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

[chipwhich]

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

 

Ok, we can wait and see on number 1.

Considering nobody has to sign up for the insurance, on Number 2 we can play wait and see.  I know one thing, all the sick people will sign up.

I disagree that it's affordable.

I guess that's why we all view the world differently.

One thing for sure, a lot will be answered a year, 2 years from now as people need to renew and health care companies have records on the health of all these newly insured.

Edited November 5, 2013 by chipwhich

[twa]

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.  

 

I'd prefer making basic healthcare free or reduced cost, as I have suggested many times.

 

Telling me it is complicated ignores the central role ins companies play in ACA....as your 3 things demonstrate.

 

instead of addressing the problem we are simply complicating it more.

[nonniey]

Examiner "Obamacare is junk insurance

....

Now embarrassed by his oft-repeated and false promise that “if you like your health plan you can keep it,” Obama has retreated to a new line of defense: Your old health plan had to be canceled because it was “junk.”

There are two problems with this new argument. The first is admittedly anecdotal: Where are the cancellation victims who now stand to pay less for more insurance – or even just the same amount for a better plan?

Yet there is no shortage of people who are finding they will now pay more for less coverage under Obamacare – higher deductibles, smaller provider networks, significantly higher premiums – and end up with little more than free birth control to show for it.

That's the second and more convincing reason to disbelieve the White House's new defense. If these millions of cancelled plans are “junk,” then why are so many of the Obamacare substitutes so vastly inferior and more expensive?

Obamacare is making Robert Laszewski, a respected health insurance expert, lose his top-notch insurance plan, with which he “can access every provider in the national Blue Cross network ... without higher deductibles and co-pays ... Wellness benefits are without a deductible. It covers mental health, drugs, maternity, anything I can think of.”

Obamacare offers Laszewski a plan that costs 66 percent more each month, severely restricts his doctor network, and carries a deductible $500 higher than his old plan. So tell me – which plan is “junk?”

 

Such stories abound. At the Daily Beast, David Frum describes in greater detail what he had earlier summed up in one tweet.

“I already had a high-deductible plan,” he wrote. “Now I can buy a plan with double the deductible for only $200 a month more.” (My own experience shopping the D.C. exchange produced results similar to Frum's.)......

Washingtonian contributing editor Art Levine, an Obamacare supporter, wrote at the Huffington Post that he's losing his relatively expensive ($530 per month premium) but comprehensive plan.    A comparable Obamacare plan will cost him twice as much. “The spin being offered now is that the plans being canceled by and large don't cover mental health or reasonably-priced medications or maternity care,” he writes. “ But that's simply not true, as my plan's benefits indicate.”

 

...

[Larry]

Telling me it is complicated ignores the central role ins companies play in ACA....as your 3 things demonstrate.

 

You're right.  They should have gone with single payer, completely government-paid health care. 

 

Bet that would have been much easier to pass. 

[Larry]

Yet there is no shortage of people who are finding they will now pay more for less coverage under Obamacare – higher deductibles, smaller provider networks, significantly higher premiums – and end up with little more than free birth control to show for it.

 

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.)

Edited November 5, 2013 by Larry

[nonniey]

 

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. 

 

----------

 

 

 My money would be on #1 (Birth Control? Maternity leave etc.).

Edited November 5, 2013 by nonniey

[Gallen5862]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...e-healthcareg/

Cover Oregon website may be ever worse than HealthCare.gov: report


A report from Kaiser Health News suggests Cover Oregon’s website might be even worse than the much-maligned federal Obamacare site, as it’s failed to enroll a single person and has workers sifting through paper applications to determine applicants’ eligibility for benefits.

The Pacific Northwest state launched a glossy website and folksy ads to attract people to the site ahead of Oct. 1, but glitches have foiled their efforts even as state-run exchanges in places like Kentucky tout their successes.

Oregon’s troubles prompt instant comparisons to HealthCare.gov, the federal site that is supposed to process requests for coverage from 36 states but has been plagued by Web hiccups and may not work for the “vast majority” of users until the end of the month, according to the Obama administration.

Oregon residents seeking insurance are downloading paper applications off the website or letting someone walk them through the process, according to Kaiser Health News.

[Larry]

 My money would be on #1 (Birth Control? Maternity leave etc.).

 

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. 

[twa]

You're right.  They should have gone with single payer, completely government-paid health care. 

 

Bet that would have been much easier to pass. 

 

If you can't pass something that makes things better why pass crap that makes it worse?

 

rates are rising because of mandated anticipated expenses and compliance costs

[Wrong Direction]

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. 

 

It's more mandates, across the board (not just on coverage for women, but that's the biggest piece). It's subsidizing relatively much older people. It's subsidizing relatively much sicker people.

 

One thing not discussed is the effect of uncertainty associated with case mix. Many were assuming that premiums would be much lower in the first year than is sustainable in order to achieve high enrollment. However, an actuary could have looked at this unknown marketplace and done just the opposite: charge higher prices because of the risk associated with older people with pre-existing conditions.

 

I keep hearing that premiums are lower this year than they will be in the future regardless of whether the website worked. I don't know the extent to which that's true though. Companies factor risk into pricing and it's possible that part of the big hike this year is attributable to financial unknowns.

 

Just a theory.

[Larry]

It's more mandates, across the board (not just on coverage for women, but that's the biggest piece). It's subsidizing relatively much older people. It's subsidizing relatively much sicker people.

I can understand that, a little. But I also see counters to that, as well.

Let's take a really extreme example: Assume that Obamacare mandated that everybody in the country form one, single, insurance pool. Insurance companies are now no longer allowed to consider race, gender, age, previous health history, anything. One price, for everybody who walks up to the window.

Assume that the universe remains static. (It won't, but it makes the math simpler.)

I would say that in that case, the average health insurance premium ought to change by . . . zero.

In such a scenario, the total amount of money paid out for benefits remains exactly the same as it was before. So, the total amount collected in premiums should remain the same. Same total as before, divided by the same number of people as before, equals same average.

Now, some people will see their premiums change, by a lot. But the average would remain exactly the same. (Given the false assumption of static modeling.)

----------

That's why I don't "get" the concept that mandating equal premiums for men and women supposedly driving rates up. At least if you assume static modeling, the total amounts paid out remains the same, so the total premiums should, too.

 

One thing not discussed is the effect of uncertainty associated with case mix. Many were assuming that premiums would be much lower in the first year than is sustainable in order to achieve high enrollment. However, an actuary could have looked at this unknown marketplace and done just the opposite: charge higher prices because of the risk associated with older people with pre-existing conditions.

Now that, I can certainly see.

I certainly assume that the people who set the rates for new policies are a ultra-conservative lot. (I know I would be, if I were in that job.)

I'm not going to get fired if I set the premiums for these new plans too high. (Might get rewarded, in fact.) But if I set them too low, it's a disaster. I might never work in the industry again.

I could certainly visualize a case where the insurance industry simply doesn't know how things like the "no pre-existing conditions" rule is going to affect people purchasing decisions, and their subsequent need for payouts. I certainly have to consider the possibility that the sickest part of the population will be signing up for the plans with the most coverage, and then going to the doctor a lot more than they used to, because hey, they've got cheap coverage, now.

I have no trouble believing that there's a big streak of "let's play it safe, to start with, till we see how this shakes out" involved, here.

[Wrong Direction]

That's why I don't "get" the concept that mandating equal premiums for men and women supposedly driving rates up. At least if you assume static modeling, the total amounts paid out remains the same, so the total premiums should, too.

...

I'm not going to get fired if I set the premiums for these new plans too high. (Might get rewarded, in fact.) But if I set them too low, it's a disaster. I might never work in the industry again.

 

 

On the first point, the mandates aren't just for equal premiums, they're to cover things that aren't always covered in other plans. You're not just paying for 100% of birth control, you're paying for all of catastrophic care with zero cost incentive for consumers to "shop" after they hit that out of pocket threshold. You're paying for more drugs, etc., too.

 

On the second point, sure you might get fired if you set premiums too high. It's all about plan enrollment. If nobody enrolls, the plan doesn't make any money, and likely loses money. That's what I was referring to when I said low premiums to drive enrollment. That's not a government decision. It's a plan strategy to get members in year 1 and then bet that they won't switch as you raise premiums incrementally moving forward.

[chipwhich]

 

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 am always amused by your oversimplification to issues like this.  Yes Obamacare mandates coverage, but it mandates coverage that some people don't need or want.  Like birth control.  So if I am a retired lady in New Mexico, I now have to pay extra for birth control even though I will never use it.  That's a great mandate.

In addition, if I have a "junk" policy, and I am happy with my "junk" I am now mandated to get rid of the old pinto and step into a new ford focus.  Problem is I don't need the focus, my pinto ran just fine.  To which the argument becomes, well your pinto wouldn't protect you in a catastrophic crash which would cost Americans money.  Well, the ACA really doesn't force me to have insurance.  So I can opt out of the ford focus, and just go with "junk" I will pay for my doctors visits, the ACA fine, and just go uninsured.  If a catastrophe happens, oh well.  Someone else still pays.

 

 

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.

 

Correct, read above.

 

 

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.)

 

The reason insurance companies are concerned about men is, while they don't use insurance as much as women which sounds great, the problem is they don't get diagnosed with major issues in time to correct them, because....men don't use insurance as much as women.  Which leads to expensive costs due to not having any preventative care.  Insurance companies are more interested than ever in preventative care.

 

 

3)  Somebody is making a corporate decision for one reason or another, to cancel a policy, using Obamacare as cover for their decision.

 

Yet another reason Obamacare as written is a fail.

 

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.)

 

 

Your assumption is genius, if insurance costs more it's because they expect to pay more.

 

This is why high deductible plans are becoming more and more the way to go.

 

So then your argument is, well Obamacare didn't create high deductible plans.

 

Then your argument is well if it's good enough for the already insured then it's good enough for everyone else.  Problem is everyone else getting introduced to these  high deductible plans hate it.  Find them worthless.

 

Obamacare is going to expedite the high deductible policies.  In the end everyone ends up losers.

 

You asked the question about it....Medicare is looking much more attractive at this point.  That is if you can find doctors you want who will accept it.  Might find that harder and harder with the new ACA.  We will see.

 

If I were to stand up Chip Health Care I would charge the lowest premiums, with as big of a deductible as possible.  I would hope to sign up everyone who doesn't need health care and just have a steady cash flow of low premiums.

 

Health care has always been like buying a car, you buy the options you need and opt out of options you don't.  Now the mandate forces you to buy stuff you don't need.  Kind of like cruise control in a car, or automatic wipers, or cd player.  You don't get the option to just buy the stripped down pinto anymore....unless you just choose to pay the fine and go uninsured.

How great is that?

[twa]

kinda interesting, and will certainly be challenged in court

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/us/politics/federal-health-law-may-not-be-a-federal-health-care-program.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&ref=politics

 

WASHINGTON — The Affordable Care Act is the biggest new health care program in decades, but the Obama administration has ruled that neither the federal insurance exchange nor the federal subsidies paid to insurance companies on behalf of low-income people are “federal health care programs.”

Contribute to Our Reporting

The Times would like to hear from Americans who have begun to sign up for health care under the Affordable Care Act.

• Share Your Experience »

The surprise decision, disclosed last week, exempts subsidized health insurance from a law that bans rebates, kickbacks, bribes and certain other financial arrangements in federal health programs, stripping law enforcement of a powerful tool used to fight fraud in other health care programs, like Medicare.

The main purpose of the anti-kickback law, as described by federal courts in scores of Medicare cases, is to protect patients and taxpayers against the undue influence of money on medical decisions.

Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, disclosed her interpretation of the law in a letter to Representative Jim McDermott, Democrat of Washington, who had asked her views. She did not explain the legal rationale for her decision, which followed a spirited debate within the administration.

Under the Affordable Care Act, millions of people will be able to buy insurance from “qualified health plans” offered on exchanges, or marketplaces, run by the federal government and by some states.

Most of the buyers are expected to be eligible for subsidies to make insurance more affordable. The subsidies, paid directly to insurers from the United States Treasury, start in January and are expected to total more than $1 trillion over 10 years.

Ms. Sebelius said the Health and Human Services Department “does not consider” the subsidies to be federal health care programs. She reached the same conclusion with respect to federal and state exchanges, built with federal money, and with respect to “federally funded consumer assistance programs,” including the counselors, known as navigators, who help people shop for insurance and enroll in coverage through the exchanges.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

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

 

ACA hasn't fixed any of that.

 

It was the intent of the ACA, but you're right the jury is at best "out" on these issues for the ACA.

 

But once again, I'm all ears.  What's the answer, or the attempted answer, that you and others propose in lieu of the ACA?  Try answering my question instead of proposing a new one.  Please.

I'd prefer making basic healthcare free or reduced cost, as I have suggested many times.

 

 

 

HOW?  I want to know how you make healthcare free or cheaper.  Do you tell hospitals and doctors they cannot charge over a certain amount?  Do you dictate the cost of healthcare somehow?

 

Tell me how you propose to implement the goal of making healthcare free or cheaper.

If you can't pass something that makes things better why pass crap that makes it worse?

 

rates are rising because of mandated anticipated expenses and compliance costs

 

That second sentence is complete and utter conjecture.

 

Healthcare costs have risen dramatically faster than inflation over the last decade plus, and now you want to blame the ACA for this.

 

By the way, my healthcare has not changed AT ALL since October 1.  I paid for an actual healthcare plan.

[Bliz]

[daveakl]

Just wanted to give a quick update on where our family is here in NC.

 

This is where we were at the start of October: "We got our bcbs letter yesterday. Our monthly payment (family of 5) is going up 40%. I own my own business, wife is a prn physical therapist. Three kids so we need more then just catastrophic care but not the super gold premium plan. Dont qualify for any subsidies. Not super excited to be paying $4200 more per year."

 

Yesterday we were able to get into the exchange and see our options.  Not good

 

The BCBS offering that only costs us around $1000 per month (give or take $20 depending on the group deductible and co-pay) is not accepted by my wife's OBGYN.  This is a big deal to us since we are having our 4th kid in January and she has had many issues to the point she was told she would most likely never have kids, granted that was before my super sperm was part of the equation. lol  

 

Since we really would like to stay with him we have to use a different BCBS plan that will cost us around $1200 per month.  The reason he is not taking the BCBS value plan is that the reimbursement rate sucks for the DR's side.  As it turns out there is only 1 OBGYN in our area (Cary NC) that is taking that value line of plans so even if we were to go that route that DR is going to be slammed!!

 

So right now here is what I know about ACA:

 

End of Sept we find out our current BCBS plan is going away and the new plan is going up from the  $800 range to $1200 range.

Start of Oct we try to log into the exchange

Start of Nov we are able to log into the exchange

Once in exchange we find out that all the plans that we could/need are $200-$400 more then our old plan.

The $200 range plans our DR's do not take any very few in our area are accepting them currently.

 

Summary: We are having to change our plan to get the exact same coverage we had before.  Same deductible, DR's, etc, but with a cost of ~ $4200 per year more.  If we want a different plan that costs only ~ $2400 per year more we have a higher deductible and have to change DR's.

 

We do not qualify for any tax credits or subsidies and with 3 (4th on the way) kids we can't really use one of the catastrophic only plans.

Edited November 6, 2013 by daveakl

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Just wanted to give a quick update on where our family is here in NC.

 

This is where we were at the start of October: "We got our bcbs letter yesterday. Our monthly payment (family of 5) is going up 40%. I own my own business, wife is a prn physical therapist. Three kids so we need more then just catastrophic care but not the super gold premium plan. Dont qualify for any subsidies. Not super excited to be paying $4200 more per year."

 

Yesterday we were able to get into the exchange and see our options.  Not good

 

The BCBS offering that only costs us around $1000 per month (give or take $20 depending on the group deductible and co-pay) is not accepted by my wife's OBGYN.  This is a big deal to us since we are having our 4th kid in January and she has had many issues to the point she was told she would most likely never have kids, granted that was before my super sperm was part of the equation. lol  

 

Since we really would like to stay with him we have to use a different BCBS plan that will cost us around $1200 per month.  The reason he is not taking the BCBS value plan is that the reimbursement rate sucks for the DR's side.  As it turns out there is only 1 OBGYN in our area (Cary NC) that is taking that value line of plans so even if we were to go that route that DR is going to be slammed!!

 

So right now here is what I know about ACA:

 

End of Sept we find out our current BCBS plan is going from $800 range to $1200 range.

Start of Oct we try to log into the exchange

Start of Nov we are able to log into the exchange

Once in exchange we find out that all the plans that we could/need are $200-$400 more then our old plan.

The $200 range plans our DR's do not take any very few in our area are accepting them currently.

 

Summary: We are having to change our plan to get the exact same coverage we had before.  Same deductible, DR's, etc, but with a cost of ~ $4200 per year more.  If we want a different plan that costs only ~ $2400 per year more we have a higher deductible and have to change DR's.

 

We do not qualify for any tax credits or subsidies and with 3 (4th on the way) kids we can't really use one of the catastrophic only plans.

 

Why do you blame the bold section on the ACA?  Health insurance premiums were skyrocketing on a yearly basis BEFORE ACA.  

[daveakl]

Why do you blame the bold section on the ACA?  Health insurance premiums were skyrocketing on a yearly basis BEFORE ACA.  

 

I should have made that portion more clear.  Our current plan was being removed due to not being compliant with the ACA guidelines.  The plan that matched up with the new ACA requirements and most closely fit our previous plan was the ~$1200 per month plan.

 

Sorry, I def. did not do a good job of making that clear earlier.

[martytheman]

Why do you blame the bold section on the ACA?  Health insurance premiums were skyrocketing on a yearly basis BEFORE ACA.  

 

not everyone's rates were "skyrocketing"

they sure as **** are now though.

 

but that's a nice justification though. well rates were going up anyway, them going up $1000-2000 per year MORE doesn't matter!

[chipwhich]

But once again, I'm all ears.  What's the answer, or the attempted answer, that you and others propose in lieu of the ACA?  Try answering my question instead of proposing a new one.  Please.

 

I don't have the answer.  You pose this like I can't point out whats wrong with Obamacare without having an answer.  Just doing something for the sake of doing something isn't the answer either, knowing that's your next response.

[deejaydana]

Good piece about Obama's whopper lie and an equally fitting picture at the top:

http://www.investors.com/andrew-malcolm

 

Nice try. Americans don't always pay attention to politics. Who can blame them? And, actually, that's what Obama has successfully counted on, that his live-streamed snippets of falsehoods blared by a largely complicit media would trump critics' negative natterings.

But the broken promises, false claims and tortured truths have reached a critical mass now. Bludgeoned by Benghazi, IRS revelations, FBI probes, NSA disclosures, Fast and Furious, Solyndra, Syria's slips and now ObamaCare's sticker shock and outright whoppers, more Americans detect the odor of betrayal, however reluctantly. Gallup reported Tuesday that for the first time Obama's daily job approval sank below 40%.

Link to full article>>>>  http://www.investors.com/andrew-malcolm

[deejaydana]

Not a half bad article. Is Obama more secretive and dirtier than Nixon? Don't we deserve better?

 

The question is, how much dishonesty from a president is tolerable? How can a dishonest president lead a nation? The truth is, if the president were not immune from such things, the American people could file a class-action suit on grounds that they were sold a product under false pretenses. In the private sector, we call that fraud.

 

To sum up, the American people were duped; the administration did not misspeak, as the New York Times editorialized. The administration knowingly misled with a false promise and a deliberate omission. Worse, it did so for your own good because you might be confused by the truth. Call it what you will.

 

 

Link >>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-the-sin-of-omission-in-obamacare/2013/11/05/ad45eb2e-464a-11e3-bf0c-cebf37c6f484_story.html

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I don't have the answer.  You pose this like I can't point out whats wrong with Obamacare without having an answer.  Just doing something for the sake of doing something isn't the answer either, knowing that's your next response.

 

Well, you really can't.  This country has a problem.  Its called "healthcare."  You can point out problems, but if you don't have any solutions, then you are just part of the problem.

 

not everyone's rates were "skyrocketing"

they sure as **** are now though.

 

but that's a nice justification though. well rates were going up anyway, them going up $1000-2000 per year MORE doesn't matter!

 

On average, everyone's rates were skyrocketing.  And no, not "everyone's" are now, just like not everyone's were before ACA.  My rates did not change at all.  

 

The point is that it is very hard to compare apples to apples in this analysis.  It is almost, by definition, apples to oranges.

 

I should have made that portion more clear.  Our current plan was being removed due to not being compliant with the ACA guidelines.  The plan that matched up with the new ACA requirements and most closely fit our previous plan was the ~$1200 per month plan.

 

Sorry, I def. did not do a good job of making that clear earlier.

 

Again, this doesn't mean that that ACA made that plan get more expensive.  Without the ACA, your previous plan's rates could have made the same increase.

 

We don't know, but you are jumping to a conclusion that is speculation.  And I'm not blaming you for that.  This is what everyone does with healthcare.  But healthcare is very difficult to assess.  It is not like buying a Coke.  The prices for a Coke one year, are more predictable the next.

 

I'll say two more things about this in general:

 

1.  The whole point to the exchanges is to create a market place.  If you are a conservative, and/or a free marketer, you should believe that this free market will deliver the best rates possible to you.

2.  Looking at the premiums alone is not sufficient under the ACA.  Just comparing rates, even of comparable plans, is not sufficient.  The ACA contains mechanisms in it to account for plans that overcharge for premiums.  I believe that if 85% of premium intake is not spent on healthcare by an insurance company, they have to reimbursed the insured, for example.  There is a lot more to the ACA then just lining up plans and saying my plan is better or worse.

 

I'm sorry, but no one has the answer to whether this is law has helped or hurt after one month of implementation.

[chipwhich]

Well, you really can't.  This country has a problem.  Its called "healthcare."  You can point out problems, but if you don't have any solutions, then you are just part of the problem.

 

You don't have a solution, nor does the ACA.

So yeah the country has a problem.  Try stating a solution if thats the game you choose to play.