High Deductibles Force Many to Opt Out of Obamacare

[Sun Devil 92]

Premiums are higher under Obamacare.

Why didn't they just leave things alone and offer subsidies in the previous arrangement ?

...because sick people were frozen out of care. That's what the "previous arrangement" was. Obviously treating people costs more than not treating people.

So, you are saying we are spending more thant 16% of our GDP on health care (you recall that number people kept saying Obamacare would bring down) ?

 

[Greenbeard]

So, you are saying we are spending more thant 16% of our GDP on health care (you recall that number people kept saying Obamacare would bring down) ?

NHE was 17.6% of GDP in 2009. It was 17.5% in 2014, despite about 12 million more people having health insurance.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So, you are saying we are spending more thant 16% of our GDP on health care (you recall that number people kept saying Obamacare would bring down) ?

NHE was 17.6% of GDP in 2009. It was 17.5% in 2014, despite about 12 million more people having health insurance.

You are the first one to provide any data like that.

Where can I find this ?

Looks like it has not decreased.

 

[Greenbeard]

You are the first one to provide any data like that.

Where can I find this ?

Looks like it has not decreased.

The news.

2011:

Health spending rose to a record 17.6% of the U.S. economy in 2009, as the overall economy shrank and higher federal Medicaid spending helped to push up health costs.

Now:

In 2014, health care’s share of gross domestic product reached 17.5 percent, or $3 trillion, which translates to $9,523 per person.

Health care cost growth has been substantially below expectations. Even as the uninsured rate was cut by ~25%.

 

[555]

Obamacare is really the next thing to no insurance;

Obamacare enrollees are reeling from high deductibles

You're right...and also insurers that have participated in the state exchanges are reeling from huge losses and are at risk for receiving reimbursements under the Federal 3R's programs...wow...disaster for one and all ! No wonder Obama wants to remove his name from this as part of efforts to patch up his legacy

 

[Arianrhod]

Obamacare is really the next thing to no insurance;

Obamacare enrollees are reeling from high deductibles

You're right...and also insurers that have participated in the state exchanges are reeling from huge losses and are at risk for receiving reimbursements under the Federal 3R's programs...wow...disaster for one and all ! No wonder Obama wants to remove his name from this as part of efforts to patch up his legacy

I'd invite you to prove any of that.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You are the first one to provide any data like that.

Where can I find this ?

Looks like it has not decreased.

The news.

2011:

Health spending rose to a record 17.6% of the U.S. economy in 2009, as the overall economy shrank and higher federal Medicaid spending helped to push up health costs.

Now:

In 2014, health care’s share of gross domestic product reached 17.5 percent, or $3 trillion, which translates to $9,523 per person.

Health care cost growth has been substantially below expectations. Even as the uninsured rate was cut by ~25%.

Thank you so much for that information.

 

[MizMolly]

Forcing people to buy health insurance is just wrong. My husband and I would have to pay over $300 a month with a huge deductable. Neither one of us has bad health or smoke. We only see the doctor once a year for our annual check ups, at about $400 each. We pay out of pocket. The $300 a month would not even cover the annual checkups, required blood tests are extra, which would be out of pocket. Since we are already paying for our visits, we should not be penalized. I think if we had let the tax payers foot the bill, then we should be penalized. The insurance offered at the part time job I had was about $100 twice a month, but did not cover anything out of a doctor visit, not even tests, not emergency rooms, nothing except talking to the doctor. The amount of doctor visits aren't worth the costs, which we cannot afford.

 

[dblack]

Forcing people to buy health insurance is just wrong.

The insurance industry disagrees.

 

[Arianrhod]

Forcing people to buy health insurance is just wrong. My husband and I would have to pay over $300 a month with a huge deductable. Neither one of us has bad health or smoke. We only see the doctor once a year for our annual check ups, at about $400 each. We pay out of pocket. The $300 a month would not even cover the annual checkups, required blood tests are extra, which would be out of pocket. Since we are already paying for our visits, we should not be penalized. I think if we had let the tax payers foot the bill, then we should be penalized. The insurance offered at the part time job I had was about $100 twice a month, but did not cover anything out of a doctor visit, not even tests, not emergency rooms, nothing except talking to the doctor. The amount of doctor visits aren't worth the costs, which we cannot afford.

If you only need to see a doctor once a year, why do you care about the high deductible (which, by your own description, you'll never use)? And if you really can't afford the clinic visits before the deductible, you are probably eligible for a subsidy. You can determine that here:

Subsidy Calculator Widget

Is there any illness or chronic condition in your husband's family or yours? Do some research on the costs for treatment without insurance. Even a broken leg can cost anywhere from $7,500 to $30,000. If you're that hard up for cash, I doubt you can spend that out of pocket.

 

[MizMolly]

Forcing people to buy health insurance is just wrong. My husband and I would have to pay over $300 a month with a huge deductable. Neither one of us has bad health or smoke. We only see the doctor once a year for our annual check ups, at about $400 each. We pay out of pocket. The $300 a month would not even cover the annual checkups, required blood tests are extra, which would be out of pocket. Since we are already paying for our visits, we should not be penalized. I think if we had let the tax payers foot the bill, then we should be penalized. The insurance offered at the part time job I had was about $100 twice a month, but did not cover anything out of a doctor visit, not even tests, not emergency rooms, nothing except talking to the doctor. The amount of doctor visits aren't worth the costs, which we cannot afford.

If you only need to see a doctor once a year, why do you care about the high deductible (which, by your own description, you'll never use)? And if you really can't afford the clinic visits before the deductible, you are probably eligible for a subsidy. You can determine that here:

Subsidy Calculator Widget

Is there any illness or chronic condition in your husband's family or yours? Do some research on the costs for treatment without insurance. Even a broken leg can cost anywhere from $7,500 to $30,000. If you're that hard up for cash, I doubt you can spend that out of pocket.

Why pay $300 a month for insurance that doesnt cover anything? The deductable was $12,000. So, even if I needed any care that was under $12,000 it would still be out of pocket.

 

[MizMolly]

We aren't poor enough to get any help with our insurance, yet not rich enough to afford it. Catch 22

 

[Arianrhod]

We aren't poor enough to get any help with our insurance, yet not rich enough to afford it. Catch 22

So you've already checked the exchanges and they indicated you weren't eligible for a subsidy?

Still, if you only see your doctor once a year, you're far more fortunate than you realize. You're probably eligible for a host of screenings that you're not taking advantage of. I'd advise you to do so, particularly if there are chronic illnesses such as diabetes, hypertension, osteoporosis,, and/or hypercholesterolemia in your family history, not to mention cancers.

 

[Arianrhod]

Forcing people to buy health insurance is just wrong. My husband and I would have to pay over $300 a month with a huge deductable. Neither one of us has bad health or smoke. We only see the doctor once a year for our annual check ups, at about $400 each. We pay out of pocket. The $300 a month would not even cover the annual checkups, required blood tests are extra, which would be out of pocket. Since we are already paying for our visits, we should not be penalized. I think if we had let the tax payers foot the bill, then we should be penalized. The insurance offered at the part time job I had was about $100 twice a month, but did not cover anything out of a doctor visit, not even tests, not emergency rooms, nothing except talking to the doctor. The amount of doctor visits aren't worth the costs, which we cannot afford.

If you only need to see a doctor once a year, why do you care about the high deductible (which, by your own description, you'll never use)? And if you really can't afford the clinic visits before the deductible, you are probably eligible for a subsidy. You can determine that here:

Subsidy Calculator Widget

Is there any illness or chronic condition in your husband's family or yours? Do some research on the costs for treatment without insurance. Even a broken leg can cost anywhere from $7,500 to $30,000. If you're that hard up for cash, I doubt you can spend that out of pocket.

Why pay $300 a month for insurance that doesnt cover anything? The deductable was $12,000. So, even if I needed any care that was under $12,000 it would still be out of pocket.

Then you should consider a plan with a higher premium/lower deductible next time around. Insurance "doesn't cover anything" until it does. No one plans to get cancer or a host of chronic illnesses, just as no one plans to get into an auto accident or a fire or a plane crash.

But if you suddenly require $100,000+ of treatment, you'll be glad you had insurance.

It's odd how no one disputed this prior to January 2014.

 

[dblack]

We aren't poor enough to get any help with our insurance, yet not rich enough to afford it. Catch 22

The catch is that you don't get to decide whether you can afford it or not - they do.

 

[Arianrhod]

We aren't poor enough to get any help with our insurance, yet not rich enough to afford it. Catch 22

The catch is that you don't get to decide whether you can afford it or not - they do.

How much are "they" "forcing" you to pay?

 

[dblack]

We aren't poor enough to get any help with our insurance, yet not rich enough to afford it. Catch 22

The catch is that you don't get to decide whether you can afford it or not - they do.

How much are "they" "forcing" you to pay?

We're forced to pay whatever the regulatory regime, and their entourage of lobbyists, dictate.

 

[Arianrhod]

We're forced to pay whatever the regulatory regime, and their entourage of lobbyists, dictate.

Not familiar with that one. Is it available for Wii?

 

[dblack]

We're forced to pay whatever the regulatory regime, and their entourage of lobbyists, dictate.

Not familiar with that one. Is it available for Wii?

That's it. Ostrich up!

 

[Arianrhod]

We're forced to pay whatever the regulatory regime, and their entourage of lobbyists, dictate.

Not familiar with that one. Is it available for Wii?

That's it. Ostrich up!

Odd name, but if it's not available for Wii, I'm not interested. Thanks, anyway.