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

[chipwhich]

something I haven't heard of...are other states requiring proof of credit scores?

 

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/credit-scores-impacting-new-affordable-care-act-insurance-plans/-/1637132/22341034/-/l0jmq3z/-/index.html

 

Many people signing up for health care in Florida through the Affordable Care Acthave been shocked when they have to give proof of their credit score before they finish the process.

 

By credit score in 2013, or by failure to pay your bills in 2014, or by being in ill health after the 2013 initial signup, you will be "in the system" as a cost risk or not a cost risk.

 

You can't hide from the computers.

And everyone pays for the people who don't pay their bills.  Obamacare isn't any different.

Celebrate.

[twa]

gonna suck for those student loan defaulters.....but sucking seems a theme

 

add

heh

 

 

Should you decide to apply for health coverage through Maryland Health Connection, the information you supply in your application will be used to determine whether you are eligible for health and dental coverage offered through Maryland Health Connection and for insurance affordability programs. It also may be used to assist you in making a payment for the insurance plan you select, and for related automated reminders or other activities permitted by law. We will preserve the privacy of personal records and protect confidential or privileged information in full accordance with federal and State law. We will not sell your information to others. Any information that you provide to us in your application will be used only to carry out the functions of Maryland Health Connection. The only exception to this policy is that we may share information provided in your application with the appropriate authorities for law enforcement and audit activities.

Edited October 9, 2013 by twa

[Larry]

something I haven't heard of...are other states requiring proof of credit scores?

 

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/credit-scores-impacting-new-affordable-care-act-insurance-plans/-/1637132/22341034/-/l0jmq3z/-/index.html

 

Many people signing up for health care in Florida through the Affordable Care Acthave been shocked when they have to give proof of their credit score before they finish the process.

 

I think insurance companies have been allowed to consider credit rating as part of their pricing, for years. 

 

How well you pay your bills is important to them. 

 

Never heard of them asking the applicant to provide them, though.  Assumed they simply take your information, and then they check your credit, themselves.  The applicant simply isn't aware that it's happening. 

[twa]

yes, it is the requiring proof that seemed odd

 

not something I would expect to have to provide the govt

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Deal!  Perhaps you miss the premise of all of my posts.

Obamacare isn't any great deal for the uninsured.

Government health insurance is a steal.

 

But enjoy your ACA.  It's gonna really make people happy. 

 

I'm not sure what part of my post is tweaking you.  

 

As has been stated by a few over these last five years, a lot of people don't like Obamacare because they wanted either a public option or a single payer system entirely.  I would prefer a public option to Obamacare because for numerous reasons I don't think Obamacare will do everything its aimed at doing.

 

That being said, its better than the old system.  

[chipwhich]

I'm not sure what part of my post is tweaking you.  

 

As has been stated by a few over these last five years, a lot of people don't like Obamacare because they wanted either a public option or a single payer system entirely.  I would prefer a public option to Obamacare because for numerous reasons I don't think Obamacare will do everything its aimed at doing.

 

That being said, its better than the old system.  

 

Nothing is tweaking me.  Your second sentence basically says it all.

It's better than the old system for some, worse for others.  The some who find it better might find the costs to still be more than they can afford.

It doesn't fix anything.  It doesn't even mean everyone has insurance.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Nothing is tweaking me.  Your second sentence basically says it all.

It's better than the old system for some, worse for others.  The some who find it better might find the costs to still be more than they can afford.

It doesn't fix anything.  It doesn't even mean everyone has insurance.

 

It fixes somethings.  It doesn't fix everything.  And in fairness, the SC did gut a big part of it by making the Medicaid expansion optional.  

 

It would be a lot easier to get behind the GOP in this shutdown if they would offer some way to improve it or to even improve the old system.  That's the biggest problem.  They are just fighting what Obama has done, but not offering anything.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Tulane Skins Fan

[Larry]

It's better than the old system for some, worse for others.  The some who find it better might find the costs to still be more than they can afford.

Yeah, the thought has occurred to me, to imagine some hypothetical minimum wage guy. (Or some guy who's not minimum wage, but he's still low income. Say, a plumber.)

The old system was:

He had no health insurance.

He never saw a doctor.

If something really bad hits him, he goes to the ER.

They hand him a bill for thousands of dollars, he can't pay it, it goes away.

The new system is:

He has health insurance, but he has to pay for it. (How much he has to pay depends on his income, but he has to pay something. His premium isn't zero.)

He now has insurance, but it doesn't pay anything unless he has thousands of medical bills, first.

He still can't pay those thousands of medical bills, anyway.

In short, it looks to me like the total impact of Obamacare, on a low income, uninsured, person, right now, will be:

1) He has to pay something, for insurance.

2) He can receive something, in return. If he chooses to go see a doctor, then his doctor visit, some vaccinations, maybe a few labs, will be covered, without a deductible.

3) And if he gets hit with something catastrophic, like a heart attack or some such, then, instead of getting a bill for a million dollars that he can't pay, he'll get a bill for $15,000, that he can't pay.

He's still not going to see a doctor for anything that isn't covered, outside the deductible, because he can't afford the deductible.

The only time he gets money out of his insurance, so to speak, is those things that don;t count towards the deductible.

----------

Now, yeah, some other hypothetical guy, say a lower middle class guy, some guy who CAN get hit with a $20K medical bill, and not technically be forced into bankruptcy? That guy needs insurance.

But, the guy who literally makes just enough money to live? Insurance doesn't really help him, much, because he's already immune from medical bills, anyway.

[chipwhich]

Larry,

Pretty much what you wrote I agree with.  It will benefit some people.  Just I think it will be more expensive than people understand, based on my own experience with high deductible policies.

 

I do believe companies will toss employees into the exchanges.  For those with really good health insurance now, the exchange insurance will be a big disappointment over some of these corporate policies.

 

Maybe in the end, this will lead to a single payer system or universal health care, but as it stands now, I don't like it.

[twa]

I'm curious if it will create more problems than it solves, I know which way I predict

[Larry]

Dumb idea that's been in my head, for a while.

(The following presentation is yet another episode of Larry's Dumb Ideas. Brought to you by "dammit, I need a sponsor")

Maybe a mandate (not another mandate!). Urgent Care centers are now required to treat the indigent, at no cost, just like ERs are.

Now, the poor guy who can't pay a doctor, when he gets a sore, breaks a bone, or some other "medical problem but it's not a heart attack" can go to the urgent care, get treated, and the taxpayers get hit with a much smaller bill than the ER has. (Or whatever the payment method is that we use, now, when indigent people go to the ER.)

They get more access. More encouragement to get medical help before it's life threatening. The taxpayers get a smaller bill.

[twa]

You trying to steal my national clinical care program?

 

I will note ER's are NOT required to give care free right now, they are required to stabilize and are supposed to bill the patient....collecting is another matter.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

You trying to steal my national clinical care program?

 

I will note ER's are NOT required to give care free right now, they are required to stabilize and are supposed to bill the patient....collecting is another matter.

 

What makes you say the last part?  ERs are not required to give free care?

[twa]

What makes you say the last part?  ERs are not required to give free care?

if it was free care they could not write it off or collect off govt programs.

 

they cannot demand payment in advance,but that is not free

[Tulane Skins Fan]

if it was free care they could not write it off or collect off govt programs.

 

they cannot demand payment in advance,but that is not free

 

you're not correct about this, at least not as the broad statement you offered.  Federal law (EMTALA) says that they have to treat people regardless of payment, including no payment.

 

A write off is not payment either.  I think you're wording this wrong, but I don't know if you're doing it intentionally.  If you mean to imply that the ER did not offer a place where people could get medical care with no payments, then you're wrong.  

[twa]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080815215039AAQjR8t

 

 

Uninsured: Hospital billed me for 2k for minor ER treatment. Any Suggestions?

 

 

 

every day uninsured people get billed by ER's

[Bliz]

Chip may flip out over this, but fwiw

 

There seems to be a new "premium estimation" tool that will give you the monthly premiums* for the different plans available in your county.  It doesn't have any of the details (though you can find those by googling the plan, if you're so inclined) so it's of very limited usefulness right now.  Also it doesn't take into account any tax credits.  But I still found this interesting:

 

There are 35 family plans (excluding catastrophic) available in the county where I live (3 platinum, 8 gold, 11 silver, 13 bronze).  There are 62 family plans (excluding catastrophic) available in the county where I work (3 platinum, 14 gold, 23 silver, 22 bronze). 

 

Of those 97 plans, or there may be overlap, I don't know, but of all of those plans, every single one of them has a monthly premium lower than the $1,288.24 my employer and I pay combined for family coverage.

 

Now Chip would very correctly point out that just knowing the cost is only half the puzzle.  You can't compare two plans without knowing the details of coverage, deductibles, etc.

 

But, I don't think my plan is terribly expensive, so to have all of the plans beat that price--before qualification for any tax credits--is a good sign for at least the affordability of achieving the status of "has health insurance."  Which is a step in the right direction. 

 

*disclaimer - not sure what it assumes for ages of people on this hypothetical plan, and how that may change the numbers.

 

 

Info on my experience with comparative level of benefits/value to come...if and when I am able to get some actual quotes from the Exchange.

 

 

The estimator tool is available here:  https://www.healthcare.gov/find-premium-estimates/

Edited October 11, 2013 by Bliz

[Jumbo]

Could go here or the Stewart thread...but in recognition of JMS (you've been pretty quiet, lately, JMS) I'll put it here:

 

 

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/jon-stewart-evil-obamacare-poor-people-always-er-120332673.html

 

(more inc. video at link>

 

 

Jon Stewart slammed the 26 states refusing to accept Medicaid expansion to millions of low income Americans over their opposition to the Affordable Care Act on Thursday’s edition of “The Daily Show,” calling them moochers.

 

As evidence, he noted that all but three of those states take more money from the federal government than they contribute in tax dollars.

 

“They are already burdens on the system,” Stewart said. “I believe they’re referred to by those Republicans as moochers. Moocher states. And if statehood was healthcare, Mississippi and Missouri would be rejected as having that as a pre-existing condition.”

 

He implied that states like Mississippi and Texas are refusing to expand their programs because their Republican controlled governments despise President Obama.

 

With a sardonic tone, Stewart than took viewers through a tour of the intricacies and insanities of the modern healthcare system.

 

He also used the opportunity to take a swipe at former 

Republican standard-bearer Mitt Romney for saying that uninsured people do get treated for medical problems when they visit emergency rooms.

 

“You can always go to the emergency room when you’re having a heart attack,” Stewart said.

 

“And apparently they think that’s the fiscally responsible option rather than expanding Medicaid, because unlike Obamacare, we all know ER visits are free.”

 

But of course the cost of treating uninsured customers gets passed on to paying customers, which raises health insurance rates and makes it more difficult for people to get coverage, Stewart noted.

[chipwhich]

Bliz,

 

You have mistaken me for someone that wants this to fail rather than someone who is just letting you know what you are in for.

I will give you an analogy to your celebration.

 

Each year I have to renew my health insurance for my company.  Insurers who don't know the "health" of my company offer me cheap rates.  Once my company "health" is known, then my rates are adjusted accordingly the following year at renewal.

The true test to Obamacare is the cost of premiums moving forward.

 

So basically if the majority of people who buy Obamacare are sickly, then rates will skyrocket.

 

Call me next year.

And BTW, I have been saying this all along, and Larry's post above tells the story nicely.  Larry btw is on your side.

Could go here or the Stewart thread...but in recognition of JMS (you've been pretty quiet, lately, JMS) I'll put it here:

 

 

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/jon-stewart-evil-obamacare-poor-people-always-er-120332673.html

 

(more inc. video at link>

 

Oh, and as for Stewart he is missing the key point.

You don't have to buy Obamacare...so it doesn't solve the emergency room problem :-)

[Bliz]

Bliz,

 

You have mistaken me for someone that wants this to fail rather than someone who is just letting you know what you are in for.

I will give you an analogy to your celebration.

 

Each year I have to renew my health insurance for my company.  Insurers who don't know the "health" of my company offer me cheap rates.  Once my company "health" is known, then my rates are adjusted accordingly the following year at renewal.

The true test to Obamacare is the cost of premiums moving forward.

 

So basically if the majority of people who buy Obamacare are sickly, then rates will skyrocket.

 

Call me next year.

And BTW, I have been saying this all along, and Larry's post above tells the story nicely.  Larry btw is on your side.

 

I don't think that's what I'm doing.  Just trying to recognize the point you've been making about coverage.  Anyway I would hardly call that post a celebration.  It was pretty objective, I thought, and pointed out the holes in the info.  I only said it was a good sign for affordability and a step in the right direction.  Not exactly spiking the football. 

 

It will be very interesting to see what happens in a year.  It is certainly possible that rates will skyrocket based on who buys and who doesn't.  But we should also consider that insurance companies are pretty good at underwriting and making money, and they are undoubtedly factoring in (to at least some degree) the ratio of healthy/sickly who buy in so they don't lose their shirts.  Maybe they're overestimating it, maybe they're underestimating it.  I have no idea.

[CrazyZeb]

I don't get health insurance through my work so I have been purchasing it on my own for years now.  I just did the "Premium Estimation Tool" and all 28 plans, including the "catastrophic" plans, are higher than my current premium.  Not looking good for me.

 

Edit: Oh and the Kaiser Family Foundation calculator says I don't qualify for any tax credits.

 

Edit #2: My current plan's deductible is $1,500 in network, $2,500 out of network. These plans are all $5k-6k. I didn't know I had it so good, hope I don't lose my plan.

Edited October 11, 2013 by CrazyZeb

[Larry]

Of those 97 plans, or there may be overlap, I don't know, but of all of those plans, every single one of them has a monthly deductible lower than the $1,288.24 my employer and I pay combined for family coverage.

Pointing out, you're comparing apples and oranges. (In this case, deductibles and premiums.)

(At least, I assume that your $1,300 number is the premium.)

----------

BTW, I can't use the exchange.

First, it's tough to find. Google "Florida health insurance exchange", and you get a slew of commercial web sites that have been set up to trick people into thinking that they're looking at what Obamacare set up.

Find the real one, and it tells me that I have to use a federal site. (Because my governor is trying to win points by intentionally making it hard for poor people to get health insurance, and claiming that it's Obama's fault.) \

(The federal site wasn't working, on the first. But it seems to be, now.)

I have to create a user ID to use the system. I cannot use any of the common user IDs I use on other systems, because they mandate that my user ID must contain a number.

I love sys admins who create obscure and arbitrary rules for user names and passwords. I probably have IDs on 50 computer systems, and every one of them has their own rules, completely arbitrarily imposed. Many of these sites I will go years at a time without accessing.

These rules cost the sys admin absolutely nothing to impose. And they do absolutely nothing for security. All they do is allow the sys admin to pretend like he's making things more secure.

And, they force me to take all of my user IDs and passwords, write them all down, and keep them next to my computer.

When I worked in the computer store, part of my job was to maintain the store's list of all of their user names and passwords. We would all keep it taped to our monitors.

Because some sys admin, somewhere, thinks that requiring his users to use a password which is 8-14 characters, and must contain letters, numbers, and punctuation, but only these kinds of symbols, and must change the password every six months, but is not allowed to change it sooner, and . . .

[/rant]

And then, I have to jump through elaborite hoops, to prove my identity, before it will allow me in. (Really? I can't find out how much health insurance costs, without proving ID?)

So they hit me with "Which of the following cities have you formerly lived in?" (One of the choices is the city which I told them, on a previous screen, is the one I currently live in.) "Which one of these models of cars have you owned?" "Which of these is a former employer?"

And then they tell me that I failed the identity test.

I must call Experian, to prove my identity.

Experian has a recording telling me that they're experiencing a high call volume, and call back some other time, and hangs up on me.

Edited October 11, 2013 by Larry

[Bliz]

Pointing out, you're comparing apples and oranges. (In this case, deductibles and premiums.)

(At least, I assume that your $1,300 number is the premium.)

---------- 

 

 

typo.  thanks.  corrected.

 

 

And then they tell me that I failed the identity test.

I must call Experian, to prove my identity.

Experian has a recording telling me that they're experiencing a high call volume, and call back some other time, and hangs up on me.

 

 

Same thing happened to me.  Frustrating.

[chipwhich]

It will be very interesting to see what happens in a year.  It is certainly possible that rates will skyrocket based on who buys and who doesn't.  But we should also consider that insurance companies are pretty good at underwriting and making money, and they are undoubtedly factoring in (to at least some degree) the ratio of healthy/sickly who buy in so they don't lose their shirts.  Maybe they're overestimating it, maybe they're underestimating it.  I have no idea.

 

Actually they aren't good at underwriting when the don't know what the sample population signups will be.  I was told in corporate insurance polices, 10% of the participants drive the costs for 100% of the plan...meaning 10% are the sick ones using all the expensive aspects of insurance.  I would assume they price it that way.  Next years premiums will be decided on what % are sick.

And read CrazyZebs post.

Hey I hope the system works, I may be forced to use it some day.

 

And it's not the premiums I am rallying about, it's the deductibles and the out of pocket costs which wont be tax deductible for most.

Edited October 12, 2013 by chipwhich

[Larry]

Anybody got any support for this claim I keep seeing, that health care expenses are no longer tax deductible?

(Not that I think it matters, for most of the folks signing up for Obamacare. Since I assume the vast majority of them are in lower tax brackets, probably don;t itemize to begin with, and wouldn't get much back, if they did. But I'm really curious. Mostly because I assume that, if this were true, I would have heard a lot more complaining about it.)

Edited October 12, 2013 by Larry