order to lower the rates for car owners? Or would it make sense to require people who don't own pets to purchase pet health insurance in order to lower the rates for those who do?

Requiring someone to pay for insurance against the impossible is theft, pure and simple.

-Rich

 

[weilke]

Since that would be against the law it doesn't matter whether or not I would hypothetically be personally offended.

Not only that, but considering that employers have been employing women despited the slightly higher expenses for health insurance, this is clearly a straw-person argument.

 

[JeffDG]

As an analogy, would it make sense to require non-drivers who don't own cars to purchase car insurance in order to lower the rates for car owners? Or would it make sense to require people who don't own pets to purchase pet health insurance in order to lower the rates for those who do?

Requiring someone to pay for insurance against the impossible is theft, pure and simple.

-Rich

And that, right there, boils down the problem. Well said.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

Is this good news.....or bad news??????

 

[JeffDG]

Is this good news.....or bad news??????

Have you been watching CNN?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-29-2013/good-badfellas

 

[Henning]

ITT: dumb liberals support and defend broken policies that my generation will get to deal with and fix, while running up a deficit that won't need to be dealt with until they are 6 feet under.

When the collapse happens, we will remember who caused it.

Your grandparents...

 

[DavidWhite]

Your grandparents...

They are just as much to blame as anyone else

 

[denverpilot]

Saw that myself.

Back in Saskatchewan, they had a "single payer" system where the provincial government set reimbursements. Doctors addressed the fact that the reimbursements were too low by using a practice called "extra billing", essentially charging the patient for that that was above the provincial reimbursement.

Well, the socialists couldn't have that, so they banned the practice of extra billing, but they permitted doctors to, by the date the new ban took effect, opt out. That meant that they opted out entirely, they would receive no reimbursement from the province at all, but they could charge patients whatever the market would bear.

Well, whole specialties had all, or substantially all, of their doctors opt-out. Then the socialists simply took away the option to opt out.

Democrats are already advocating this:

If you stop at "extra billing", that's where Australia is today. They call the government baseline "bulk billing" and some Docs only do that. They're the ones that have no end of work in sight and aren't specialists. Most that try to add a co-pay or additional pay lose a significant number of patients who leave to go to a different free Doc.

Very few specialists work without additional billing.

Insurance companies sell coverage above the "bulk billing" for two things...

1) Rooms at hospitals and booking OR time. You can have your additional-pay specialist wait and work on you for "free" in a public hospital OR and have a free ro but you'll have to wait for it. If you die in the meantime, not the government's problem. Or you can pay extra on your insurance and go to a private hospital.

2) Specialists. You can get on the bulk pay waiting list and again, if you die waiting, not the government's problem. Or you buy coverage above the government baseline.

People are allowed to mix and match coverages as desired. Most folks with cancer tend to want to get treatment started right away so they either do the public hospital private insurance for a specialist thing, or both private. Folks doing elective surgeries often just wait around for a year or more on the bulk pay Doc who has a decent reputation. Poor folk go to the crammed waiting rooms of the bulk pay only Docs.

It's "single payer" in that everyone making a paycheck contributes. 3.9 % or so into "Medicare" as they label the bulk pay system.

No idea if it's solvent. Forgot to ask.

Anyway it sounds like they're at the middle stage of what Saskatchewan did.

Additionally there are special groups. If you're in the bush and need the Royal Flying Doctor Service to haul you out, you'll need additional insurance coverage or $10K for the flight. If you're from an indigenous tribe it's 100% free. There's a lot of white people guilt trips in Oz over the people the ex-Brits displaced.

Most of the same problems that surround U.S. Native American reservations, alcohol, drugs, unemployment, crime, everyone living from government paycheck to government paycheck. But the countries differ significantly in the 100% free healthcare for the native population's descendants.

It's an interesting system. Everyone has relatively crappy healthcare guaranteed but anyone working can buy additional private insurance to pay for better than average care.

 

[txflyer]

I don't know **** from shinola about any of this, but BC&BS of Texas just sent me a notice in the mail that just our individual dental policy premium is going up over 4% in 2014 on a $5000.00 deductible plan. I'm bracing for the health premium notice.

You're welcome whoever you are ....

 

[JoseCuervo]

That's exactly where ACA is taking us. Me, and others of means, will continue to have better health care than those of lesser means. Hell, the system is set up precisely for that purpose or there wouldn't be copper, aluminum, gold, platinum or whatever metal is being used to identify coverage.
Besides that, my PCP is cash on the barrel head only as of earlier this year. There won't be a single Medicaid person in the office.

Hmmmmm....

So nothing will change for the richest? Kind of a "if you are rich, and you like your policy, you can keep it" kind of thing?

I think the ACA is taking us to a place where the rich are defined as "shareholders and managers of health insurance companies".

 

[JoseCuervo]

Since that would be against the law it doesn't matter whether or not I would hypothetically be personally offended.

I think anyone who is intellectually honest with themselves should recognize by now that the days of employer sponsored health plans are numbered, as are individual health plans, as has been the plan since day 1.

The strawman arguments/distractions are not going to answer the actual issues with respect to the nature of this 'overhaul' and the real-world impact it is having on millions of people who were covered before and are now scrambling to find something they can afford.

'Gimp

Why would it be against the law? Sounds like a good businessman would want to be able to hire the cheaper employee, and your daughter will cost him more than your son would.

If you really want to have it go to a distraction argument, let's hear your support for ENDA and advocating that LGBT community should get lower insurance rates....

The strawman arguments/distractions are not going to answer the actual issues with respect to the nature of this 'overhaul' and the real-world impact it is having on millions of people who were covered before and are now scrambling to find something they can afford.

Are you sure there are really "millions of people" "now scrambling"? They were all given adequate notice, and, they can likely sign up for much better plans than before. There are a great many of the "millions of people" who actually had crappy policies at expensive rates. It just so happens that those narratives are getting lost by the sensational ones that Fox News and the Daily Caller keep digging up (frequently to be exposed for inaccurate).

If you really care about "millions", what do you think of the over 1 million people in Texas that won't get Medicaid because Rick Perry doesn't want them to have health insurance? What about the 700k in Florida in similar circumstances? What is your solution for them?

 

[AcroGimp]

Why would it be against the law? Sounds like a good businessman would want to be able to hire the cheaper employee, and your daughter will cost him more than your son would.

If you really want to have it go to a distraction argument, let's hear your support for ENDA and advocating that LGBT community should get lower insurance rates....

Are you sure there are really "millions of people" "now scrambling"? They were all given adequate notice, and, they can likely sign up for much better plans than before. There are a great many of the "millions of people" who actually had crappy policies at expensive rates. It just so happens that those narratives are getting lost by the sensational ones that Fox News and the Daily Caller keep digging up (frequently to be exposed for inaccurate).

If you really care about "millions", what do you think of the over 1 million people in Texas that won't get Medicaid because Rick Perry doesn't want them to have health insurance? What about the 700k in Florida in similar circumstances? What is your solution for them?

See previous...

Further replies which do not actually address specifics and facts, or which make wild and inflammatory accusations will be ignored.

'Gimp

 

[JoseCuervo]

As an analogy, would it make sense to require non-drivers who don't own cars to purchase car insurance in order to lower the rates for car owners? Or would it make sense to require people who don't own pets to purchase pet health insurance in order to lower the rates for those who do?



-Rich

Many people can and DO make it thru life without ever needing a car or an auto body shop. Many people can and DO make it thru life without ever needing a pet or a vet.

I would venture to guess that NOBODY (or nearly so) makes it thru the US without needing a trip to the hospital. Therefore, we need to figure out a method of paying for EVERY person's trip to the hospital.

I think the old way of kids with ear infections clogging up the Emergency Room and then skipping out on the bill, leaving it to the County or to the other patients to pay (thru higher rates) was a crappy system. There is nothing wrong with everybody else having some personal responsibility in this world and making sure they have health coverage.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I don't know **** from shinola about any of this, but BC&BS of Texas just sent me a notice in the mail that just our individual dental policy premium is going up over 4% in 2014 on a $5000.00 deductible plan. I'm bracing for the health premium notice.

You're welcome whoever you are ....

Meh. Not sure that a 4% annual increase is anything to "brace" for. Seems about normal for inflation of insurance.

 

[SCCutler]

Why would it be against the law? Sounds like a good businessman would want to be able to hire the cheaper employee, and your daughter will cost him more than your son would.

Seriously?

You don't hire people based upon who is cheap; you base it upon who is best able to do the job within your payroll budget. Sad reality, of course, is that the dramatic increases in costs of insurance and the concomitant increases in healthcare-related taxes is taking away money which could, otherwise, be used to employ more people. In my small shop, we're paying pretty much a FTE more for health insurance, and it covers less. I'd rather hire that person and buy better insurance, but that's no longer an option.

Are you sure there are really "millions of people" "now scrambling"? They were all given adequate notice, and, they can likely sign up for much better plans than before.

Not a chance; have you seen the rates and plans? They cost more, do less.

There are a great many of the "millions of people" who actually had crappy policies at expensive rates.

...something we all will see more of.

If you really care about "millions", what do you think of the over 1 million people in Texas that won't get Medicaid because Rick Perry doesn't want them to have health insurance?

(sigh)

Many people can and DO make it thru life without ever needing a car or an auto body shop. Many people can and DO make it thru life without ever needing a pet or a vet.

I would venture to guess that NOBODY (or nearly so) makes it thru the US without needing a trip to the hospital.

I am pretty certain that Rich is the single most articulate, best-spoken (or written) member on the board. It is difficult to believe that, after you read what he wrote, you believe that what you just wrote can possibly relate.

But, what the heck, I'll play.

The analogy is not, properly, that people make it through life without needing a hospital; it is (for instance) that males make it through life without requiring prenatal care.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

I think the old way of kids with ear infections clogging up the Emergency Room and then skipping out on the bill, leaving it to the County or to the other patients to pay (thru higher rates) was a crappy system. There is nothing wrong with everybody else having some personal responsibility in this world and making sure they have health coverage.

See, I am not so certain that the system you cite - gently tweaked for effective operation - might not still be better. The county in which I live has world class healthcare available to any County residents who presents, regardless of their ability to pay. For routine medical care, there is a network of clinics, with a heavy emphasis placed upon the availability (without cost, if ability to pay is an issue) of prenatal, women's, infants and childrens' care – preventive care. I pay for this through a substantial tax on my real property that I pay each year; the downside of this care, of course, is that the people who use it sometimes have to wait in line; a small price to pay. Now, I suspect, we will all get the pleasure of waiting, but without the benefit of good quality care.

At its core, the problem with the affordable care act is that it is misnamed – it doesn't provide care, it is not affordable, and it is destructive in almost every respect.

My objection to the affordable care act is not that I don't wish for people to have health insurance, or effective medical coverage; it is that, in the name of these laudable principles, it achieves none of that, while creating a staggeringly large new federal bureaucracy, and extracting a terrible toll, financial and otherwise, from the very people is intended to serve.

It is a tragedy in slow motion.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Seriously?

You don't hire people based upon who is cheap; you base it upon who is best able to do the job within your payroll budget. Sad reality, of course, is that the dramatic increases in costs of insurance and the concomitant increases in healthcare-related taxes is taking away money which could, otherwise, be used to employ more people. In my small shop, we're paying pretty much a FTE more for health insurance, and it covers less. I'd rather hire that person and buy better insurance, but that's no longer an option.

Yeah, because you should always drag other variables into internet discussions. If you just need a "warm body" to do a job, under a discriminatory insurance scheme, a businessman would be better off to hire a man. But drag in imaginary performance variables if it helps.

And, I agree with you. This year's increase in insurance costs hurts. So did last year's. And the one in 2011. And the one in 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, etc.... You can fault Obamacare or the ACA for lots of things, but the increases in medical costs and insurance costs have been going on long before Mitt Romney and the Heritage Foundation dreamed up this mess.

Not a chance; have you seen the rates and plans? They cost more, do less.

Many are finding the opposite to be true. Hmmmm.... what a conundrum.

...something we all will see more of.

The bronze ones will be better than the crappy ones. Fox had the lady from Florida who was complaining that her rates were going from $50 to $540 (I think). Turns out her policy only covered the first $50 or so of a Dr. visit, had ZERO hospital coverage. It was actually NOT an insurance policy, but some sort of scam from Florida Blue. When follow-up reporters showed her what she had, she was overwhelmed at how much better the new one was going to be.

(sigh)

Millions of uninsured Texans and Floridians don't matter?

I am pretty certain that Rich is the single most articulate, best-spoken (or written) member on the board. It is difficult to believe that, after you read what he wrote, you believe that what you just wrote can possibly relate.

But, what the heck, I'll play.

The analogy is not, properly, that people make it through life without needing a hospital; it is (for instance) that males make it through life without requiring prenatal care.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

How many prenatal care visits have you ever heard about that didn't have a male contributing to the reason for the visit? See Also, Biology 101.

See, I am not so certain that the system you cite - gently tweaked for effective operation - might not still be better. The county in which I live has world class healthcare available to any County residents who presents, regardless of their ability to pay. For routine medical care, there is a network of clinics, with a heavy emphasis placed upon the availability (without cost, if ability to pay is an issue) of prenatal, women's, infants and childrens' care – preventive care. I pay for this through a substantial tax on my real property that I pay each year; the downside of this care, of course, is that the people who use it sometimes have to wait in line; a small price to pay. Now, I suspect, we will all get the pleasure of waiting, but without the benefit of good quality care.

If you thought the old system was great, then it would be hard to convince you otherwise. The old system sucked. We spent more on healthcare than other countries and got worse results. We had a large number of our population filing medical bankruptcy.

At its core, the problem with the affordable care act is that it is misnamed – it doesn't provide care, it is not affordable, and it is destructive in almost every respect.

Yeah, just a marketing problem... changing the name to ChristieCare in 3 years will solve it.

My objection to the affordable care act is not that I don't wish for people to have health insurance, or effective medical coverage; it is that, in the name of these laudable principles, it achieves none of that, while creating a staggeringly large new federal bureaucracy, and extracting a terrible toll, financial and otherwise, from the very people is intended to serve.

It is a tragedy in slow motion.

Is there really a "staggeringly large new federal bureaucracy"? I don't follow all the arguments that closely, but this is a new one. Are we talking George Bush / TSA large, or we talking about something much smaller?

 

[Luigi]

My wife and I received cancellation notices from our health insurance provider. We were directed to Assurant Health who quoted a similar coverage policy at a much higher rate, then provided us pricing on an obamacare policy which turned out to cost 24% more with a higher deductable! Yikes!

 

[weilke]

I think the old way of kids with ear infections clogging up the Emergency Room and then skipping out on the bill, leaving it to the County or to the other patients to pay (thru higher rates) was a crappy system. There is nothing wrong with everybody else having some personal responsibility in this world and making sure they have health coverage.

Those kids already have health insurance through either medicaid or SCHIP. There is a cllientele that will clog up the ER no matter what, also the goverment programs have little disincentive to seek medical care there. My ER copay is $250, I think twice whether I go to the ER or wait till the morning to take them to the pediatrician (btw. he is 71 and one of the folks retiring jan 1st over the increasing paperwork BS).

 

[weilke]

I live in a small state. Here are the stats as of nov 1st:

- cancellations: 2500
- new sign-ups: 20 (twenty, that is 'four hands' for you democrats)

 

[John Baker]

In this country and on a worldwide basis, more people are being born than people who are dying. This is leading to a serious national and global problem that will have to be addressed by our governments sooner or later. I have a hunch that we are now experiencing the beginning of the solution to that problem.

-John

 

[Becky]

Originally Posted by Matthew
But how in the world is it discriminatory for someone to purchase a product tailored to his own needs and budget?

How in the world is it discriminatory for someone to tailor seating in the bus according to his own needs and desires? How in the world is it discriminatory for someone to decide that only men get to play sports in college? How in the world is it discriminatory for someone to decide that pay and housing and other benefits cannot be tailored to the individuals with the most clout?

The leap from Matthew's question to Peggy's reply is why conversations with people like Peggy are so frustrating. There's a distinct, huffy sort of self righteousness about sticking up for the less fortunate, as if the rest of us don't get that the less fortunate and their needs do matter. Most people are willing to some extent to bear some of the burdens of their fellow humans, especially those who have experienced true misfortune, as opposed to self-inflicted dysfunctional choices. And don't stretch that. Any parent knows what I mean there.

Where it becomes a problem is when "helping" others actually hurts them, and ultimately all of us, by creating systems that: 1) foster dependency and poor choices, over generations; 2) transfer one's earned resources ever more and more to those in control to administer to those who become mired in those systems; and 3) reduce one's earned resources to the point where one has difficulty meeting one's own needs and staying out of the system, thereby throwing one ultimately onto the mercy of the system.

It's a formula for socialism, control by elites. No attempts to distract with references to Rosa Parks and cries of "discrimination" can hide that fact. If my policy costs $300 per month more as a result of ACA, that's $300 less per month that I can't spend on healthy food to help keep myself out of the system. That doesn't go anywhere good in terms of health and health care.

Yes, ACA is the law of the land. But so were slavery and Prohibition. Both were inherently opposed to what America is all about ... personal freedom. In retrospect, we can see their flaws so clearly. ACA will unfold, and we will see it clearly one day.

At the very least, we should expect transparency for our tax dollars. Even Peggy admits we were lied to. The only way the president could have not lied would have been to say something like, "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it ... but only if I like it, too."

There was an election coming up, though, so he didn't say that. Too socialist. But the truth nonetheless.

 

[AcroGimp]

The leap from Matthew's question to Peggy's reply is why conversations with people like Peggy are so frustrating. There's a distinct, huffy sort of self righteousness about sticking up for the less fortunate, as if the rest of us don't get that the less fortunate and their needs do matter. Most people are willing to some extent to bear some of the burdens of their fellow humans, especially those who have experienced true misfortune, as opposed to self-inflicted dysfunctional choices. And don't stretch that. Any parent knows what I mean there.

Where it becomes a problem is when "helping" others actually hurts them, and ultimately all of us, by creating systems that: 1) foster dependency and poor choices, over generations; 2) transfer one's earned resources ever more and more to those in control to administer to those who become mired in those systems; and 3) reduce one's earned resources to the point where one has difficulty meeting one's own needs and staying out of the system, thereby throwing one ultimately onto the mercy of the system.

It's a formula for socialism, control by elites. No attempts to distract with references to Rosa Parks and cries of "discrimination" can hide that fact. If my policy costs $300 per month more as a result of ACA, that's $300 less per month that I can't spend on healthy food to help keep myself out of the system. That doesn't go anywhere good in terms of health and health care.

Yes, ACA is the law of the land. But so were slavery and Prohibition. Both were inherently opposed to what America is all about ... personal freedom. In retrospect, we can see their flaws so clearly. ACA will unfold, and we will see it clearly one day.

At the very least, we should expect transparency for our tax dollars. Even Peggy admits we were lied to. The only way the president could have not lied would have been to say something like, "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it ... but only if I like it, too."

There was an election coming up, though, so he didn't say that. Too socialist. But the truth nonetheless.

Very well stated Becky, great job!

'Gimp

 

[RJM62]

I am pretty certain that Rich is the single most articulate, best-spoken (or written) member on the board. It is difficult to believe that, after you read what he wrote, you believe that what you just wrote can possibly relate.

But, what the heck, I'll play.

The analogy is not, properly, that people make it through life without needing a hospital; it is (for instance) that males make it through life without requiring prenatal care.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

You flatter me, Spike, and quite undeservedly on my part. But thank you.

-Rich

 

[Matthew]

We're from the government. We know what's best for you!

--

Insurance policies are always a gamble for insurance companies. They gamble they will take in more in premiums than they will pay out. No surprise there.

My company has a group plan, so our risk pool is our employees, spouses, and families, and our coverage and premiums reflect that. So yes, I am buying coverage that I will not use. So be it, but it is MY choice. I am waiting for next year when companies have to meet the new ACA requirements. Will we get "better" coverage? Doubtful. Will we get more expensive coverage? From the way the individual plans are going, yes. Will it be a better value? Probably not. Will we have a choice? Sure - break the law or not.

At least we have time to figure out how to game the system.

 

[nddons]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/insurance-companies-misleading-letters-obamacare

Across the country, insurance companies have sent misleading letters to consumers, trying to lock them into the companies' own, sometimes more expensive health insurance plans rather than let them shop for insurance and tax credits on the Obamacare marketplaces -- which could lead to people spending thousands more for insurance than the law intended. In some cases, mentions of the marketplace in those letters are relegated to a mere footnote, which can be easily overlooked.

The extreme lengths to which some insurance companies are going to hold on to existing customers at higher price, as the Affordable Care Act fundamentally re-orders the individual insurance market, has caught the attention of state insurance regulators.

The insurance companies argue that it's simply capitalism at work. But regulators don't see it that way. By warning customers that their health insurance plans are being cancelled as a result of Obamacare and urging them to secure new insurance plans before the Obamacare launched on Oct. 1, these insurers put their customers at risk of enrolling in plans that were not as good or as affordable as what they could buy on the marketplaces.

If the insurance companies are so evil, why is the government forcing everyone to purchase insurance policies from ..... the evil insurance companies?

 

[Geico266]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/insurance-companies-misleading-letters-obamacare

Across the country, insurance companies have sent misleading letters to consumers, trying to lock them into the companies' own, sometimes more expensive health insurance plans rather than let them shop for insurance and tax credits on the Obamacare marketplaces -- which could lead to people spending thousands more for insurance than the law intended. In some cases, mentions of the marketplace in those letters are relegated to a mere footnote, which can be easily overlooked.

The extreme lengths to which some insurance companies are going to hold on to existing customers at higher price, as the Affordable Care Act fundamentally re-orders the individual insurance market, has caught the attention of state insurance regulators.

The insurance companies argue that it's simply capitalism at work. But regulators don't see it that way. By warning customers that their health insurance plans are being cancelled as a result of Obamacare and urging them to secure new insurance plans before the Obamacare launched on Oct. 1, these insurers put their customers at risk of enrolling in plans that were not as good or as affordable as what they could buy on the marketplaces.

This is actually a bigger lie than what Obama promised.

AP, how can I (or anyone) shop for coverage in Obamacare when the web site hasn't worked since it opened?

 

[nddons]

FWIW Aunt Peggy, my employer plan, and my wife and daughter's individual plans have all been cancelled as a result of changes mandated by Obamacare. The cancellations are due to explicit requirements within the law that do not allow grandfathering for changes occuring after ACA passage for as little as $5/mo change in premium or for significant changes in coverage - even when the law itself requires the changes.

As a 43 yr old man I don't need coverage for prenatal care, abortion, or the pill, or pediatric dentistry - but in order to provide that additional one-size-fits-all coverage as required by the law premiums necessarily must go up.

Using the Covered California website (Obamacare Exchange), we would see a 60% increase in premiums, for 'essentially' the same coverage we had in the plans we liked, with a 50% increase in deductibles, and 100% increase in annnual out-of-pocket exposure.

My wife just survived breast cancer earlier this year - had we had the Obamacare coverage this year instead of the plans we had, it would have meant $8,000 more in health care spending, with a smaller network to choose from. Because of my income I am ineligible for subsidies, even though my taxes continue to increase to pay for subsidies for others to pay for their increased health plan costs. Could you afford an extra $8000 per year?

That's $8K I won't have for my daughters's college expenses, for an overdue family vacation (I haven't been able to take time off for 3 years), to go home for Christmas, to save and/or invest, to donate to charity - fill-in-the-blank - it's gone with no added-value anywhere in the economy.

I know that the disruption to my family probably means nothing to you, but they knew in 2010, by their own estimates, that as many as 93 million Americans would lose their plan because they would not be allowed to grandfather due to the strict way the clause was written. This is unfolding precisely as desired in my opinion, but make no mistake, they lied to all of us.

Very well stated. That is the entire essence of this abomination of a law.

 

[Silvaire]

I must be living in an alternate universe. I saw no significant changes in my health care plan this season. I don't know ANYONE who has had their health care policy cancelled or seen significant increases in premiums or declines in benefits - at least not any more than last year and the year before that and the year before that and the year before that and...

If Obamacare is responsible for any of this, what was causing it to occur prior to Obamacare? If someone can point out the specific clauses of the ACA that are causing so many people to lose their healthcare and suffer I'd appreciate it. I don't buy the argument that no one has read it, the entire law is online and anyone can read it any time they want. I think the most disturbing thing about all of this is how so many people are hoping so badly for it to fail. Why?

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

 

[weilke]

If Obamacare is responsible for any of this, what was causing it to occur prior to Obamacare? If someone can point out the specific clauses of the ACA that are causing so many people to lose their healthcare and suffer I'd appreciate it.

It has been posted several times in this thread:

Because the policies are not compliant with ACA mandates and are not eligible for grandfathering as their inception dates are after march 2010. Yet they are policies consciously chosen by the subscribers because they offered a mix of features that fit the subscribers health insurance needs.