Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[Jumbo]

You're welcome. And I know it was worthless. I wanted it to fit in with the other posts in the thread. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gallen5862]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/for-consumers-whose-health-premiums-will-go-up-under-new-law-sticker-shock-leads-to-anger/2013/1

 

For consumers whose health premiums will go up under new law, sticker shock leads to anger  

 

David Prestin, 48, who operates a gas station and diner at a truck stop in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, was unhappy to learn recently that his premiums are slated to rise from $923 to $1,283 next year under Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. The insurer said it needed to add maternity care to comply with the Affordable Care Act.

The issue of maternity coverage is a sensitive one for Prestin and his wife, Kathie. They had one child seven years ago, but after she had five miscarriages, they discovered she had an immune issue that prevented her from successfully completing a pregnancy.

At the same time, Prestin said, the new plan would reduce coverage for things he and Kathie need, such as free annual checkups.

The Prestins explored HealthCare.gov. They are not eligible for subsidies, but they found a cheaper plan than the one being offered by their insurer. However, there was another problem: It would have required the couple to switch from the doctors they have seen for more than 16 years and travel more than 100 miles from their home to the nearest major hospital center for treatment — in Green Bay, Wis.

“I pay my taxes. I’m assistant chief of the volunteer fire department here in Cedar River and a first responder for Mid-County Rescue,” Prestin said. “You try to be personally accountable and play by the rules, but the more you play by the rules, the more you get beat up on.”

 

Edited November 4, 2013 by Gallen5862

[Wrong Direction]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/04/49-state-analysis-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/

 

 

49-State Analysis: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Premiums By Average Of 41%

 

...

In the average state, Obamacare will increase underlying premiums by 41 percent. As we have long expected, the steepest hikes will be imposed on the healthy, the young, and the male. And Obamacare’s taxpayer-funded subsidies will primarily benefit those nearing retirement...

...

Today’s release, with the third iteration of the map, contains both premium and subsidy data for every state except Hawaii. (Believe it or not, we’ve had success mining data from every exchange website but Hawaii’s.) This nearly-complete analysis finds that the average state will face underlying premium increases of 41 percent. Men will face the steepest increases: 77, 37, and 47 percent for 27-year-olds, 40-year-olds, and 64-year-olds, respectively. Women will also face increases, but to a lesser degree: 18%, 28%, and 37% for 27-, 40-, and 64-year-olds.

...

Eight states will enjoy average premium reductions under Obamacare: New York (-40%), Colorado (-22%), Ohio (-21%), Massachusetts (-20%), New Jersey (-19%), New Hampshire (-18%), Rhode Island (-10%), and Indiana (-3%). Most, but not all, of these states had heavily-regulated individual insurance markets prior to Obamacare, and will therefore benefit from Obamacare’s subsidies, and especially its requirement that everyone purchase health insurance or pay a fine.

...

The eight states that will face the biggest increases in underlying premiums are largely southern and western states: Nevada (+179%), New Mexico (+142%), Arkansas (+138%), North Carolina (+136%), Vermont (+117%), Georgia (+92%), South Dakota (+77%), and Nebraska (+74%).

If you’re interested in more details about our methodology, you can find them here.

...

The key thing to understand about our before-and-after comparison is that it is an average. If you’re healthy today, you will face steeper rate increases than these figures indicate. If you have a serious medical condition, however, and haven’t been able to find affordable health coverage as a result, you will do much better under Obamacare than the average person. Men will face steeper increases than women in most states, because women consume more health care than men do, and Obamacare forbids insurers to charge different prices on the basis of gender.
 

In addition, our comparison ignores other differences between pre-Obamacare and post-Obamacare plans. For example, in some cases, people looking for comparably-priced coverage on the exchanges will need to accept higher deductibles and other cost-sharing arrangements.
 

Importantly, post-Obamacare exchange plans will typically have narrow networks of physicians and hospitals, especially excluding those tied to prestigious medical schools.

...

And when I say young people, I particularly mean young men. A young woman of average income in the average state will experience little net change in premium costs, if you take subsidies into account; 40-year-old women will see an average increase of 9 percent, and 27-year-old women will see an average decrease of 5 percent. (However, as I noted above, women in good health will see meaningfully higher increases than these averages reflect.)
 

Let’s take the two extremes. If you’re a 27-year-old man, your average premium under our methodology, pre-Obamacare, is $133 a month. Post-Obamacare, that increases to $201. If you add in the subsidies that accrue to someone with the median income of a 27-year-old man, the net cost of Obamacare insurance goes down slightly to $188. That’s a 41 percent increase, despite the impact of subsidies.
 

If you’re a 64-year-old woman, on the other hand, your average pre-Obamacare premium was $430 a month. Post-Obamacare, the underlying premium increases to $545 a month. But when you factor in subsidies for the average 64-year-old woman, the net cost of Obamacare insurance drops to $292. That’s a 32 percent decrease, inclusive of subsidies, from pre-Obamacare premiums, and a 46 percent discount off of post-Obamacare prices.

The irony is that, in 2012, younger voters overwhelmingly supported President Obama, while older voters backed Mitt Romney. Obamacare, in the average state, is a massive transfer of wealth from the young to the old.

...
But there is a best-case scenario, especially from the standpoint of the law’s supporters. It’s that the exchanges eventually get fixed, and turn out to be popular, even among the young men—the “bros”—who bear the steepest costs under the new system. If they do, not only will Obamacare be here to stay, but the law could end up evolving into an effective replacement for our older, single-payer health-care entitlements, Medicare and Medicaid.

 

 

 

 

Note, the methodology is all at the site. I haven't reviewed, but it's there to see.

[chipwhich]

Not sure the reliability of this site or the data, if true it is hilarious.  Shows why I don't want our Government running health care.

 

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/million-lines-of-code/

[Tulane Skins Fan]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/04/49-state-analysis-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note, the methodology is all at the site. I haven't reviewed, but it's there to see.

 

Tweak it.

[Gallen5862]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/11/04/gop-lawmaker-proposes-keep-your-health-plan-bill/

 

GOP lawmaker proposes ‘Keep Your Health Plan’ bill

A top House Republican has proposed legislation that would allow the continued use of health plans that existed before January 2013, regardless of whether the coverage meets Affordable Care Act standards.
The move comes as a growing number of Americans are complaining about losing their insurance or facing higher premiums because of “Obamacare,” in addition to ongoing troubles with the online health exchange where individuals can purchase new coverage.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) introduced the bill, which would extend the date for plans that are “grandfathered,” or not required to follow the stricter guidelines under President Obama’s signature health-care legislation.

[TheGoodBits]

Ive often wondered lately if Gallen is actually a robot. I've never seen a post that's not just an article link and excerpt.

[Gallen5862]

I am a real person lol.I have been a Redskins fan my whole life. The first Super Bowl I remember was Superbowl VII. 

[TheGoodBits]

I am a real person lol.I have been a Redskins fan my whole life. The first Super Bowl I remember was Superbowl VII.

He responds! Haha

[Duckus]

This is classic.

On October 28th CBS ran a story called "Policy cancellations, higher premiums add to frustration over Obamacare."

The story features a woman whose claimed her premium went rates went up. CBS ran with it and made it a national story.

Well, turns out the woman had  junk insurance policy.

 

Both Consumer Reports and Washington Post destroyed the report.
 

"Sounds terrible—except that Barrette’s expiring policy is a textbook example of a junk plan that isn’t real health insurance at all. If she had ever tried to use it for anything more than an occasional doctor visit or inexpensive prescription, she would have ended up with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical debt."

 

 

Now the same woman has come out and called ACA a potential blessing in disguise.

 

Because can't be sure until she sees the numbers for herself. And so far she hasn't been able to do so, thanks to the technological problems at healthcare.gov. But as she’s become more aware of her options, she said, she’s no longer aghast at losing her plan—and curious to see what alternatives are available. "Maybe," she told me, "it’s a blessing in disguise."

 

Response from CBS? Nothing. 

Edited November 4, 2013 by Duckus

[chipwhich]

 

This is classic.

On October 28th CBS ran a story called "Policy cancellations, higher premiums add to frustration over Obamacare."

The story features a woman whose claimed her premium went rates went up. CBS ran with it and made it a national story.

Well, turns out the woman had  junk insurance policy.

 

Both Consumer Reports and Washington Post destroyed the report.

 

 

Now the same woman has come out and called ACA a potential blessing in disguise.

 

Response from CBS? Nothing. 

 

 

It's not classic, it's sad.

And the Government expects people to pick out policies in the exchanges.

The woman in Florida who apparently never needed her junk plan will not get to pay more for catastrophe insurance and still not have coverage until she spends $4,600.

While I know insurance is a good thing, I will keep beating the drum.   What Americans want is coverage, and they aren't getting that.

[Larry]

It's not classic, it's sad.

And the Government expects people to pick out policies in the exchanges.

The woman in Florida who apparently never needed her junk plan will not get to pay more for catastrophe insurance and still not have coverage until she spends $4,600.

While I know insurance is a good thing, I will keep beating the drum. What Americans want is coverage, and they aren't getting that.

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?

[chipwhich]

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.

 

Larry, from the same pile of "paid" for programs that you like to tout all the time?

You miss the entire point of EVERYTHING with your partisan snipes.

Americans will struggle to pay for Obamacare, that's the point.  They get a big fat tax and not the coverage they deserve.

 

But your partisanship blinds you to this, plus you get to sit in the top 5% and not really care.

And your assumption is correct.  plans cost more (for the consumer), is because they cost more (for the insurance companies).  I mean is that really an assumption? 

 

Obama just taxed the middle class and below with a doozie, and the libs are atop the mountains singing his praise.  It's going to be fun to watch this collapse.

[Larry]

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.

----------

Larry, from the same pile of "paid" for programs that you like to tout all the time?

You miss the entire point of EVERYTHING with your partisan snipes.

Americans will struggle to pay for Obamacare, that's the point. They get a big fat tax and not the coverage they deserve.

But your partisanship blinds you to this, plus you get to sit in the top 5% and not really care.

And your assumption is correct. plans cost more (for the consumer), is because they cost more (for the insurance companies). I mean is that really an assumption?

Obama just taxed the middle class and below with a doozie, and the libs are atop the mountains singing his praise. It's going to be fun to watch this collapse.

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?

Edited November 5, 2013 by Larry

[chipwhich]

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?

 

Yeah you could get those plans now.  Obama could have simply passed a low removing pre existing conditions, throw in the Obamacare tax break, and a requirement to have insurance, and we could have spent a hell of a lot less than was spent so far on insurance.

Those prices people are being quoted could be had already in the open market.

 

As far as "junk insurance" the plan she had was as advertised by blue cross blue shield.  It was a limited coverage plan.  Now we get the Americans who can't figure something that simple out, trying to understand what these free market plans offer.

[Larry]

Yeah you could get those plans now. Obama could have simply passed a low removing pre existing conditions, throw in the Obamacare tax break, and a requirement to have insurance, and we could have spent a hell of a lot less than was spent so far on insurance.

Those prices people are being quoted could be had already in the open market.

As far as "junk insurance" the plan she had was as advertised by blue cross blue shield. It was a limited coverage plan. Now we get the Americans who can't figure something that simple out, trying to understand what these free market plans offer.

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. . . "?

[chipwhich]

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. . . "?

 

Larry, I don't have to use it, I am exempt.  It's a tax on the middle and lower class.  I hope people that want it get what they wanted.  Of course now they are finding out they have no idea what they are getting.

Talk to me in a year.  Let's see how public reaction plays out.  People might have preferred not getting the insurance. We shall see.

[killerbee99]

Nah, his job is just to **** about Obamacare....ideally, I would love if Obamacare was upgraded or scrapped and replaced with single pay system...that would be awesome in my opinion

[Wrong Direction]

Lol. I just realized how long that "excerpt" I added earlier was. Sorry bout that.

 

Hindsight being 20/20, I sure wish Obama would have set up a catastrophic option (deliberately) and had it available for people to freely choose from if they wish. All of this case mix, death spiral stuff has created a moral hazard whereby the President has forced himself to 1) force people to buy expensive private plans 2) through sites that are not working and then 3) still force the cancellation of policies for millions of people because of rules his political staff wrote despite the fact that their "options" are more expensive and available only through a site that isn't working regardless of whether they were happy with their plan in the first place.  

 

It's terrible. 

 

Then you have Larry pointing out what's probably a legit story as if it's how all private insurance was structured, despite the fact that most insurance was heavily regulated prior to the ACA and a ton of people were quite happy with their plan.

 

It's like the free birth control pills. Obama's solution was a rule for every entity in the space instead of a much smaller solution meant to specifically help the people who need it.

 

It's so complex. The government disruption is so forced. The untruths to get to this point are absolutely blatant.

 

This is classic liberalism. High minded ideals. Over reaching, terrible, execution.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

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

 

 

Special Investigation: How Insurers Are Hiding Obamacare Benefits From Customers

 

Donna received the letter canceling her insurance plan on Sept. 16. Her insurance company, LifeWise of Washington, told her that they'd identified a new plan for her. If she did nothing, she'd be covered.

 

A 56-year-old Seattle resident with a 57-year-old husband and 15-year-old daughter, Donna had been looking forward to the savings that the Affordable Care Act had to offer.

 

But that's not what she found. Instead, she'd be paying an additional $300 a month for coverage. The letter made no mention of the health insurance marketplace that would soon open in Washington, where she could shop for competitive plans, and only an oblique reference to financial help that she might qualify for, if she made the effort to call and find out.

 

Otherwise, she'd be automatically rolled over to a new plan -- and, as the letter said, "If you're happy with this plan, do nothing."If Donna had done nothing, she would have ended up spending about $1,000 more a month for insurance than she will now that she went to the marketplace, picked the best plan for her family and accessed tax credits at the heart of the health care reform law.

 

"The info that we were sent by LifeWise was totally bogus. Why the heck did they try to screw us?" Donna said. "People who are afraid of the ACA should be much more afraid of the insurance companies who will exploit their fear and end up overcharging them."

 

Donna is not alone.

 

Edited November 5, 2013 by BRAVEONAWARPATH

[twa]

I thought ACA WAS the ins companies?

you know, the ones you must by law deal with now 

 

perhaps the govt needs to spend more taxpayer money educating the suckers.

[nonniey]

WSJ

 

".......

We have a huge piece of U.S. economic and social change that debuted a month ago as a program. ...... It was hugely controversial from day one. It took all the political oxygen from the room. It failed to garner even one vote from the opposition when it was passed. It gave rise to a significant opposition movement, the town hall uprisings, which later produced the tea party. It caused unrest. In fact, it seemed not to answer a problem but cause it. I called ObamaCare, at the time of its passage, a catastrophic victory—one won at too great cost, with too much political bloodshed, and at the end what would you get? Barren terrain. A thing not worth fighting for.

So the program debuts and it’s a resounding, famous, fantastical flop. The first weeks of the news coverage are about how the websites don’t work, can you believe we paid for this, do you believe they had more than three years and produced this public joke of a program, this embarrassment?

But now it’s much more serious. No one’s thinking about the websites. They wish you were thinking about the websites! I bet America hopes the websites never work so they never have to enroll.

The problem now is not the delivery system of the program, it’s the program itself. Not the computer screen but what’s inside the program. This is something you can’t get the IT guy in to fix.

They said if you liked your insurance you could keep your insurance—but that’s not true. It was never true! They said if you liked your doctor you could keep your doctor—but that’s not true. It was never true! They said they would cover everyone who needed it, and instead people who had coverage are losing it—millions of them! They said they would make insurance less expensive—but it’s more expensive! Premium shock, deductible shock. They said don’t worry, your health information will be secure, but instead the whole setup looks like a hacker’s holiday. Bad guys are apparently already going for your private information

And now there are reports the insurance companies are taking advantage of the chaos of the program, and its many dislocations, to hike premiums. Meaning the law was written in such a way that insurance companies profit on it.

And—I am limiting things to just today’s news – the New York Times reports that while millions may qualify for enough federal subsidies to pay the entire monthly cost of some health-insurance plans, the zero premiums come with some “serious trade-offs.” What serious trade-offs? Most of these plans, called the bronze policies, “require people to pay the most in out-of-pocket costs, for doctor visit and other benefits like hospital stays.” Huh? I thought the purpose of the law was to help with the cost of doctor visits and hospital stays!...........

ObamaCare is a practical, policy and political disaster, a parlay of poisonous P’s.

And it is unbelievable – simply unbelievable – that the administration is so proud, so childish, so ideological, so ignorant and so uncaring about the bill’s victims that they refuse to stop, delay, go back, redraw and ease the trauma....."

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2013/11/04/obamas-catastrophic-victory/

Edited November 5, 2013 by nonniey

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I thought ACA WAS the ins companies?

you know, the ones you must by law deal with now 

 

perhaps the govt needs to spend more taxpayer money educating the suckers.

 

Then you were wrong.  The ACA was a very complicated attempt to fix a very complicated problem.  It involved insurance companies, expanded Medicaid, and government assistance for private insurance.

 

Look man, if you want to convince everyone that the ACA is terrible and Obama is the worst thing since unsliced bread, try to fix these problems:

 

1. Rising healthcare costs

2. Uninsured individuals driving up those costs for the insured

3. People who want coverage unable to afford coverage

 

If you want to make insurance free, I'm all for it too.  

 

Please, tell me a solution as I'm all ears.  

[chipwhich]

1. Rising healthcare costs

2. Uninsured individuals driving up those costs for the insured

3. People who want coverage unable to afford coverage

 

You write this like the ACA has answered the mail on any of these topics?

 

ACA hasn't fixed any of that.

[TheGoodBits]

You write this like the ACA has answered the mail on any of these topics?

ACA hasn't fixed any of that.

The first one is TBD but the ACA certainly addresses the second two points.