Larry

Yeah, I can see that, to some extent. A case of "well, you're getting more coverage, but it's coverage for things you don't need." But if that were all of it, then there would be a corresponding decrease in rates for women.

To which, the simple response is: If these plans offer more coverage for less money, then why aren't you just keeping them? Let me guess. "Obama made the company cancel them". Only problem is, Obamacare doesn't mandate any insurance policy cancellations. It mandates policy coverage. I can only see a few reasons for plans being cancelled. 1) Obamacare mandates that plans must cover things which this plan doesn't cover. And the insurance company would rather cancel the policy than cover those things. 2) Obamacare mandates some other factor, which makes things more expensive for some people. (There was an article on here, a day or two ago, saying that Obamacare mandates that men and women must be charge the same prices. (Which, I have to say, sounds less like mandating medical coverage and more like political pandering, to me.) This supposedly means that men (who typically use less health care) will pay more, subsidizing women.) 3) Somebody is making a corporate decision for one reason or another, to cancel a policy, using Obamacare as cover for their decision. ---------- Maybe my opinion of insurance companies isn't evil enough. But my assumption is that, if insurance costs more, it's because the insurance company expects to be paying out more. (Yeah, I assume that corporations will attempt to be really generous/cautious with their cost projections. But all of them? If all of the companies are gonna be paying out less, none of them will be willing to charge less, and rake in the money?) It just seems to me that, if rates are really going up by huge amounts, then either the companies are going to be paying out a lot more, or there's some serious price gouging going on. (And, if everybody's price gouging, then it's probably criminal.)

You're right. They should have gone with single payer, completely government-paid health care. Bet that would have been much easier to pass.

I understand that those plans being offered are in the open market. And you're complaining that they suck. Ok, I can understand that position. You think people should have BETTER coverage. This better coverage that you want people to have? It costs the same amount? (Then why aren't people buying the better coverage?). Or it costs more? (In which case, why are you mad at Obama, because people are CHOOSING coverage that's worse, but cheaper?). You planning on EVER following up "Obamacare sucks" with a "compared to. . . "?

Re: Junk insurance. Recall reading a story, a few years back, about somebody who got suckered into one of those. Guy got laid off. Lost his coverage. So he went out, shopped around, found a six-month policy for himself. Sent in his premium. Six months later, he still doesn't have a job. Sends in another premium. Six months later. Repeat. 4-5 months later, he's having a problem. Goes to doctor. They run tests. Several visits. Several tests. He hits his deductible, his insurance starts paying. His policy is ending. He sends in another premium. More visits. More tests. About a month into his fourth premium, they arrive at a diagnosis. He has a very rare, very expensive, long term Medicean condition. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of bills, for years in the future. His insurance company says they won't pay. See, according to his policy, every one of those six month premiums is a new policy. The money he sent in? That was to purchase a new policy. Well, his illness isn't covered under his new policy, because the illness started during his previous policy. (It hadn't been diagnosed, yet. But the tests show that yep, he had whatever it was). The policy he was buying only covers him if his illness starts, and ends, all within the same six-month policy. ---------- Plan on answering the question? You got some kind of an idea as to where to get some other insurance, that you won't complain about, for the same money?

Where do you propose that the money come from, for this insurance that's vastly better than what people are choosing to get? Yeah, I'd really prefer to have health insurance without a deductible, myself. Know why I don't have it? Cause I don't want to pay for it. ---------- And I ASSUME that the reason such plans cost more (for the consumer), is because they cost more (for the insurance companies. Insurance companies are regulated as to how much they can charge, and how much profit they can make. Yeah, I ASSUME that they're very, very, good at manipulating things to get around the regulators. But I assume that, even with that, that a good portion of what they take in, they pay out. That health insurance costs what it does, because the insurance companies wind up spending a good chunk of what they take in. ---------- Dumb question: anybody got any kind of number as to what it would cost, for each person to basically have Medicare? If I wanted to sign myself up for Medicare, right now, at my age, and if the government were willing to sell it, what would my premium be? Has anybody (well, anybody who isn't rabidly partisan) crunched that number?

I'm shocked at the number of people in this thread who seem to think that Obamacare stinks, because it has private insurance companies in it.

Wondering if maybe there's a $20K deductible for a family policy. Suppose there's a slim chance of that, I don't know. I will also observe that, when I tried to experiment with the exchanges, just for research, and I Google "Florida health care exchange", what I get is a ****load of commercial web sites that have been set up with names and URLs designed to make people think that they're at THE exchange. I'm not saying that all such sites are thieves, but IMO, the fact that they've chosen to try to sucker people in with names like that certainly doesn't speak well of their ethics.

Oh, it certainly CAN. The ACA law doesn't just create exchanges. Among lots of other things, it mandates that all insurance must cover certain things. If your policy didn't used to cover some of those things, then the insurer has to either cancel the policy, or modify it so that it does cover those things. And the latter costs money. The rates go up, but the customer also gets coverage for something that wasn't covered, before. Whether that's a fair trade off may be a matter of opinion. The single male whose rates go up because his plan is now required to cover maternity expenses might not think that the extra coverage is worth paying for. ---------- That said, though, it's also guaranteed that lots of people/companies are using the cover of Obamacare to jack up people's prices, and blame Obamacare for it, too (Just as I have no doubt that there are, or will be, lots of people who go out and use Obamacare to get cheaper coverage, that doesn't cover as much, and yell loudly that Obamacare made their rates go down.) ---------- It's something that's easy to spin, because we're dealing with a subject where it's pretty much impossible to isolate individual variables.

My insurance.

Mine hasn't changed a dime.

Their core position is anything they think will stick.

Hey, the idea of trying to aim at a younger audience, and to use humor, sure beats the heck out of some red-faced, bald, politician screaming "Socialized Medicine!" Granted, their execution reminds me of a famous quote from some football coach. And, attempting the thing to an audience that's somewhat better informed than most might not have been a great idea.

Rather surprised by the assertion that more than half of all individual insurance policies don;t meet the bare minimum levels required under ACA. And that said policies will fall so short of those standards that the companies will cancel them rather than bring them into compliance, and raise the rates some. But that might say more about the state of existing individual health insurance universe, than it says about the law. ---------- But, if you mandate coverage for pre-existing conditions, then you HAVE to mandate coverage. Otherwise, nobody will sign up for health insurance until after their doctor tells them that they need it.

Problem, if you drop that, is the huge body of people who can't get coverage. And, I also think the insurance companies use this "pre-existing conditions" clause as a tool to suppress competition. When I first purchased my insurance, my premium was $100 a month, and I was informed, over and over again, that my policy had a two-year "pre existing condition period". (During which, as near as I could figure out from the paperwork, any medical condition I had was presumed to be pre-existing.) In effect, for the first two years of my insurance, I would pay premiums, but have no coverage. When I had been paying premiums for a year, I was notified that my premiums were doubling. Now, I had not seen a doctor in that time. Only thing that changed, during that year, was my age. (It went up by 1.) Did my premium douple because I was not double the risk to BCBS that I was, a year ago? Hardly. My premiums doubles because the $100 a month premium was a "come on" rate. Now that I've been paying their "come on" rate, for a year (without having any coverage, and without needing any), I'm now locked in. If I try to go anywhere else, my two year "pay the premiums but you don't have coverage" starts over from scratch. In short, they're able to use deceptive marketing, and to double my rates, because the "pre existing condition" clause punishes me if I try to change companies. I think if I could have passed a health care reform, it would have said that any customer is exempt from "pre existing conditions" limitations, IF he is switching from one company to another, or between plans within a company. At the very least, give the customers the ability to switch companies without penalty.

Now, they aren't forced to buy catastrophic insurance. They're just forced to buy some insurance. (Yes, I assume that most folks will choose the minimum. Simply because, if they had the money for better insurance, they would have already bought it.) "Like"? Hardly. I consider the mandate to be a necessary evil, made necessary by the "pre-existing condition" mandate, which I also regard as a necessary evil.

But that hypothetical family who paid a premium, and paid $10K, would have paid $10K without the premium, too. (In fact, the only way they pay $10K, in both scenarios, is is they managed to spend $10K on medical expenses without ever once getting any of the "free" coverage that Obamacare mandates. If, say, they spent $10K in medical bills, and never saw the doctor and never had a lab procedure.) That hypothetical family with the $10K medical bill, would have had it without Obamacare, too. ---------- Now, yeah, I agree. Getting something like "Medicare for all", might well have been a whole lot better. BUT, it would have cost outrageously, too. And I've mentioned the problem I see with what I think would be the ideal system: One where everybody gets a tax-paid "medicare for all" that just pays for the minimums, and then private companies compete to offer "medicare supplement" coverage that goes further: The fact that the government would be under tremendous pressure to keep expanding it every year. No, that looks, to me, like a solution that would be really good, in theory, but I suspect in the real world would turn into Godzilla. And, I'll point out, the folks with the high-deductible plans that Obamacare offers? They have the option of getting better coverage. It just costs more. (For example, I'm paying for a plan with a $1K deductible, that pays 90% after $1K. BUT, I'm a healthy 55 year old who has never needed major medical procedure. In fact, my total health care for the last 10 years has been like 3 routine doctor visits, and an occasional flu shot that I paid for rather than go through the insurance company. And despite my really healthy history, I'm paying $500 a month for that coverage. Probably ought to revise that.)

Now, I can understand the idea of "I used to have no-deductible insurance, provided for free or subsidized prices, from my employer, and now I have to pay for my own insurance". But I don't see how that's an Obamacare problem. (Unless you buy into the notion that employers have been cutting worker's pay and benefits, for years, and let's blame Obamacare for it.)

Apologies for taking so long to get back to this. Been busy. Funny, I could have sworn that you've been on a theme for what seems like at least a month, of attacking Obamacare because it's plans have a deductible. Trying to convince people that the correct way to judge Obamacare isn't the premiums, but to examine the maximum amount that people might spend. (Without mentioning the maximum amount that someone might spend, without Obamacare.) At least implying that this maximum amount is the amount that every person will spend, or that at least, it's typical. But my question (which you still haven't answered) was a specific response to this post: Looks a lot to me like a claim that the average person under Obamacare will be paying this deductible, and that it will be a heavy burden on every one of them. And all I'm trying to do, is to get you to actually try talking about this hypothetical average person under Obamacare, and to contrast your opinion about what his position will be, under Obamacare, against some other scenario without Obamacare. (As opposed to talking about how terrible things will be, under Obamacare, and contrasting it against nothing.) This hypothetical "average person under Obamacare", who's going to be crushed under his high deductible. What's his burden going to be, without Obamacare? What's his better alternative?

Wouldn't want redundancy in the system, or anything.

Actually, answering my question is appropriate. Can you intentionally create a hypothetical in which these high out of pocket expenses, which you keep insisting are caused by Obamacare, and will be typical, are actually caused by Obamacare? One artificially constructed case in which someone pays thousands of dollars of medical costs, which he wouldn't have had to pay, before Obamacare?

Ok, then. Let's talk about these claims. (I'm on the iPad, so it's tough to quote. I'll use quotation marks.) "For the average person under Obamacare, High Deductibles and out of pocket expenses will not be tax deductible and will be a heavy burden on all of the lucky people who get to be insured." Let's start with a simple one: this claim of "under Obamacare, High Deductibles and out of pocket expenses". Can you create an imaginary person. Create any cherry picked scenario you want. (Just specify exactly which cherries you're picking). And tell us, 1). What his medical expenses will be, with Obamacare. 2). What his medical expenses will be, without Obamacare. An apples to apples comparison. Tell us about these high expenses THAT ARE CAUSED BY OBAMACARE. But, compare those high expenses against what that identical person would gave paid, without Obamacare. (Tell us what "without Obamacare" situation this person would have had).

Read them before I posted. (I do that, you see.) Yes, I'm aware of that. Remember the progression? 1) You make the claim that earlier in the thread, I commented about mom's prescription costs, you responded with "truth and facts", and I "disappeared" (Immediately after announcing that "[You] have posted nothing but facts".) 2) I asked you to support this claim. 3) You respond by quoting a post of mine in which I pointed out that medical expenses are tax deductible. 4) I point out this fact. 5) You respond by pointing out that I mentioned Mom's prescriptions in another post. (Note that, as of now, your claims: Of me posting about Mom's prescription costs, you responding with "truth and facts", and me "disappearing", none have stood up. In fact, it's been pointed out that all three claims are false.) But, let's look at the previous discussion which you've chosen to describe as me posting about mom's prescriptions, you responding with "truth and facts", and me "disappearing". The actual exchange is: 1) You make the claim: [My emphasis] 2) I ask the question: (I intentionally didn't quote you, because I felt it would be less confrontational, and because I feel I've seen the claim made several times, previously, and didn't feel like going back and seeing if several people had made it, or if it was you, making the same claim multiple times.) 3) Your response: (Again, my emphasis.) 4) Again, my response: 5) When I point out that you're moving the goalposts, your response is to make another claim: 6) At which time, I point out that your third claim in the progression is incorrect, too. And in two ways: 7) At which, you then respond that you didn't make that third claim, and proceed to make your fourth, fifth, and sixth: Funny, I see several. Funny, the reason you brought this conversation back up, was your description of is as me bringing up mom's prescriptions, you responding with "truths and facts", and I "disappeared". ---------- But let's drop your attempt to rewrite ancient history, and stick to today. In just the last couple of posts, you've gone from referring to this conversation as: To: Two hours to go from claiming I bailed because my facts supported your claim, to claiming that you made no claim, I asked a question and you answered. A dance and shift routine which you arrived at, probably eight hours and 20 posts after jumping in and attacking me out of the blue with an attempt to claim that I won't criticize the web sites. (After I have already done so, multiple times.) I'm gonna click post, and leave for a while. (Gotta listen to us get embarrassed for at least the first quarter.)

You might, if you look closely, observe that the word "prescriptions" do not appear anywhere within that post. "I bailed out"? Of the next 10 posts, after the one you quoted, 3 are from me, and 6 are from you. "as [my] facts supported [your] claims"? Your claims went from claiming that paying your insurance deductible isn't tax deductible, to claiming that well, they're deductible, but only if they exceed a portion of your income, to saying that nursing home care isn't a health care expense. (Well, that's if you don't pay attention to your claims that my parents are rich, and that they're getting 35% of their money back, which I chose not to challenge because I really don't feel like posting a bunch of irrelevant things that aren't any of your business to begin with, just so I can demonstrate how another one of the things you made up to attack me with, wasn't true, either.) Please, tell me which of your "claims" "my facts supported".

Really? Could you please cite your authority to announce your ability to read my mind? I'm kinda curious. Your posts would appear to suggest otherwise. Rather strongly, in fact. Uh, I'm a bit curious as to this posts in which I discussed the cost of my mom's prescription drug medications. Frankly, I don;t even know the cost of my mom's prescription drug medications. I'd have to grab her tax return off the shelf (or pull it up from the computer) to even find out what it was. I'm also curious as to this mythical conversation in which 1) I said something about the cost of Mom's medications, 2) And you knew more about the price of her medications than I did. So, if you find some place where this conversation took place, could you be so kind as to tell me where you managed to obtain your "truths and facts" of the price of her medications? Thanks. Does . . . . . . count as "next time"? Or does it have to be in a subsequent post?