• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

Minoosh said:
To you and other posters: I got onto the government's pre-existing plan after being turned down for insurance and remaining uninsured for 6 months. When that was phased out I easily found insurance under the "exchange" program.

I could probably qualify for a subsidy based on my income but there are family resources available so I'm not too keen on trying to gouge the government. The feds actually wanted me to have insurance, in sharp contrast to the insurance companies and the Republican Party.
Click to expand...
Thanks. It's good to hear you have insurance now.
 
Blue Mountain said:
Thanks. It's good to hear you have insurance now.
Click to expand...

Yet many people are far worse off with regards to medical care:

One in three Americans has put off seeking medical treatment in 2014 due to high costs, according to Gallup — the highest percentage since Gallup began asking the question in 2001.
Click to expand...

Thanks Obamacare!
 
Neally said:
Yet many people are far worse off with regards to medical care:
Thanks Obamacare!
Click to expand...

Seems to be more an issue of Americans being confused,...surprise!

From the actual Gallup Poll:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/179774/cost-barrier-americans-medical-care.aspx

Bottom Line

One of the goals of opening the government exchanges was to enable more Americans to get health insurance to help cover the costs of needed medical treatments. While many Americans have gained insurance, there has been no downturn in the percentage who say they have had to put off needed medical treatment because of cost. This may reflect high deductibles or copays that are part of the newly insured's plans, although separate research has shown that most of the newly insured in 2014 are satisfied with their health coverage.

Variation in the pricing for medical treatments, not to mention differences in how much insurance plans cover, could be confusing Americans or making them fear a needed treatment is too expensive. And while the costs of medical procedures aren't rising as rapidly as they once were, it is still too early to tell if that is an effect of the Affordable Care Act and how prices may change in the future.
Click to expand...

From link in quote above:

Over seven in 10 Americans who bought new health insurance policies through the government exchanges earlier this year rate the quality of their healthcare and their healthcare coverage as "excellent" or "good." These positive evaluations are generally similar to the reviews that all insured Americans give to their health insurance.

•Americans with new exchange-obtained insurance are positive
•The newly insured are more satisfied with costs than others
•Most will renew their policies; few will drop insurance
Click to expand...
 
Trakar said:
Seems to be more an issue of Americans being confused,...surprise!

From the actual Gallup Poll:
Click to expand...

Perhaps, or it may be "This may reflect high deductibles or copays that are part of the newly insured's plans."

In either case, there's no denying that there are both winners and losers with Obamacare. Good for you if you're a winner. Sucks if your now worse off.
 
Neally said:
Perhaps, or it may be "This may reflect high deductibles or copays that are part of the newly insured's plans."

In either case, there's no denying that there are both winners and losers with Obamacare. Good for you if you're a winner. Sucks if your now worse off.
Click to expand...

How are you defining "worse off?"

Paying a bit more for real health insurance coverage, instead of less money for a policy that provides little or no actual coverage, should not be considered "worse off" from the perspective of the covered individual.
Likewise having your insurance company deciding to gouge you for higher premiums isn't an ACA issue it's a predatory insurance industry problem.
 
Neally said:
Perhaps, or it may be "This may reflect high deductibles or copays that are part of the newly insured's plans."

In either case, there's no denying that there are both winners and losers with Obamacare. Good for you if you're a winner. Sucks if your now worse off.
Click to expand...
I'm one of the winners, I'm happy to say. I have low deductibles and low copays, and I've never before had health insurance (I'm 58). I've never been poor, just self-employed.
 
Neally said:
Perhaps, or it may be "This may reflect high deductibles or copays that are part of the newly insured's plans."

In either case, there's no denying that there are both winners and losers with Obamacare. Good for you if you're a winner. Sucks if your now worse off.
Click to expand...

Even if we take what you say at face value, there is no denying there were "winners" and "losers" before Obamacare, the "losers" most notably defined as those who could not afford or get health insurance (and therefore healthcare) due to preexisting conditions.

Was this also a bone of contention for you? Or are you just now concerned about the "winners" and "losers" in the American healthcare system?
 
Trakar said:
Likewise having your insurance company deciding to gouge you for higher premiums isn't an ACA issue it's a predatory insurance industry problem.
Click to expand...
Predatory insurance practices do exist, but provisions in the ACA's minimum requirements did some no-brainer things that are already leading to increased costs. Take the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions as an example. The provision - while popular and IMO a well intended move - increases premiums by means of ignoring risk factors that are typically factored into rates.

I don't bring up that example to say anything bad about it... but it seems to me that people had expectations that the law was going to reduce costs significantly, but didn't read the fine print about the implications that the new standards require to be covered that might offset the cost reductions. And when those issues come up it's purely a matter of corrupt capitalism, and never a side effect of the decisions made in a piece of legislation. I tend go with both, but moreso with what regulations pushed them to do. And I'm not surprised by it to be honest. I'm not sure what has people shocked that coverages would experience some negative changes given the way that any cost increases in these companies would have to eventually be passed to the consumer at one point or another.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
...but provisions in the ACA's minimum requirements did some no-brainer things that are already leading to increased costs.
Click to expand...
I feel like people who want to make such statements should not be afraid of facts.

Let's start with the first question: Have costs gone up? The overall answer is, no.

Across all counties in the US, the silver plans have only gone up 2% from 2014 to 2015. That figure is not just good; it's miraculous. On this scale, Obamacare is not just working; it's working better than anyone could have imagined. Bronze plans are up 4%.

So, now that we understand the scale, that Obamacare overall is working extremely well, we can talk about areas where it doesn't seem to be working so well.

If you live in Alaska then maybe you should think about getting a new governor (just a thought). Your silver plans shot up 28%. If you live in Western Minnesota then your bronze plans are up 43%. Again, I'd take a closer look at that governor. Now, that's the bad news.

So, what's the good news? Well, even in Alaska there is good news. That 28% increase is for premiums before the tax subsidy. So, if you are a 40 year old non-smoker making 30,000 a year in Alaska, your premium didn't increase at all from 2014. So, again, Obamacare is working as it is supposed to. What about Minnesota? Well, if you are a die-hard conservative desperate for some bad news for Obamacare, I'll have to admit that premiums for that same 40 year old non-smoker making 30,000 a year went up 18.5% from 2014 for a silver plan. And, your actual premium will go up the full 18.5%. Oh, wait, but there is actually some good news there too. Because even though your premium went up 18% it is still lower than the premiums in Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

The simple fact is that for our example 40 year old, his premium would be $208 in most of the country. His premium would be lower in Alaska, Arizona, Minnesota, New Mexico, Hawaii, and Tennessee. The bad news is that his premium would be higher in...sorry, that was a trick. There is no part of the country where his premium would be higher than $208. That's the standard for 2015. Back in 2014, the standard rate for this person was $209. So, yes it did drop by $1. Again, this is not horrible or bad or awful or even good. Having a standard premium drop by even $1 is something that has not happened in three decades. The real numbers show that standard costs dropped 0.8%. The 2% increase I first mentioned is misleading because everyone who had an increase was already paying less than the standard rate. So, you can keep harping about Obamacare or you can accept facts.

***

If you have your heart set on cherry picking the data to make things sound dire, I suggest you concentrate on the Bronze plans. There is no standard rate in Bronze. These range from about $128 to $178 (although Alaska is unusually low at $72). Since these prices are all over the place, you can easily find examples where rates have increased from 2014. The worst of these is Mississippi where the rates doubled. However, the 2015 rate of $129 is still just below Indiana's rate of $130. The worst would be Montana where the rate went up 13.2% to $178. In fact, with that price in Montana, it would probably make more sense to upgrade to Silver for $208.
 
Last edited:
Marcus said:
I'm one of the winners, I'm happy to say. I have low deductibles and low copays, and I've never before had health insurance (I'm 58). I've never been poor, just self-employed.
Click to expand...

How did you live so long without healthcare? Or did you have healthcare, just not health insurance? If you had healthcare, how much did you pay for it per year as opposed to what you are now paying?
 
xjx388 said:
How did you live so long without healthcare? Or did you have healthcare, just not health insurance? If you had healthcare, how much did you pay for it per year as opposed to what you are now paying?
Click to expand...
Surviving is hardly the mark of a good health care system. Never mind that it is a fact that Americans have died for lack of healthcare insurance, your argument is cynical in that the people who do in fact die without healthcare insurance in the US cannot respond to your query.

ETA: It's difficult to get healthcare without insurance.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
I don't know but, wouldn't it just be peachy king if people could die for making bad decisions. Especially children.
Click to expand...

No actually it wouldn't. :confused:

With the government fully involved, forcing premiums way up, it seems there were many ways to lower the cost of insurance.

How does causing costs to rise help anyone?
 
logger said:
No actually it wouldn't. :confused:

With the government fully involved, forcing premiums way up, it seems there were many ways to lower the cost of insurance.

How does causing costs to rise help anyone?
Click to expand...

Your question is based on lies.
 
xjx388 said:
How did you live so long without healthcare? Or did you have healthcare, just not health insurance? If you had healthcare, how much did you pay for it per year as opposed to what you are now paying?
Click to expand...
I'm fortunate to be really healthy. The only interactions I've had with the health care system until now (I've gone to a doctor now that I have health insurance) were once in 1988 and once in 1983. That last one cost me 5k (woodworking accident), I worked out a payment plan with the doctor and hospital and paid it out over time.

My original plan was to go to a doctor when I turn 65 and am eligible for medicare, this insurance thing has enabled me to start earlier.
 
RandFan said:
Surviving is hardly the mark of a good health care system. Never mind that it is a fact that Americans have died for lack of healthcare insurance, your argument is cynical in that the people who do in fact die without healthcare insurance in the US cannot respond to your query.

ETA: It's difficult to get healthcare without insurance.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. A lot of people just couldn't afford health insurance, they would wait until a problem got really serious and then go to the ER. Acute problems have to be treated, by law, but uninsured people tend to get the short end of the stick once they are beyond the acute phase.

In my case I took a calculated risk, I could have afforded catastrophic insurance but getting a policy like I have now would have been difficult.

You might say I'm a sponge on the system, cruising along until I start getting old and will inevitably start requiring healthcare. That's true in a way, but my feeling was that I simply didn't get sick (still don't) and I didn't want to spend my life paying for other peoples health problems.
 
Marcus said:
In my case I took a calculated risk, I could have afforded catastrophic insurance but getting a policy like I have now would have been difficult.

You might say I'm a sponge on the system, cruising along until I start getting old and will inevitably start requiring healthcare. That's true in a way, but my feeling was that I simply didn't get sick (still don't) and I didn't want to spend my life paying for other peoples health problems.
Click to expand...

Most without insurance are like this, they would rather have a cell phone than insurance. Now they've been forced to get it, while causing everyone else's to go way up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom