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

[chipwhich]

Of course, if her plan had been cancelled, or if her rates had gone up, THAT would have been because of Obamacare.

 

Remember, it's not that I oppose Obamacare, it's that I oppose what's happening in the insurance industry.  High Deductible Plans.

What I try to explain to everyone in the thread, you wont like high deductible plans.  Obamacare is a tax to the poor.  We all will suffer for the High Deductible plans.

[skinsmarydu]

We all know that's what you've been trying to explain for 59 pages, chip.  You just haven't done a very good job of it.

Our premiums did not increase.   Neither did our deductible.  Like I have explained, for some folks it's all good.  Quality of care & services covered have increased.  For us.  I try to keep my posts completely anecdotal for that reason...just to let people know some of what's really going on.

[chipwhich]

We all know that's what you've been trying to explain for 59 pages, chip.  You just haven't done a very good job of it.

Our premiums did not increase.   Neither did our deductible.  Like I have explained, for some folks it's all good.  Quality of care & services covered have increased.  For us.  I try to keep my posts completely anecdotal for that reason...just to let people know some of what's really going on.

 

SMD if you would talk about facts instead of emotions you might have some good points.  Most of us will not know what its like to be under Obamacare for 3-5 years.  You don't know now, nor do I.  I do know about health care now.  I don't know why you hate me so much. 

[Larry]

SMD if you would talk about facts instead of emotions you might have some good points.

I don't know why you hate me so much. 

[twa]

We all know that's what you've been trying to explain for 59 pages, chip.  You just haven't done a very good job of it.

Our premiums did not increase.   Neither did our deductible.  Like I have explained, for some folks it's all good.  Quality of care & services covered have increased.  For us.  I try to keep my posts completely anecdotal for that reason...just to let people know some of what's really going on.

 

 

it will be fun to watch when the delays/extensions run out and you get to see what individual policyholders saw this past year

the premium doubled for similar coverage on a ACA plan, access is more restricted

 

 

you don't have a plan thru the exchange do you? 

[Larry]

the premium doubled for similar coverage on a ACA plan, access is more restricted

Suppose it would be silly for me to ask you to support this claim that the average person's premium doubled, for the same coverage?

Since you've been making claims like that for what seems like 5 years, and I've been asking you to support it for five years, and you haven't so much as acted like you read it, yet.

[chipwhich]

Quality of care & services covered have increased.

 

In the words of Larry....

 

Suppose it would be silly for me to ask you to support this claim that the Quality of care & services covered have increased

 

In 3 years when everyone is on a high deductible plan, you'll be thinking....chip was right.

[twa]

Suppose it would be silly for me to ask you to support this claim that the average person's premium doubled, for the same coverage?

Since you've been making claims like that for what seems like 5 years, and I've been asking you to support it for five years, and you haven't so much as acted like you read it, yet.

 

 

there is no average person till ACA delays and exemptions run out....the doubled is for my own plan

 

I have provided info before both on areas where it went down and where it went up....so drop the BS Junior(and you know it cannot be the SAME plan)...

 

but if ya want where she lives

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/georgia-insurance-rates-spike-under-obamacare/

Health insurance rates in Georgia are rising by up to 198 percent under Obamacare, the Georgia Insurance Commissioner said in a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Monday.

[Larry]

In the words of Larry....

 

Suppose it would be silly for me to ask you to support this claim that the Quality of care & services covered have increased

Just pointing out that I believe she was speaking strictly for herself.

(Which, I grant, means that it doesn't mean much.)

but if ya want where she lives

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/georgia-insurance-rates-spike-under-obamacare/

Health insurance rates in Georgia are rising by up to 198 percent under Obamacare, the Georgia Insurance Commissioner said in a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Monday.

And, funny, I don't see the words "for the same coverage" in there.

(and you know it cannot be the SAME plan)...

Actually, it can be.

My premium hasn't changed by one penny.

I had a plan that already met the minimums. (Well, there may have been some things they didn't meet. I have no clue whether my plan covered contraceptives. Before, or now. But, either it met the minimums, or they were so small that BCBS decided to cover it without increasing my premium.)

But I certainly assume that I'm an extreme outlier.

And I also know how easy it is to make bombastic claims, when you're comparing apples and oranges, and throwing in the words "up to".

Edited March 26, 2014 by Larry

[twa]

Actually, it can be.

My premium hasn't changed by one penny.

I had a plan that already met the minimums. (Well, there may have been some things they didn't meet. I have no clue whether my plan covered contraceptives. Before, or now. But, either it met the minimums, or they were so small that BCBS decided to cover it without increasing my premium.)

But I certainly assume that I'm an extreme outlier.

And I also know how easy it is to make bombastic claims, when you're comparing apples and oranges, and throwing in the words "up to".

 

It can be the same with the delay/waiver.....do you happen to know when your policy renewed? (some offered renewal before the deadline and will adjust next year)

there was a major increase here for policies after the deadline

 

There are some that even went down in NY and a couple other states.

 

I await ya'll finding out. 

 

I can only tell you what mine did for similar plans and what the state ins commissioners report for others

[skinsmarydu]

SMD if you would talk about facts instead of emotions you might have some good points.  Most of us will not know what its like to be under Obamacare for 3-5 years.  You don't know now, nor do I.  I do know about health care now.  I don't know why you hate me so much. 

The post you quoted for this was nothing but facts about our experiences now that the ACA is in place, no emotion at all, unless you count my glee at the lack of a drastically oversized bill.

I wasn't talking about what's going to happen 3-5 years from now. What I do know is that our plan, the funds required for it, and the cards we carry did not change this year. (I even called to check & see if we were being issued new cards for the new year, and was told, by Humana, that the old cards were still valid, nothing was changed.)

I don't hate you, chip! As a matter of fact, I've undergone quite the attitude adjustment recently, I haven't touched a drop of alcohol since the week before the Super Bowl. I've made a serious effort at not being emotional or confrontational, and my more recent posts in this thread have been nothing but anecdotal, which as Larry says, doesn't count for much...so I'll take myself out of the thread.

Edited March 27, 2014 by skinsmarydu

[GoSkins0721]

edit to add:

GoSkins, the preventive care actually increases costs according to the GAO and CBO reports.  It turns out hte preventive care increases life spans allowing us to incur more costs over a life time.  Personally, I don't have a problem with the result of living longer, but sadly nothign is free, not even more trips aroudn the sun.

 

That's a good one.

 

Your original point was to berate preventative care practices because those "free" procedures actually cost money. I agree, they do.

 

But I pointed out the costs of the preventative care does not come close to the costs to treat the disease(s) they are preventing (you know, the costs you ****ed about increasing as a result of the cost of preventative care). Now your counter is: "Well, you'll live longer with preventative care practices so it's actually costing us more".

 

Like I said, that's a good one. "Live longer and you cost us all more money". You didn't address my point of saving more money by catching/preventing a disease early. At this point, I don't expect you too.

 

Sounds like those death panels were a good idea after all

[Wrong Direction]

But I pointed out the costs of the preventative care does not come close to the costs to treat the disease(s) they are preventing 

 

A colonoscopy doesn't prevent colon cancer. Mammograms don't prevent breast cancer. I'm in favor of these services, just clarifying that most preventive screens are meant to catch things early rather than actually prevent. 

 

Changing the topic to the reason I came to this thread...

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2014/03/28/how-much-does-obamacare-rip-off-generation-x-we-ran-the-numbers-here-are-the-results/

 

 

How Much Does Obamacare Rip Off Young Adults? We Ran The Numbers. Here Are The Results

 

My AEI colleague Kelly Funderburk and I looked at four states: Arizona, Illinois, Pennsylvania,

and Texas. We then looked at a typical 30-year old at one of six different annual income rackets:

$20,000 in annual income, $25K, $30K, $35K, $40K, and $45K. For each of the four states, we computed how much an Aetna Classic Silver plan would cost the same 30 year old at each of these six income bands. We looked at monthly premiums, deductibles, and out of pocket limits. We chose the Aetna plan because it operated across all of these markets, and represented a median price point among the silver plans.

 

Look at our numbers (laid out in the charts below) and you’ll see why so many Millennials have Obamacare sticker shock. Someone, for example, earning $25K annually in Arizona will pay $2,424 in total monthly premiums for Obamacare (10% of their annual income) and still be stuck with a $4,000 deductible and a $5,200 cap on their out of pocket costs. The same person in Illinois will pay $3,576 in annual premiums, and in low cost Texas $2,460.

 

What about the same 30 year old who now earns $30,000 annually – the average salary for a pre-school teacher according to census data? In Arizona, their annual cost for carrying the Obamacare plan runs $2,772 and their deductible is $5,000. In Illinois, the same person will spend $4,092 for the same health plan, and also have a $5,000 deductible before their full health coverage kicks in.

Even someone earning $20K a year (the average salary for a full-time cashier) and eligible for Obamacare’s rich “cost sharing subsidies” is still going to find coverage pricey. In Pennsylvania, which was the lowest cost of the four states, the annual premium will run $1,620 for a plan that still leaves them with a $600 deductible. In Illinois, that same plan will cost $2,868 annually with the same $600 deductible. Premiums alone will eat up a whopping 14% of their annual income.

 

 

 

More at link.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Wrong Direction

[Wrong Direction]

A Hobby Lobby opinion, of you're interested...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/27/prof-michael-mcconnell-stanford-on-the-hobby-lobby-arguments/%C2'>

 

Cutting through the politicized hype about the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga case (“Corporations have no rights!” “War on Women!”) the Justices during oral argument focused on four serious legal questions, which deserve a serious answer:

 

(1)  Could Hobby Lobby avoid a substantial burden on its religious exercise by dropping health insurance and paying fines of $2,000 per employee?

(2)  Does the government have a compelling interest in protecting the statutory rights of Hobby Lobby’s employees?

(3)  Would a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby give rise to a slippery slope of exemptions from vaccines, minimum wage laws, anti-discrimination laws, and the like?

(4)  Has the government satisfied the least restrictive means test?

 

 

Author's interpretation of answers at the link.

[GoSkins0721]

A colonoscopy doesn't prevent colon cancer. Mammograms don't prevent breast cancer. I'm in favor of these services, just clarifying that most preventive screens are meant to catch things early rather than actually prevent. 

 

 

Go argue with the American Cancer Society (my highlight):

 

"Regular screening can often find colorectal cancer early, when it is most likely to be curable. In many cases, screening can also prevent colorectal cancer altogether. This is because some polyps, or growths, can be found and removed before they have the chance to turn into cancer."

 

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/colonandrectumcancer/detailedguide/colorectal-cancer-detection

[Wrong Direction]

Go argue with the American Cancer Society (my highlight):

 

"Regular screening can often find colorectal cancer early, when it is most likely to be curable. In many cases, screening can also prevent colorectal cancer altogether. This is because some polyps, or growths, can be found and removed before they have the chance to turn into cancer."

 

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/colonandrectumcancer/detailedguide/colorectal-cancer-detection

 

Touche. Some things, like vaccines, are clearly meant as preventive. Others, like smoking cessation, have a theoretical preventive aspect but are treatment. Others, like colorectal cancer screening, can be both. 

 

Also...

 

Another Hobby Lobby article, from the opposite side as the first I sent, for those interested.

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/17/media-guide-to-the-legal-experts-religious-auth/198497%C2'>

[Kilmer17]

No link?

[gbear]

That's a good one.

 

Your original point was to berate preventative care practices because those "free" procedures actually cost money. I agree, they do.

 

But I pointed out the costs of the preventative care does not come close to the costs to treat the disease(s) they are preventing (you know, the costs you ****ed about increasing as a result of the cost of preventative care). Now your counter is: "Well, you'll live longer with preventative care practices so it's actually costing us more".

 

Like I said, that's a good one. "Live longer and you cost us all more money". You didn't address my point of saving more money by catching/preventing a disease early. At this point, I don't expect you too.

 

Sounds like those death panels were a good idea after all

Goskins,

I think you have me painted as one who thinks the AFA is bad.  I don't.  I just see the costs a bit differently nad have different expectations.  Personally, I have been on the single payer bandwagon for quite some time.  I was simply pointing out the studies on whether preventative care/screenings cost or save money on the whole have generally come back saying they cost more.  The longer lifespan with more illnesses to treat as a result of the longer lifespans is what is typically pointed to as the difference between cost saving and costing more over time in the reports.  The fact that there seems to be concensus on the point is why I posted it.  While I am in favor of covering these things, I just recognize successfully treating A means we will treat B at some point.  On a personal level, it's like saying "I hate getting old, but it sure beats the alternative."

[Wrong Direction]

No link?

 

I'm apparently the worst with links. Here are both links...

 

For Hobby Lobby

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/27/prof-michael-mcconnell-stanford-on-the-hobby-lobby-arguments/

 

Against Hobby Lobby

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/17/media-guide-to-the-legal-experts-religious-auth/198497

Edited March 28, 2014 by Wrong Direction

[twa]

 it takes a lot of gall to argue this:

This Unprecedented Religious Exemption Would Unneccesarily Place An Unconstitutional Burden On Employees

Religious Scholars: Exempting Hobby Lobby "Would Shift The Cost Of Accommodating Hobby Lobby's Religious Exercise To Employees Who Do Not Share Its Beliefs." In the amicus brief from law professors with expertise in church-state legal issues, the professors argue that to let these corporations ignore the contraception mandate would unconstitutionally burden employees who do not share their employers' religious beliefs:

media matters link

[Larry]

I assume that their argument is that there are two entities involved in the employer-employee relationship. 

 

One of them has always had a constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion. 

 

One of them had no Constitutional rights whatsoever, until the SC decided to invent them. 

 

(Don't really see that argument flying, in this case.  I think there are others which are much better.  And I'm not even sure that they are good enough.) 

 

(IMO, this is a case of "not a good enough societal interest to justify the mandate.") 

 

(But then, I always thought of this mandate as simply pandering to the women's vote, any way.) 

[NoCalMike]

If we could get rid of Corporate "personhood" first, wouldn't the hobby lobby lawsuit have zero standing in court?  Aren't they arguing that a corporation/"person" can have a religion?

[twa]

One of them had no Constitutional rights whatsoever, until the SC decided to invent them.

Actually they have had Constitutional rights for hundreds of years

Chief Justice Marshall.... "The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men."

[Larry]

If we could get rid of Corporate "personhood" first, wouldn't the hobby lobby lawsuit have zero standing in court? Aren't they arguing that a corporation/"person" can have a religion?

Oh, corporations certainly have the right to sue, for example.

I'm not really sure how much difference it makes, legally, if they're arguing about their "corporate religion", or just the religion of the owner, CEO, or whatever.

[twa]

If we could get rid of Corporate "personhood" first, wouldn't the hobby lobby lawsuit have zero standing in court?  Aren't they arguing that a corporation/"person" can have a religion?

That would be a big if , corporate personhood didn't just appear recently

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Case_law_in_the_United_States

Probably simpler to get rid of the Mandater