Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare)

[Socnorb11]

Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health insurance

President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.

Here Is What’s Wrong With That Story About Obama Knowing That Your Health Care Policy Would Get Cancelled

This all sounds very ominous until you consider that the naturally high turnover rate associated with the individual market means that it’s highly unlikely that individuals would still be enrolled in plans from 2010 in 2014. In fact, the Obama administration publicly admitted this when it issued the regulations in 2010, leading Republicans like Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) to seize on the story in order to push for repeal of the grandfather regulations...

The debate was widely covered in the press, so it’s unclear what exactly the NBC investigation unit has uncovered...

So yes, individuals can keep the plans they have if those plans remain largely the same. But individuals receiving cancellation notices will have a choice of enrolling in subsidized insurance in the exchanges and will probably end up paying less for more coverage.

Except that's not at all what's happening. Thinkprogress.org can keep blowing smoke and sucking on rainbows but the reality is that people are getting gouged.

From the LA Times, not exactly a conservative paper

Fullerton resident Jennifer Harris thought she had a great deal, paying $98 a month for an individual plan through Health Net Inc. She got a rude surprise this month when the company said it would cancel her policy at the end of this year. Her current plan does not conform with the new federal rules, which require more generous levels of coverage.

Now Harris, a self-employed lawyer, must shop for replacement insurance. The cheapest plan she has found will cost her $238 a month. She and her husband don't qualify for federal premium subsidies because they earn too much money, about $80,000 a year combined.

"It doesn't seem right to make the middle class pay so much more in order to give health insurance to everybody else," said Harris, who is three months pregnant. "This increase is simply not affordable."

We're talking about $140 per month. Since health insurance isn't taxed, we're probably talking about somewhere around $100 per month extra that they're going to pay, and their insurance is going to be significantly better.

If this is what's wrong with the ACA, then it's going to be a huge success.

Spending other people's money, insisting that the alternative is better. Based on what? You don't know what that lady needs, nor anyone else. It's entirely possible, and highly likely, she had the insurance she wanted based on her needs as well as an extra $140 a month in her pocket.

Here's the point that you're missing.......

Her health insurance sucked. If she had any major medical needs, I guarantee you her insurance wouldn't have been enough to cover it. Guess what happens then? The ones who DO have coverage end up getting fleeced on medical costs, to make up the difference that this woman couldn't afford to pay on her medical bills. SHE ends up spending MY money. It happens every day, and it's easily the biggest problem with our current health care system.

It's easy to look at things in a vacuum, but there's a bigger picture to the health industry that has to be considered.

[Socnorb11]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... re/280849/

Slow and steady wins the race, according to the old Aesop fable, and that's also what happened in the state of Massachusetts, when it rolled out its new health-coverage plans in 2007. Today, 97 percent of people in the state have health insurance of one type or another. But when the state's bid for universal coverage got started, it launched to a very slow start, according to those oversaw the rollout in the state. And that's without all the website issues that have plagued Healthcare.gov.

"To my friends in the media, I have one message: please take a chill pill. You won't see 7 million enrollees for a while, and that's not failure, that's real world," John McDonough, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health who was deeply involved in the passage and implementation of Massachusetts' 2006 health reform law, wrote of the new Obamacare program in mid-October. In Massachusetts, getting people signed up "was a slow crawl, not a sprint."

I don't know if it's a great strategy to try and use Romneycare to prop up Obamacare, when you consider that Romneycare sucks too.

Why does Romneycare suck? Because it apparently does not cover the cost of razors?

Costs are up, deductibles are up, wait times are up, all that fun stuff.

Do you have a link to this?

[letsgocards89]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... re/280849/

Slow and steady wins the race, according to the old Aesop fable, and that's also what happened in the state of Massachusetts, when it rolled out its new health-coverage plans in 2007. Today, 97 percent of people in the state have health insurance of one type or another. But when the state's bid for universal coverage got started, it launched to a very slow start, according to those oversaw the rollout in the state. And that's without all the website issues that have plagued Healthcare.gov.

"To my friends in the media, I have one message: please take a chill pill. You won't see 7 million enrollees for a while, and that's not failure, that's real world," John McDonough, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health who was deeply involved in the passage and implementation of Massachusetts' 2006 health reform law, wrote of the new Obamacare program in mid-October. In Massachusetts, getting people signed up "was a slow crawl, not a sprint."

I don't know if it's a great strategy to try and use Romneycare to prop up Obamacare, when you consider that Romneycare sucks too.

Why does Romneycare suck? Because it apparently does not cover the cost of razors?

Costs are up, deductibles are up, wait times are up, all that fun stuff.

Do you have a link to this?

There's probably others, but this is the one I was referencing
http://pioneerinstitute.org/news/in-pic ... re-reform/

[cardsfansince82]

Spending other people's money, insisting that the alternative is better. Based on what? You don't know what that lady needs, nor anyone else. It's entirely possible, and highly likely, she had the insurance she wanted based on her needs as well as an extra $140 a month in her pocket.

Again, she's pregnant. Her insurance was not going to meet her needs. I'm not spending anyone's money. If she wants to go without insurance, she can pay the fine. If she wants to buy real insurance, she has her options. Eliminating half assed policies is doing everyone a favor, because most people don't read the fine print and realize just how little is covered until it is too late.

[Socnorb11]

For the record, my premiums have been going up for years. There's no real evidence that any ACA (either in Massachusetts or Obamacare) is the reason for that.

[letsgocards89]

/snip
But Obamacare is all we got because the other side doesn't want to even acknowledge government can do anything about this problem.

Also, I know I'm railing against the suckage of Obamacare and probably pissing people off. (Sorry, but those last 2 Cardinal losses have me mad at everything) However, I totally agree with pioneer on this point. Sure, Republicans say *now* they have some great plan for insurance reform, but where were you when you could actually DO something? Silent. Exactly.

[cardsfansince82]

One thing to keep in mind is that there are a whole lot of people with a strong incentive to resist health care reform, and the right also can't afford to have it be successful because people (voters) associate it with the left. So a lot of the stuff out there might not be accurate. I think it's going to be years before we really know how good or bad it is and the stuff you are hearing right now from both sides is more about scoring political points than anything else.

[Socnorb11]

One thing to keep in mind is that there are a whole lot of people with a strong incentive to resist health care reform, and the right also can't afford to have it be successful because people (voters) associate it with the left. So a lot of the stuff out there might not be accurate. I think it's going to be years before we really know how good or bad it is and the stuff you are hearing right now from both sides is more about scoring political points than anything else.

Political spin? C'mon........ you don't expect any of us to buy that, do you?!

[Arthur Dent]

Why does Romneycare suck? Because it apparently does not cover the cost of razors?

Costs are up, deductibles are up, wait times are up, all that fun stuff.

Do you have a link to this?

There's probably others, but this is the one I was referencing
http://pioneerinstitute.org/news/in-pic ... re-reform/

That link seems designed to mislead. Take the the claim that the ACA increases premiums in Massachusetts, which that link expresses in the following way:

The impacts are just starting to be felt. For example, ACA regulation changes will raise premiums for 60% of individuals that receive coverage from their small employer, as high as 97%.

But what is actually happening is shown in the figure below:

It would be just as accurate to describe those results as, "Premiums will fall for 40% of individuals with decreases in premiums as large as 50%."

Digging further into why premiums have changed, they list four factors:
1) Massachusetts health plans are now required to have a bit more comprehensive coverage. This increases premiums about 1%
2) There is a new health insurance premium tax that increases premiums 0.8%.
3) Massachutsetts is merging a previously exisiting subsidized health insurance pool with the main state market. Since this previous pool contained more expensive people, overall premiums may go up ~2% from the merger.
4) The largest factor by far is a change in the method of risk pooling. Previously, small group insurance had widely varying premiums because the health risks of different small groups can vary a lot. If your small business bought small group policies for 50 employees, two of which were cancer survivors, everyone in the group could get stuck paying more for insurance compared to a similar sized company that employed a bunch of young healthy people.

Average premiums therefor increase a one time amount of <5%. The main change is that the irrational and unfair variation in premiums for the small group market are being flattened.

As far as wait times go, that article doesn't show them going up - it just shows that they haven't come down. I don't know why Romney/Obamacare should be expected to decrease wait times though. Did anybody claim it would?

[Leroy]

Such a fun circle jerk.