Affordable care that isn’t affordable

[boedicca]

ObamaCare is just incredibly expensive catastrophic care insurance.

Add up the premiums, deductibles, co-pays and co-insurance, and it's insanely expensive.

Which is EXACTLY what I and many other economically literate people predicted.

ACA ISN'T INSURANCE.

You are correct for the wrong reason. The ACA dupes/forces people into paying for something that is very overpriced and delivers very little value.

It's a SCAM.

 

[Arianrhod]

If they can complete the equation which is what this thread is about.

They can pay for health insurance and then not be able to afford to use it.

At thousands a year, I wonder if it does not make sense to not buy it and just pay for your care.

How do you know what kind of care you'll need? No one plans to get cancer or heart disease or a degenerative illness. No one plans to have a kid with birth defects. No one plans to get into a serious accident.

Most people will never need that kind of care, but that's what the 80/20 rule is all about. And when a patient ends up needing hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical treatment, they're damn glad they've got insurance.

Are there any data to show that premiums are higher now across the board than they were prior to the PPACA? If so, I'd like to see them.

You still seem to be hiding behind that tired old crap.

And what's worse is that you justify it to fleece people with insurance they can't use.

They don't get cancer but might have back issues that, if treated, would improve their quality of life.

They don't have children with birth defects but have reduced health because they are not getting dental care.

They don't have heart conditions, but are depressed because their health insurance sucks.

You've been shown more than enough data on premiums.....

You seem to think people who had no health insurance prior to the PPACA had none of those untreated conditions. Or is it that you just noticed them in January '14?

You've yet to explain why you mean by "insurance they can't use."

 

[Arianrhod]

ObamaCare is just incredibly expensive catastrophic care insurance.

Add up the premiums, deductibles, co-pays and co-insurance, and it's insanely expensive.

Which is EXACTLY what I and many other economically literate people predicted.

ACA ISN'T INSURANCE.

You are correct for the wrong reason. The ACA dupes/forces people into paying for something that is very overpriced and delivers very little value.

It's a SCAM.

And you're a bore. Because you sail in here repeating the same speech and, if asked to prove any of your assertions, you'd turn abusive and run away, amiright?

 

[boedicca]

They've always had incentive to do that. And their primary roadblock in those efforts has been state regulations preventing it.

That presumes that their primary motivation was concern for their customers.

Huh? I'm assuming their only motivation was, will always be, profit.

Not prior to the 1980s. The only insurers in the health arena were the Blues, and they were non-profit.

Unsurprisingly you, are full of shit.

Aetna, for one, started offering health insurance decades earlier than that.

Aetna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[boedicca]

ObamaCare is just incredibly expensive catastrophic care insurance.

Add up the premiums, deductibles, co-pays and co-insurance, and it's insanely expensive.

Which is EXACTLY what I and many other economically literate people predicted.

ACA ISN'T INSURANCE.

You are correct for the wrong reason. The ACA dupes/forces people into paying for something that is very overpriced and delivers very little value.

It's a SCAM.

And you're a bore. Because you sail in here repeating the same speech and, if asked to prove any of your assertions, you'd turn abusive and run away, amiright?

Do people get to keep their doctors that they liked? - No
Do people get to keep the insurance that they liked? - No
Are people paying far more for far less against their wills? - Yes
Does the Obama Admin tout "low" and susdized premiums as being a benefit when they mask incredibly high deductibles, co-pays, and co-insurance? - Yes

You're just a pathetic shill who does Obama's bidding for free. Moron.

 

[Arianrhod]

Aetna, for one, started offering health insurance decades earlier than that.

Aetna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Precisely my point. A for-profit insurer entered what had previously been a nonprofit market. By the mid-80s there were dozens of them.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

ObamaCare is just incredibly expensive catastrophic care insurance.

Add up the premiums, deductibles, co-pays and co-insurance, and it's insanely expensive.

Which is EXACTLY what I and many other economically literate people predicted.

ACA ISN'T INSURANCE.

You are correct for the wrong reason. The ACA dupes/forces people into paying for something that is very overpriced and delivers very little value.

It's a SCAM.

And you're a bore. Because you sail in here repeating the same speech and, if asked to prove any of your assertions, you'd turn abusive and run away, amiright?

Do people get to keep their doctors that they liked? - No
Do people get to keep the insurance that they liked? - No
Are people paying far more for far less against their wills? - Yes
Does the Obama Admin tout "low" and susdized premiums as being a benefit when they mask incredibly high deductibles, co-pays, and co-insurance? - Yes

You're just a pathetic shill who does Obama's bidding for free. Moron.

 

[Arianrhod]

Do people get to keep their doctors that they liked? - No
Do people get to keep the insurance that they liked? - No
Are people paying far more for far less against their wills? - Yes

I've kept my doctor. I have the same insurance. I'm getting the same coverage I had before, with a lower deductible.

If you're going to claim EVERYBODY got screwed by the PPACA, you'll have to deny all of the data that have been presented in numerous threads in this forum and invent some of your own. Go for it. See what Breitbart and NewsMax have going for them today.

 

[dblack]

Aetna, for one, started offering health insurance decades earlier than that.

Aetna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Precisely my point. A for-profit insurer entered what had previously been a nonprofit market. By the mid-80s there were dozens of them.

No, your claim was that prior to 1980 health insurance companies weren't driven by profit. It was too preposterous, and too obviously untrue, for me to bother looking it up. But now that boedicca has, you might get more respect by simply eating some humble pie and admitting you were wrong.

 

[Arianrhod]

Aetna, for one, started offering health insurance decades earlier than that.

Aetna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Precisely my point. A for-profit insurer entered what had previously been a nonprofit market. By the mid-80s there were dozens of them.

No, your claim was that prior to 1980 health insurance companies weren't driven by profit.

No, my claim was that the Blues dominated the market until the mid-80s. Many people are surprised to learn that health insurance was once offered by nonprofit organizations. Others (though not as many) don't know that in their parents' day corporations paid 100% of their employees' premiums - not just for the execs, but for all full-time employees.

 

[boedicca]

Aetna, for one, started offering health insurance decades earlier than that.

Aetna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Precisely my point. A for-profit insurer entered what had previously been a nonprofit market. By the mid-80s there were dozens of them.

No, your claim was that prior to 1980 health insurance companies weren't driven by profit. It was too preposterous, and too obviously untrue, for me to bother looking it up. But now that boedicca has, you might get more respect by simply eating some humble pie and admitting you were wrong.

A-rhod is congenitally unable to do admit that. Being wrong to her is like a fish being in water. It's her natural habitat.

 

[dblack]

Aetna, for one, started offering health insurance decades earlier than that.

Aetna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Precisely my point. A for-profit insurer entered what had previously been a nonprofit market. By the mid-80s there were dozens of them.

No, your claim was that prior to 1980 health insurance companies weren't driven by profit.

No, my claim was that the Blues dominated the market until the mid-80s. Many people are surprised to learn that health insurance was once offered by nonprofit organizations. Others (though not as many) don't know that in their parents' day corporations paid 100% of their employees' premiums - not just for the execs, but for all full-time employees.

Heh. Ok. Respect isn't for everyone.

 

[Arianrhod]

Aetna, for one, started offering health insurance decades earlier than that.

Aetna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Precisely my point. A for-profit insurer entered what had previously been a nonprofit market. By the mid-80s there were dozens of them.

No, your claim was that prior to 1980 health insurance companies weren't driven by profit.

No, my claim was that the Blues dominated the market until the mid-80s. Many people are surprised to learn that health insurance was once offered by nonprofit organizations. Others (though not as many) don't know that in their parents' day corporations paid 100% of their employees' premiums - not just for the execs, but for all full-time employees.

Heh. Ok. Respect isn't for everyone.

Interesting notion.

 

[dblack]

Aetna, for one, started offering health insurance decades earlier than that.

Aetna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Precisely my point. A for-profit insurer entered what had previously been a nonprofit market. By the mid-80s there were dozens of them.

No, your claim was that prior to 1980 health insurance companies weren't driven by profit.

No, my claim was that the Blues dominated the market until the mid-80s. Many people are surprised to learn that health insurance was once offered by nonprofit organizations. Others (though not as many) don't know that in their parents' day corporations paid 100% of their employees' premiums - not just for the execs, but for all full-time employees.

Heh. Ok. Respect isn't for everyone.

Interesting notion.

Especially in light of how much you harp on about the 'unsubstantiated' posts of others.[emoji12]

 

[Arianrhod]

Precisely my point. A for-profit insurer entered what had previously been a nonprofit market. By the mid-80s there were dozens of them.

No, your claim was that prior to 1980 health insurance companies weren't driven by profit.

No, my claim was that the Blues dominated the market until the mid-80s. Many people are surprised to learn that health insurance was once offered by nonprofit organizations. Others (though not as many) don't know that in their parents' day corporations paid 100% of their employees' premiums - not just for the execs, but for all full-time employees.

Heh. Ok. Respect isn't for everyone.

Interesting notion.

Especially in light of how much you harp on about the 'unsubstantiated' posts of others.[emoji12]

You said you couldn't be bothered looking for any evidence to refute me. Did you expect me to respect your indifference?

 

[dblack]

No, your claim was that prior to 1980 health insurance companies weren't driven by profit.

No, my claim was that the Blues dominated the market until the mid-80s. Many people are surprised to learn that health insurance was once offered by nonprofit organizations. Others (though not as many) don't know that in their parents' day corporations paid 100% of their employees' premiums - not just for the execs, but for all full-time employees.

Heh. Ok. Respect isn't for everyone.

Interesting notion.

Especially in light of how much you harp on about the 'unsubstantiated' posts of others.[emoji12]

You said you couldn't be bothered looking for any evidence to refute me. Did you expect me to respect your indifference?

I expected you to do exactly what you did.

 

[Arianrhod]

No, my claim was that the Blues dominated the market until the mid-80s. Many people are surprised to learn that health insurance was once offered by nonprofit organizations. Others (though not as many) don't know that in their parents' day corporations paid 100% of their employees' premiums - not just for the execs, but for all full-time employees.

Heh. Ok. Respect isn't for everyone.

Interesting notion.

Especially in light of how much you harp on about the 'unsubstantiated' posts of others.[emoji12]

You said you couldn't be bothered looking for any evidence to refute me. Did you expect me to respect your indifference?

I expected you to do exactly what you did.

Not have an eidetic memory for dates? I'll admit to that.

That doesn't change the fact that (A) the Blues were nonprofit and (B) corporations used to pay their employees' premiums.

Now, as someone whose premise is that the insurers are the Bad Guys, would you say that things were better for the middle class when (A) and (B) were true?

 

[basquebromance]

 

[Bern80]

This should be pretty basic logic, but apparently it isn't. It's called the Affordable Care Act. I would presume a law titled as such is meant to make the cost of care more affordable.

Again, denying insurers the power to set lifetime caps and/or reject patients for preexisting conditions is putting pressure on them to put pressure on doctors and pharma companies. That will have an impact on cost control. First we have to put more of the Martin Shkrelis in prison as a warning to the rest of the gougers.

If you'd read the PPACA itself - you can find it here: Text of H.R. 3590 (111th): Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Passed Congress/Enrolled Bill version) - GovTrack.us - or the many, many, many sources clarifying what it was instead of reading pre-masticated, regurgitated disinformation on RW websites or, after the fact, asked questions and/or read the extensive information provided by Greenbeard and others, you wouldn't be so confused.

Those things have nothing to do with putting pressure on suppliers to lower prices. What it is again, is an example of an insurance based solution that doesn't allow insurance to work the way it's supposed to. Look at the equivalent of a pre-existing condition in other forms of insurance. That is essentially the equivalent of buying fire insurance only when your house is actually burning and expecting to get charged the same as everyone else who bought insurance preventatively. As such the insurance companies have essentially said if you won't let us charge individuals on the basis of their individual risk, then are only option is to charge everyone more. They are not doing what you suggest. To make up that short fall, they aren't forcing providers to bill for less. They're charging the insured more.

 

[Arianrhod]

This should be pretty basic logic, but apparently it isn't. It's called the Affordable Care Act. I would presume a law titled as such is meant to make the cost of care more affordable.

Again, denying insurers the power to set lifetime caps and/or reject patients for preexisting conditions is putting pressure on them to put pressure on doctors and pharma companies. That will have an impact on cost control. First we have to put more of the Martin Shkrelis in prison as a warning to the rest of the gougers.

If you'd read the PPACA itself - you can find it here: Text of H.R. 3590 (111th): Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Passed Congress/Enrolled Bill version) - GovTrack.us - or the many, many, many sources clarifying what it was instead of reading pre-masticated, regurgitated disinformation on RW websites or, after the fact, asked questions and/or read the extensive information provided by Greenbeard and others, you wouldn't be so confused.

Those things have nothing to do with putting pressure on suppliers to lower prices. What it is again, is an example of an insurance based solution that doesn't allow insurance to work the way it's supposed to. Look at the equivalent of a pre-existing condition in other forms of insurance. That is essentially the equivalent of buying fire insurance only when your house is actually burning and expecting to get charged the same as everyone else who bought insurance preventatively. As such the insurance companies have essentially said if you won't let us charge individuals on the basis of their individual risk, then are only option is to charge everyone more. They are not doing what you suggest. To make up that short fall, they aren't forcing providers to bill for less. They're charging the insured more.

Um, no. There's a poster in this forum who's argued for waiting until he needs health insurance to buy it (failing to understand the concept of open enrollment periods, among other things), but that argument doesn't fly.

If you can show statistically that the PPACA is not having an effect on lowing pricing (despite ample statistics provided by Greenbeard and others showing that it is), please do so.