Obama Care Mess

[Flopper]

Does Allstate cover preexisting dents? Should they? Why or why not?

There's a big difference between the denial of auto insurance and health insurance. If you can't get affordable auto insurance because you caused too many wrecks, you can ride the bus, join a car pool, walk, or bike. If you can't get health insurance because you have a serious cancer or heart problem, you're most likely going to die an early death and probably bankrupt your family trying to afford treatments.

You can't wreck your car then buy collision insurance to pay for the repairs, fool.

Which is exactly why health insurance is not like car insurance. Car insurance is denied because of what you have done. Health insurance is denied because what has been done to you. You buy car insurance and hope you will never need it. You buy health insurance because you know you will eventually need it.

 

[dblack]

Which is exactly why health insurance is not like car insurance. Car insurance is denied because of what you have done. Health insurance is denied because what has been done to you. You buy car insurance and hope you will never need it. You buy health insurance because you know you will eventually need it.

Insurance is insurance. It's exactly our irrational demand that health insurance be something else that is causing so much dysfunction in the health care market.

 

[Flopper]

Which is exactly why health insurance is not like car insurance. Car insurance is denied because of what you have done. Health insurance is denied because what has been done to you. You buy car insurance and hope you will never need it. You buy health insurance because you know you will eventually need it.

Insurance is insurance. It's exactly our irrational demand that health insurance be something else that is causing so much dysfunction in the health care market.

No, what is irrational is making a sick person's ability to pay a determine factor in whether they live or die.

 

[dblack]

Which is exactly why health insurance is not like car insurance. Car insurance is denied because of what you have done. Health insurance is denied because what has been done to you. You buy car insurance and hope you will never need it. You buy health insurance because you know you will eventually need it.

Insurance is insurance. It's exactly our irrational demand that health insurance be something else that is causing so much dysfunction in the health care market.

No, what is irrational is making a sick person's ability to pay a determine factor in whether they live or die.

You're just dodging. How we choose to deal with people who can't afford health care has exactly nothing to do with the nature of commercial insurance. Insurance, as you noted, is something we purchase hoping we will never use. It's not a club you join so you can get free stuff. It's a hedge against risk. We have - quite irrationally - decided that we can morph health insurance into something else by decreeing it so with legislation. It's stupid and delusional, and will only add to the pile of 'unintended consequences' that come with bad policy.

Essentially, reformers are trying to create a kind of quasi-socialized medicine via the insurance industry. The insurance industry is more than happy to oblige this naive effort, because they understand that this will give them the same kind of power and control that real socialized medicine gives government.

 

[Defiant1]

Surely there must be thousands of liberal doctors who would treat the needy for free thus making the need for Obamacare moot.

 

[Flopper]

Insurance is insurance. It's exactly our irrational demand that health insurance be something else that is causing so much dysfunction in the health care market.

No, what is irrational is making a sick person's ability to pay a determine factor in whether they live or die.

You're just dodging. How we choose to deal with people who can't afford health care has exactly nothing to do with the nature of commercial insurance. Insurance, as you noted, is something we purchase hoping we will never use. It's not a club you join so you can get free stuff. It's a hedge against risk. We have - quite irrationally - decided that we can morph health insurance into something else by decreeing it so with legislation. It's stupid and delusional, and will only add to the pile of 'unintended consequences' that come with bad policy.

Essentially, reformers are trying to create a kind of quasi-socialized medicine via the insurance industry. The insurance industry is more than happy to oblige this naive effort, because they understand that this will give them the same kind of power and control that real socialized medicine gives government.

As I'm sure you remember, single payer was the primary thrust but when that became impossible to pass, insurance companies were included. I don't think this was best solution but it was better than nothing and at least a step in right direction.

No, I said auto insurance is something we purchase and hope we will never need. We buy health insurance because we expect to use it. With few exceptions, everyone will need health insurance at some time in lives.

While insurance, be it government or private adds to healthcare cost, it is not the primary reason for the rising costs. Trips to family doctor and treatments for routine health problem are not the problem The areas that we are seeing huge increases are in life saving treatments that rely on new technologies. These costs are going to rise even faster as we begin to tailor treatments to the specific strains of disease and to the individual patients. The bottom line is that healthcare costs are going to take a larger share of our income, regardless of who pays.

 

[Bomboozle]

People may dislike “the health reform law” when asked about it that way, but their negative views are rooted largely in ignorance. Strong majorities favor most of the law’s key provisions. Two-thirds favor the so-called guaranteed issue, which bars discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. More than 70% support expanding Medicaid to cover people living below 138% of the poverty level. Some 76% like the rule that allows kids to stay on their parents’ plans through age 25, and even higher proportions favor health insurance exchanges, better drug coverage for Medicare participants, and tax credits to help small businesses sponsor health plans for their employees (chart). All told, the public favors 10 of Obamacare’s 11 key provisions, and Republicans favor seven of the 11.

I'm not sure where you get your statistics from, but according to the Kaiser Family Foundation and other well-known polling agencies, the vast majority of Americans say they don't know about how Obamacare will affect them. What your post focuses on are those provisions of the bill that most people can agree are a good idea -- who doesn't want pre-existing conditions to be banned? But I question your comment that people favor the exchanges -- currently they are in a state of utter chaos, with 33 states opting to not even participate, and the feds scrambling for money to get them up and running. What makes people so nervous is how the system will actually work, and once they figure out how much their healthcare will cost them, there will be lots of phones ringing in politicians' offices. Turns out, Obamacare unfairly treats people, especially the working class, because starting next healthcare premiums will be based on income if you're purchasing healthcare on the individual market or through a SHOP plan (small business) through an Exchange. If you make over the threshold income level that won't qualify you for the premium assistance tax credit or cost sharing reduction subsidy, you will be required to pay the entire cost of your healthcare premium. That's the price we will pay for banning health insurance companies from considering someone's medical history or pre-existing condition when rating their healthcare premium. In addition to the increased premiums, Obamacare will charge employers and insurance companies billions of dollars in fees to pay for the "risk corridors" that will reimburse insurance companies who end up insuring too many high-risk individuals. And it's also unclear whether employers will continue offering subsidized healthcare to their employees because of the added penalties and fees -- which is outrageous because the employer sponsored healthcare a system is a voluntary system and provides affordable healthcare for millions of Americans. If companies decide it's too expensive and decide to discontinue offering healthcare to their employees, people will be forced to purchase their healthcare on an exchange and many will see their healthcare costs jump by hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. Bottom line? This bill will hurt the middle class. I doubt highly people will favor this bill the more they understand how it will hurt them financially.

 

[dblack]

As I'm sure you remember, single payer was the primary thrust but when that became impossible to pass, insurance companies were included. I don't think this was best solution but it was better than nothing and at least a step in right direction.

I do remember, but i disagree that it's 'better than nothing'. Most analysts seem to agree it will do nothing about the core problem (health care inflation), or make it worse. All it succeeds in doing is deepening the collusion between the health care industry and government. I don't see this as a positive development in general.

No, I said auto insurance is something we purchase and hope we will never need. We buy health insurance because we expect to use it. With few exceptions, everyone will need health insurance at some time in lives.

When used sanely, there's no difference between the two. The notion that we can use insurance as a means of financing regular health care expenses is the irrational conceit we have to face and reject. It's the core of our problems regarding health care.

While insurance, be it government or private adds to healthcare cost, it is not the primary reason for the rising costs. Trips to family doctor and treatments for routine health problem are not the problem The areas that we are seeing huge increases are in life saving treatments that rely on new technologies. These costs are going to rise even faster as we begin to tailor treatments to the specific strains of disease and to the individual patients. The bottom line is that healthcare costs are going to take a larger share of our income, regardless of who pays.

You're conflating costs with prices. The amount of money being spent on someone else's end-of-life treatment has nothing to do with the fact routine health care is overpriced. This entire debate is plagued by such conflation. And PPACA is, essentially, a giant bait and switch based on such deliberate confusion of goals; It was presented as a solution to a dysfunctional health care market, but instead damages the market further in an effort to gain more power for government and corporate sponsors.

 

[chikenwing]

The only ones that will benefit from this are the health insurance companies that get chosen in the exchange. Those insurance companies also have a Medicaid plan where the State will pay them a big lump sum per month for taking care of their Medicaid patients.

The people on Medicaid will not have any deductibles to worry about while the rest of us who are employed will have anywhere from $3000 - $6,000 deductibles. Family coverage will be higher. They will cover preventive services but that mostly applies to the physician visit. Any lab work, x-rays, diagnostic testing will be applied to your deductible.

If you have to go to the emergency room your insurance will cover the hospital visit and the physician charges but any testing will be applied to your deductible. The days when we only had to pay a co-pay for all services are gone now.

The health insurances make big profits by doing this since they are turning all of our plans into catastrophic plans with higher premiums. The government has taken care of the high risk pool by funded them but they too have high premiums and deductibles.

It is a complete rip off to the masses and people do need to stand up and stop this horrible take over of our health. If they cared at all about us they would have done this differently but the fact is they are only supporting the insurance companies since they gave them millions for lobbying and contributions to politicians.

It's not just insurance companies that benefits:

Families making less than 133 percent of the poverty line — that’s about $29,000 for a family of four — will be covered through Medicaid. Between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line — $88,000 for a family of four – families will get tax credits on a sliding scale to help pay for private insurance.

For families making less than 400 percent of the poverty line, premiums are capped. So, between 150% and 200% of the poverty line, for instance, families won’t have to pay more than 6.3 percent of their income in premiums. Between 300 percent and 400 percent, they won’t have to pay more than 9.5 percent.

Small businesses that have fewer than 10 employees, average wages beneath $25,000, and that provide insurance for their workers will get a 50 percent tax credit on their contribution. The tax credit reaches up to small businesses with up to 50 employees and average wages of $50,000, though it gets smaller as the business get bigger and richer.

Insurance companies are not allowed to discriminated based on preexisting conditions. They are allowed to discriminate based “on age (limited to 3 to 1 ratio), premium rating area, family composition, and tobacco use (limited to 1.5. to 1 ratio).”

Most People with group coverage will see only minor changes in coverage.

The law requires insurers to spend between 80 and 85 percent of every premium dollar on medical care (as opposed to administration, advertising, etc).

The law is expected to spend a bit over $1 trillion in the next 10 years. The law’s spending cuts — many of which fall on Medicare — and tax increases are expected to either save or raise a bit more than that, which is why the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will slightly reduce the deficit.

The CBO also estimates that by 2022, 33 million people who have no health insurance now will have coverage.

No, it's not just insurance companies that benefit.[/QUOTE

Every last thing you have listed will cost someone money,the people getting their's for next to nothing will be supported by someone else.and you think this is good?

Whats the average insurance companies profit margin?

 

[MeadHallPirate]

Just this morning I read an article about ObamaCare in a company newsletter my younger sister brought home from work. It made my hair stand on end!! If I could print it on here for folks to read I would.

Under this legislation we are all going to be in hot water. It is going to be a mess. My sister's employer is going to drop all full-timers to part-time in order to avoid being penalized. and I do mean penalized. Because they have over 50 full-time employees they would be find $2000 for every FT employee minus the first 30, a grand total of over $700,000.00 annually. Think this is a good incentive for companies to provide insurance? Read on!

The most popular and least expensive plan this company offers is a "Limited Benefits Plan" Because their is a limit or "cap" on the services the plan covers annually, it does not meet the minimum essential coverage requirement of the ObamaCare legislation. They will not be able to offer this plan to their employees when the time comes for renewal.

If a plan offered by an employer costs more than 9.5% of the employee's gross household wages for the least expensive employee only plan, the plan is considered unaffordable and the employer can be penalized $3000 per employee who can't afford the insurance.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that health insurance for individuals will be as much as $4000 annually and $12,000 for families.

People, we need to wake up and smell the coffee! We are being bullied by our government (Obama). Those of us who care need to telephone our state congresspeople and let them know how we feel. This is still the United States of America and I for one would like it to stay that way.

ahoy CallieAnn,

well met, lass.

imma sorry fer the fortunes 'o yer younger sister, her case seems to be an exception to the rule.

Only businesses with over 50 employees who don't already provide health benefits to their full-timers will be affected.

These businesses account for .2% of the population.

While employees of some of those companies may have their hours cut to part time in order for employers to avoid paying a penalty, ObamaCare actually creates millions of jobs, including tens of thousands of new health care jobs, 16,000 new IRS jobs as well as many more private-sector jobs (especially in small businesses with under 25 employees) and other government jobs.

ObamaCare: Myths About Health Care Reform

- MeadhallPirate

 

[Underhill]

People may dislike “the health reform law” when asked about it that way, but their negative views are rooted largely in ignorance. Strong majorities favor most of the law’s key provisions. Two-thirds favor the so-called guaranteed issue, which bars discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. More than 70% support expanding Medicaid to cover people living below 138% of the poverty level. Some 76% like the rule that allows kids to stay on their parents’ plans through age 25, and even higher proportions favor health insurance exchanges, better drug coverage for Medicare participants, and tax credits to help small businesses sponsor health plans for their employees (chart). All told, the public favors 10 of Obamacare’s 11 key provisions, and Republicans favor seven of the 11.

Happy Birthday, Obamacare ? MSNBC

However, those numbers may change once people realize that they will have to pay for those benefits through higher premiums, fines, or being dropped completely by their employer, who may also reduce their hours to get around the "full time" requirements. Everyone likes better benefits until the bill comes.

I suppose the ones who will hate it the most will be the young people who make reasonable income but choose not to buy health insurance; they will be paying a penalty (OK, a tax) of 2.5% of their income by 2016.

There were two basic options on the table to cover everyone with health insurance (which is what polling shows the American people wanted during the first Obama election). First is what we got, a mandate. The republicans recognized this in the 90's in their alternative plan to what the Clintons wanted. Which brings us to the other option. Government health care for all.

The second option saves us a hell of a lot of money over the mandate. But Obama thought, right or wrong, that people would be more upset by the idea of full on socialized health care.

Personally I don't think it matters what he did. So he should have gone for some medicare for all type plan. It still would have been a mess, and needed fixing. But it would have been much more economical in the end.

 

[dblack]

There were two basic options on the table to cover everyone with health insurance (which is what polling shows the American people wanted during the first Obama election)...

I think that what most people wanted was affordable health care. Most of us have grown up on the delusion that group health insurance is the way to achieve that. But it's proven a monumental failure and we need to be moving away from it, rather than doubling down on a bad bet.

Representative democracy is designed to leverage the expertise and knowledge of our elected leaders. We rely on them to tell us when what we "want" is bad policy and why (most importantly!). The populist cop-out of 'give the people what they want' indulges the worst aspects of demagoguery and mob rule.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Obamacare started out as supposed to make healthcare insurance more affordable, and thus more people would have healthcare coverage. Somewhere along the road it turned into a monster power grab. We have to pass it to see what's in it? Really Nancy?

 

[Flopper]

There were two basic options on the table to cover everyone with health insurance (which is what polling shows the American people wanted during the first Obama election)...

I think that what most people wanted was affordable health care. Most of us have grown up on the delusion that group health insurance is the way to achieve that. But it's proven a monumental failure and we need to be moving away from it, rather than doubling down on a bad bet.

Representative democracy is designed to leverage the expertise and knowledge of our elected leaders. We rely on them to tell us when what we "want" is bad policy and why (most importantly!). The populist cop-out of 'give the people what they want' indulges the worst aspects of demagoguery and mob rule.

I think American's want what so many other countries have, affordable healthcare for everyone regardless of there physical or financial conditions.

In general, group health insurance cost the individual a lot less than an individual policy. This in part, is due to employer contributions but is also do to the size of the employers health insurance contract. A contract to cover 10,000 employees and families can easily bring in 50 million a year. At that cost, you can negotiate a lot of goodies into the contract that you just can't get in an individual contract.

 

[hortysir]

People may dislike “the health reform law” when asked about it that way, but their negative views are rooted largely in ignorance. Strong majorities favor most of the law’s key provisions. Two-thirds favor the so-called guaranteed issue, which bars discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. More than 70% support expanding Medicaid to cover people living below 138% of the poverty level. Some 76% like the rule that allows kids to stay on their parents’ plans through age 25, and even higher proportions favor health insurance exchanges, better drug coverage for Medicare participants, and tax credits to help small businesses sponsor health plans for their employees (chart). All told, the public favors 10 of Obamacare’s 11 key provisions, and Republicans favor seven of the 11.

Happy Birthday, Obamacare ? MSNBC

You mean to tell me that a lot of people like the fact that someone else is going to pay for something for them????

 

[lynn63]

Yes, our government is setting a good example by expanding Medicaid so millions can now have insurance. However, after 2014 they are going to start eliminating some of those benefits covered under Medicaid since it turns out it is not going to be affordable for the government to pay on all those additional participates on Medicaid.

Meanwhile, every other working class individual is trying to survive each month with this new premium expense in their budget. We do not have a choice to cut benefits so it will be cheaper for us. Not only are the last generation of baby boomers getting a reduction in their upcoming retirement benefits, they also have to suffer now with higher out of pocket expenses.

If the government's intention was to discourage us from actually getting healthcare so we cannot prolong our life with the latest advancements in medicine, then government will win. It is obvious that the government wants to increase the death stats to reduce cost.

 

[Flopper]

People may dislike “the health reform law” when asked about it that way, but their negative views are rooted largely in ignorance. Strong majorities favor most of the law’s key provisions. Two-thirds favor the so-called guaranteed issue, which bars discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. More than 70% support expanding Medicaid to cover people living below 138% of the poverty level. Some 76% like the rule that allows kids to stay on their parents’ plans through age 25, and even higher proportions favor health insurance exchanges, better drug coverage for Medicare participants, and tax credits to help small businesses sponsor health plans for their employees (chart). All told, the public favors 10 of Obamacare’s 11 key provisions, and Republicans favor seven of the 11.

Happy Birthday, Obamacare ? MSNBC

You mean to tell me that a lot of people like the fact that someone else is going to pay for something for them????

That's exactly what most people want. They want someone to pay for their healthcare expense. When a vital service is not available to people because of cost or because they can't provide it themselves, they expect someone; that is government to provide it. This is the case with police, fire, environmental, protection, military protection, and very soon healthcare.

The most vital healthcare services will see some big increase in cost in the coming years because many services will be tailored specifically for individual patients such as replacement body parts and organs that are grown to match the patient, gene theory, treatments for acute and chronic conditions where drugs are developed for a specific patient. Regardless of who pays, the costs are going to be high. Longer, healthy lives are going to come at a steep price. We are going to have spend a larger part of the GNP on healthcare.

 

[dblack]

People may dislike “the health reform law” when asked about it that way, but their negative views are rooted largely in ignorance. Strong majorities favor most of the law’s key provisions. Two-thirds favor the so-called guaranteed issue, which bars discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. More than 70% support expanding Medicaid to cover people living below 138% of the poverty level. Some 76% like the rule that allows kids to stay on their parents’ plans through age 25, and even higher proportions favor health insurance exchanges, better drug coverage for Medicare participants, and tax credits to help small businesses sponsor health plans for their employees (chart). All told, the public favors 10 of Obamacare’s 11 key provisions, and Republicans favor seven of the 11.

Happy Birthday, Obamacare ? MSNBC

You mean to tell me that a lot of people like the fact that someone else is going to pay for something for them????

That's been the lowbrow sales-pitch for insurance since the first policy was sold. But it's a come-on and we've finally got all the evidence we need to realize that in the long run, it doesn't work that way. Insurance adds unnecessary overhead to every transaction it 'covers'. Insurance is a gamble, and in the end the house always wins.

Insurance makes sense as a way to hedge your bets; to 'cover' unlikely losses that would bankrupt you outright. As a means of paying for day-to-day health care expenses it's irrational and poisonous to the health care market.

 

[dblack]

There were two basic options on the table to cover everyone with health insurance (which is what polling shows the American people wanted during the first Obama election)...

I think that what most people wanted was affordable health care. Most of us have grown up on the delusion that group health insurance is the way to achieve that. But it's proven a monumental failure and we need to be moving away from it, rather than doubling down on a bad bet.

Representative democracy is designed to leverage the expertise and knowledge of our elected leaders. We rely on them to tell us when what we "want" is bad policy and why (most importantly!). The populist cop-out of 'give the people what they want' indulges the worst aspects of demagoguery and mob rule.

I think American's want what so many other countries have, affordable healthcare for everyone regardless of there physical or financial conditions.

You're equivocating on the term 'affordable healthcare'. I assume this is rhetorical, and not meant to deceive, but it's worth pointing out. What I meant by 'affordable health care' is health care prices that aren't artificially inflated. When you modify it with "for everyone regardless of there physical or financial conditions" you change the meaning to some kind of blanket assurance that all of us will get all the healthcare we want or need.

While that may be a natural 'want' for any of us, even most voters are mature enough to understanding that it's an irrational demand. Every single one of us will face a time when it's too expensive to stay alive - no matter how much money we have or who is paying for it.

In any case, we have to recognize that the problem of inflated health care prices is distinct and separate from the social safety net issue. They're related, to be sure, but they require different solutions - and all too often a solution for one only makes the other worse.

In general, group health insurance cost the individual a lot less than an individual policy. This in part, is due to employer contributions but is also do to the size of the employers health insurance contract. A contract to cover 10,000 employees and families can easily bring in 50 million a year. At that cost, you can negotiate a lot of goodies into the contract that you just can't get in an individual contract.

Right. It's market manipulation, manipulation that benefits the insured at the expense of everyone else. Large group plans negotiate for discounts that the uninsured, or those insured via smaller plans aren't allowed. The rest of us pay full pop. It's essentially no different than corporations using monopoly power to dictate market conditions - which we've wisely made illegal in other contexts.

 

[lynn63]

I have a friend who is wife died of kidney cancer. They had insurance but they paid very little of her care which added up quickly in the tune of over a half million dollars. How many of us can afford that medical bill? They didn't save her so where is the justification in those costs?

These insurance companies find any excuse not to pay and it has got to stop considering they keep raising premiums. What are they really doing with all of our money? The only item that insurance companies are good for is their fee schedule.