Healthcare Content (Protest Instructions) >>>>>

[runawayjimbo]

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.

The regs were not in the legislation; they were issued by HHS sometime after the passage of the law. And while those in the health care industry (like your friend) have obviously been paying attention, most people probably haven't. So your buddy's response, which seems to be "tough shit for being too stupid to understand" doesn't really do much for the obviously stupid person who just received a cancellation notice after being told 37 times by the president alone that "if they liked your plan, you can keep your plan. Period."

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."

The car metaphor makes zero sense. First, the proximate cause of injury to oneself or others from driving a car without the safety features that are federally mandated are obvious: driving without a windshield or a seat belt (I can't believe I'm even typing that, as if that automakers would suddenly start selling cars without safety features but for the infinite wisdom of our federal benefactors) is profoundly dangerous. However, as the Oregon study I posted above makes clear, having insurance does not correlate with better health outcomes (at least in the early returns from the only controlled study available). Same goes for stupid Juan Williams' "companies dumping toxic waste" nonsense: federal regs protecting people from being harmed by no fault of their own (valid function of gov't) is not the same thing as ACA regs preventing insurance companies from offering something that people deem to be in the best interest of them or their family. Did I mention that those "Ford Model-T's" are already extensively regulated by the states? That these junk policies that are obviously so deficient they should be regulated out of existence were approved by state regulators who are far more familiar with the wants and needs of the people in their state than the federal gov't is? Oh never mind.

Finally, the minimum standards set by the ACA is hardly equivalent to those on "every other industry that legally operates in this country." In no other industry (that I know of) does the federal gov't dictate how much of a private company's revenue needs to go to its cost of goods sold (medical loss ratio requirement). In no other industry does the federal gov't specify the rules for pricing a product (community rating; 3:1 age bands). And in no other industry does the federal gov't say you cannot refuse a customer (guaranteed issue). Well, that last one's not entirely true: the Community Reinvestment Act stipulated how much of Fannie & Freddie's book had to be allocated to sub-prime borrowers, encouraging reckless lending practices and securitization mania; how'd that work out?

Liberals are fond of saying the health insurance market is very different than other industries. I agree (kind of). So can we please stop making bullshit comparisons to other industries?

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?

The 40% increase is not for you, it is the average increase for all ages in your state. There will be some winners and some losers (congrats if you're one of the winners), but on average, premiums will increase in your state.

But like I said, it doesn't even matter if that is true or not for this year since the insurers have no experience from which to draw when setting rates. If total health care spending increases more slowly and can be spread around enough people (preferably of the young and healthy variety), premiums will go down; if the exchanges encourage more people requiring expensive treatments (i.e., those who need insurance the most) to sign up, rate hikes next year will be explosive.

[Hicks]

Actually that's a plan that goes into effect next year. 

Somehow my daughter was a winner too, her plan is only going to be $134/month, down from the $157/month we currently pay.

I really think those numbers are bunch of horseshit projections that have no basis in reality. 

[runawayjimbo]

Actually that's a plan that goes into effect next year. 

Somehow my daughter was a winner too, her plan is only going to be $134/month, down from the $157/month we currently pay.

I really think those numbers are bunch of horseshit projections that have no basis in reality.

No, I meant in 2015 (next year's enrollment period). Insurers will recalculate rates for 2015 based on their experience in 2014. If not enough young healthy people sign up, insurers' cost per member will increase and they will raise premiums for the following year. The administration has estimated it needs at least 2.7M people age 18-35 to sign up on federal exchanges (of the 7M expected) in order to help keep premiums affordable. Now, that's a made-up number so whether or not they hit is is largely irrelevant (and either side will use it as "evidence" that the law is/is not working). But if people buying insurance on the exchanges is made up of less healthy people and more people requiring expensive treatments, I promise you you will not be paying $258/mo.

[runawayjimbo]

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.

Wait, what?

Oregon Health Care Exchange Has Yet To Enroll A Single Person

[rowjimmy]

I really think those numbers are bunch of horseshit projections that have no basis in reality.

I am shocked at the notion that someone would make up or fudge numbers for political gain.


Also, while we're calling out liars (OBAMA!), I'm sure all those people talking about Death Panels are fixing to stand up and apologize for lying to America now, aren't they?

[runawayjimbo]

Speaking of fudging numbers for political gain, the WH has settled on an expanded definition of the word "enrolled" when they release statistics later this week. Actual enrollment not necessary to be included.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/11/who-counts-as-an-obamacare-enrollee-the-obama-administration-settles-on-a-definition/

Who counts as an Obamacare enrollee? The Obama administration settles on a definition.

The fight over how to define the new health law's success is coming down to one question: Who counts as an Obamacare enrollee?

Health insurance plans only count subscribers as enrolled in a health plan once they've submitted a payment. That is when the carrier sends out a member card and begins paying doctor bills.

When the Obama administration releases health law enrollment figures later this week, though, it will use a more expansive definition. It will count people who have purchased a plan as well as  those who have a plan sitting in their online shopping cart but have not yet paid.

"In the data that will be released this week, 'enrollment' will measure people who have filled out an application and selected a qualified health plan in the marketplace," said an administration official, who requested anonymity to frankly describe the methodology.

The disparity in the numbers is likely to further inflame the political fight over the Affordable Care Act. Each side could choose a number to make the case that the health law is making progress or failing miserably.

On Monday, the Wall Street Journal, citing anonymous sources, said insurance companies have received about 50,000 private health plan enrollments through HealthCare.gov. Even combined with state tallies, the figure falls far short of the 500,000 sign-ups the administration initially predicted for both private sign-ups and those opting for the expansion of Medicaid.

In recent weeks, administration officials have warned that the enrollment figures for October would be low, given the tumultuous launch of the health Web site.

The administration plans to use this count of enrollees because that's where their interaction with the healthcare.gov site ends, the administration official said. Insurance plans, rather than the federal government, are responsible for collecting the first month's premium.

The shopping cart on healthcare.gov only contains space for one health plan, meaning the consumer must have gotten far enough to settle on a specific option.

Addressing the Wall Street Journal's report, Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters said: "We cannot confirm these numbers. More generally, we have always anticipated that initial enrollment numbers would be low and increase over time. . . . The problems with the Web site will cause the numbers to be lower than initially anticipated."

States that have so far released enrollment data also tend to use this wider definition. The 14 states running their own insurance marketplaces have reported 49,000 enrollments in private health insurance plans, according to an analysis released Monday by consulting firm Avalere Health. They have also enrolled many thousands more into the Medicaid program, which the health-care law expanded.

"The idea that people are going to do layaway purchasing three months out goes against the American way," Rhode Island exchange director Christine Ferguson said in late September, shortly before the health law's rollout.

Different definitions of enrollment lead to vastly different estimations of who will gain coverage under the Affordable Care Act. In the District of Columbia, for example, health insurance plans reported signing up five people during the health law's first month.

But the city's exchange, DC Health Link, estimates that 321 people in the District  have dropped a specific health insurance plan into their shopping cart. Of those, 164 have requested an invoice for their first month's premium from the insurance carrier.

"We recognize that most people do not have the luxury of paying for coverage in October, months before a bill is due," exchange spokesman Richard Sorian said Friday. "I hope that all consumers here in the District remember that they have until Dec. 15 to finalize their selection by paying their first month's premium in order to have coverage on Jan. 1, 2014."

[rowjimmy]

Who fucking cares?

The last guy didn't even put WAR in his budget.

[runawayjimbo]

Who fucking cares?

The last guy didn't even put WAR in his budget.

Right, but this is a discussion about health care, so...

[VDB]

I'm sure all those people talking about Death Panels are fixing to stand up and apologize for lying to America now, aren't they?

Of course not. If there's one thing you can take to the bank when it comes to American politics, it's double standards.

And lying.

So, two things.

[rowjimmy]

Who fucking cares?

The last guy didn't even put WAR in his budget.

Right, but this is a discussion about health care, so...

It's a non-issue promoted to national headlines because we mustn't talk about anything important.

[runawayjimbo]

Who fucking cares?

The last guy didn't even put WAR in his budget.

Right, but this is a discussion about health care, so...

It's a non-issue promoted to national headlines because we mustn't talk about anything important.

I fail to see how the WH systematically lying (repeatedly) about the first available data we have with respect to the president's signature legislative achievement is a non-issue.

[rowjimmy]

Who fucking cares?

The last guy didn't even put WAR in his budget.

Right, but this is a discussion about health care, so...

It's a non-issue promoted to national headlines because we mustn't talk about anything important.

I fail to see how the WH systematically lying (repeatedly) about the first available data we have with respect to the president's signature legislative achievement is a non-issue.

Are they lying?
It's not some kind of state secret.

It's also early receipts on a system that has had a slow start for a variety of reasons. Anyone who puts too much stock in how many people have enrolled at this point is overthinking it.

But I know you love to point out every spot on Obama's tie, so have at it.

[runawayjimbo]

Who fucking cares?

The last guy didn't even put WAR in his budget.

Right, but this is a discussion about health care, so...

It's a non-issue promoted to national headlines because we mustn't talk about anything important.

I fail to see how the WH systematically lying (repeatedly) about the first available data we have with respect to the president's signature legislative achievement is a non-issue.

Are they lying?
It's not some kind of state secret.

It's also early receipts on a system that has had a slow start for a variety of reasons. Anyone who puts too much stock in how many people have enrolled at this point is overthinking it.

But I know you love to point out every spot on Obama's tie, so have at it.

First, they said they didn't have enrollment data when it turned out they did. Now they are padding enrollment stats to deflect criticism. How is that not lying? It doesn't have to be a state secret to be a lie, you know.

I agree with you (somewhat) the actual number doesn't much matter; of course, if people cannot access before the December 15th deadline (for Jan. 1 plans), then these lost weeks will indeed matter and the pool of insured on the exchanges will be significantly more expensive than initially thought, which is a big problem.

I could care less about Obama's tie or any other spots. I would just like, for once, to be treated like an adult by my gov't and be given the truth and not some politically spun bullshit.

[rowjimmy]

Why should they start now?

[runawayjimbo]

Why should they start now?

A valid yet depressing point.