tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Really? Every time I go to a hospital or a dentist or any medical care provider, I'm asked for my insurance info up front.That's what's happening now, though, with smaller networks! You have a health related incident, go to the hospital or doctor, and then realize that the service you just had was from an out of network provider and you're left paying the entire bill on your own. So "the insurance you've been paying for for years doesn't cover that event". It's the exact same thing.I'm fine with a small portion of my insurance coverage going to ensure women have their pregnancies covered. I realize it's a funny bumper sticker, but the underlying reason for the policy is sound.Yes, until anyone can post anything showing something other than their conclusions. I've asked for this quite a few times, haven't had anything posted. The underlying cost of the insurance has done up, you can't dispute that.You're going to ride those studies until the wheels fall off, aren't you? The cost of insurance for the average American has not gone up 40%. And you're comparing previous coverage with new coverage that now meets all ACA standards. By definition, new coverage is far more comprehensive.But they didn't do that. Not at all, not even close. The cost of the insurance has gone up, studies show anywhere from 39% to 41%. Yes, the subsidized cost for many may have gone down, but that subsidy money is just coming from other people (mainly people on fully insured group health insurance plans).Reducing the cost of insurance so that a lot of folks who couldn't afford it previously could get insured was what the "A" stood for, per my understanding.
Since the number of uninsured has been reduced by 10-12M, I'd say that goal was accomplished.
So "taxing" the haves to give something to the have nots in this case is considered a "goal accomplished"? Honest question there.
Also, these new coverage requirements are good things (all those men now have their pregnancies covered, right?; as do all those adults with their pediatric dental needs)- but are they worth the reduction in network size available? Here in VA, the largest carrier is ONLY offering an HMO style product with a vastly trimmed down network. You want to go to Johns Hopkins right across the state line? Too bad, they aren't in network and you're paying cash. Your home state of California actually has a legal battle going on right now about the same thing (vastly trimmed down networks on these new plans).
And yeah, overall small network sizes are worth the compromise for more comprehensive coverage. Nothing sucks worse than having a health related incident and then realizing that the insurance you've been paying for for years doesn't cover that event. That was happening too often.