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

[Larry]

People who have had insurance and are forced by their company into the exchanges have a legit gripe about high deductibles.

Now, I can understand the idea of "I used to have no-deductible insurance, provided for free or subsidized prices, from my employer, and now I have to pay for my own insurance". 

 

But I don't see how that's an Obamacare problem. 

 

(Unless you buy into the notion that employers have been cutting worker's pay and benefits, for years, and let's blame Obamacare for it.) 

[chipwhich]

Apologies for taking so long to get back to this. Been busy.

Funny, I could have sworn that you've been on a theme for what seems like at least a month, of attacking Obamacare because it's plans have a deductible. Trying to convince people that the correct way to judge Obamacare isn't the premiums, but to examine the maximum amount that people might spend. (Without mentioning the maximum amount that someone might spend, without Obamacare.) At least implying that this maximum amount is the amount that every person will spend, or that at least, it's typical.

But my question (which you still haven't answered) was a specific response to this post:

Looks a lot to me like a claim that the average person under Obamacare will be paying this deductible, and that it will be a heavy burden on every one of them.

And all I'm trying to do, is to get you to actually try talking about this hypothetical average person under Obamacare, and to contrast your opinion about what his position will be, under Obamacare, against some other scenario without Obamacare. (As opposed to talking about how terrible things will be, under Obamacare, and contrasting it against nothing.)

This hypothetical "average person under Obamacare", who's going to be crushed under his high deductible. What's his burden going to be, without Obamacare? What's his better alternative?

 

First let me apologize as I may not have explained myself correctly.

I hate high deductible insurance.  It is designed so that the average person pays a premium and then all other expenses are out of pocket expenses so that for most of my employees, they never need the *insurance* as everything they pay is out of pocket.  Hence my point they have insurance without coverage.  Why did I go to high deductible insurance?  Because it is cheaper for me to pay for the high deductible premiums AND all of the deductibles than to pay for a more conventional plan.  Health Care companies are driving people in droves to high deductible plans.  WHY?  So they don't ever have to pay.

This has been a trend in insurance companies.  It allows them to sell *cheap* insurance because they wont be stuck with coverage because of the deductibles...no coverage until deductible is met, catastrophic coverage in case of catastrophy.

My problem then with Obamacare is it only feeds into this crappy insurance system where your average Americans end up paying everything out of pocket anyways.  I believe people want coverage moreso than catastrophe insurance.

So lets say you are a family of four making $50,000 a year.  You have a family deductible which is $10,000.  Can you really afford to pay a premium (which you didn't have before) and another $10,000 just to reach your deductible before the insurance pays a nickel?  Now I understand you will get that yearly wellness visit, maybe some free birth control, and some other token freebies, but it might not be better than being uninsured baring a catastrophe.

Obamacare didn't solve any of our health care issues.  It just funneled everyone into the same nonsense.  Except now they are lower income people who can less afford these deductibles.

 

People wanted a single payer system, they didn't want the joy of paying everything out of pocket anyways with a premium on top.

 

Hope this clears things up.

Just so I'm not misunderstanding...are you really paying all of your employees' entire deductible every year?  

 

 

Yes, this year it was $2000 for single, $4000 for family.  Last year it was $1200 and $2400....insurance is driving up prices to making deductibles higher and higher to save money.

[Larry]

So lets say you are a family of four making $50,000 a year.  You have a family deductible which is $10,000.  Can you really afford to pay a premium (which you didn't have before) and another $10,000 just to reach your deductible before the insurance pays a nickel?  Now I understand you will get that yearly wellness visit, maybe some free birth control, and some other token freebies, but it might not be better than being uninsured baring a catastrophe.

But that hypothetical family who paid a premium, and paid $10K, would have paid $10K without the premium, too.

(In fact, the only way they pay $10K, in both scenarios, is is they managed to spend $10K on medical expenses without ever once getting any of the "free" coverage that Obamacare mandates. If, say, they spent $10K in medical bills, and never saw the doctor and never had a lab procedure.)

That hypothetical family with the $10K medical bill, would have had it without Obamacare, too.

----------

Now, yeah, I agree. Getting something like "Medicare for all", might well have been a whole lot better.

BUT, it would have cost outrageously, too.

And I've mentioned the problem I see with what I think would be the ideal system: One where everybody gets a tax-paid "medicare for all" that just pays for the minimums, and then private companies compete to offer "medicare supplement" coverage that goes further: The fact that the government would be under tremendous pressure to keep expanding it every year.

No, that looks, to me, like a solution that would be really good, in theory, but I suspect in the real world would turn into Godzilla.

And, I'll point out, the folks with the high-deductible plans that Obamacare offers? They have the option of getting better coverage. It just costs more. (For example, I'm paying for a plan with a $1K deductible, that pays 90% after $1K. BUT, I'm a healthy 55 year old who has never needed major medical procedure. In fact, my total health care for the last 10 years has been like 3 routine doctor visits, and an occasional flu shot that I paid for rather than go through the insurance company. And despite my really healthy history, I'm paying $500 a month for that coverage. Probably ought to revise that.)

[chipwhich]

But that hypothetical family who paid a premium, and paid $10K, would have paid $10K without the premium, too.

(In fact, the only way they pay $10K, in both scenarios, is is they managed to spend $10K on medical expenses without ever once getting any of the "free" coverage that Obamacare mandates. If, say, they spent $10K in medical bills, and never saw the doctor and never had a lab procedure.)

That hypothetical family with the $10K medical bill, would have had it without Obamacare, too.

 

You see Larry we are actually at the point of agreeing on something yet we both view it from different perspectives.  Your post above is correct, in translation people are getting nothing more than catastrophe insurance (which I have been saying all along) and an additional monthly premium, for (what is debatable) a lot of government $$$ and a lot of tax.  I think it's a bad thing that people are basically forced to buy catastrophe insurance, which you apparently like.  That's not healthcare for the masses, more like a tax to me.  Yeah I won't go broke if I have a heart attack but I won't be able to afford my bills regardless.  And yes I know you can buy better plans with no deductibles, but trust me the divide and cost in those plans is getting greater and greater.

 

Now, yeah, I agree. Getting something like "Medicare for all", might well have been a whole lot better.

BUT, it would have cost outrageously, too.

 

Well if you had control of congress, and you were going to force something through, catastrophe insurance is the best you got?  Trust me those deductibles are growing.

[Larry]

I think it's a bad thing that people are basically forced to buy catastrophe insurance, which you apparently like.

Now, they aren't forced to buy catastrophic insurance. They're just forced to buy some insurance.

(Yes, I assume that most folks will choose the minimum. Simply because, if they had the money for better insurance, they would have already bought it.)

"Like"? Hardly. I consider the mandate to be a necessary evil, made necessary by the "pre-existing condition" mandate, which I also regard as a necessary evil.

[chipwhich]

Now, they aren't forced to buy catastrophic insurance. They're just forced to buy some insurance.

(Yes, I assume that most folks will choose the minimum. Simply because, if they had the money for better insurance, they would have already bought it.)

"Like"? Hardly. I consider the mandate to be a necessary evil, made necessary by the "pre-existing condition" mandate, which I also regard as a necessary evil.

 

We could have gotten there a lot cheaper without the exchanges.  Heck I would have voted to drop pre existing conditions.  I don't expect much of a savings marketplace, but we will see how that turns out.

[@DCGoldPants]

New expert opinion in the WSJ. Enjoy. Make sure to read to the bottom.

Suzanne Somers: The Affordable Care Act Is a Socialist Ponzi Scheme

http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2013/10/28/suzanne-somers-the-affordable-care-act-is-a-socialist-ponzi-scheme/

[Larry]

We could have gotten there a lot cheaper without the exchanges.  Heck I would have voted to drop pre existing conditions.  I don't expect much of a savings marketplace, but we will see how that turns out.

 

Problem, if you drop that, is the huge body of people who can't get coverage. 

 

And, I also think the insurance companies use this "pre-existing conditions" clause as a tool to suppress competition. 

 

When I first purchased my insurance, my premium was $100 a month, and I was informed, over and over again, that my policy had a two-year "pre existing condition period".  (During which, as near as I could figure out from the paperwork, any medical condition I had was presumed to be pre-existing.) 

 

In effect, for the first two years of my insurance, I would pay premiums, but have no coverage. 

 

When I had been paying premiums for a year, I was notified that my premiums were doubling. 

 

Now, I had not seen a doctor in that time.  Only thing that changed, during that year, was my age.  (It went up by 1.) 

 

Did my premium douple because I was not double the risk to BCBS that I was, a year ago?  Hardly. 

 

My premiums doubles because the $100 a month premium was a "come on" rate. 

 

Now that I've been paying their "come on" rate, for a year (without having any coverage, and without needing any), I'm now locked in.  If I try to go anywhere else, my two year "pay the premiums but you don't have coverage" starts over from scratch. 

 

In short, they're able to use deceptive marketing, and to double my rates, because the "pre existing condition" clause punishes me if I try to change companies. 

 

I think if I could have passed a health care reform, it would have said that any customer is exempt from "pre existing conditions" limitations, IF he is switching from one company to another, or between plans within a company. 

 

At the very least, give the customers the ability to switch companies without penalty. 

[mikered30]

 

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy.

 

 

NBC: Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance even after President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it.

 

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance#comments

 

 

[chipwhich]

I think if I could have passed a health care reform, it would have said that any customer is exempt from "pre existing conditions" limitations, IF he is switching from one company to another, or between plans within a company. 

 

At the very least, give the customers the ability to switch companies without penalty. 

 

Sorry what I meant when I posted is I would have passed into law that insurance companies can't discriminate based on pre-existing conditions.  It would have saved a lot of money in Obamacare IMO.  I won't bore you with my opinions on the negatives of the exchanges, even when operating normally.

I do agree with your post.

As someone who grew up in an era where companies no longer provide health care for life, I would love to retire and not have to worry about health care.  That is what I wish Obamacare offered me.  Unfortunately.....

Edited October 29, 2013 by chipwhich

[Larry]

Rather surprised by the assertion that more than half of all individual insurance policies don;t meet the bare minimum levels required under ACA. And that said policies will fall so short of those standards that the companies will cancel them rather than bring them into compliance, and raise the rates some.

But that might say more about the state of existing individual health insurance universe, than it says about the law.

----------

Sorry what I meant when I posted is I would have passed into law that insurance companies can't discriminate based on pre-existing conditions.

But, if you mandate coverage for pre-existing conditions, then you HAVE to mandate coverage.

Otherwise, nobody will sign up for health insurance until after their doctor tells them that they need it.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Larry

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The Republican National Committee will be running an anti-Obamacare commercial during Tuesday's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" in the Washington, D.C. market, the RNC announced Tuesday morning. 

The ad that will run Tuesday is part of a series of four videos created by the RNC playing on the famous "Get a Mac" ad campaign run by Apple from 2006 to 2009. In the videos, a younger man plays the private sector, while an older, overweight and fumbling man plays the new healthcare law and the HealthCare.gov website.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/10/rnc-to-run-obamacare-ads-during-daily-show-176197.html?hp=f3

 

This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen, on so many levels.  Just stop.  

[twa]

Rather surprised by the assertion that more than half of all individual insurance policies don;t meet the bare minimum levels required under ACA. And that said policies will fall so short of those standards that the companies will cancel them rather than bring them into compliance, and raise the rates some.

But that might say more about the state of existing individual health insurance universe, than it says about the law.

 

 

I'm surprised any meet the ACA requirements, especially the birth control one

[@DCGoldPants]

 

The Republican National Committee will be running an anti-Obamacare commercial during Tuesday's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" in the Washington, D.C. market, the RNC announced Tuesday morning. 

The ad that will run Tuesday is part of a series of four videos created by the RNC playing on the famous "Get a Mac" ad campaign run by Apple from 2006 to 2009. In the videos, a younger man plays the private sector, while an older, overweight and fumbling man plays the new healthcare law and the HealthCare.gov website.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/10/rnc-to-run-obamacare-ads-during-daily-show-176197.html?hp=f3

 

 

This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen, on so many levels.  Just stop.  

 

 

 

They had to pivot quickly once finding out the "Where's the Beef" lady died in 1987.

 

Edited October 29, 2013 by @SkinsGoldPants

[Elessar78]

It pretty sad. Might've been funny if it came out around the same time that the Mac commercials did, but it's a 6-7 year old reference. That's an eternity in ad years. Healthcare.gov is floundering all by itself—it didn't need to be helped along. Now the discussion changes to this sad attempt instead of the failures of the website.

[chipwhich]

But, if you mandate coverage for pre-existing conditions, then you HAVE to mandate coverage.

Otherwise, nobody will sign up for health insurance until after their doctor tells them that they need it.

 

Well what good is a mandate if you aren't forced to follow it.

 

I mean I can pay a fine and not buy insurance.  What if everyone did that?

 

Now what I don't know is what happens to a person who simply pays the fine for not getting healthcare, if they realize they need coverage can they suddenly sign up?

[twa]

signing up only happens once a year

[DaGoonie55]

I'm at wits end trying to figure out what to do with my family.  My PPO plan A is being cancelled, the company can no longer LEGALLY offer it. (Thank you ACA) It was amazing - pricey but amazing.  Now I am lost.  I know exactly nothing about HSA's or these other plans that are offered.  I have 3 kids and a wife that I have to make a decision about PRIOR to Nov 19th.  How am I supposed to get educated in that time period? 

[Larry]

The Republican National Committee will be running an anti-Obamacare commercial during Tuesday's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" in the Washington, D.C. market, the RNC announced Tuesday morning.

Hey, the idea of trying to aim at a younger audience, and to use humor, sure beats the heck out of some red-faced, bald, politician screaming "Socialized Medicine!"

Granted, their execution reminds me of a famous quote from some football coach.

And, attempting the thing to an audience that's somewhat better informed than most might not have been a great idea.

[sacase]

 

The Republican National Committee will be running an anti-Obamacare commercial during Tuesday's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" in the Washington, D.C. market, the RNC announced Tuesday morning. 

The ad that will run Tuesday is part of a series of four videos created by the RNC playing on the famous "Get a Mac" ad campaign run by Apple from 2006 to 2009. In the videos, a younger man plays the private sector, while an older, overweight and fumbling man plays the new healthcare law and the HealthCare.gov website.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/10/rnc-to-run-obamacare-ads-during-daily-show-176197.html?hp=f3

 

This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen, on so many levels.  Just stop.  

 

I am on the GOP side on this, but that commercial was pretty poor. I know they can do better than that. Come one really GOP? Are you just not even trying anymore?

[Corcaigh]

I am on the GOP side on this, but that commercial was pretty poor. I know they can do better than that. Come one really GOP? Are you just not even trying anymore?

 

I think most middle-schoolers could do better.

 

Is the GOP core position against ACA/Obamacare now simply that the website sucks?

[Larry]

Is the GOP core position against ACA/Obamacare now simply that the website sucks?

Their core position is anything they think will stick.

[Corcaigh]

Their core position is anything they think will stick.

 

Good long term strategy.

 

It is hard to understand why the GoP is currently so bad at this. Their messaging is so focused on the right of their base that the middle majority thinks "I know Obama and the Dems suck pretty bad at governing, but the GoP are just ****ing dingbats.".

Edited October 29, 2013 by Corcaigh

[Bliz]

Well what good is a mandate if you aren't forced to follow it.

 

I mean I can pay a fine and not buy insurance.  What if everyone did that?

 

Now what I don't know is what happens to a person who simply pays the fine for not getting healthcare, if they realize they need coverage can they suddenly sign up?

 

I guess it depends on what you need it for.

 

If you need surgery but it's not urgent, or you have a longterm disease, then I think yes you could put it off until after you sign up for insurance and be fine.

 

If you're hit by a car or have a heart attack and need surgery today, then no.  That's the hole in the "wait until you get sick to sign up" strategy, is that it doesn't account for emergencies.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Good long term strategy.

 

It is hard to understand why the GoP is currently so bad at this. Their messaging is so focused on the right of their base that the middle majority thinks "I know Obama and the Dems suck pretty bad at governing, but the GoP are just ****ing dingbats.".

 

Basically how I'm feeling about this.

 

Its not like I can sit here and tell you the democrats have been great, or have all the answers.  Its not like I can sit here and tell you Obamacare is going swimmingly.  But, the republicans do crap like that stupid tv ad, or just fail to come up with anything that makes sense.

 

I figure the dems will probably win the next presidential election on this feeling along, and then the GOP will get its marbles back together and the pendulum will swing back in their favor.