Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

[Newtons Bit]

Without knowing details, I can't say whether this is the case with Newton's plan; I can however, say that your assessment of it as being an extremely valuable increase in benefits isn't well-founded. It might be true in aggregate terms, but that doesn't mean that Newton's going to find it to be a meaningful increase. If he isn't planning to become pregnant p) and doesn't use drugs, and doesn't anticipate needing a lot of physical therapy and hospitalization, then to him, it's added cost with higher costshares, and no increased benefit to him.

I don't use drugs, but yes, my current plan covers medication. It also has something like $1000/baby flat delivery fee, but that didn't apply to me. I don't think my state allows gender differences in health care insurance so that's probably why it was on there.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Without knowing details, I can't say whether this is the case with Newton's plan; I can however, say that your assessment of it as being an extremely valuable increase in benefits isn't well-founded. It might be true in aggregate terms, but that doesn't mean that Newton's going to find it to be a meaningful increase. If he isn't planning to become pregnant () and doesn't use drugs, and doesn't anticipate needing a lot of physical therapy and hospitalization, then to him, it's added cost with higher costshares, and no increased benefit to him.

The extremely valuable benefit I was talking about is not any of those things. I was taking him at face value that his current coverage offers better benefits in all ways relevant to him, so I wasn't even considering the various ways that the Bronze package may be better than what he has now.

The valuable benefit I was talking about is, as I said before, not specific to any particular plan at all. It is a benefit all Americans get under the new system, even if they don't have any insurance at all. The benefit is that under the new system they can get affordable coverage even if they have pre-existing conditions. That means that in the future, if his healthcare situation should change for the worse, such that a low-end plan like he has now is no longer sufficient, he will be able to get better coverage at that time.

I don't think many people who haven't actually seen people go through this sort of thing first hand realize just how substantial this problem is. Making affordable health insurance available to people with pre-existing conditions is not just a benefit for people like Travis who currently have pre-existing conditions and can't get affordable coverage. It is a substantial benefit for everybody, because we are all one major injury or illness diagnosis away from being in exactly that situation ourselves.

Even I, living and working in the UK, benefit from this. One big worry I have had over the 4 years I have been here is that, since I do not yet have permanent residency, if something major happens that causes me to be unable to work, I will have to return to the US, where I would then be unable to get coverage for what would then be a pre-existing condition. Under the new legislation I know that if something bad happens and I have to go back, I won't be quite as bad off as I would have been prior to the AHCA.

 

[MattusMaximus]

This thing wasn't ready to be launched, but delay in this political environment wasn't possible.

This ^

That said, progress is being made, as more and more people I talk to (many of whom live in Illinois, Wildcat) have been able to sign up and shop for insurance.

 

[Fudbucker]

As someone else pointed out, the law is not the website.

And it is better. You can shop on California's exchange. You can see exactly what the subsidy is. So what if, in the end, you have to call someone to sign up? It will eventually be fixed, and you have until January anyway.

 

[balrog666]

 

[SkepticalDrew]

[qimg]https://blog.compete.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/healthcare-gov-enrollment-funnel.png[/qimg]

"Although the performance of healthcare.gov during its first week was atrocious, one week does not a trend make. The fact that millions of Americans not only visited the exchanges but also took what actions they could to register and enroll suggests that demand indeed exists for new healthcare options. As the site improves and more consumers are able to compare their coverage options, they’ll decide with their wallets how truly affordable Obamacare turns out to be."

https://blog.compete.com/2013/10/15..._campaign=Feed:+CompeteBlog+(the+Compete+Blog)

 

[WildCat]

16 days after it went live and I still can't create an account. Still get the same stupid error message that claims my security answers are the same.

Still no way to report a tech issue or get tech support either, the live chat and such is geared only towards navigating the site.

eta: interesting, I used a fictitious name and fake email account and was able to avoid the error message. Can't get the confirmation email though since I just made up a generic aol address.

eta2: when this first went live and the security questions wouldn't display I just made up a word and used it for all the security questions. This is apparently still stored on their servers somewhere and tied to my name, as I get this message even when trying to register on a different computer and is probably the source for the non-distinct security question error. Horrible, stupid, amateur site!

 

[Kestrel]

California standardized the benefits for each kind of insurance available on the exchange. This allows customers to directly compare plans offered by various insurance companies. This will help create an efficient market for insurance in California.

 

[MattusMaximus]

16 days after it went live and I still can't create an account. Still get the same stupid error message that claims my security answers are the same.

Still no way to report a tech issue or get tech support either, the live chat and such is geared only towards navigating the site.

eta: interesting, I used a fictitious name and fake email account and was able to avoid the error message. Can't get the confirmation email though since I just made up a generic aol address.

eta2: when this first went live and the security questions wouldn't display I just made up a word and used it for all the security questions. This is apparently still stored on their servers somewhere and tied to my name, as I get this message even when trying to register on a different computer and is probably the source for the non-distinct security question error. Horrible, stupid, amateur site!

Have you tried calling someone on the phone? 1-800-318-2596

 

[WildCat]

Have you tried calling someone on the phone? 1-800-318-2596

That's not tech support.

And I don't see how I could compare/contrast different policies over the phone.

 

[MattusMaximus]

That's not tech support.

And I don't see how I could compare/contrast different policies over the phone.

You don't need a working account to compare policies. While they work out the glitches in your account, try this link.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't use drugs, but yes, my current plan covers medication. It also has something like $1000/baby flat delivery fee, but that didn't apply to me. I don't think my state allows gender differences in health care insurance so that's probably why it was on there.

Do you mind disclosing who your current insurance carrier is? There's a huge amount of variation out there, and while $60 seems very low to me, there's some other possibilities. Mini-med plans are sometimes that low. They're usually more of an indemnity style plan, or a flat rate per type of service sort of a thing, which seems suggested by the maternity benefit.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The valuable benefit I was talking about is, as I said before, not specific to any particular plan at all. It is a benefit all Americans get under the new system, even if they don't have any insurance at all. The benefit is that under the new system they can get affordable coverage even if they have pre-existing conditions. That means that in the future, if his healthcare situation should change for the worse, such that a low-end plan like he has now is no longer sufficient, he will be able to get better coverage at that time.

*shrug* That's fine. You're talking about an abstract benefit... and yes, it's a great thing. But it may not soothe the pain of the immediate cost increase. The problem with terms like "benefit" and "value" is that we often leave out the most important piece: "to whom". What you see as a benefit may not be seen by others as a benefit; what you value highly may not be as valued by others. They're very subjective elements.

I don't think many people who haven't actually seen people go through this sort of thing first hand realize just how substantial this problem is. Making affordable health insurance available to people with pre-existing conditions is not just a benefit for people like Travis who currently have pre-existing conditions and can't get affordable coverage. It is a substantial benefit for everybody, because we are all one major injury or illness diagnosis away from being in exactly that situation ourselves.

I wouldn't rush to assume ignorance on the part of others. No, not everyone has been in that situation, but most people can probably relate since it's not a particularly challenging idea.


**** Full Disclosure: I'm in a foul mood today, so please forgive me if I'm snippier than normal.

 

[Biscuit]

You don't need a working account to compare policies. While they work out the glitches in your account, try this link.

I thought I would give that link a try. I enter in all the info they ask for and then click the "view plans and pricing" and it just cycles me back to the start of the link.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

*shrug* That's fine. You're talking about an abstract benefit...

It's not very abstract to the several family members and friends who I have seen financially ruined by medical bills when they could not get anything remotely like reasonable coverage after serious illnesses (all of whom had insurance when they got sick I might add). It's not any more abstract to me than anything that an insurance policy covers that I may or may not be fortunate enough to not ever need. For example, given that the kind of cheap insurance policy that a young, low-risk person can get is woefully inadequite for somebody who ends up with a serious form of cancer that will incur large medical bills over a long period of time, I don't see the benefit of being able to then get affordable coverage that is sufficient for that situation as being any more abstract than the benefit of being able to get life-saving surgery after a serious accident. Both benefits are essentially the same, in that they both insure that if something terrible happens you will be able to get the treatment you need, and won't be bankrupted paying for it.

and yes, it's a great thing. But it may not soothe the pain of the immediate cost increase. The problem with terms like "benefit" and "value" is that we often leave out the most important piece: "to whom". What you see as a benefit may not be seen by others as a benefit; what you value highly may not be as valued by others. They're very subjective elements.

I know. I said as much in my own post. He may not place much value on that particular benefit, but it is a real benefit that he is getting. If he does not think the extra benefits he is getting under the new system are worth the $100 extra a month he has to pay, then that's fine. But he should at least be aware that he is getting some new benefits. And if he really doesn't think that particular benefit is worth very much, then I don't think he realizes how incredibly vulnerable he was under the old system.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I know. I said as much in my own post. He may not place much value on that particular benefit, but it is a real benefit that he is getting. If he does not think the extra benefits he is getting under the new system are worth the $100 extra a month he has to pay, then that's fine. But he should at least be aware that he is getting some new benefits. And if he really doesn't think that particular benefit is worth very much, then I don't think he realizes how incredibly vulnerable he was under the old system.

Hmm. I think perhaps I was not clear. Let me try an analogy.

Let's say that you live in the desert, where water is scarce, and thus highly valuable. There's a bill before your government that will increase the water table throughout the entire country, including the parts that are not in the desert.

Now to you, living in the desert, this is a clear benefit. It's such a clear benefit that you're astonished that there's a group of people who are against it. Here's a plan to get clean water available to everyone, the cost is obviously worth it to you, anyone who doesn't see that probably has their head in the sand.

What you haven't really thought through is that part of the country is in a major flood plain. To them, raising the water table isn't a wonderful benefit - it's a new risk. It threatens their well-being and safety, much as a low water table threatens yours. You've been complaining that these people are just being selfish about the cost of the new bill, and haven't been thinking about the true benefit that they're getting - someday they might face drought too.

That's closer to what I was trying to say, although it is an admittedly imperfect analogy. Some people are NOT getting a benefit. Some people are getting coverage that is no better than they previously had, but which costs more. There is an expectation in my field that while we add new insureds at the bottom end of the income spectrum, we will create new uninsureds from the middle class - people who used to be able to afford it and who now no longer can. Additionally, the expanded benefits will never be of value to some people. Full maternity coverage has little value to a gay man; and is unlikely to ever have value to him.

 

[Unabogie]

Hmm. I think perhaps I was not clear. Let me try an analogy.

Let's say that you live in the desert, where water is scarce, and thus highly valuable. There's a bill before your government that will increase the water table throughout the entire country, including the parts that are not in the desert.

Now to you, living in the desert, this is a clear benefit. It's such a clear benefit that you're astonished that there's a group of people who are against it. Here's a plan to get clean water available to everyone, the cost is obviously worth it to you, anyone who doesn't see that probably has their head in the sand.

Here's where your analogy fails. The more accurate scenario is that everyone in the world has to spend some of their lifetime in a desert where water is scarce. When you're young, you get to live in the areas where water is plentiful, but unless you die young, you'll retire in the areas where there's no water. So you complain that where you live, there's plenty of water. Why should you have to pay for water for old people? Why didn't they just save up water while they were young instead of drinking it all? And besides, what's next on the things we need to provide for those desert dwellers? Where does all this largess end, anyway?

And yes, a person who thinks way is both callous and ignorant, since soon enough they'll be the ones getting water in a dry place and be yelling about keeping your government hands off my Medicare water.

 

[Kestrel]

I thought I would give that link a try. I enter in all the info they ask for and then click the "view plans and pricing" and it just cycles me back to the start of the link.

Do you have cookies disabled?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Here's where your analogy fails. The more accurate scenario is that everyone in the world has to spend some of their lifetime in a desert where water is scarce. When you're young, you get to live in the areas where water is plentiful, but unless you die young, you'll retire in the areas where there's no water. So you complain that where you live, there's plenty of water. Why should you have to pay for water for old people? Why didn't they just save up water while they were young instead of drinking it all? And besides, what's next on the things we need to provide for those desert dwellers? Where does all this largess end, anyway?

And yes, a person who thinks way is both callous and ignorant, since soon enough they'll be the ones getting water in a dry place and be yelling about keeping your government hands off my Medicare water.

Not everyone experiences serious illness or injury. Yes, the likelihood increases with age, but not to such a degree as your analogy would require.

How about a compromise? Some people live in the desert their whole lives. Some people live in the wetlands their whole lives. Some people move in and out of them over time.

Even beyond that, however, you seem to have missed one of the most vital points of my original analogy: Raising the water table across the entire country greatly benefits those in the desert, but it causes flooding to those in the wetlands. It benefits some, but causes direct and immediate harm to others.

You seem to believe that the direct harm to some is irrelevant, because this protects them against maybe facing a bigger harm later. I don't believe this is a fair trade - not philosophically speaking, anyway. In terms of our analogy... the raised water table saves the lives of those in the desert... but it destroys the livelihood of those in the wetlands. They may not die because of it, but they face significant hardship and dislocation. How many peoples' strife is equivalent to one person's life? What's the exchange rate, in your eyes?

 

[ravdin]

Have you tried calling someone on the phone? 1-800-318-2596

Since you brought it up, I'd like to say a hearty 1-800-318-2596 to the Obamacare rollout.