High Deductibles Force Many to Opt Out of Obamacare

[hortysir]

And it's only going to get worse next year. From the New York Times, not exactly a right-wing rag:



“The deductible, $3,000 a year, makes it impossible to actually go to the doctor,” said David R. Reines, 60, of Jefferson Township, N.J., a former hardware salesman with chronic knee pain. “We have insurance, but can’t afford to use it.”



Read more @ High Deductibles Force Many to Opt Out of Obamacare

I just had to bite the bullet and pay for the higher premium Silver plan to get away from the higher deductible Bronze

 

[strollingbones]

if you do all the math.....monthly costs ....what is paid for after the deduct.....there is not much difference in the plans....the bronze has a high deduct but once you reach that you have no co payments unlike the other plans.....its not the solution but its the start

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Prior to the PPACA, premiums for individual and/or family plans (as opposed to employer-provided group plans) were considerably higher..

stupid liberal lie. Mine are much much higher under Obamacare. The way to lower premiums is through capitalism. Liberals lack the IQ to understand capitalism so we have socialism which drives prices up and quality down as did in East Germany and 142 other countries.

 

[Slyhunter]

My sister lost her health insurance when her son turned 18. Now she's back to emergency room service just like she was before Obamacare.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

My sister lost her health insurance when her son turned 18. Now she's back to emergency room service just like she was before Obamacare.

Ultimately Obamacommiecare is a disaster since it is socialistic and thus drives prices up and quality down.

 

[Penelope]

Well remember now copays are payable till one meets the deductible. I have done the plans every which way, and well multiply the premium X12 and add the deduct, that is the most OOP , and they mainly all come out the same, depending on income, no. of people in family and if one smokes or not.

We have little choice here. Remember now for lower incomes take a silver plan , cost sharing for lower deducts and OOP max.

We may or may not get a subsidy but its good to be signed up as one never knows if one has lower income due to many reasons.

There is some work that needs to be done to ACA, such as the smoking penalty is discrimination, since they do not ask if anything else about ones social sins, like unprotected sex, driving while intoxicated, smoking pot, eating to oblivion, fast and junk food junkie, heroin addict, NOPE, just smoking.

Also Trad IRA's and HSA can lower Agi among a few other things.

 

[Arianrhod]

Well remember now copays are payable till one meets the deductible. I have done the plans every which way, and well multiply the premium X12 and add the deduct, that is the most OOP , and they mainly all come out the same, depending on income, no. of people in family and if one smokes or not.

We have little choice here. Remember now for lower incomes take a silver plan , cost sharing for lower deducts and OOP max.

We may or may not get a subsidy but its good to be signed up as one never knows if one has lower income due to many reasons.

There is some work that needs to be done to ACA, such as the smoking penalty is discrimination, since they do not ask if anything else about ones social sins, like unprotected sex, driving while intoxicated, smoking pot, eating to oblivion, fast and junk food junkie, heroin addict, NOPE, just smoking.

Also Trad IRA's and HSA can lower Agi among a few other things.

Agree with most of this. A great deal of the confusion, I find, as I read through the threads in this forum, comes from people who, prior to 2014, did not understand the process of applying for and (annually) renewing a health insurance policy.

Some apparently still don't understand. The assumption was "I've got insurance; therefore everyone else [who works hard and isn't a librul] also has insurance."

Many still don't understand that the PPACA is not insurance, but a way to access insurance that, under many circumstances, can help the consumer find subsidies based on the things you mentioned - income, number of family members, and, yes, smoking (will get to that in a minute).

What the PPACA also provides is an opportunity to report income annually so that, for example, if the insured's income changes up or down, if the insured changes jobs or is unemployed, these factors and others can be reflected in the premiums.

Before the PPACA, you paid your premiums regardless of your employment status. Miss a payment, lose your coverage. Sucks to be you. Not anymore.

As for smoking, the goal there is twofold. First, the costs of smoking-related illnesses are astronomical. In order to keep premiums on nonsmokers lower, yes, smokers pay more. However, very often their insurer can refer them to (covered) smoking cessation programs. And once they quit smoking, their premiums will be comparable to nonsmokers (aside from the fact that they'll live longer, healthier lives).

Penalizing other lifestyle choices is a little trickier but, again, many insurers offer rewards. Substance abuse counseling is covered, as is diet modification, exercise programs, etc. The focus is on getting and staying well, not on waiting until you get sick.

 

[dblack]

Obamacare is really the next thing to no insurance;

Obamacare enrollees are reeling from high deductibles

People who grabbed the first bronze plan they stumbled across need to learn to put a little effort into their choice of health insurance.

Many of them did that in good faith only to have their plan discontinued or changed.

If so, they need to find a better insurance company.

They need the freedom to say 'no' to insurance that isn't a worthwhile purchase. ACA takes that freedom away from us and sets everyone up as captive customers.

 

[dblack]

The insurance industry has taken control of its market by using government to dictate which products they can sell. And which we must buy. That alleviates them of the need to compete via innovation. In a free market, these undesirable plans wouldn't sell, and the insurance companies would be forced to come up with something viable. By regulating the market, they can keep pushing the same unworkable insurance schemes because now we are forced by law to buy them.

 

[Arianrhod]

They need the freedom to say 'no' to insurance that isn't a worthwhile purchase.

They not only have the freedom to say "Ima pay the penalty and get nothing - take that, Obama!" they have the freedom that they always had to find an insurance plan that suits their needs and that, with subsidies, more working people can afford.

The insurance industry has taken control of its market by using government to dictate which products they can sell. And which we must buy. That alleviates them of the need to compete via innovation. In a free market, these undesirable plans wouldn't sell, and the insurance companies would be forced to come up with something viable.

The insurance industry took control of the market when the for-profit insurers entered that market over 30 years ago. That you're just discovering this is no one else's fault.

 

[Penelope]

Well remember now copays are payable till one meets the deductible. I have done the plans every which way, and well multiply the premium X12 and add the deduct, that is the most OOP , and they mainly all come out the same, depending on income, no. of people in family and if one smokes or not.

We have little choice here. Remember now for lower incomes take a silver plan , cost sharing for lower deducts and OOP max.

We may or may not get a subsidy but its good to be signed up as one never knows if one has lower income due to many reasons.

There is some work that needs to be done to ACA, such as the smoking penalty is discrimination, since they do not ask if anything else about ones social sins, like unprotected sex, driving while intoxicated, smoking pot, eating to oblivion, fast and junk food junkie, heroin addict, NOPE, just smoking.

Also Trad IRA's and HSA can lower Agi among a few other things.

Agree with most of this. A great deal of the confusion, I find, as I read through the threads in this forum, comes from people who, prior to 2014, did not understand the process of applying for and (annually) renewing a health insurance policy.

Some apparently still don't understand. The assumption was "I've got insurance; therefore everyone else [who works hard and isn't a librul] also has insurance."

Many still don't understand that the PPACA is not insurance, but a way to access insurance that, under many circumstances, can help the consumer find subsidies based on the things you mentioned - income, number of family members, and, yes, smoking (will get to that in a minute).

What the PPACA also provides is an opportunity to report income annually so that, for example, if the insured's income changes up or down, if the insured changes jobs or is unemployed, these factors and others can be reflected in the premiums.

Before the PPACA, you paid your premiums regardless of your employment status. Miss a payment, lose your coverage. Sucks to be you. Not anymore.

As for smoking, the goal there is twofold. First, the costs of smoking-related illnesses are astronomical. In order to keep premiums on nonsmokers lower, yes, smokers pay more. However, very often their insurer can refer them to (covered) smoking cessation programs. And once they quit smoking, their premiums will be comparable to nonsmokers (aside from the fact that they'll live longer, healthier lives).

Penalizing other lifestyle choices is a little trickier but, again, many insurers offer rewards. Substance abuse counseling is covered, as is diet modification, exercise programs, etc. The focus is on getting and staying well, not on waiting until you get sick.

True, and as you said most are not accustomed to shopping for ins. Only self employed use to have to shop for it and may I add some have had to put up with high premiums due to not being able to change ins due to pre-existing conditions. The safety net is there, bad accident, loose your job, become disabled and you can get lower premiums.
I do disagree with the smoking premium surcharge as its discriminatory.

Also some just want it for free, and go to er, and file bankruptcy due to medical bills. For those with low income, they get Medicaid, I don't understand what all the squabble is about.

 

[dblack]

They need the freedom to say 'no' to insurance that isn't a worthwhile purchase.

They not only have the freedom to say "Ima pay the penalty and get nothing - take that, Obama!"

That's "freedom" to you? "Do what we tell you or we'll take your money!"? That's seriously fucked up. I can't decide whether this point-of-view is self delusion, or malicious sophistry. It's bullshit either way.

.... they have the freedom that they always had to find an insurance plan that suits their needs and that, with subsidies, more working people can afford.

No - the freedom they always had, the freedom many were beginning to exercise before the insurance industry enlisted their cronies in Congress to put a stop to it, was to tell the insurance companies to get fucked. That freedom is gone, thanks to corrupt leaders and the dimwits who support them.

The insurance industry has taken control of its market by using government to dictate which products they can sell. And which we must buy. That alleviates them of the need to compete via innovation. In a free market, these undesirable plans wouldn't sell, and the insurance companies would be forced to come up with something viable.

The insurance industry took control of the market when the for-profit insurers entered that market over 30 years ago. That you're just discovering this is no one else's fault.

Nope. They had no such control. People could refuse to do business with them. Now they they can't. Obama sold us down the river on that one.

 

[Arianrhod]

They need the freedom to say 'no' to insurance that isn't a worthwhile purchase.

They not only have the freedom to say "Ima pay the penalty and get nothing - take that, Obama!"

That's "freedom" to you? Do what we tell you or will take your money? That's seriously fucked up. I can't decide whether this point-of-view is self delusion, or malicious sophistry. It's bullshit either way.

.... they have the freedom that they always had to find an insurance plan that suits their needs and that, with subsidies, more working people can afford.

No - the freedom they always had, the freedom many were beginning to exercise before the insurance industry enlisted their cronies in Congress to put a stop to it, was to tell the insurance companies to get fucked. Or to turn to competitor who offered more viable solutions. That freedom is gone, thanks to corrupt leaders and the dimwits who support them.

The insurance industry has taken control of its market by using government to dictate which products they can sell. And which we must buy. That alleviates them of the need to compete via innovation. In a free market, these undesirable plans wouldn't sell, and the insurance companies would be forced to come up with something viable.

The insurance industry took control of the market when the for-profit insurers entered that market over 30 years ago. That you're just discovering this is no one else's fault.

Nope. They had no such control. People could refuse to do business with them. Now they they can't. Obama sold us down the river on that one.

Why don't you describe what the health insurance market was like prior to passage of the PPACA?

 

[dblack]

They need the freedom to say 'no' to insurance that isn't a worthwhile purchase.

They not only have the freedom to say "Ima pay the penalty and get nothing - take that, Obama!"

That's "freedom" to you? Do what we tell you or will take your money? That's seriously fucked up. I can't decide whether this point-of-view is self delusion, or malicious sophistry. It's bullshit either way.

.... they have the freedom that they always had to find an insurance plan that suits their needs and that, with subsidies, more working people can afford.

No - the freedom they always had, the freedom many were beginning to exercise before the insurance industry enlisted their cronies in Congress to put a stop to it, was to tell the insurance companies to get fucked. Or to turn to competitor who offered more viable solutions. That freedom is gone, thanks to corrupt leaders and the dimwits who support them.

The insurance industry has taken control of its market by using government to dictate which products they can sell. And which we must buy. That alleviates them of the need to compete via innovation. In a free market, these undesirable plans wouldn't sell, and the insurance companies would be forced to come up with something viable.

The insurance industry took control of the market when the for-profit insurers entered that market over 30 years ago. That you're just discovering this is no one else's fault.

Nope. They had no such control. People could refuse to do business with them. Now they they can't. Obama sold us down the river on that one.

Why don't you describe what the health insurance market was like prior to passage of the PPACA?

Why don't you address the points I'm making? Why the diversion? Do you own a lot of insurance industry stock?

 

[Arianrhod]

Why don't you address the points I'm making?

I am. You just don't like the answers.

 

[dblack]

Why don't you address the points I'm making?

I am. You just don't like the answers.

Not true. You completely ignore the fact that ACA takes away the most important right a consumer has - the right to say "no thanks" to a product or service that isn't worth it to them. Without that, we're subject to the collusion of Congress and the insurance lobby. Obama sold us out.

 

[Arianrhod]

You completely ignore the fact that ACA takes away the most important right a consumer has - the right to say "no thanks" to a product or service that isn't worth it to them.

Because it isn't true, no matter how many times you post it in however-many threads.

 

[dblack]

You completely ignore the fact that ACA takes away the most important right a consumer has - the right to say "no thanks" to a product or service that isn't worth it to them.

Because it isn't true, no matter how many times you post it in however-many threads.

Which part of it do you deny? That it takes away our right to refuse to buy insurance? Or that it's not an important right to begin with?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Why don't you address the points I'm making?

I am. You just don't like the answers.

Not true. You completely ignore the fact that ACA takes away the most important right a consumer has - the right to say "no thanks" to a product or service that isn't worth it to them. Without that, we're subject to the collusion of Congress and the insurance lobby. Obama sold us out.

While I don't like Obummercare, I don't think your statement is acccurate.

We still have the right to say no. We just do it at a penalty.

 

[dblack]

Why don't you address the points I'm making?

I am. You just don't like the answers.

Not true. You completely ignore the fact that ACA takes away the most important right a consumer has - the right to say "no thanks" to a product or service that isn't worth it to them. Without that, we're subject to the collusion of Congress and the insurance lobby. Obama sold us out.

While I don't like Obummercare, I don't think your statement is acccurate.

We still have the right to say no. We just do it at a penalty.

That makes no sense. One could make the same statement about any crime. "You have the right to murder your neighbor, you just do it at a penalty." Would you agree with that claim as well?

If you're penalized for doing something, your right to do it is infringed. That's fundamental logic.