Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Finding health care solutions

Finding health care solutions (Page 3)
Thread Tools
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2013, 06:51 PM
 
I've been on a cadillac plan and I've been on very basic catastrophic plans too, as I am now. I'm in transition in my life, making less than I have in the past since I'm freelancing and trying to startup some businesses while I'm in the States for the next half year or so. We're not eligible for Medicare, so we're not dirt poor, but we are living pretty thrifty right now too (and we have pretty much zero debt except for a little left on my student loans).

That is to say, I think our circumstances are kind of unique: two freelancers, no kids, no debt, owning a house. Our lifestyles certainly are kind of unusual.

However, it seems pretty apparent that the subsidies will be of significant benefit to people in my category at least in some states, however common my category is. I think this is by design, I expect the people benefiting from the subsidies will ultimately like the ACA (for those where the individual mandate isn't a complete non-starter) and those who aren't won't.

Then again, there will most definitely be people that are unhappy with any sort of change, because I don't think it is possible to make a change of something this complex that will be a net positive for absolutely everybody ranging from Medicare recipients on government cheese to Shaddim-wealth.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2013, 06:58 PM
 
What I want to know is, if you are a right-winger, will you be okay with the Republicans not jumping on the ACA while it may be at its weakest with actionable solutions and replacements?

I'm not making a prediction that they won't have solutions and replacements, but I do suspect that a number of Republicans (and some Democrats) really don't have any interest in health care reform - the fact that Obama's name is associated with the reform just being a very huge excuse or escape clause.

I say this because I'm in Turtle's camp here, I think. There are too many politicians profiting heavily from the status quo that don't want things to change. They may bitch and moan about how bad the ACA and Obama is, but to at least some of these politicians, what is at the core of their opposition is the jeopardization of their income stream/power base.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2013, 08:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
That is to say, I think our circumstances are kind of unique: two freelancers, no kids, no debt, owning a house. Our lifestyles certainly are kind of unusual.

However, it seems pretty apparent that the subsidies will be of significant benefit to people in my category at least in some states, however common my category is. I think this is by design, I expect the people benefiting from the subsidies will ultimately like the ACA (for those where the individual mandate isn't a complete non-starter) and those who aren't won't.
.
Hence, my 1% comment.

There are very few ("1%", a number that I obviously chose to resemble something else) that benefit from ObamaCare, and 99% that will be paying for it.

Good old spreading the wealth around.

Nothing necessarily wrong with it, but this could have been done much more honestly, with much less pain, and much more efficiency.

Now, in order to fix healthcare for 1%, Obama is f&$%ing it up for everyone else.

BUT: I welcome it. It will be the ultimate straw that will break our crony healthcare system.

Obama is the useful idiot, and I say that as a compliment.

-t
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2013, 09:02 PM
 
Postmodern radical egalitarianism at it's finest.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 16, 2013, 09:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Hence, my 1% comment.

There are very few ("1%", a number that I obviously chose to resemble something else) that benefit from ObamaCare, and 99% that will be paying for it.

Good old spreading the wealth around.

Nothing necessarily wrong with it, but this could have been done much more honestly, with much less pain, and much more efficiency.

Now, in order to fix healthcare for 1%, Obama is f&$%ing it up for everyone else.

BUT: I welcome it. It will be the ultimate straw that will break our crony healthcare system.

Obama is the useful idiot, and I say that as a compliment.

-t

I'm not sure how you came up with 1%, there should be a far greater percentage of people that benefit by the subsidies, the abolishment of the pre-existing condition stuff, etc. but I guess it doesn't matter what that number is, we can call it x%

Let's be real though, even if our politicians were all a bunch of angels and there were next to zero issues with money entering politics, corruption rates being unusually high, etc. there will still be winners and losers with any sort of health care system. You can consider the rich losers now for having to pay more for Medicare, if you want, or some of the middle class losers for having difficulty affording health care at all, or some of the small businesses losers in having to provide their employees health care in order to compete with more established businesses.

That x% will always exist.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2013, 06:55 AM
 
And with MY TAXES RISING to pay your insurance, I have less, and can afford less. Its always other peoples money. I believe that when you are actually worth it you can afford to buy your own insurance.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2013, 07:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
And with MY TAXES RISING to pay your insurance, I have less, and can afford less. Its always other peoples money. I believe that when you are actually worth it you can afford to buy your own insurance.
Huh?

1) Taxes rising? WTF? Tax rates are not changing.
2) Again, there will always be an x% of "losers" no matter what health care system is in place, this post therefore has no real point to it
3) If this is directed at me, I can afford to buy my own health insurance, I have been doing so for a long time now
4) Are you saying that people that can't afford to buy their own health insurance aren't "worth it"? What is "it"?
5) "It's always other people's money": that's how insurance works

This post is completely incomprehensible.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2013, 08:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Huh?

1) Taxes rising? WTF? Tax rates are not changing.
You are very disingenuous.

ObamaCare IS a tax, the Supreme Court ruled so.

Most people have only two choices:
1) pay more for insurance to subsidize others
2) pay a fine tax if you don't

-t
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 17, 2013, 09:43 PM
 
Fine, but even if you want to call it a tax, whether the individual mandate results in a higher expenditure depends on:

- your financial situation
- whether or not your employer provides you with health care you wish to keep, and...
- if you are employer, the prospects of not having to provide employees health insurance can save money
- if you are an employee of that company, you may prefer your choice of plan over what your employer forces on you, esp. If this means more money to go to your salary

Point being, his statement is still not an accurate simplification.

I know I said I'm not going to defend the ACA anymore, but I couldn't help it here cause I hate such obvious inaccuracies clouded by emotion. There are so many ways to criticize the ACA you don't need to say stuff like this.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2013, 06:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Fine, but even if you want to call it a tax, whether the individual mandate results in a higher expenditure depends on...

I know I said I'm not going to defend the ACA anymore, but I couldn't help it here cause I hate such obvious inaccuracies clouded by emotion. There are so many ways to criticize the ACA you don't need to say stuff like this.
Payroll tax went up for everyone who pays taxes. Period.

"obvious inaccuracies clouded by emotio" applies to your statement "what tax increases" more than BadKosh's post.

You still are disingenuous.

-t
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2013, 08:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I know I said I'm not going to defend the ACA anymore, but I couldn't help it here cause I hate such obvious inaccuracies clouded by emotion. There are so many ways to criticize the ACA you don't need to say stuff like this.
Just because the overwhelming majority find the ACA distasteful doesn't mean you have to as well. I mean... you're in here touting your new, proposed rates under the exchanges (with numbers that as usual don't add up at all, not sure why you even posted it), you're touting coverage for pre-existing conditions, coverage for the uninsured, you've attempted to explain-away the debauchery of the exchange website because it's so massive and complicated an undertaking, and you've touted the subsidies at one point suggesting it would appeal to the young people necessary to fund the program. We've told you no, no, no, no, and no, but you've been in here defending it each step of the way.

There's still time for you to prove you're not a partisan-warrior; if there are "so many ways to criticize the ACA", give us your 5 greatest criticisms.
ebuddy
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2013, 10:48 AM
 
My cousin called me this morning in utter panic, he just found out the company he works for is dropping his insurance coverage, because they can't afford to insure all of their 200 full-time employees under the ACA (he had insurance through a benefits package for employees who had been with the company for >15 years). That's bad for all the "oldtimers" who work there, but particularly distressing for him because his 6 y/o son was recently diagnosed with T1 diabetes, and his wife developed MS a couple years ago and hasn't been able to work for a while now (and was rejected for disability/Medicaid).

I don't have all the details, he's waiting to find out more, but as it stands his family could be SoL when the year ends, they're already stretched thin and can't afford the premiums.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2013, 11:38 AM
 
Well, but you gotta look at the positive. A very select few like Besson get insurance at rock bottom prices.

[/sarc]

-t
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2013, 12:11 PM
 
Somebody has to pay for the ObamaFone Woman.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2013, 02:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
My cousin called me this morning in utter panic, he just found out the company he works for is dropping his insurance coverage, because they can't afford to insure all of their 200 full-time employees under the ACA (he had insurance through a benefits package for employees who had been with the company for >15 years). That's bad for all the "oldtimers" who work there, but particularly distressing for him because his 6 y/o son was recently diagnosed with T1 diabetes, and his wife developed MS a couple years ago and hasn't been able to work for a while now (and was rejected for disability/Medicaid).

I don't have all the details, he's waiting to find out more, but as it stands his family could be SoL when the year ends, they're already stretched thin and can't afford the premiums.
Not saying this isn't happening ... but it certainly seems "odd" in light of the fact that the Employer Mandate was delayed a year. Why do this NOW?

OAW
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2013, 02:55 PM
 
I think you misunderstand what's going on here, as does most of the talking heads in the media. These insurance policies are handled on a large scale, usually several companies bundling together, contracted out for several years to get the lowest price possible. A 1 year extension isn't jack.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2013, 04:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I think you misunderstand what's going on here, as does most of the talking heads in the media. These insurance policies are handled on a large scale, usually several companies bundling together, contracted out for several years to get the lowest price possible. A 1 year extension isn't jack.
I suspect that when it comes to those companies that are "on the bubble" so to speak ... some will comply with the employer mandate for firms with 50+ employees ... and some will bail and just pay the fines leaving their employees to pursue individual policies on the exchanges. In all fairness, companies of this size have been dropping health plans for years. So it remains to be seen whether this becomes an anecdote or a trend.

OAW
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2013, 06:24 PM
 
I would be in favor of a website that publicly shamed large companies that did not provide health insurance options for their employees.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2013, 08:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
I would be in favor of a website that publicly shamed large companies that did not provide health insurance options for their employees.
No.

How about websites that publicly shame insurance companies and hospitals for overcharging consumers.

Alas, will not happen, because they pay off DC handsomely.

-t
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2013, 08:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I suspect that when it comes to those companies that are "on the bubble" so to speak ... some will comply with the employer mandate for firms with 50+ employees ... and some will bail and just pay the fines leaving their employees to pursue individual policies on the exchanges. In all fairness, companies of this size have been dropping health plans for years. So it remains to be seen whether this becomes an anecdote or a trend.

OAW
You forgot one.

... and some will cut their workers back to part-time or entirely. The dropping of health plans will be unprecedented. You didn't hear it here first.

Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
I would be in favor of a website that publicly shamed large companies that did not provide health insurance options for their employees.
This would be grossly negligent and downright destructive without regard for the company's profit margin. Worse if those companies paid a percentage more or subsidized investment vehicles, profit-sharing, and other incentives for their employees. After all, those employees chose to work where they work and I'm not going to pretend I'm smarter than they are.

I wouldn't support shaming their companies any more than I'd be interested in shaming yours.
ebuddy
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2013, 09:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Just because the overwhelming majority find the ACA distasteful doesn't mean you have to as well. I mean... you're in here touting your new, proposed rates under the exchanges (with numbers that as usual don't add up at all, not sure why you even posted it), you're touting coverage for pre-existing conditions, coverage for the uninsured, you've attempted to explain-away the debauchery of the exchange website because it's so massive and complicated an undertaking, and you've touted the subsidies at one point suggesting it would appeal to the young people necessary to fund the program. We've told you no, no, no, no, and no, but you've been in here defending it each step of the way.

There's still time for you to prove you're not a partisan-warrior; if there are "so many ways to criticize the ACA", give us your 5 greatest criticisms.

Why on earth would I do this?

I have said enough to distance myself from the current state of the ACA. Why would I allow myself to become your punching bag and proxy for those that would defend the current state of the ACA?

Would you like it if I appointed you the punching bad or proxy for the government shutdown?
( Last edited by besson3c; Nov 19, 2013 at 12:17 AM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2013, 12:08 AM
 
Speed bag, or heavy bag?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2013, 08:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Would you like it if I appointed you the punching bad or proxy for the government shutdown?
Sure?

Had Democrats simply been willing to compromise with Republicans on two very popular measures instead of immediately demonizing them as obstructionist, hostage-taking, terrorists attempting to blow up the economy; there'd have been no shutdown and Democrats would have been saved from themselves. While the shutdown is ancient history at this point, people may view it differently than they did when Republicans were getting beat up.

Per Quinnipiac; Less than 45 days ago, Democrats enjoyed a 9 point lead in the generic congressional ballot, 43-34%. Today that number is tied at 39-39%.

I told you with regard to the shutdown that hindsight is 20/20. Knowing that you're not only seeing losses among Democrats since the shutdown, but gains among Republicans; the shutdown is quite possibly beginning to look like the act of responsible adults.
ebuddy
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2013, 10:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
the shutdown is quite possibly beginning to look like the act of responsible adults.
What does the shutdown have to down with anything?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2013, 11:23 AM
 
The defunding of Obamacare (and a one year delay in the individual mandate) was the cause for the partial "shutdown"
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2013, 12:34 PM
 
...and?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2013, 12:50 PM
 
The DEMOCRATS shot themselves in the head anyway.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2013, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
What does the shutdown have to down with anything?
Ask the one who brought it up.
ebuddy
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2013, 01:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Ask the one who brought it up.
I'm asking how the shutdown is "beginning to look like the act of responsible adults". That's your claim.
     
climber
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pacific NW
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2013, 03:50 PM
 
Anyone else notice the recent change by the White House and the Dems from Obamacare to Affordable Care Act. Allegedly it is part of the recent talking points. If true it speaks volumes.
climber
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2013, 04:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm asking how the shutdown is "beginning to look like the act of responsible adults". That's your claim.

I was wondering the same thing, but I think this is like ebuddy saying in the other thread that he would take Bush over Clinton, I think he just speaks in dramatic hyperbole to underscore his point(s).
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2013, 08:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm asking how the shutdown is "beginning to look like the act of responsible adults". That's your claim.
You asked what the shutdown had to do with anything. It had everything to do with the question besson asked me about being a punching bag over an issue no one's really throwing any punches at these days.

My claim was that the shutdown is quite possibly beginning to look like the act of responsible adults. Democrats are faring worse in public opinion and Republicans better. Today's numbers are compared with those from before the shutdown. It makes sense that ACA mishaps would hurt Democrats, but there's nothing other than their well-known opposition to the ACA that would help Republicans. The shutdown may begin to look like the act of responsible adults.

Henry Chao today; the computer system that supports healthcare.gov is 60-70% finished. Great except... we're six weeks after the roll-out. Non-working portal with few believing it will be able to serve the "vast majority" of anything by Nov 30th. Four additional experts today in congressional hearing in unanimous agreement with the security problems of the site with 3 of 4 of them recommending immediate shutdown.

Sometimes you want a puppy really, really badly, but the timing is not right for you and not in the animal's best interest. Responsible adults hold off. Reckless, immature boobs forge ahead anyway.
ebuddy
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2013, 09:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You asked what the shutdown had to do with anything. It had everything to do with the question besson asked me about being a punching bag over an issue no one's really throwing any punches at these days.

My claim was that the shutdown is quite possibly beginning to look like the act of responsible adults. Democrats are faring worse in public opinion and Republicans better. Today's numbers are compared with those from before the shutdown. It makes sense that ACA mishaps would hurt Democrats, but there's nothing other than their well-known opposition to the ACA that would help Republicans. The shutdown may begin to look like the act of responsible adults.

Henry Chao today; the computer system that supports healthcare.gov is 60-70% finished. Great except... we're six weeks after the roll-out. Non-working portal with few believing it will be able to serve the "vast majority" of anything by Nov 30th. Four additional experts today in congressional hearing in unanimous agreement with the security problems of the site with 3 of 4 of them recommending immediate shutdown.

Sometimes you want a puppy really, really badly, but the timing is not right for you and not in the animal's best interest. Responsible adults hold off. Reckless, immature boobs forge ahead anyway.

Since when have you become interested in public opinion polls and what they might mean?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2013, 07:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Since when have you become interested in public opinion polls and what they might mean?
Since you became disinterested in them.

ATTACK!
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2013, 08:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by climber View Post
Anyone else notice the recent change by the White House and the Dems from Obamacare to Affordable Care Act. Allegedly it is part of the recent talking points. If true it speaks volumes.
A very astute observation. You can throw this into the growing pile of name changes post-trauma including AIG after mortgage meltdown, the US dept -- MMA after the BP oil disaster, AirTran after the ValuJet crash, climate change from global warming, etc...
ebuddy
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2013, 08:55 AM
 
I think it was an oversight in several areas that led to the president's "you can keep your policy" statements; the law should have had a grandfather allowance for existing, non-ACA compliant plans to allow for transition time, and when the Pres said people could keep policies they liked, his staff should have made sure he said it correctly: "if you have a plan that is ACA compliant, you can keep it," with other weaselwording to point out that the law has minimum coverage standards that not all existing policies have.

I've received multiple mailings from my insurer that are supposed to assure me that my current coverage is compliant. It really should be, since it covers just about everything there is (except long term disability, which I need to correct).

What bugs me about this whole mess with the "you can keep your policy" is that the insurance companies should have been smarter about when they issued cancellation notices, and those notices should have been VERY explicit in saying the policies were cancelled because they didn't meet the minimum standards under the ACA. There aren't a lot of instances where people got "we cancelled your policy because we're going to mess you over" notices; all of them I've been able to find info on have been because the existing policy wasn't up to the standards of ACA. And I'll bet a lot of other folks get notices that their rates are going up because their existing policies have to add mental health coverage. But I'm pretty sure they won't tell customers that's why unless they are forced to. Which is dumb.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2013, 10:39 AM
 
^^^^

Actually there is a grandfathering clause for non-ACA compliant plans. The problem is it applied to plans purchased before the ACA was passed ... not before the exchanges were open. So this big controversy is over those plans purchased in the interim. The Obama Administration should have either extended the grandfathering period to the latter date initially or been much more clear about what "If you like your health plan ... " really meant. No doubt about that. But let's be fair here. Insurance companies were selling people these non-compliant plans AFTER the ACA was passed knowing full well that they would be canceled just a few years down the road. Anybody care to bet their next paycheck that the insurance companies informed their customers of this at the time of the purchase?

OAW
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2013, 10:49 AM
 
I wonder if Obama et al just assumed that non-compliant plans would not overlap with "if you like your plan..." I mean, who could "like" the plans that do all that underhanded stuff that Obamacare protects us from, amirite?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2013, 10:52 AM
 
The plans were grandfathered, as long as no changes were made. Changes that would cancel the grandfathering including raising the monthly premium >$5 according to Sebelius' testimony.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2013, 11:14 AM
 
Perhaps they just LIED to get re-elected?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2013, 01:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
My claim was that the shutdown is quite possibly beginning to look like the act of responsible adults. Democrats are faring worse in public opinion and Republicans better. Today's numbers are compared with those from before the shutdown.
See, I'm still not seeing the connection. How does the shutdown look responsible if the Democrats poll numbers fall long after the fact? They're mutually exclusive.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2013, 01:32 PM
 
It now looks like the Repubs were trying to save the citizens from ACA, and the stonewalling of discussions by Reid and President LIAR caused the shutdown. Now as we KNOW the Democrats lied and ACA is a hideous mess, far worse than the horrid roll out of the web sites. Sure, it took some time for the slow witted to realize it but the Democrats are starting to come around.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2013, 03:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
^^^^

Actually there is a grandfathering clause for non-ACA compliant plans. The problem is it applied to plans purchased before the ACA was passed ... not before the exchanges were open. So this big controversy is over those plans purchased in the interim. The Obama Administration should have either extended the grandfathering period to the latter date initially or been much more clear about what "If you like your health plan ... " really meant. No doubt about that. But let's be fair here. Insurance companies were selling people these non-compliant plans AFTER the ACA was passed knowing full well that they would be canceled just a few years down the road. Anybody care to bet their next paycheck that the insurance companies informed their customers of this at the time of the purchase?

OAW

What about the insurance companies? The ire has rightfully been on Obama for this blunder, but what about the insurance companies that knew about the ACA compliance for years that seemingly did nothing about these affected plans. How come nobody is talking about them? Do you think they setup the government to look like the bad guys here, thinking/knowing that they weren't going to like the ACA?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2013, 03:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What about the insurance companies? The ire has rightfully been on Obama for this blunder, but what about the insurance companies that knew about the ACA compliance for years that seemingly did nothing about these affected plans. How come nobody is talking about them? Do you think they setup the government to look like the bad guys here, thinking/knowing that they weren't going to like the ACA?
Well this is my point exactly. Do I think it was a "setup"? I see no reason to attribute to a political conspiracy what can easily be explained as simple corporate greed. Insurance companies make a nice chunk of change selling junk health insurance policies. They collect regular premiums knowing they won't have to shell out much because they don't cover things like hospitalization, prescription drugs, maternity, mental health, etc. Now imagine if they can sell such polices from March 2010 - October 2013. 3.5 years worth of premiums with an even lower likelihood they would have to payout on the policies because their lifespan is capped. Where's the financial incentive to inform these customers that the plans being peddled to them will be canceled within a few years?

OAW
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2013, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I wonder if Obama et al just assumed that non-compliant plans would not overlap with "if you like your plan..." I mean, who could "like" the plans that do all that underhanded stuff that Obamacare protects us from, amirite?
As the autonomous vehicle highlights, people value cheap or easy over safety or quality.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2013, 04:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Well this is my point exactly. Do I think it was a "setup"? I see no reason to attribute to a political conspiracy what can easily be explained as simple corporate greed. Insurance companies make a nice chunk of change selling junk health insurance policies. They collect regular premiums knowing they won't have to shell out much because they don't cover things like hospitalization, prescription drugs, maternity, mental health, etc. Now imagine if they can sell such polices from March 2010 - October 2013. 3.5 years worth of premiums with an even lower likelihood they would have to payout on the policies because their lifespan is capped. Where's the financial incentive to inform these customers that the plans being peddled to them will be canceled within a few years?

OAW

Agreed.

It kind of makes me roll my eyes of the thought of government regulating these insurance policies and enforcing compliance being met with a sarcastic "oh government knows what is best for everybody", without even stopping to entertain the notion that there might be garbage policies that are being sold that are designed to trick Joe Public.

I just wish the default would be less knee-jerky, and more intellectually interested in removing potential sources of fraud and abuse. Granted, that fraud and abuse could come in the form of the regulation itself, but we need to look at this before just letting knees jerk. Regulation can not be in our vested interest, but it can also prevent us from eating tainted meat.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2013, 04:25 PM
 
If you don't find a policy you can afford and can pay the deductibles on why would you even buy the policy? If the market doesn't offer a policy you can afford what happens to the insurance companies? The Gov't/Democrats stepped in and mandated a product very few want. Now what?
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2013, 04:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The dropping of health plans will be unprecedented..
Next year will be EPIC. Not only does the employer mandate kick in, but all the other health plan providers that got a "pass" (like the unions, some of the states) will lose their protected status too. It's going to make the current fiasco look as though it was a fart in a hurricane.

The other thing that's happening, now, is that people are finally looking at what has changed in THEIR insurance policies over the prior two-three years, such as what's covered, deductibles, and co-pays, and they are finally attributing that to the high-minded Democrats and the "pass it so you can find out what's in it" crowd. The flock is awake, in other words.

Lastly, I'm tired of the President taking all of the heat on this one, too. He had very little to do with it - it was sitting there waiting for him when he got there. This has been the dream of the Progressive Left for a century now, and he just "lucked up" to be the one who swore that you could keep your Dr. and plan. Moron.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2013, 05:37 PM
 
Are you guys on the right opposed to the premise of insurance policies being regulated, or just this specific implementation of that regulation?
     
climber
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pacific NW
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2013, 12:22 AM
 
I am not on the right. I am in favor of open markets. That is I would be against regulations either on a national or state basis that limit in any way insurance companies ability to offer policies across the country. The free market only works if is actually a free market. Even under the ACA we have much of this country served by one or two carriers.

The only part of the ACA I like is the website. Not in it's current iteration, but the idea of being able to shop for insurance via dozens of choices across state lines.

We also need to allow and even encourage employers to let their employees use these market places to purchase health insurance.

Lastly we need to eliminate the mandate via an illegal tax (period)
climber
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:09 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,