Obama care is a pain in the ass

[PiLFy 0]

"The doctor told me that now, due to the ACA, I won't pay a penny due to it being preventative."

Given the shifting sands of ACA economics in all other areas, I can see this one evaporating, too. We'll see if you get billing invoices over the next twelve months...

[muff528 3]

quade

A prediction retroactive to 12 days ago?

ACA is already in effect therefore it's already "after" and your prediction hasn't come true.

Yeah, instead of "after" I should say something like "as a result of".

300000000+ people.

How many are right now (12 days into the law) "covered" by some form of ACA-compliant "insurance"? (signed up, premiums paid, coverage in effect)

How many of these are now being treated under their ACA-compliant policies?

How many of 300M are covered under policies which have been exempted by decree from "minimum coverage" requirements? Presumably, these are policies which are not contributing to the "pool" of money which funds procedures which are covered under the minimum standards of the ACA. (for example, with my ACA-compliant plan, I am paying for obstetric and gyn. coverage for my son and myself, thereby contributing to the collective for services we will never receive.)

How do folks who have lost coverage and have not yet been able to replace that insurance receive medical care for illnesses they have right now?

HHS is cooing over a million here, a few hundred thou there logging on and signing up at healthcare dot gov. A few do follow though but many are looking at the prices and bailing out. Long way to go to get to full compliance, even though it has been the law of the land for 12 days.

Also - I see a little humor in claims by Obama and Sebelius that the number of folks trying to sign up and jamming the website is indicative of the popular demand for this abomination. They are trying to sign up because it's the freaking law! That is why. People generally try to follow the law.

[jclalor 12]

You do realize that people who are buying insurance through the exchanges only represent a small percentage of the population? Those of us who have had insurance through our employers now have much better coverage as a result; no lifetime cap, preventative care provided, keeping your children on your policy, and pre-existing conditions covered.

Making a prediction predicated on "just wait and see" is not much of a prediction. Peddling fear, that's all that you guys have left.

[jclalor 12]

PiLFy

"The doctor told me that now, due to the ACA, I won't pay a penny due to it being preventative."

Given the shifting sands of ACA economics in all other areas, I can see this one evaporating, too. We'll see if you get billing invoices over the next twelve months...

Who knows what the hell may happen in a year, as for right now, it's covered.

[PiLFy 0]

jclalor

***"The doctor told me that now, due to the ACA, I won't pay a penny due to it being preventative."

Given the shifting sands of ACA economics in all other areas, I can see this one evaporating, too. We'll see if you get billing invoices over the next twelve months...

Who knows what the hell may happen in a year, as for right now, it's covered.

No need to be profane. Who knows? Us, if we look at what else has happened w/that law. Right now, it's covered? Great. The ACA has reneged on prior financial commitments. We'll see if your free anal probing turns out being something else you're billed for, after the fact.

I just read another article this morning about how far too few Twenty-somethings are signing up. They are the demographic that would make your poop chute pix "Free"...

[muff528 3]

jclalor

You do realize that people who are buying insurance through the exchanges only represent a small percentage of the population?

Doesn't matter how you buy your "insurance". All (non-exempt) plans must comply with the same minimum requirements. The only real difference is that if you want to qualify for the phantom tax credits, you have to go through the exchanges. If your business provides a group plan, you must participate in that plan rather than go to the exchanges. You can then try to qualify for premium assistance through the HHS website. Bottom line is that if you need relief you must stick your neck out on a website that is full of security holes. (You may now be able to do this in person. That'll probably go pretty smoothly.) You obviously think that only a "small percentage of the population" will need assistance in the form of tax credits or premium help. If so, then why in the world did we need the ACA? Also, the amount of the tax credits which are estimated at the exchange site may not be the reality at tax time next April. These estimates are based on projected enrollment figures, which right now are pretty dismal. It may happen that the "small percentage of the population" that is depending on premium relief and promised tax credits, will be getting a big surprise at tax time next year.

Quote

Those of us who have had insurance through our employers now have much better coverage as a result; no lifetime cap, preventative care provided, keeping your children on your policy, and pre-existing conditions covered.

I, also have "better" coverage through work. I also have a 300+ % increase in premiums and potentially thousands increase in co-pays and deductibles. Like I said before, I'm paying for coverage I don't need or want. And, like PiLFy says, you free butt-check may not be so free by the time all the paperwork is sorted out.

Quote

Making a prediction predicated on "just wait and see" is not much of a prediction. Peddling fear, that's all that you guys have left.

"Prophesy" would probably have been a better word.

[muff528 3]

jclalor

...
Who knows what the hell may happen in a year, as for right now, it's covered.

There you have it in a nutshell.

[rehmwa 2]

jclalor

Of all the conspiracies I have heard, this one beats them all. You assert that the government, in conjunction with the healthcare industry, was able to ascertain the votes of a hundred million people and then rig thier health coverage based solely on whom they voted for?

Seriously?

that's an odd take on it. I read it as (there is a rough tendency that) people voted for their own personal self interests and the results are aligned.

how about that, self interests are driving (voting) behavior rather than some idealized falsehood of people trying to be all community minded or benevolent or anything else?

IMHO - if legislation results like this become more and more drawn across demographic dividing lines, rather than for the general good, we can start to be very clear that neither party has to overall welfare of the people in mind, just their members only at the expense of the other. But we all already know that.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jclalor 12]

Quote

I, also have "better" coverage through work. I also have a 300+ % increase in premiums and potentially thousands increase in co-pays and deductibles. Like I said before, I'm paying for coverage I don't need or want. And, like PiLFy says, you free butt-check may not be so free by the time all the paperwork is finished.

Health insurance cost rose at the lowest level in years ( single digits) and yours went up over 300%? it sounds to me like your the one that's really taking it up the ass. It's no surprise that some less than scrupulous employers are trying to pass on more and more cost to the employee and then they blame it on Obama.

Then again, if you feel the compensation being offered at your work is inadequate, you should probably venture out onto the open market and find and employer willing to compensate you what you think is fair for your skills. The free market is very good at this.

[muff528 3]

jclalor

Quote

I, also have "better" coverage through work. I also have a 300+ % increase in premiums and potentially thousands increase in co-pays and deductibles. Like I said before, I'm paying for coverage I don't need or want. And, like PiLFy says, you free butt-check may not be so free by the time all the paperwork is finished.

Health insurance cost rose at the lowest level in years ( single digits) and yours went up over 300%? it sounds to me like your the one that's really taking it up the ass. It's no surprise that some less than scrupulous employers are trying to pass on more and more cost to the employee and then they blame it on Obama.

Then again, if you feel the compensation being offered at your work is inadequate, you should probably venture out onto the open market and find and employer willing to compensate you what you think is fair for your skills. The free market is very good at this.

My health care plan cost did not rise because of increase in health insurance costs. It rose as a direct result of Obamacare. My BCBS plan, which was more than adequate for me, was cancelled on 10/1 because it did not comply with the ACA guidelines. It was rendered illegal by Obamacare. Premiums were $353.68/month. Even though Obama decreed that we could all go back to our old plans for another year, I'm SOL because BCBS no longer offers this outlaw plan. The replacement plan from BCBS (equivalent deductible and total out-of-pocket) premium was $1366.84 per month. That's over 386% increase (For comparison, these premiums are only for me and do not include additional premiums for my son.) I'm sure the new plan had many perks and extras that would have been nice as well as coverage that could never apply to me. But for the difference in premiums, I'll pay for my own preventive care.

We did just recently (within the last couple of weeks) change plans and provider. So considering premium increase only, the 300% is really only about 200% now. But the potential out-of-pocket expense is much higher, but still manageable. I'm employed by a small company. We employees were directly involved in searching for a suitable replacement. I chose a balance between more affordable premiums and higher potential out-of-pocket expenses. Premiums now are $740.60 per month. My company pays half in all cases. I fall somewhere in the 60-64 age range.

[turtlespeed 212]

muff528

***A prediction retroactive to 12 days ago?

ACA is already in effect therefore it's already "after" and your prediction hasn't come true.

Yeah, instead of "after" I should say something like "as a result of".

300000000+ people.

How many are right now (12 days into the law) "covered" by some form of ACA-compliant "insurance"? (signed up, premiums paid, coverage in effect)

How many of these are now being treated under their ACA-compliant policies?

How many of 300M are covered under policies which have been exempted by decree from "minimum coverage" requirements? Presumably, these are policies which are not contributing to the "pool" of money which funds procedures which are covered under the minimum standards of the ACA. (for example, with my ACA-compliant plan, I am paying for obstetric and gyn. coverage for my son and myself, thereby contributing to the collective for services we will never receive.)

How do folks who have lost coverage and have not yet been able to replace that insurance receive medical care for illnesses they have right now?

HHS is cooing over a million here, a few hundred thou there logging on and signing up at healthcare dot gov. A few do follow though but many are looking at the prices and bailing out. Long way to go to get to full compliance, even though it has been the law of the land for 12 days.

Also - I see a little humor in claims by Obama and Sebelius that the number of folks trying to sign up and jamming the website is indicative of the popular demand for this abomination. They are trying to sign up because it's the freaking law! That is why. People generally try to follow the law.

A better question, I would like to know the answer to, is - How many of the people that were uninsured, that this "law" is supposed to ensure ARE insured, actually have coverage.

I believe the number was somewhere around 40 million uninsured.

Another question I would like to have answered is how many people that were insured, are no longer insured because they cannot afford it when they could a year ago.

I'd be willing to bet that the 40 Million number - has increased due to ACA.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DrewEckhardt 0]

PiLFy

"The doctor told me that now, due to the ACA, I won't pay a penny due to it being preventative."

Given the shifting sands of ACA economics in all other areas, I can see this one evaporating, too. We'll see if you get billing invoices over the next twelve months...

Nope. It's going to stick because it makes more money for insurance and other healthcare companies.

ACA limits insurance company gross margins to 20%. If they save some money by denying coverage they have to return any excess to their customers. They can only make more money by spending more. Spending $1000 more on health care lets them collect $1250 more in premiums with $250 of gross profits.

There are several potential complications with this which don't cause problems in practice:

1. In theory one insurance company could cover less, charge less in premiums, and get more business. Fortunately that's not a problem when all of them are required to cover something.

2. In theory the resulting higher premiums could lead more people to choose the market alternative of no insurance. In practice premiums are capped for families of four earning up to the 75th income percentile and most of us earning more have our employers picking up the tab. With premium increases invisible to mot voters there won't be enough public pressure to do things differently.

[PiLFy 0]

Clearly, you are far more trusting of Bureaucrats than I. They'll sell more to make more? Not if no one is buying, they won't. Your theory already hasn't held up in the area of premiums paid, then raised, & raised again. Don't know you, or why you have this faith in proven liars. Nor, do I bear you any malice. I think you're going to eat those words you've typed. Had you typed them a year ago, you'd have already eaten a steady diet of crow. More of the same will follow. If/after the ACA becomes more entrenched, more promises will evaporate. It's what lying Thieves do. It's they're bread N butter...

[Stumpy 256]

jclalor

Making a prediction predicated on "just wait and see" is not much of a prediction. Peddling fear, that's all that you guys have left.

There seems to be a lot of this going on.

"Well sure - its worked out OK but YOU WAIT!"

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[muff528 3]

Stumpy

....

"Well sure - its worked out OK ....."

Let us know when this part happens.

[Stumpy 256]

muff528

***....

"Well sure - its worked out OK ....."

Let us know when this part happens.

For a start, how about you reread this thread.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Stumpy 256]

Stumpy

******....

"Well sure - its worked out OK ....."

Let us know when this part happens.

For a start, how about you reread this thread. (Or at least the OP)

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[muff528 3]

Stumpy

*********....

"Well sure - its worked out OK ....."

Let us know when this part happens.

For a start, how about you reread this thread. (Or at least the OP)

One guy gets a free butt probe while millions who have been stripped of their perfectly good health insurance live in fear of financial devastation, or worse, by some illness or accident. Man, I 'd hate to see what happens when it doesn't work out OK.

[airdvr 197]

DC is being very secretive about the numbers. In reality they probably don't know what the true numbers are but saying anything at this point makes them look even more incompetent.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[beowulf 1]

As in anything the government does there are winners and there are losers. In the case of the ACA I think there are a lot more losers then winners. Just because you get something for "free" doesn't really mean you are an overall winner.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bailing-out-health-insurers-and-helping-obamacare_774167.html#

[kallend 1,623]

muff528

******

The difference is that before the ACA, these decisions were made by insurance companies, doctors and patients/families with some consideration for the patient. After ACA, they will be made by government bureaucrats .

WRONG. INCORRECT. FALSE.

You should check your facts BEFORE making an ass of yourself.

I can't be right or wrong yet. I'm only making a prediction.

Sure you can - you're WRONG.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Rick 67]

jclalor

******Preventative care such as colonoscopies and mammograms are now free under any insurance policy, it's part of the ACA.

Small point of terminology.

They aren't "free." The are now required to be "covered" or "included," but not actually "free."

Free for the end user. And while I patiently wait for the first grandmother to have the "plug" pulled on her, I wonder how many people will have colonoscopies and mammograms, who previously could not, and now will have their life saved because of it.


on my pre-ACA plan colonoscopies were "covered" I do not consider it "free" when i send them $350.. a month
YMMV

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[SkyDekker 1,122]

rehmwa

***Of all the conspiracies I have heard, this one beats them all. You assert that the government, in conjunction with the healthcare industry, was able to ascertain the votes of a hundred million people and then rig thier health coverage based solely on whom they voted for?

Seriously?

that's an odd take on it. I read it as (there is a rough tendency that) people voted for their own personal self interests and the results are aligned.

how about that, self interests are driving (voting) behavior rather than some idealized falsehood of people trying to be all community minded or benevolent or anything else?

IMHO - if legislation results like this become more and more drawn across demographic dividing lines, rather than for the general good, we can start to be very clear that neither party has to overall welfare of the people in mind, just their members only at the expense of the other. But we all already know that.

Interesting I read it as:

Those who have vocally defended Obama are self-reporting on a website that it is working for them.

Those who have vocally opposed Obama are self-reporting on a website that it is not working for them.

I don't see a big surprise here, but I also doubt any of it is based on reality.

[rehmwa 2]

SkyDekker

***that's an odd take on it. I read it as (there is a rough tendency that) people voted for their own personal self interests and the results are aligned.

how about that, self interests are driving (voting) behavior rather than some idealized falsehood of people trying to be all community minded or benevolent or anything else?

IMHO - if legislation results like this become more and more drawn across demographic dividing lines, rather than for the general good, we can start to be very clear that neither party has to overall welfare of the people in mind, just their members only at the expense of the other. But we all already know that.

Interesting I read it as:

Those who have vocally defended Obama are self-reporting on a website that it is working for them.

Those who have vocally opposed Obama are self-reporting on a website that it is not working for them.

I don't see a big surprise here, but I also doubt any of it is based on reality.

Yeah, I see that, there's a question of whether the support/opposition is cause vs effect (likely bits of both).

I also think we can see how our comments link as well.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DrewEckhardt 0]

beowulf

As in anything the government does there are winners and there are losers. In the case of the ACA I think there are a lot more losers then winners. Just because you get something for "free" doesn't really mean you are an overall winner.

I understand people trying to make ACA about themselves and the people but that's not how American politics work.

PhRMA gave up $80B in discounts in exchange for a more favorable bill lacking problems like the re-import provision, then spent over $100M in cash advertising ACA to help pass it.

In return they get millions of new customers with billions of tax dollars to spend.

A few people who couldn't get insurance before will benefit but they're not why the bill passed.