Health Insurance and Ignorance

[MorGrendel]

I know what it is. I take issue with the semantics of the word. Just call it the remainder, holder's responsibility, or prepayment amount.

[hypo]

Now, as I indicated earlier, I completely get how upsetting this can be for a lot of Americans, particularly after assurances they heard from me that if they had a plan that they liked they could keep it. And to those Americans, I hear you loud and clear. I said that I would do everything we can to fix this problem. And today I'm offering an idea that will help do it.
Already people who have plans that pre-date the Affordable Care Act can keep those plans if they haven't changed. That was already in the law. That's what's called a grandfather clause that was included in the law. Today we're going to extend that principle both to people whose plans have changed since the law too effect and to people who bought plans since the law took effect.
So state insurance commissioners still have the power to decide what plans can and can't be sold in their states, but the bottom line is insurers can extend current plans that would otherwise be cancelled into 2014. And Americans whose plans have been cancelled can choose to re-enroll in the same kind of plan.
We're also requiring insurers to extend current plans to inform their customers about two things: One, that protections -- what protections these renewed plans don't include. Number two, that the marketplace offers new options with better coverage and tax credits that might help you bring down the cost.
So if your received one of these letters I'd encourage you to take a look at the marketplace. Even if the website isn't working as smoothly as it should be for everybody yet, the plan comparison tool that lets you browse cost for new plans near you is working just fine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

And the saga continues. I am going to sit on my hands until they figure this BS out.

[Nighean Donn]

Now, as I indicated earlier, I completely get how upsetting this can be for a lot of Americans, particularly after assurances they heard from me that if they had a plan that they liked they could keep it. And to those Americans, I hear you loud and clear. I said that I would do everything we can to fix this problem. And today I'm offering an idea that will help do it.
Already people who have plans that pre-date the Affordable Care Act can keep those plans if they haven't changed. That was already in the law. That's what's called a grandfather clause that was included in the law. Today we're going to extend that principle both to people whose plans have changed since the law too effect and to people who bought plans since the law took effect.
So state insurance commissioners still have the power to decide what plans can and can't be sold in their states, but the bottom line is insurers can extend current plans that would otherwise be cancelled into 2014. And Americans whose plans have been cancelled can choose to re-enroll in the same kind of plan.
We're also requiring insurers to extend current plans to inform their customers about two things: One, that protections -- what protections these renewed plans don't include. Number two, that the marketplace offers new options with better coverage and tax credits that might help you bring down the cost.
So if your received one of these letters I'd encourage you to take a look at the marketplace. Even if the website isn't working as smoothly as it should be for everybody yet, the plan comparison tool that lets you browse cost for new plans near you is working just fine.

I don't particularly care to be involved in this, but.... that sounds like he's scapegoating to the insurance companies so that when future drops still occur (and they will) he won't seem like the bad guy; the insurance companies will look like they are just dropping for fun.
(In my opinion, for what it's worth...)

[MorGrendel]

Health Insurance companies generally are the bad guys, if you don't understand that they exist to make a profit. They don't do things out of the kindness of their heart and give things away for free. The people are the bad guys, if you realize that they don't want to pay more for other people's coverage. Obama is the bad guy, if you understand that rhetoric is different than change. But mostly it is a purposely overly complicated system that has taken the choice and power away from the patient and the provider, and as such, I feel no real or effective change can happen until we return the choice back to the consumer.

[ahrimen]

I don't think calling the insurance company a bad guy cause his goal is to make a profit. Who goes into business with "ok everyone ,by this time next year I'd like us all to be broke and homeless!" "Sounds like a great business plan boss"

[Berserker]

yes, they are in the business to make money, but you also can't hide behind "I'm a business" label and do anything you want, ethical or not. Otherwise, we'd let any business dump their trash in the river, because it's cost effective and saves jobs..

Case and point, the people in the mid america that are loosing their coverage en-masse, are loosing it because those plans didn't cover anything. They didn't cover anything because that's what made the insurance money. Now they need to cover basic care like going for physicals to the doctor, or basic child care. Stuff that might find out that one has a problem and fix it before one needs to use the emergency room.

[Nighean Donn]

But Serban, businesses will raise their costs when they have to, or can. People shouldn't rely on trying to make everyone or everything else in the world warm and fuzzy because it's not going to happen. Insurance companies aren't going to bow down and say "ok ok, we know, it's just mean to make you pay what we're demanding; we'll lower the costs"... The more gov't intervenes with their business, the more they CAN and WILL jack up the prices. If the gov't told me I have to go out and buy diapers tomorrow (as expensive as they already are) to donate to a charity (the warm and fuzzy aspect of gov't hopefulness), do you think the diaper companies will show mercy (bow to the warm and fuzzy) and not raise their prices? Of course not, they will raise the cost so high people won't know what hit them! This is an unreliable and tyrannical use of gov't power; it goes against the natural model of supply and demand. For any business, ethics does not apply to their products/service's costs; we simply choose to buy or not buy based on what they charge, but if you take away the choice aspect then price will simply go up as high as possible... and gov't cannot control that. They aren't entitled to control that, that is part of our free market.

With that said, Insurance companies top the list of Asshole businesses, they're not going to bow to the warm and fuzzy hopefuls no matter how desperate people wish it!

[MorGrendel]

yes, they are in the business to make money, but you also can't hide behind "I'm a business" label and do anything you want, ethical or not. Otherwise, we'd let any business dump their trash in the river, because it's cost effective and saves jobs.

These business are still not necessarily ethical, see how America uses the third world. It's easy to see China's pollution as "their problem" or Africa cobalt and say "well, they chose to work in the mines". Per your point, it is cheaper to pollute in other countries, so business do it. We turn a blind eye because it is convienent. However, the allusion to polluting being the same thing as offering a plan without a lot of coverage supposes malice, which none may be intended. You can be unaware of pollution, while it affects you; however, any effects caused by your insurance plan you should be aware of because you actively approved it.

Case and point, the people in the mid america that are loosing their coverage en-masse, are loosing it because those plans didn't cover anything. They didn't cover anything because that's what made the insurance money. Now they need to cover basic care like going for physicals to the doctor, or basic child care. Stuff that might find out that one has a problem and fix it before one needs to use the emergency room.

I do not agree with that statement. I feel they are losing coverage because the scope of the grandfather clause was so narrow, that at least 80% of plans did not qualify. The HSS stated this fact in 2011, and they (Democrats) moved forward with this language anyway.

I also do not believe there was a "fumble". This is a the Second-Term-History-Making-Social-Change-Event. The Dems believe this is in the peoples best interest. That in the end, everyone will have better coverage. This is noble, BUT also nieve. The reason people lack coverage is they can't afford coverage. The ACA does nothing to make Healthcare more affordable. Additionally, people purchase coverage from multiple entities is because there is no one best product. Take a look at your own plan; they likely offer options HRA, HOM, or PPO, and Dental and Eyes are covered separately. The reason is one size, does not fit all.

I find it ignorant and decitful of the Govt to try and blame the (dirty/rotten) insurance companies, when they knew what they were doing, and assuming the ends justified the means.

[MorGrendel]

So the Mandate really irks me. By 2016, it will be $695 for each adult, or 2.5% of a person's taxable income. That's a lot of money.

(quotes: http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-ind ... andate.php)(**starsare added for emphasis**)
"Those who **choose to pay** the tax help to subsidize the cost of health insurance purchased through the health insurance marketplace."

"ObamaCare makes insurance more affordable. Americans making under 400% of the federal poverty level may be able to obtain free or low-cost health insurance from their State's Health Insurance Marketplace."[/i

]However, If you make 400% under the poverty level, can you even afford low-cost health insurance?

"Children under 18 are assessed at 50% of the minimum penalty."

If the goal is to get children healthcare, shouldn't this be reversed? So a higher penalty if your children are not insured.

"What Happens If I Don't Pay the Individual Mandate Fee?
The only way for the IRS to collect the fee for not having health insurance, if you choose not to pay it, is for them to withhold the money you would get back from the IRS after filing your income tax returns. The IRS cannot enforce the Individual Shared Responsibility provision with jail time, liens, or any other of typical methods of collection."

Well, that's how you get around the Mandate. Modify your W2 to withhold less, and then pay your taxes at the end of the year. That is a real elegant solution.

And it keeps you from having to pour money into yet another slush fund.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitt ... rn-to-irs/

Of course, if everyone does this, then what?

[Berserker]

That's the stick. If you want something done, you hit the people where it hurts most -- money. The cost of not getting insurance should be higher then the cost of insurance, otherwise, the mandate will be ignored. I'm not surprised it's so expensive by 2016.

It's just like if you don't pay your car insurance, you can't drive and you go to jail if they catch you doing it. A very steep price, but needed so that people actually buy car insurance.

You especially want those "young invincibles" to sign up (healthy young folk that think they don't need healthcare). Everyone has to sign up if this law is to work because the cost of requiring insurance companies to cover more is supposed to be offset by the millions more people they get on their rolls.

-------
Which brings me to my next point. Insurance companies have made record profits and continue to make record profits, all the while complaining that they need to raise their prices to make ends meet. They were the ones that lobbied for the ACA in the first place. They knew full well what they were buying into.

And I find no fault in requiring insurance companies to cover preventive care. I actually find it ridiculous that there were plans that didn't cover that before hand. Or that there were plans that had such a low caps that once you got sick and ended up in the hospital you still endeed up bankrupt (or plans that simply kicked you off when you got sick -- yeah, they could do that prior to ACA). What use is that as a plan? Peace of mind while you're healthy? Why should that be grandfathered at all?

That's exactly why people end up in the emergency room. They don't have the money to pay for preventive medicine (that blood test once a year). We don't want that. The emergency room costs more then almost anything else in healthcare, and if you're there, it might already be too late. Oh and they have to give you care. Even if you're broke. And someone else foots the bill.

-----------------
Bottom line. If one hates this law so much, what's the alternative? Everyone agreed 6 years ago that our healthcare was broken. Returning to that is a good thing?

If one wants to replace ACA, then bring an alternative to the table as a bill, and vote on it. Repealing is NOT an alternative. It's going backwards!

There are so many good improvements this law made. Here's a list.

[MorGrendel]

A stick with a giant loophole - you don't have to pay it. Does that make it a tennis racket? :)

This is a law written to help the old at the expense of the young. It is age-discrimintory, if it wasn't, the young would have access to Medicare and Medicade.

I think removing pre-existing conditions and insuring children up to 26 is good, and is a social change that only cost people who are willing to pay it. I agree with you that there is a place for healthcare in the Gov't, but this is not the way to do it. I agree with Teresa in that when the Gov't gets involved in services, the price always goes up. I agree with a lot of tenets of the law, but on the marketplace, mandate, and grandfathering we were given a faulty bill of sale (lied to).

I also agree the Insurance companies want this law. They want to drive the price up. They love telling me about my "Added Value Services" like will prepartion, travel protection, identity theft reporting help, and grief counseling. I don't want it. But they put it out there so one day they can be the premier option for these service. I don't want to pay for their start-up, but we both know I am.

Also, I see plenty of:
"If your spouse or domestic partner works and is eligible to receive health benefits in another qualified plan in 2014, you will be subject to a $100 per month surcharge if you elect to include them in the xxxx healthcare plan." So as I see it, somebody is getting $100 dollars more either way.

How did the ACA make anything MORE AFFORDABLE?

People wonder where these tea party guys came from, NOT "everyone agreed 6 years ago that our healthcare was broken". The people could not react to the law before the lobbist wrote it, and it took them a little while to get some activist into congress. You can't call no-backsies. Let them hammer at it, the law is anything but perfect. I don't think we can ever return to what we had before, the genie is out of the bottle as they say. I think the good stuff will stay, and hopefully the true cost of healthcare will be discussed.

Serban, I hope you are not feeling to beat up, I love having a forum to vent my angst. Please know that a appreicate your opinion.