Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[LouisianaHusker]

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/29/21222195-obama-administration-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite

 

 

 

The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.

 

 

Bold added for emphasis.

 

 

 

Sounds like a bait and switch on the law to me.

[carlfense]

http://investigation...-insurance?lite

 

 

 

The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.

 

 

Bold added for emphasis.

 

 

 

Sounds like a bait and switch on the law to me.

On the other hand, if the plan is significantly changed it's no longer the same plan that was grandfathered in.

[beanman]

http://investigation...-insurance?lite

 

 

 

The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.

 

 

Bold added for emphasis.

 

 

 

Sounds like a bait and switch on the law to me.

On the other hand, if the plan is significantly changed it's no longer the same plan that was grandfathered in.

 

How is 'significantly' defined?

[carlfense]

http://investigation...-insurance?lite

 

 

 

The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.

 

 

Bold added for emphasis.

 

 

 

Sounds like a bait and switch on the law to me.

On the other hand, if the plan is significantly changed it's no longer the same plan that was grandfathered in.

 

How is 'significantly' defined?

The quoted article talks about changes to benefits, co-pays, and deductibles.

[carlfense]

Much more at the link.

Spiro and Gruber find that the average individual premium in the Affordable Care Act's insurance marketplaces was projected to be $4,700 in 2014. In fact, it's more like $3,936 -- $764, or 16 percent, lower than expected.

 

That's a big deal in terms of cheaper premiums, but it's also a big deal in terms of the budget: If the savings hold, the Affordable Care Act will cost $190 billion less than the CBO estimated over the next decade.

 

At the same time, people who are currently buying insurance in the individual market are moving to the Obamacare's insurance exchanges and many are reporting that they're seeing significantly higher premiums for very similar plans.

 

This almost seems like a paradox: How can premiums in Obamacare both be lower than expected and, for some people, higher than they were before?

 

. . .

 

The final factor here is increased transparency and competition among insurers -- which should bring down premiums over time. Spiro and Gruber credit competition for Obamacare's lower-than-expected premiums. We'll see if it sticks.

 

So the bottom line is that Obamacare makes insurance more accessible and more comprehensive, which raises average premiums, but it adds subsidies and competitive markets, which lower premiums. Whether premiums are higher or lower for an individual person depends on their precise situation. But premiums are, in general, lower than was expected when Obamacare passed.

http://www.washingto...rance-premiums/

[HUSKER 37]

Husker37,

 

There are millions upon millions of people who can't make the choice to get health insurance because they can't afford it. Do you want to continue looking out for ME. MYSELF. RIGHT NOW. Or do you want the best for your country and humanity and your future? Literally every argument you have used against Obamacare uses yourself as the sole example. Okay, so you're one of the idiots who is nearly 100% healthy and doesn't want medical coverage and blah blah blah. It's self-centered and it isn't a legitimate argument against a piece of legislation designed to improve things for the entire country.

 

Some people have brighter visions for the world as a whole and for the future.

 

 

I'm now "an Idiot" for being "nearly 100% healthy?^{Thanks for the almost personal attack.}.There's probably a 60% chance I'll die before I get fined for not getting health insurance.

 

"Do you want to continue looking out for ME. MYSELF. RIGHT NOW. Or do you want the best for your country and humanity and your future?"

 

I don't think they're mutually exclusive or even all that related, and so far, I don't believe this is the best way to ..strike that.. IS a way to fix the healthcare problem.

 

It;s a little like me asking you "Do you want the color Brown OR do you want to eat a banana"?

 

 

I haven't been able to afford health insurance for about 6 years now. Not that I ever had time to use it when I did work for companies that fully covered me as part of my compensation.

Four of the last 5 companies that I worked for since moving out here have either moved operations to Southeast Asia or gone out of business. I use myself as an example because there's so much misinformation out there, I'm not even sure Snoops can be trusted anymore...Plus I can't afford an Aquarium guy and don't even have fish.

So far, I haven't heard anyone defend it in person, but I don't get out to the bars much anymore.

 

I don't blame/credit either political party for this "Affordable" Care Act. They can get lost in the blaming of each other for it fine all by themselves, when it's more likely funded by the EVIL Insurance Industry...They were almost tolerable when they were just investing our money while charging us crazy interest rates for us to borrow our own money..(Term Life vs. Whole Life)..Now that they can't make near as much in the Stock Market investing our premiums, they start pressuring our elected officials to strike a deal to guarantee EVERY worker has to fund them through premiums... I mean...get insurance with a tasty compromise that "pre-existing" conditions won't affect our ability to get care.

 

On the surface, that sounds "sorta" fair...I'd like to think I could have gotten a better deal, but I doubt it.

 

My own experiences aside, I just DON'T TRUST INSURANCE COMPANIES, and I don't see them paying for everything that can happen to everybody...They'll start off denying any "Experimental Procedures" that show promise in other countries, and fight tooth and nail to keep them from being approved without decades of research and testing...

 

Then "Soilent Green is People"

 

Kidding, but I wouldn't put it past them to start making the hard decisions about denying older folks from getting care that would extend their lives and just focus on trying to make them comfortable..Which maybe they should in order to do what's "best for your country and humanity and your future". ^{(Sounds a little "Hitler Youth" creepy seeing it that way)}

It's more than a little retarded to trust big business to actually care about our health when it's in their best interest (short term) to collect the premiums and run.

 

The fact that I probably will never go to a Dr. no matter how sick I get because it's against my new Religion is inconsequential...Or that "millions upon millions" of mothers will now (I mean Still) have someone to pay (on paper anyway) the overworked ER Physicians just to see their kids with strep throat (which heals in about 8 days with or without meds)...

 

Means very little in the long run..I fear for the future of not only this country, but the humanity of the whole world...We may just be a Cancer to this Planet, but overall we seem to have this collective will to continue.

 

I fear for my young Son, who still seems to want to have kids of his own "before the world ends".

(I blame myself for being such a crappy Dad...He thinks this great Father/Son relationship we have "just happens" or grows on trees)...

 

 

If our Government seriously feels like wrecking..I mean ..Taking over something, I wish they'd leave Medicine alone and just take over the Insurance industry...Socialize That!!!

[carlfense]

If our Government seriously feels like wrecking..I mean ..Taking over something, I wish they'd leave Medicine alone and just take over the Insurance industry...Socialize That!!!

They aren't taking over "Medicine." They're regulating private insurance. They're doing some of the things that you want.

[carlfense]

To see how misleading some of these exemplar stories can be, let's take this piece from last night's NBC Nightly News, which uses an exemplar named Deborah Cavallaro, a self-employed realtor from Los Angeles who buys insurance on the individual market:

 

We learn in this story that her insurer is cancelling her current plan, which costs $293 a month, because it doesn't comply with the new law. They've offered her a new plan at $484 a month. That sounds like it sucks! But here are some things the story never tells us.

 

First, what exactly was her old plan? Deborah looks to be around 45. If she bought a plan on the individual market for $293 a month, I can guarantee you it barely deserved to be called insurance at all (I've bought insurance like this on the individual market). It probably had a deductible in the thousands of dollars and had substantial cost-sharing for any significant medical event. But the story doesn't tell us what sort of insurance she has.

 

Second, the reporter, Peter Alexander, tells us that "the administration points out that many people will get subsidies to offset the higher costs." So what about Deborah? Is she going to get subsidies? He doesn't say, but she well may, which would mean she wouldn't be paying more, or might actually be paying less. But again, this information is just spoken by the reporter, while the flip side—the victim of Obamacare—is presented in the form of a living, breathing person.

 

But wait. Maybe she's not a victim after all. How does the $484 plan her current insurer is offering compare to the other ones she could get? Did she or the reporter go to the California exchange and try to figure that out? Apparently, they didn't. But I did.

 

It took less than 60 seconds. Let's assume that Deborah has a high enough income that she isn't eligible for subsidies. I put in that I was 45 years old and got nine different choices for a Bronze plan, which in all likelihood most closely resembles what Deborah has now. The average monthly cost was $258, or $35 a month less than what Deborah's paying now for her bare-bones plan. And that's for a plan that, while it's the least expensive option, almost certainly involves less cost-sharing that what Deborah has to deal with now. She can get a Silver plan, with more generous coverage, for $316, only $23 more than she's paying now. Congratulations, Deborah!

 

I don't know why Deborah's insurance company wanted to sell her a policy for $484 a month, but when we look at all the facts, it turns out that she doesn't seem like such a victim after all.

http://prospect.org/...re-victim-story

[BigRedBuster]

First, what exactly was her old plan? Deborah looks to be around 45. If she bought a plan on the individual market for $293 a month, I can guarantee you it barely deserved to be called insurance at all (I've bought insurance like this on the individual market). It probably had a deductible in the thousands of dollars and had substantial cost-sharing for any significant medical event. But the story doesn't tell us what sort of insurance she has.

 

OMG....a deductible in the "thousands of dollars"? Really???? How dare anyone think of such a thing. The poor person has to have an insurance policy with a deductible in the "thousands of dollars? I'm shocked.

 

I had to edit this post again simply because of the fact I'm so absolutely shocked that someone would have an insurance policy with a deductible in the "Thousands of dollars".

 

I honestly don't know how I can cope the rest of the day knowing this.

[carlfense]

I honestly don't know how I can cope the rest of the day knowing this.

Between you having to deal this this . . . and Deborah having to pay less for better insurance . . . I don't know who I should feel more sorry for.

[BigRedBuster]

You really have totally bought into every "article" that comes up on this subject haven't you?

 

This paragraph alone totally throws any credibility for your link out the window.

 

First, what exactly was her old plan? Deborah looks to be around 45. If she bought a plan on the individual market for $293 a month, I can guarantee you it barely deserved to be called insurance at all (I've bought insurance like this on the individual market). It probably had a deductible in the thousands of dollars and had substantial cost-sharing for any significant medical event. But the story doesn't tell us what sort of insurance she has.

 

So....the author...."guarantees us" what they think. Really? That's pretty darn good reporting right there. I'm sure they will win a Pulitzer over that article.

 

I have absolutely no clue what "Deborah's" plan was before so how can this "reporter" claim anything?

[LouisianaHusker]

You really have totally bought into every "article" that comes up on this subject haven't you?

 

This paragraph alone totally throws any credibility for your link out the window.

 

First, what exactly was her old plan? Deborah looks to be around 45. If she bought a plan on the individual market for $293 a month, I can guarantee you it barely deserved to be called insurance at all (I've bought insurance like this on the individual market). It probably had a deductible in the thousands of dollars and had substantial cost-sharing for any significant medical event. But the story doesn't tell us what sort of insurance she has.

 

So....the author...."guarantees us" what they think. Really? That's pretty darn good reporting right there. I'm sure they will win a Pulitzer over that article.

 

I have absolutely no clue what "Deborah's" plan was before so how can this "reporter" claim anything?

 

 

BRB, I just checked the About Us on the home page of the link that Carl just posted and guess what it says?

 

 

What's your bent?

 

We're liberal, progressive, lefty—call it what you want, we're proud of it.

 

 

So even though later on on that page they say that they aren't a shill for the Democracts, it isn't hard to see that is not the truth IMHO.

[carlfense]

You really have totally bought into every "article" that comes up on this subject haven't you?

 

This paragraph alone totally throws any credibility for your link out the window.

 

First, what exactly was her old plan? Deborah looks to be around 45. If she bought a plan on the individual market for $293 a month, I can guarantee you it barely deserved to be called insurance at all (I've bought insurance like this on the individual market). It probably had a deductible in the thousands of dollars and had substantial cost-sharing for any significant medical event. But the story doesn't tell us what sort of insurance she has.

 

So....the author...."guarantees us" what they think. Really? That's pretty darn good reporting right there. I'm sure they will win a Pulitzer over that article.

 

I have absolutely no clue what "Deborah's" plan was before so how can this "reporter" claim anything?

You don't have to believe the article. You can go look up the numbers yourself if you'd like.

[carlfense]

You really have totally bought into every "article" that comes up on this subject haven't you?

 

This paragraph alone totally throws any credibility for your link out the window.

 

First, what exactly was her old plan? Deborah looks to be around 45. If she bought a plan on the individual market for $293 a month, I can guarantee you it barely deserved to be called insurance at all (I've bought insurance like this on the individual market). It probably had a deductible in the thousands of dollars and had substantial cost-sharing for any significant medical event. But the story doesn't tell us what sort of insurance she has.

 

So....the author...."guarantees us" what they think. Really? That's pretty darn good reporting right there. I'm sure they will win a Pulitzer over that article.

 

I have absolutely no clue what "Deborah's" plan was before so how can this "reporter" claim anything?

 

 

BRB, I just checked the About Us on the home page of the link that Carl just posted and guess what it says?

 

 

What's your bent?

 

We're liberal, progressive, lefty—call it what you want, we're proud of it.

 

 

So even though later on on that page they say that they aren't a shill for the Democracts, it isn't hard to see that is not the truth IMHO.

You don't have to believe the article. You can go look up the numbers yourself if you'd like.

[LouisianaHusker]

You really have totally bought into every "article" that comes up on this subject haven't you?

 

This paragraph alone totally throws any credibility for your link out the window.

 

First, what exactly was her old plan? Deborah looks to be around 45. If she bought a plan on the individual market for $293 a month, I can guarantee you it barely deserved to be called insurance at all (I've bought insurance like this on the individual market). It probably had a deductible in the thousands of dollars and had substantial cost-sharing for any significant medical event. But the story doesn't tell us what sort of insurance she has.

 

So....the author...."guarantees us" what they think. Really? That's pretty darn good reporting right there. I'm sure they will win a Pulitzer over that article.

 

I have absolutely no clue what "Deborah's" plan was before so how can this "reporter" claim anything?

 

 

BRB, I just checked the About Us on the home page of the link that Carl just posted and guess what it says?

 

 

What's your bent?

 

We're liberal, progressive, lefty—call it what you want, we're proud of it.

 

 

So even though later on on that page they say that they aren't a shill for the Democracts, it isn't hard to see that is not the truth IMHO.

You don't have to believe the article. You can go look up the numbers yourself if you'd like.

 

No need, your "article" is the one that "guarenteed" that her policy barely deserved to be called insurance. That "article" is nothing but a "Polly want a cracker" piece for Obamacare and I'm sure that you'll be getting your cracker as well soon.

 

Find something with real and complete numbers and than we'll talk, not some hack job that only has the guarentee of the author.