login
ACA and Dissappointing numbers (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-12-31 6:52 PM in reply to: DanielG |
Elite  4547   |  Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbersOriginally posted by DanielG It just gets better and better. Do people actually believe this stuff or is this another case of throw enough spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/30/eleanor-holmes-norton-obam... “What we have been battling now is first, every time the House couldn't think of anything else to do, it had a big debate on repealing Obamacare, so there are millions who think it was repealed," Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) told MSNBC host Richard Lui. Hi Daniel, have you been watching any coverage of the ACA on Fox News? I can tell you, I have. So have my in-laws. I watch the coverage and can't help but find the humor in the 24/7 attack on the ACA. Is it perfect? Nope. Was the status quo before the ACA perfect? Absolutely not. That said, my in-laws (and millions of like-minded Americans) fall in lock-step behind that great American Sean Hannity constantly bad-mouthing the ACA. Guess what, I'm pretty dang sure my brother-in-law would benefit from getting health insurance on the DE exchange...BUT, it's kind of hard to convince someone of this when they refuse to even consider looking at anything associated with something Hannity and Fox attack 24/7. My brother-in-law isn't an isolated case. By the way Daniel, I'm very sorry about your kidney cancer, that is truly terrible. But, there's something probably even more terrible out there, and that would be having kidney cancer without health insurance. I'm not a betting man, but I'm willing to guess it's now easier for someone with kidney cancer to get health insurance than it was prior to the ACA. I think we can agree that's a good thing. |
| 2013-12-31 6:59 PM in reply to: 0 |
| Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy Originally posted by DanielG It just gets better and better. Do people actually believe this stuff or is this another case of throw enough spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/30/eleanor-holmes-norton-obam... “What we have been battling now is first, every time the House couldn't think of anything else to do, it had a big debate on repealing Obamacare, so there are millions who think it was repealed," Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) told MSNBC host Richard Lui. Hi Daniel, have you been watching any coverage of the ACA on Fox News? I can tell you, I have. So have my in-laws. I watch the coverage and can't help but find the humor in the 24/7 attack on the ACA. Is it perfect? Nope. Was the status quo before the ACA perfect? Absolutely not. That said, my in-laws (and millions of like-minded Americans) fall in lock-step behind that great American Sean Hannity constantly bad-mouthing the ACA. Guess what, I'm pretty dang sure my brother-in-law would benefit from getting health insurance on the DE exchange...BUT, it's kind of hard to convince someone of this when they refuse to even consider looking at anything associated with something Hannity and Fox attack 24/7. My brother-in-law isn't an isolated case. By the way Daniel, I'm very sorry about your kidney cancer, that is truly terrible. But, there's something probably even more terrible out there, and that would be having kidney cancer without health insurance. I'm not a betting man, but I'm willing to guess it's now easier for someone with kidney cancer to get health insurance than it was prior to the ACA. I think we can agree that's a good thing. Nope. I don't watch TV. I read and have spiders for a few thousand English sites. I guess you didn't notice that was from the huffington post. I couldn't care less what Hannity (never saw him(?)) has to say about much of anything, nor do I much like assumptions about my listening habits. I don't believe it's the government's job to have anything to do with health care. Period. Don't give a damn if it's easier or harder to get coverage since the abortion of Obamacare. Again, it's not the government's job. That is all. Full stop. Edited by DanielG 2013-12-31 7:00 PM |
| 2013-12-31 7:29 PM in reply to: DanielG |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy Originally posted by DanielG It just gets better and better. Do people actually believe this stuff or is this another case of throw enough spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/30/eleanor-holmes-norton-obam... “What we have been battling now is first, every time the House couldn't think of anything else to do, it had a big debate on repealing Obamacare, so there are millions who think it was repealed," Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) told MSNBC host Richard Lui. Hi Daniel, have you been watching any coverage of the ACA on Fox News? I can tell you, I have. So have my in-laws. I watch the coverage and can't help but find the humor in the 24/7 attack on the ACA. Is it perfect? Nope. Was the status quo before the ACA perfect? Absolutely not. That said, my in-laws (and millions of like-minded Americans) fall in lock-step behind that great American Sean Hannity constantly bad-mouthing the ACA. Guess what, I'm pretty dang sure my brother-in-law would benefit from getting health insurance on the DE exchange...BUT, it's kind of hard to convince someone of this when they refuse to even consider looking at anything associated with something Hannity and Fox attack 24/7. My brother-in-law isn't an isolated case. By the way Daniel, I'm very sorry about your kidney cancer, that is truly terrible. But, there's something probably even more terrible out there, and that would be having kidney cancer without health insurance. I'm not a betting man, but I'm willing to guess it's now easier for someone with kidney cancer to get health insurance than it was prior to the ACA. I think we can agree that's a good thing. Nope. I don't watch TV. I read and have spiders for a few thousand English sites. I guess you didn't notice that was from the huffington post. I couldn't care less what Hannity (never saw him(?)) has to say about much of anything, nor do I much like assumptions about my listening habits. I don't believe it's the government's job to have anything to do with health care. Period. Don't give a damn if it's easier or harder to get coverage since the abortion of Obamacare. Again, it's not the government's job. That is all. Full stop. You wrote "...nor do I much like assumptions about my listening habits." Seriously? My gosh, I asked you if you had watched any of the Fox News coverage, and you post that I'm assuming what your listening habits are. My point is that millions of people DO watch Hannity and listen to Rush for all their news. Many of these folks (whether it benefits them or not) won't look twice at anything Obamacare has to offer, which is unfortunate. Many of these folks may have serious illnesses and could get coverage thanks to Obamacare. That may be an"abortion" in your eyes, but not mine. |
| 2013-12-31 9:04 PM in reply to: ChineseDemocracy |
Veteran 732  Pittsburgh, PA | Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers I'm still waiting to hear numbers from an objective agency, and waiting for some context- how many uninsured Americans are there, still? I, for one, couldn't be happier with what the ACA has done for me. I'm a small business owner (me + 2 contracted employees) and even without the exchange, my premium would have gone down due to ACA laws (a certain % of premiums must now go to medical care, not advertising and administration- in fact I already got a refund check from my current health insurance for that, and because starting Jan 1 I can't be charged more because I'm a woman.) Add in that my prescription coverage now has to cover my birth control, and I was already ahead. I was one of those who had my current insurance cancelled. From what I read that has been a problem for others, but it wasn't for me. I did not like my current insurance; it was basically there so if I got cancer or wrecked my bike horribly, I could go to a hospital and get decent treatment. I got one check-up a year, and beyond that, the insurance covered nothing until I met a huge deductible, and even then I was on the hook for 20%. Under my new insurance (from the exchange), I have a reasonable copay on all doctors' visits before my deductible is met, and a much lower deductible. In fact, my current total contribution is much less than my previous deductible. All that, and I'm saving about $30/ month on my premium, without a subsidy. I guess we'll see if premiums in general go up, but I don't think anyone can predict that now. I do wonder: if you have insurance through your employer, why do you care about this? It seems like it doesn't affect you at all. |
| 2013-12-31 9:24 PM in reply to: sbreaux |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers Originally posted by sbreaux There are a lot of revenue pieces related to people signing up on plans. I'm on my phone so I can't find a proper link but here's an insurance company explaining several of the fees. The one I'm referring to is the 3.5% fee listed on number 5. Originally posted by tuwood OK, i'll try and give an objective response on this. There are a couple of things with the ACA, you have the people who are signing up for insurance plans via the exchange. The Federal government gets a cut of the premiums from everyone who signs up on the exchange, so it will have an impact on projected revenues if they fall short of their numbers. You then have the expansion of medicaid which isn't people signing up for insurance, but people signing up for full government paid healthcare. This is an increase in expense for the government. What I have seen transpire is a mass influx of pre-existing condition folks who could not get insurance before sign up on the exchange and very few young invincible's. This issue primarily effects the health insurance companies because they have to have a certain percentage of young and healthy people to offset the not so healthy. They assumed that with the mandate and a penalty that a larger percentage of people would sign up. So far, they've assumed wrong which means they will either go bankrupt, or raise their rates to compensate for all the new payouts. The second issue is the number of people signing up for medicaid. I haven't seen any recent numbers, but on the earlier ones they reported that almost 90% of the people signing up on the exchanges were signing up for medicaid and not exchange plans. I think I posted a few articles a while back about the medicaid spike being far greater than expected. So, essentially what I think will happen is the insurance companies are going to get rocked and have to raise their rates a lot. The revenues will be a fraction of what the government predicted. Medicaid costs will go through the roof. I know, I'm just a fiscal conservative whose against all government spending, but seriously how can anyone think this thing is going to work out? The Feds will try to prop it up by printing more money, but the states don't have that luxury.
Could you possibly provide a source for the bolded part. I had not heard this before. So when the insurance companies collect premiums, they will be sending a portion to the government??? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=V4jDUqXUH8Wc2QXxg4GwCQ&url=http://chcnevada.coventryhealthcare.com/web/groups/public/%40cvty_regional_chcnevada/documents/newsletter/c082317.pdf&cd=10&ved=0CEAQFjAJ&usg=AFQjCNFdh6z4hZtqswehX8eSltlbKBVu9Q |
| 2013-12-31 9:27 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers Sorry if that link is whacky, posting on my phone |
| 2014-01-01 7:58 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers Eek, my phone really mangled this thread. Here's the link I was posting above:
|
| 2014-01-01 8:24 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood OK, i'll try and give an objective response on this. There are a couple of things with the ACA, you have the people who are signing up for insurance plans via the exchange. The Federal government gets a cut of the premiums from everyone who signs up on the exchange, so it will have an impact on projected revenues if they fall short of their numbers. You then have the expansion of medicaid which isn't people signing up for insurance, but people signing up for full government paid healthcare. This is an increase in expense for the government. What I have seen transpire is a mass influx of pre-existing condition folks who could not get insurance before sign up on the exchange and very few young invincible's. This issue primarily effects the health insurance companies because they have to have a certain percentage of young and healthy people to offset the not so healthy. They assumed that with the mandate and a penalty that a larger percentage of people would sign up. So far, they've assumed wrong which means they will either go bankrupt, or raise their rates to compensate for all the new payouts. The second issue is the number of people signing up for medicaid. I haven't seen any recent numbers, but on the earlier ones they reported that almost 90% of the people signing up on the exchanges were signing up for medicaid and not exchange plans. I think I posted a few articles a while back about the medicaid spike being far greater than expected. So, essentially what I think will happen is the insurance companies are going to get rocked and have to raise their rates a lot. The revenues will be a fraction of what the government predicted. Medicaid costs will go through the roof. I know, I'm just a fiscal conservative whose against all government spending, but seriously how can anyone think this thing is going to work out? The Feds will try to prop it up by printing more money, but the states don't have that luxury. The way that it will work is if a large number of people sign up. I agree that there are many problems with it and that it probably won't work as is. I just have a problem with people continuing to complain about how expensive it is, but then when you ask them how much they are paying plus what their employer is paying now vs the total cost of the ACA insurance, you get crickets. I know for me, as a 24 year old, it costs 1/3 as much to insure me on the exchange, vs my contribution+ my employers contribution. Now, clearly this won't be the case for everyone, but I think it is absolutely crap to run around screaming about how expensive it is for the individuals compared to the current system, without at least honestly exploring the real numbers on the level of individuals, not what you "think" is going to happen to the entire system and country.
OK, I'll throw out some crickets. I own a business and I pay 100% of the insurance premium for all of my employees. So, I would say that qualifies me to assess objectively what the costs are for insurance on the exchange versus what I pay for the business. We have an HSA account that costs ~$300/mo. for single employees and they have a $2500 annual out of pocket deductible. It then rolls to an 80/20 with a maximum out of pocket max of $5000. Then it's 100% coverage. I also contribute $250/mo. into each employees HSA account which gives them $3000 in their HSA account to spend on medical or simply invest towards retirement. So, essentially for $550/mo. total cost (to me) my employees get 100% free healthcare. I looked into the local exchanges for small business plans as well as individual plans and there were a couple bronze plans that were right at the $500/mo rate, but they had almost $6000 individual deductibles and $12000 for out of pocket max. So, if I were to throw my employees on the exchange they would go from free healthcare to $6000 out of pocket before they get a single dollar of insurance helping them. I wouldn't be able to contribute to their HSA accounts anymore because the premiums were almost double. The numbers are even worse for family coverage. Fortunately we were able to renew our existing plan in December for an additional year. So, I don't have to deal with it until next year, but it's going to be really ugly if things aren't better by then. |
| 2014-01-02 12:22 PM in reply to: chayes |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers Originally posted by chayes I'm still waiting to hear numbers from an objective agency, and waiting for some context- how many uninsured Americans are there, still? I, for one, couldn't be happier with what the ACA has done for me. I'm a small business owner (me + 2 contracted employees) and even without the exchange, my premium would have gone down due to ACA laws (a certain % of premiums must now go to medical care, not advertising and administration- in fact I already got a refund check from my current health insurance for that, and because starting Jan 1 I can't be charged more because I'm a woman.) Add in that my prescription coverage now has to cover my birth control, and I was already ahead. I was one of those who had my current insurance cancelled. From what I read that has been a problem for others, but it wasn't for me. I did not like my current insurance; it was basically there so if I got cancer or wrecked my bike horribly, I could go to a hospital and get decent treatment. I got one check-up a year, and beyond that, the insurance covered nothing until I met a huge deductible, and even then I was on the hook for 20%. Under my new insurance (from the exchange), I have a reasonable copay on all doctors' visits before my deductible is met, and a much lower deductible. In fact, my current total contribution is much less than my previous deductible. All that, and I'm saving about $30/ month on my premium, without a subsidy. I guess we'll see if premiums in general go up, but I don't think anyone can predict that now. I do wonder: if you have insurance through your employer, why do you care about this? It seems like it doesn't affect you at all. I am sure you are aware that ACA plans do not cover 100% of healthcare charges. Depending on the plan, you could be on the hook for up to 40% of charges, so the plan you purchase may not be that big of a bargain. The following is how much the plans will pay: Bronze 60% Silver 70% Gold 80% Platinum 90% |
| 2014-01-02 7:23 PM in reply to: NXS |
| Veteran 244 Ohio | Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by chayes I'm still waiting to hear numbers from an objective agency, and waiting for some context- how many uninsured Americans are there, still? I, for one, couldn't be happier with what the ACA has done for me. I'm a small business owner (me + 2 contracted employees) and even without the exchange, my premium would have gone down due to ACA laws (a certain % of premiums must now go to medical care, not advertising and administration- in fact I already got a refund check from my current health insurance for that, and because starting Jan 1 I can't be charged more because I'm a woman.) Add in that my prescription coverage now has to cover my birth control, and I was already ahead. I was one of those who had my current insurance cancelled. From what I read that has been a problem for others, but it wasn't for me. I did not like my current insurance; it was basically there so if I got cancer or wrecked my bike horribly, I could go to a hospital and get decent treatment. I got one check-up a year, and beyond that, the insurance covered nothing until I met a huge deductible, and even then I was on the hook for 20%. Under my new insurance (from the exchange), I have a reasonable copay on all doctors' visits before my deductible is met, and a much lower deductible. In fact, my current total contribution is much less than my previous deductible. All that, and I'm saving about $30/ month on my premium, without a subsidy. I guess we'll see if premiums in general go up, but I don't think anyone can predict that now. I do wonder: if you have insurance through your employer, why do you care about this? It seems like it doesn't affect you at all. I am sure you are aware that ACA plans do not cover 100% of healthcare charges. Depending on the plan, you could be on the hook for up to 40% of charges, so the plan you purchase may not be that big of a bargain. The following is how much the plans will pay: Bronze 60% Silver 70% Gold 80% Platinum 90% Just to make it clear to those who may be reading...the percentages listed are the "Actuarial Values" of each the plans based on a standardized group of people. The actual percentages of your health care costs paid by the plan in any year will very likely be more or less than that listed. http://www.kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8177.... |
| 2014-01-04 5:04 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
| 77 | Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood OK, i'll try and give an objective response on this. There are a couple of things with the ACA, you have the people who are signing up for insurance plans via the exchange. The Federal government gets a cut of the premiums from everyone who signs up on the exchange, so it will have an impact on projected revenues if they fall short of their numbers. You then have the expansion of medicaid which isn't people signing up for insurance, but people signing up for full government paid healthcare. This is an increase in expense for the government. What I have seen transpire is a mass influx of pre-existing condition folks who could not get insurance before sign up on the exchange and very few young invincible's. This issue primarily effects the health insurance companies because they have to have a certain percentage of young and healthy people to offset the not so healthy. They assumed that with the mandate and a penalty that a larger percentage of people would sign up. So far, they've assumed wrong which means they will either go bankrupt, or raise their rates to compensate for all the new payouts. The second issue is the number of people signing up for medicaid. I haven't seen any recent numbers, but on the earlier ones they reported that almost 90% of the people signing up on the exchanges were signing up for medicaid and not exchange plans. I think I posted a few articles a while back about the medicaid spike being far greater than expected. So, essentially what I think will happen is the insurance companies are going to get rocked and have to raise their rates a lot. The revenues will be a fraction of what the government predicted. Medicaid costs will go through the roof. I know, I'm just a fiscal conservative whose against all government spending, but seriously how can anyone think this thing is going to work out? The Feds will try to prop it up by printing more money, but the states don't have that luxury. The way that it will work is if a large number of people sign up. I agree that there are many problems with it and that it probably won't work as is. I just have a problem with people continuing to complain about how expensive it is, but then when you ask them how much they are paying plus what their employer is paying now vs the total cost of the ACA insurance, you get crickets. I know for me, as a 24 year old, it costs 1/3 as much to insure me on the exchange, vs my contribution+ my employers contribution. Now, clearly this won't be the case for everyone, but I think it is absolutely crap to run around screaming about how expensive it is for the individuals compared to the current system, without at least honestly exploring the real numbers on the level of individuals, not what you "think" is going to happen to the entire system and country.
A big factor you omit is the $5,000 + deductible. |
| 2014-01-04 5:10 AM in reply to: ChineseDemocracy |
| 77 | Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy Originally posted by DanielG It just gets better and better. Do people actually believe this stuff or is this another case of throw enough spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/30/eleanor-holmes-norton-obam... “What we have been battling now is first, every time the House couldn't think of anything else to do, it had a big debate on repealing Obamacare, so there are millions who think it was repealed," Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) told MSNBC host Richard Lui. Hi Daniel, have you been watching any coverage of the ACA on Fox News? I can tell you, I have. So have my in-laws. I watch the coverage and can't help but find the humor in the 24/7 attack on the ACA. Is it perfect? Nope. Was the status quo before the ACA perfect? Absolutely not. That said, my in-laws (and millions of like-minded Americans) fall in lock-step behind that great American Sean Hannity constantly bad-mouthing the ACA. Guess what, I'm pretty dang sure my brother-in-law would benefit from getting health insurance on the DE exchange...BUT, it's kind of hard to convince someone of this when they refuse to even consider looking at anything associated with something Hannity and Fox attack 24/7. My brother-in-law isn't an isolated case. By the way Daniel, I'm very sorry about your kidney cancer, that is truly terrible. But, there's something probably even more terrible out there, and that would be having kidney cancer without health insurance. I'm not a betting man, but I'm willing to guess it's now easier for someone with kidney cancer to get health insurance than it was prior to the ACA. I think we can agree that's a good thing. It's always easier to attack the messenger than to defend the message. Your defense of Obamacare is exactly what is wrong in general with this country. As long it benefits YOU personally, who cares how badly it screws everyone else. |
| 2014-01-04 8:37 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by tuwood OK, i'll try and give an objective response on this. There are a couple of things with the ACA, you have the people who are signing up for insurance plans via the exchange. The Federal government gets a cut of the premiums from everyone who signs up on the exchange, so it will have an impact on projected revenues if they fall short of their numbers. You then have the expansion of medicaid which isn't people signing up for insurance, but people signing up for full government paid healthcare. This is an increase in expense for the government. What I have seen transpire is a mass influx of pre-existing condition folks who could not get insurance before sign up on the exchange and very few young invincible's. This issue primarily effects the health insurance companies because they have to have a certain percentage of young and healthy people to offset the not so healthy. They assumed that with the mandate and a penalty that a larger percentage of people would sign up. So far, they've assumed wrong which means they will either go bankrupt, or raise their rates to compensate for all the new payouts. The second issue is the number of people signing up for medicaid. I haven't seen any recent numbers, but on the earlier ones they reported that almost 90% of the people signing up on the exchanges were signing up for medicaid and not exchange plans. I think I posted a few articles a while back about the medicaid spike being far greater than expected. So, essentially what I think will happen is the insurance companies are going to get rocked and have to raise their rates a lot. The revenues will be a fraction of what the government predicted. Medicaid costs will go through the roof. I know, I'm just a fiscal conservative whose against all government spending, but seriously how can anyone think this thing is going to work out? The Feds will try to prop it up by printing more money, but the states don't have that luxury. The way that it will work is if a large number of people sign up. I agree that there are many problems with it and that it probably won't work as is. I just have a problem with people continuing to complain about how expensive it is, but then when you ask them how much they are paying plus what their employer is paying now vs the total cost of the ACA insurance, you get crickets. I know for me, as a 24 year old, it costs 1/3 as much to insure me on the exchange, vs my contribution+ my employers contribution. Now, clearly this won't be the case for everyone, but I think it is absolutely crap to run around screaming about how expensive it is for the individuals compared to the current system, without at least honestly exploring the real numbers on the level of individuals, not what you "think" is going to happen to the entire system and country.
I pay $116 per month for my wife and I. INCLUDING my employer contribution it is $784 a month. For that, I get a $750 deductible, and a max out of pocket of $2500. On the exchange, the cheapest I found was $464 from me for $5000 deductible/$6350 max out of pocket. The BEST I found was $827/mo, for $1000 deductible/$3700 max out of pocket. Gee, it's sooo affordable. How do they do that?
|
| 2014-01-04 7:24 PM in reply to: powerman |
Champion 6993 Chicago, Illinois | Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers Originally posted by powerman I pay $116 per month for my wife and I. INCLUDING my employer contribution it is $784 a month. For that, I get a $750 deductible, and a max out of pocket of $2500. On the exchange, the cheapest I found was $464 from me for $5000 deductible/$6350 max out of pocket. The BEST I found was $827/mo, for $1000 deductible/$3700 max out of pocket. Gee, it's sooo affordable. How do they do that?
I was thinking about this and i think it sounds about right. One other factor that is not added in is not only does your employer pay for part of your health insurance but more people involved the cheaper i is. You can not get a group discount on the exchanges. |
| 2014-01-04 8:19 PM in reply to: SeeVee |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers Originally posted by SeeVee Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy Originally posted by DanielG It just gets better and better. Do people actually believe this stuff or is this another case of throw enough spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/30/eleanor-holmes-norton-obam... “What we have been battling now is first, every time the House couldn't think of anything else to do, it had a big debate on repealing Obamacare, so there are millions who think it was repealed," Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) told MSNBC host Richard Lui. Hi Daniel, have you been watching any coverage of the ACA on Fox News? I can tell you, I have. So have my in-laws. I watch the coverage and can't help but find the humor in the 24/7 attack on the ACA. Is it perfect? Nope. Was the status quo before the ACA perfect? Absolutely not. That said, my in-laws (and millions of like-minded Americans) fall in lock-step behind that great American Sean Hannity constantly bad-mouthing the ACA. Guess what, I'm pretty dang sure my brother-in-law would benefit from getting health insurance on the DE exchange...BUT, it's kind of hard to convince someone of this when they refuse to even consider looking at anything associated with something Hannity and Fox attack 24/7. My brother-in-law isn't an isolated case. By the way Daniel, I'm very sorry about your kidney cancer, that is truly terrible. But, there's something probably even more terrible out there, and that would be having kidney cancer without health insurance. I'm not a betting man, but I'm willing to guess it's now easier for someone with kidney cancer to get health insurance than it was prior to the ACA. I think we can agree that's a good thing. It's always easier to attack the messenger than to defend the message. Your defense of Obamacare is exactly what is wrong in general with this country. As long it benefits YOU personally, who cares how badly it screws everyone else. Okay SeeVee, I'll ask...who was I attacking? Was it the good folks over at Fox News? And where did I talk about the benefit of ME personally? I mentioned a family member who refuses to look at anything associated with President Obama's name. I also mentioned folks who couldn't get quality coverage before can actually get it now. Personally, I think that's pretty cool. |
| 2014-01-04 8:19 PM in reply to: 0 |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers |
| 2014-01-04 11:02 PM in reply to: ChineseDemocracy |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy Originally posted by SeeVee Okay SeeVee, I'll ask...who was I attacking? Was it the good folks over at Fox News? And where did I talk about the benefit of ME personally? I mentioned a family member who refuses to look at anything associated with President Obama's name. I also mentioned folks who couldn't get quality coverage before can actually get it now. Personally, I think that's pretty cool. Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy It's always easier to attack the messenger than to defend the message. Your defense of Obamacare is exactly what is wrong in general with this country. As long it benefits YOU personally, who cares how badly it screws everyone else. Originally posted by DanielG It just gets better and better. Do people actually believe this stuff or is this another case of throw enough spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/30/eleanor-holmes-norton-obam... Hi Daniel, have you been watching any coverage of the ACA on Fox News? I can tell you, I have. So have my in-laws. I watch the coverage and can't help but find the humor in the 24/7 attack on the ACA. Is it perfect? Nope. Was the status quo before the ACA perfect? Absolutely not. That said, my in-laws (and millions of like-minded Americans) fall in lock-step behind that great American Sean Hannity constantly bad-mouthing the ACA. Guess what, I'm pretty dang sure my brother-in-law would benefit from getting health insurance on the DE exchange...BUT, it's kind of hard to convince someone of this when they refuse to even consider looking at anything associated with something Hannity and Fox attack 24/7. My brother-in-law isn't an isolated case. By the way Daniel, I'm very sorry about your kidney cancer, that is truly terrible. But, there's something probably even more terrible out there, and that would be having kidney cancer without health insurance. I'm not a betting man, but I'm willing to guess it's now easier for someone with kidney cancer to get health insurance than it was prior to the ACA. I think we can agree that's a good thing. “What we have been battling now is first, every time the House couldn't think of anything else to do, it had a big debate on repealing Obamacare, so there are millions who think it was repealed," Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) told MSNBC host Richard Lui.
Just an observation... feel free to disregard. It seems you bring other people and other arguments with those people into discussions with members here. Perhaps it would be easier if you just addressed the poster actually said, and the issue being discussed. It would just seem to make things easier here.
And those that didn't have coverage before are not getting "quality" coverage. They are getting expensive coverage that is weak. The only difference to them is YOU are paying for it. That's cool of you, but do not confuse their out of pocket expense, to the "actual COST". And don't confuse the most basic level of insurance with high deductibles and out of pocket expenses as "quality".... just because they did not have it before. |
| 2014-01-04 11:03 PM in reply to: chirunner134 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers Originally posted by chirunner134 Originally posted by powerman I was thinking about this and i think it sounds about right. One other factor that is not added in is not only does your employer pay for part of your health insurance but more people involved the cheaper i is. You can not get a group discount on the exchanges. I pay $116 per month for my wife and I. INCLUDING my employer contribution it is $784 a month. For that, I get a $750 deductible, and a max out of pocket of $2500. On the exchange, the cheapest I found was $464 from me for $5000 deductible/$6350 max out of pocket. The BEST I found was $827/mo, for $1000 deductible/$3700 max out of pocket. Gee, it's sooo affordable. How do they do that?
The exchange IS the group. |
| 2014-01-04 11:53 PM in reply to: powerman |
Champion 6993 Chicago, Illinois | Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by chirunner134 Originally posted by powerman I was thinking about this and i think it sounds about right. One other factor that is not added in is not only does your employer pay for part of your health insurance but more people involved the cheaper i is. You can not get a group discount on the exchanges. I pay $116 per month for my wife and I. INCLUDING my employer contribution it is $784 a month. For that, I get a $750 deductible, and a max out of pocket of $2500. On the exchange, the cheapest I found was $464 from me for $5000 deductible/$6350 max out of pocket. The BEST I found was $827/mo, for $1000 deductible/$3700 max out of pocket. Gee, it's sooo affordable. How do they do that?
The exchange IS the group. not when it comes to negotiating a prices though. Its like going to a sporting event. You have different tiers prices to get in but if you have a group outing you can't get in for less per person. |
| 2014-01-05 12:25 AM in reply to: powerman |
Champion 6993 Chicago, Illinois | Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers Originally posted by powerman And those that didn't have coverage before are not getting "quality" coverage. They are getting expensive coverage that is weak. The only difference to them is YOU are paying for it. That's cool of you, but do not confuse their out of pocket expense, to the "actual COST". And don't confuse the most basic level of insurance with high deductibles and out of pocket expenses as "quality".... just because they did not have it before. The low level to me seems like a lot of money. I do not how it would compare old plans at the same level. Even at 12k deducible having insurance cuts a lot of costs. Like I have told many people before my medical costs in 2013 before having insurance it was $78k but discounted to $25k before ANY payouts. If you count only the years since high school I had insurance (I figure is about 10 out of the 20). I doubt I even paid that in premiums. Then again we are people are we are stupid. We have brain dead people like Terri Schiavo who cost in care before she died 1.2 million to keep alive. 80K a year for 15 years. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2005/03/t... At the same time we complain about raising the cost on pizza by 5 cents in order to give people the health care they need. http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2012/11/14/Forbes-Papa-Johns-ACA-cos... |
| 2014-01-05 10:12 AM in reply to: chirunner134 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers Originally posted by chirunner134 Originally posted by powerman not when it comes to negotiating a prices though. Its like going to a sporting event. You have different tiers prices to get in but if you have a group outing you can't get in for less per person. Originally posted by chirunner134 Originally posted by powerman I was thinking about this and i think it sounds about right. One other factor that is not added in is not only does your employer pay for part of your health insurance but more people involved the cheaper i is. You can not get a group discount on the exchanges. I pay $116 per month for my wife and I. INCLUDING my employer contribution it is $784 a month. For that, I get a $750 deductible, and a max out of pocket of $2500. On the exchange, the cheapest I found was $464 from me for $5000 deductible/$6350 max out of pocket. The BEST I found was $827/mo, for $1000 deductible/$3700 max out of pocket. Gee, it's sooo affordable. How do they do that?
The exchange IS the group. I get what you are saying, but not really. The exchanges were just that... bigger pools able to negotiate better rates. My employer is no where near the potential pool of our Colorado exchange. |
| 2014-01-05 1:11 PM in reply to: powerman |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers Also, cost increases should be expected as a ton of people are getting free insurance. I just see this as a good thing. |
| 2014-01-05 1:34 PM in reply to: 0 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers Originally posted by dmiller5 Also, cost increases should be expected as a ton of people are getting free insurance. I just see this as a good thing. No.... Not hardly.... have you already forgotten "revenue neutral"? We were going to "save" money, and those savings were going to be used to pay for those that needed it. But now it is all of a sudden... "well duh, when you give free stuff away it costs more to the rest of us". The whole POINT of the ACA was that what we had was unsustainable and the ACA was going to LOWER health care costs.... I mean they put it right into the name of the Act. Edited by powerman 2014-01-05 1:35 PM |
| 2014-01-05 3:08 PM in reply to: powerman |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by dmiller5 Also, cost increases should be expected as a ton of people are getting free insurance. I just see this as a good thing. No.... Not hardly.... have you already forgotten "revenue neutral"? We were going to "save" money, and those savings were going to be used to pay for those that needed it. But now it is all of a sudden... "well duh, when you give free stuff away it costs more to the rest of us". The whole POINT of the ACA was that what we had was unsustainable and the ACA was going to LOWER health care costs.... I mean they put it right into the name of the Act. it may lower health care costs in the long run for the entire system, that is yet to be determined. |
| 2014-01-05 9:46 PM in reply to: NXS |
Veteran 732 Pittsburgh, PA | Subject: RE: ACA and Dissappointing numbers Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by chayes I'm still waiting to hear numbers from an objective agency, and waiting for some context- how many uninsured Americans are there, still? I, for one, couldn't be happier with what the ACA has done for me. I'm a small business owner (me + 2 contracted employees) and even without the exchange, my premium would have gone down due to ACA laws (a certain % of premiums must now go to medical care, not advertising and administration- in fact I already got a refund check from my current health insurance for that, and because starting Jan 1 I can't be charged more because I'm a woman.) Add in that my prescription coverage now has to cover my birth control, and I was already ahead. I was one of those who had my current insurance cancelled. From what I read that has been a problem for others, but it wasn't for me. I did not like my current insurance; it was basically there so if I got cancer or wrecked my bike horribly, I could go to a hospital and get decent treatment. I got one check-up a year, and beyond that, the insurance covered nothing until I met a huge deductible, and even then I was on the hook for 20%. Under my new insurance (from the exchange), I have a reasonable copay on all doctors' visits before my deductible is met, and a much lower deductible. In fact, my current total contribution is much less than my previous deductible. All that, and I'm saving about $30/ month on my premium, without a subsidy. I guess we'll see if premiums in general go up, but I don't think anyone can predict that now. I do wonder: if you have insurance through your employer, why do you care about this? It seems like it doesn't affect you at all. I am sure you are aware that ACA plans do not cover 100% of healthcare charges. Depending on the plan, you could be on the hook for up to 40% of charges, so the plan you purchase may not be that big of a bargain. The following is how much the plans will pay: Bronze 60% Silver 70% Gold 80% Platinum 90% Yeah, I am. I will say that if you hadn't already bought private health insurance, it would be a little hard to tell what exactly the plans cover. What I meant was that my out-of-pocket max on my new plan is less than my deductible on my old plan. I understand that maybe some people are affected negatively by the law, and some have an ideological objection to it, but for me it's an unequivocal good. thing. |
|
|
|
|
| ACA Calculator Pages: 1 2 | ||
| |||
| |||
| ACA fun begins on Oct 1 (mines beginning already) Pages: 1 2 3 4 | ||
|
| |||
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK