Healthcare Content (Protest Instructions) >>>>>

[runawayjimbo]

it appears the wife and I are going to save about $300 or more a month, with 'free' generic prescriptions and better coverage.  no worries about pre-existing conditions or being dropped due to illness.  total disaster.

Wait, you're married, T?

[mbw]

it appears the wife and I are going to save about $300 or more a month, with 'free' generic prescriptions and better coverage.  no worries about pre-existing conditions or being dropped due to illness.  total disaster.

Wait, you're married, T?

Yes sir. Still waiting for your gift.  Oh, and I will get to some of your previous BS, I just need to get a bigger shovel.   :lol:

[runawayjimbo]

it appears the wife and I are going to save about $300 or more a month, with 'free' generic prescriptions and better coverage.  no worries about pre-existing conditions or being dropped due to illness.  total disaster.

Wait, you're married, T?

Yes sir. Still waiting for your gift.  Oh, and I will get to some of your previous BS, I just need to get a bigger shovel.   :lol:

Bulldozer

Congrats. Gift is in the mail.

This Tweezer

[Hicks]

The website sucks because the US government by and large thinks the internet is a series of tubes that can get clogged and thus doesn't know the first thing about hiring a competent contractor to a build a gargantuan site.

It really has nothing to do with the ACA program itself, it's a systematic failure on the part of the way these types of projects are awarded and executed.   

[aphineday]

The website sucks because the US government by and large thinks the internet is a series of tubes that can get clogged and thus doesn't know the first thing about hiring a competent contractor to a build a gargantuan site.

It really has nothing to do with the ACA program itself, it's a systematic failure on the part of the way these types of projects are awarded and executed.   

Bullshit, the liberals knew that this would happen; Obama created Obamacare so he could trick all of us into giving up our guns.

[mbw]

The bit about how it's the insurer's fault is rich, too.

rich, good choice of words.  well, nothing i can say that isn't said better here by my favorite news source........  Fox News!?!   :crazy:

Insurance cancelled? Don't blame Obama or the ACA, blame America's insurance companies

The fact is if you are one of the estimated 2 million Americans whose health insurance plans may have been cancelled this month, you should not be blaming President Obama or the Affordable Care Act.

You should be blaming your insurance company because they have not been providing you with coverage that meets the minimum basic standards for health care.

Let me put it more bluntly: your insurance companies have been taking advantage of you and the Affordable Care Act puts in place consumer protection and tells them to stop abusing people.

The government did not "force" insurance companies to cancel their own substandard policies.The insurance companies chose to do that rather than do what is right and bring the policies up to code.

This would be like saying the government "forces" chemical companies to dispose of toxic waste safely rather than dumping it in the river.

Or the government "forces" people to drive with intact windshields and working brake lights.

How dare they "force" drivers to pay money to get those things fixed if they are broken?

And one would think that, too bad there are so many politicians, well, a whole political party and its various minions, bought and paid for by mega corporations with a lot of $$ to lose, who want nothing more than for this to fail and nut their pants with every issue which arises, and have zero desire to help make it work.  That is indeed very sad.

You're deluding yourself if you think only one political party is beholden to "mega corporations." The ACA is a giveaway to health insurers, pharma, and device manufacturers (who will eventually get their way and repeal the taxes levied on them in the ACA).

I of course know that 'both' political parties are beholden to these companies, and that it is a handout to these companies in terms of the sheer number of customers it will bring them.  However, the added risk and policy improvements they are being forced to include are the reason they are fighting it.   I know you know this, you just love defending this profit above all else system.

All opposition to health care reform boils down to one thing, of course, corporate profits, not the welfare of our citizens.  All that these insurance companies who are cancelling policies and jacking up rates are doing is exposing their evil even more, and it baffles me where some people choose to lay blame. All corporate money needs to be out of our government.

Maybe you're just playing the obtuse card like KYJ likes to do, but surely you know that opposition to the law has a lot more to do than corporate profits. The law has never been more popular than less (never even broke 45%). People have never trusted the gov't to be able to do such a massive and complex overhaul of 15% of the country's economy. People feared there would be unintended consequences which were not understood and would be far more costly than imagined. People don't like being told they have to purchase a contract from a private company. There are literally 100s of reasons why people opposed the ACA, none of which having the least to do with corporate profits.

Maybe your not a soulless demon and you just like playing one for debate, surely you know I was talking about political/corporate opposition to this bill.  You know, $$.  You then talk about citizens opposition to the bill, which is a totally different subject.  High polls numbers opposing this have been around before anyone even knew what the law would be, and this law ps just barely started to be implemented.  Why?  Barack Hussein Obama, that's why. I can't think of a another piece of legislation which has been up against such a smear campaign full of lies and disinformation, funded and fueled by mega-rich who cant stand being a little bit less mega rich, especially when it is being done to them by a black guy.  When citizens are polled on the ACA the numbers are significantly different depending on if they were asked about the 'Affordable Care Act', or whether they were asked about 'Obamacare.'
http://politix.topix.com/homepage/8159-poll-more-people-against-obamacare-than-affordable-care-act

And when polled on individual policy changes included in the bill people want them.  They don't even know what they're opposing.  The opposition has not been, 'The website won't work! (which has worked perfectly fine every time I have been on it), or, "My shitty policy might be cancelled and I will be forced to get a better one!"  ... It has been "Obama is a Socialist(but I don't know what that even means, it's just bad) Muslim Terrorist who is trying to destroy 'Murica!"  There is a very good reason the name was methodically and relentlessly changed to Obamacare by its political opposition.  To keep keep that name fresh in people's minds so they will oppose it. Its just blatant scare tactics which feed on racism and ignorance.  Period.

[Hicks]

So being out of work I'm looking around at my options and it looks like I can buy a personal plan with a $500 deductible and $5000 out of pocket max for $258 a month.

That seems pretty reasonable.

Admittedly I've always had employer healthcare before, but it seems to me that the prices are in fact dropping as a a result of the ACA.

That's a pretty big step in the right direction. 

[runawayjimbo]

The website sucks because the US government by and large thinks the internet is a series of tubes that can get clogged and thus doesn't know the first thing about hiring a competent contractor to a build a gargantuan site.

It really has nothing to do with the ACA program itself, it's a systematic failure on the part of the way these types of projects are awarded and executed.   

This idea that the exchanges are somehow unrelated to the functioning of the law is really bizarre to me. There are only two truly fundamental reforms to the health care market: (1) the individual mandate and (2) the exchanges (because if they're gonna require people have insurance, they have to make it easy for people to get it; otherwise the tax for not having coverage would be a straight up jack (you know, more so than usual)). The other "reforms" are extensions of existing law (e.g., Medicaid expansion) or rule changes (some very important ones, to be sure) governing the way insurers do business. But it's exchanges are one of the only changes in the way health insurance is bought, and as such they are arguably the most critical component of the law's eventual success or failure.

It was the administration's decision to make the exchanges an online platform, like Amazon or eBay, as the president was fond of saying. They could have chosen plenty of different ways to set the exchanges up: they could have made them physical locations, with trained staff to talk people through their options; they could have done direct mail marketing, with people sent preliminary information on various plans and a number to call (think of all those refinance offers that used to come when rates were 100bps lower). But the administration, who used technology so successfully in two campaigns, decided to go with a website.

I totally agree with you that the failure with the website can be attributed at least in part in the way that gov't contracts are procured. But I don't think that is the prevailing reason for the failure and I certainly don't think it makes sense to dismiss the importance of the exchanges as "just a website."

The bit about how it's the insurer's fault is rich, too.

rich, good choice of words.  well, nothing i can say that isn't said better here by my favorite news source........  Fox News!?!   :crazy:

Insurance cancelled? Don't blame Obama or the ACA, blame America's insurance companies

The fact is if you are one of the estimated 2 million Americans whose health insurance plans may have been cancelled this month, you should not be blaming President Obama or the Affordable Care Act.

You should be blaming your insurance company because they have not been providing you with coverage that meets the minimum basic standards for health care.

Let me put it more bluntly: your insurance companies have been taking advantage of you and the Affordable Care Act puts in place consumer protection and tells them to stop abusing people.

The government did not "force" insurance companies to cancel their own substandard policies.The insurance companies chose to do that rather than do what is right and bring the policies up to code.

This would be like saying the government "forces" chemical companies to dispose of toxic waste safely rather than dumping it in the river.

Or the government "forces" people to drive with intact windshields and working brake lights.

How dare they "force" drivers to pay money to get those things fixed if they are broken?

Of all the arguments made by the law's supporters, this "the ACA didn't cancel your plan, the insurance company did" is one of the most cynical, condescending, blatantly deceptive one's I've heard. It's been trumpted by the WH's offical spokespeople like Valerie Jarrett and Jay Carney for a while now (well, not a while, since people started receiving cancellation notices), and now it's being repeated by the unofficial spokespeople like NYT and MSNBC and yes, in an opinion column on Fox News by Juan Williams. There's spin, and then there's bullshit, and this idea is complete and utter bullshit.

And one would think that, too bad there are so many politicians, well, a whole political party and its various minions, bought and paid for by mega corporations with a lot of $$ to lose, who want nothing more than for this to fail and nut their pants with every issue which arises, and have zero desire to help make it work.  That is indeed very sad.

You're deluding yourself if you think only one political party is beholden to "mega corporations." The ACA is a giveaway to health insurers, pharma, and device manufacturers (who will eventually get their way and repeal the taxes levied on them in the ACA).

I of course know that 'both' political parties are beholden to these companies, and that it is a handout to these companies in terms of the sheer number of customers it will bring them.  However, the added risk and policy improvements they are being forced to include are the reason they are fighting it.   I know you know this, you just love defending this profit above all else system.

But health insurers are not opposing it. Neither is pharma. The device manufacturers may be mainly because of the tax on them (don't worry, Elizabeth Warren has been pushing relentlessly since she was elected to have this repealed) or perhaps because they believe that the law will reduce the demand for their products (because if HHS can dictate whether or not your plan is "substandard" they clearly can dictate whether you need an MRI or an X-ray). But the device lobby is far less powerful the health insurers and pharma, so it'll take them longer to get what they want. But be clear, insurers are NOT pushing back against the law. They are speaking out that enrollment problems associated with "just a website" could lead to significant ramifications, like insurers pulling out of exchanges/markets or rapid rate increases next year if only high cost patients are added. But they are not now, nor have they ever, opposed the full implementation of the law, which, as we agree, would benefit them substantially by mandating 315M+ captive customers.

As for your last bit, I guess you are saying that since I oppose the law, I am either a racist or I'm too stupid to see that I am being manipulated by right-wing billionaires. Thanks for the tip. Got it.

So being out of work I'm looking around at my options and it looks like I can buy a personal plan with a $500 deductible and $5000 out of pocket max for $258 a month.

That seems pretty reasonable.

Admittedly I've always had employer healthcare before, but it seems to me that the prices are in fact dropping as a a result of the ACA.

That's a pretty big step in the right direction. 

Your experience does not a trend make. According to an analysis by the conservative Manhattan Institute (obviously skewed), premiums will increase in 41 states (see below). But even the liberal Brookings Institution has admitted, "well, we don't know what the effects will be." I think are both acceptable answers: rates will go up, as expected, because more services are mandated (not sure why the WH would try to deny this; you don't get drugs for free); and we don't know what the long-term effect on rates will be because it will depend on how many young & healthy customers sign up and stay in the system. If there are not enough healthy customers to subsidize those who need expensive treatments, the law will undoubtedly collapse. That is an actuarial certainty. But, if they can get enough of a healthy cohort enrolled, it could help reduce rates (temporarily, at least). Coincidentally, that's why at least a few of the ACA regs are in direct contradiction with each other: allowing "kids" to stay on their parent's insurance until 26 may sound like a good idea, but you are losing a lot of young healthy customers who would otherwise be paying into the system; by guaranteeing coverage for people with pre-existing condition, while a noble and worthy aim, you are explicitly putting higher cost individuals into the system, which will need to be offset by healthier individuals, otherwise health care spending and premiums will go up.

To me, the biggest failing of the law is that it equates "health care security" (as Sebelius likes to say) with health insurance attainability, even though there is little impact on health outcomes for people with insurance vs. those without. It doesn't reduce health care spending, it doesn't "bend the cost curve downward," and it only furthers the opacity in health care pricing that contribute to higher costs. As I've said before, although I don't support single payer, that's a true health care reform. But that's not what we got, so there's no point debating the potential merits of that (at least not in a discussion about the law as crafted). What we got was a more centralized version of the current shitty system, so I don't know why we would expect any different results. Whether that's the fault of the GOP for opposing it or the president's fault for not pushing harder for it really doesn't matter to me. We can only talk about what is on the table now and to me, it doesn't look very good. But it will take some time for the true costs of the law to make their way into the system, and only then will we know whether or not it was a success.

[VDB]

The bit about how it's the insurer's fault is rich, too.

rich, good choice of words.  well, nothing i can say that isn't said better here by my favorite news source........  Fox News!?!   :crazy:

Insurance cancelled? Don't blame Obama or the ACA, blame America's insurance companies

The fact is if you are one of the estimated 2 million Americans whose health insurance plans may have been cancelled this month, you should not be blaming President Obama or the Affordable Care Act.

You should be blaming your insurance company because they have not been providing you with coverage that meets the minimum basic standards for health care.

Let me put it more bluntly: your insurance companies have been taking advantage of you and the Affordable Care Act puts in place consumer protection and tells them to stop abusing people.

The government did not "force" insurance companies to cancel their own substandard policies.The insurance companies chose to do that rather than do what is right and bring the policies up to code.

This would be like saying the government "forces" chemical companies to dispose of toxic waste safely rather than dumping it in the river.

Or the government "forces" people to drive with intact windshields and working brake lights.

How dare they "force" drivers to pay money to get those things fixed if they are broken?

Of all the arguments made by the law's supporters, this "the ACA didn't cancel your plan, the insurance company did" is one of the most cynical, condescending, blatantly deceptive one's I've heard. It's been trumpted by the WH's offical spokespeople like Valerie Jarrett and Jay Carney for a while now (well, not a while, since people started receiving cancellation notices), and now it's being repeated by the unofficial spokespeople like NYT and MSNBC and yes, in an opinion column on Fox News by Juan Williams. There's spin, and then there's bullshit, and this idea is complete and utter bullshit.

I was of the understanding that noncompliant plans got cancelled only if they had been changed after the implementation of the ACA. Plans left untouched but nonetheless at odds with the law were to be grandfathered in. That's what Obama meant by "if you like your plan you get to keep it" correct? (Not that he shouldn't have anticipated what would have happened and gotten out in front of that. Egg on his face for failing to do so.)

So in effect, it's true: the insurance company changed your plan to something that they should have known wouldn't meet the standard of the ACA. They could have left it as-is and you'd be fine. So how does the insurance company not bear some (or all) responsibility for your plan being cancelled? But this does raise the question: Why would an insurance company change your plan to one that they'd then have to cancel? Possibly to give them an excuse to kick you off the plan and then sell you something more expensive?



edit: spelling..

[mbw]

As for your last bit, I guess you are saying that since I oppose the law, I am either a racist or I'm too stupid to see that I am being manipulated by right-wing billionaires. Thanks for the tip. Got it.

C'mon.  I know its not as simple as those 2 reasons.  There is a 3rd, of course:  Having great coverage and not giving a fuck about anyone else.  It's the Ron Paul way.  What's his solution for the poor and uninsured?  Oh yeah, doctors to magically treat people for free out of the goodness of their hearts.

[runawayjimbo]

The bit about how it's the insurer's fault is rich, too.

rich, good choice of words.  well, nothing i can say that isn't said better here by my favorite news source........  Fox News!?!   :crazy:

Insurance cancelled? Don't blame Obama or the ACA, blame America's insurance companies

The fact is if you are one of the estimated 2 million Americans whose health insurance plans may have been cancelled this month, you should not be blaming President Obama or the Affordable Care Act.

You should be blaming your insurance company because they have not been providing you with coverage that meets the minimum basic standards for health care.

Let me put it more bluntly: your insurance companies have been taking advantage of you and the Affordable Care Act puts in place consumer protection and tells them to stop abusing people.

The government did not “force” insurance companies to cancel their own substandard policies.The insurance companies chose to do that rather than do what is right and bring the policies up to code.

This would be like saying the government “forces” chemical companies to dispose of toxic waste safely rather than dumping it in the river.

Or the government “forces” people to drive with intact windshields and working brake lights.

How dare they “force” drivers to pay money to get those things fixed if they are broken?

Of all the arguments made by the law's supporters, this "the ACA didn't cancel your plan, the insurance company did" is one of the most cynical, condescending, blatantly deceptive one's I've heard. It's been trumpted by the WH's offical spokespeople like Valerie Jarrett and Jay Carney for a while now (well, not a while, since people started receiving cancellation notices), and now it's being repeated by the unofficial spokespeople like NYT and MSNBC and yes, in an opinion column on Fox News by Juan Williams. There's spin, and then there's bullshit, and this idea is complete and utter bullshit.

I was of the understanding that noncompliant plans got cancelled only if they had been changed after the implementation of the ACA. Plans left untouched but nonetheless at odds with the law were to be grandfathered in. That's what Obama meant by "if you like your plan you get to keep it" correct? (Not that he shouldn't have anticipated what would have happened and gotten out in front of that. Egg on his face for failing to do so.)

So in effect, it's true: the insurance company changed your plan to something that they should have known wouldn't meet the standard of the ACA. They could have left it as-is an you'd be fine. So how does the insurance company not bear some (or all) responsibility for your plan being cancelled? But this does raise the question: why would an insurance company change your plan to one that they'd then have to cancel? Possibly to give them an excuse to kick you off the plan and then sell you something more expensive?

That would be fine, but for the fact that regulations written by HHS were designed specifically to make sure very few (if any) plans retained grandfathered status. A plan undergoes various changes (some cosmetic, some more overarching) from year to year let alone over the course of several years. Has your copay gone up in the past 3 years? Any changes to benefits provided? Did your plan change the formulary to charge more for brand name and less for generic drugs? Guess what, there goes your grandfathered status. Insurers will almost always make changes to plans based on new data, competitive analysis, strategic positioning. Expecting a plan to be virtually identical to one that was bought in 2010 is, IMO, not only unreasonable, it is willfully dishonest (as the NBC article you posted which showed that they did in fact know that this would happen). Also, if you can find me a single occasion where Obama used the "if you like your plan, you can keep it" with the all-important caveat "as long as they don't make changes to it" from any point before last week, I will eat a flaming pile of dogshit.

The insurance companies are cancelling plans because the ACA changed the rules and they are no longer allowed to offer those plans. Period. This was by design, and not some unintended consequence that lawmakers didn't see coming (despite what Mary Landrieu says as she tries to amend the law to allow any plan to continued being offered). But hey, these are HHS rules right, so if the administration is so outraged over this development, why not just have HHS set new rules to allow more plans to be grandfathered? Oh no, that would never work.


ETA:

As for your last bit, I guess you are saying that since I oppose the law, I am either a racist or I'm too stupid to see that I am being manipulated by right-wing billionaires. Thanks for the tip. Got it.

C'mon.  I know its not as simple as those 2 reasons.  There is a 3rd, of course:  Having great coverage and not giving a fuck about anyone else.  It's the Ron Paul way.  What's his solution for the poor and uninsured?  Oh yeah, doctors to magically treat people for free out of the goodness of their hearts.

So now I'm a racist moron who doesn't know what's good for him AND I don't give a fuck about anyone else. Thanks for clearing that up.

PS - how do know whether or not my coverage is "great?"

[aphineday]

Credit where credit is due, this is the post of one of my friends who works in hospital adiministration:

"So one of the big things going through the news right now is the story about people losing their current health insurance because it's not "Obamacare approved", and how Obama is breaking his promise and how "Some people don't want a Cadillac, some people want a Ford.

1) These standards were published in the legislation years ago. Plans would be grandfathered in if they were close enough, and some plans weren't if they didn't measure up. If you're surprised and shocked, SHOCKED by this now, you haven't been paying attention.

2) This isn't the difference between a Cadillac and a Ford, or maybe it is, but the people losing their plans are not driving Tauruses, or even Fiestas. If they're in a Ford, it's a Model T. These plans have low premiums, but almost no benefits. The will pay a flat amount TOWARDS a doctor visit and TOWARDS a few services, but not much else. To continue the car metaphor, they don't have seat belts, windshield wipers, windshields, turn signals, or anything like that. The benchmark set by the ACA set minimum standards that plans need to meet, and don't pretend that this is unheard of because it's done in literally every other industry that legally operates in this country."

[VDB]

Fair enough counterpoints, Jimbo. And no, I can't recall ever hearing Obama tack on that caveat when selling/defending the ACA on the stump. And shame on him/the administration for either not fully knowing what would happen or not being forthright with us about it. That's a big hit to the ol' credibility there, for sure.

[aphineday]

Fair enough counterpoints, Jimbo. And no, I can't recall ever hearing Obama tack on that caveat when selling/defending the ACA on the stump. And shame on him/the administration for either not fully knowing what would happen or not being forthright with us about it. That's a big hit to the ol' credibility there, for sure.

The administration wasn't even sure his it would work. They had ideas, but that's all they were. With something on this scale is not logical to assume that the rollout would be completely without issue.

Here's a shock: the administration wasn't completely transparent about what was happening. That's something the Obama administration has gotten away from that makes me fume. Bush II, Clinton, Bush, Reagan  (go as far as you like); they've all been overwhelmingly transparent. Oh wait...

I agree that I'd like the climate to change, but while bullshit like Citizens United still rules the day, we aren't going to change that. The parties only matter to an extent, and I'll continue to vote for the lesser of the evils. Period. I love Jill Stein, but I'm not deluded enough to think she has a shot. I'll go ahead and put a sock in the "well if you don't vote, it can't happen" bullshit right now. You want true change? Kick the money out.

[Hicks]

Sure I'm a data point of one, but this is a health insurance plan that anyone could buy on the open market.   I'm no different than anyone else. 

If health insurance premiums have actually gone up by 40% in my state that would mean you could buy a $500 deductible, $5000 out of pocket max plan for $184 a month before?

LOL.