Obamacare: Obama just straight up lied to you, in your face (3 Viewers)

[Rayderr]

Unless I can get my daughter on Medicare/CHIP (Apparently possible because of her autism) I'll have to stick with COBRA as switching pediatricians would be a bit chaotic.

Ultimately, I'll just have to get a job sooner rather than later even if it's something I don't particularly care for. Which brings me to the law of unintended consequences. Most of the job listings in fields I'm qualified for are part time. 1 is even 29 hours a week (30 hours counts as full time and the company has to offer insurance)

Oh, and I forgot I didn't mention this before....

COBRA is an individual right. That means that you can accept it for your daughter (so she can keep the coverage and pediatrician) and decline it for you and your wife and you two can find alternative options on the exchange or potentially go without for the next few months.

I don't have an option for that. I can either insure myself($348), insure myself and my wife($784), insure myself and my daughter($686), or insure all 3 of us($1056). Those are the only options I have on the paperwork.

 

[fourd]

Unless I can get my daughter on Medicare/CHIP (Apparently possible because of her autism) I'll have to stick with COBRA as switching pediatricians would be a bit chaotic.

Ultimately, I'll just have to get a job sooner rather than later even if it's something I don't particularly care for. Which brings me to the law of unintended consequences. Most of the job listings in fields I'm qualified for are part time. 1 is even 29 hours a week (30 hours counts as full time and the company has to offer insurance)

Oh, and I forgot I didn't mention this before....

COBRA is an individual right. That means that you can accept it for your daughter (so she can keep the coverage and pediatrician) and decline it for you and your wife and you two can find alternative options on the exchange or potentially go without for the next few months.

I don't have an option for that. I can either insure myself($348), insure myself and my wife($784), insure myself and my daughter($686), or insure all 3 of us($1056). Those are the only options I have on the paperwork.

Call your COBRA administrator. Your daughter is a qualified beneficiary and can be the only one in your family that elects COBRA.

Edit - Your wife would also be able to take COBRA by herself, or her and your daughter could elect it.

 

[fourd]

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-consumer-cobra.html

 

[matttyl]

Unless I can get my daughter on Medicare/CHIP (Apparently possible because of her autism) I'll have to stick with COBRA as switching pediatricians would be a bit chaotic.

Ultimately, I'll just have to get a job sooner rather than later even if it's something I don't particularly care for. Which brings me to the law of unintended consequences. Most of the job listings in fields I'm qualified for are part time. 1 is even 29 hours a week (30 hours counts as full time and the company has to offer insurance)

Oh, and I forgot I didn't mention this before....

COBRA is an individual right. That means that you can accept it for your daughter (so she can keep the coverage and pediatrician) and decline it for you and your wife and you two can find alternative options on the exchange or potentially go without for the next few months.

I don't have an option for that. I can either insure myself($348), insure myself and my wife($784), insure myself and my daughter($686), or insure all 3 of us($1056). Those are the only options I have on the paperwork.

Tell them to update their paperwork. It's likely not an option many elect, which is why they don't list it specifically, but it is an option for you.

 

[matttyl]

Speaking of how weak many of these ACA individual plans are.... Almost Half of Obamacare Plans Lack Out-of-Network Coverage

And that was for 2015. Many carriers are dropping PPO offerings for HMO only offerings this year (like what BCBS of Texas did). This number will continue to go up year by year.

 

[shadrap]

Unless I can get my daughter on Medicare/CHIP (Apparently possible because of her autism) I'll have to stick with COBRA as switching pediatricians would be a bit chaotic.

Ultimately, I'll just have to get a job sooner rather than later even if it's something I don't particularly care for. Which brings me to the law of unintended consequences. Most of the job listings in fields I'm qualified for are part time. 1 is even 29 hours a week (30 hours counts as full time and the company has to offer insurance)

29 hours=part time. Welcome to a unintended, but predictable consequence of Obamacare.

 

[cstu]

Hawaii rates for 2016 approved....

HONOLULU (AP) — The state has approved rate hikes for members of Kaiser and the Hawaii Medical Service Association under Affordable Care Act plans.

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports that members of HMSA, the state's largest health insurer, will see a 27 percent increase in rates, and Kaiser members will see a 34 percent increase starting next year.

As for the rational of those increases, from the Insurance Commissioner....

“We were extremely concerned by the requested increases by insurers for 2016 ACA individual plans,” said State Insurance Commissioner Gordon Ito. “Nobody likes to see prices go up for the individual consumer. However, upon close review of the carriers’ expenses, benefits paid, and other considerations our rate analysts and actuaries found premium increases were necessary for the carriers to cover their costs, enabling them to continue to pay their customers’ claims.”

Hawaii law mandates that insurance rates cannot be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. A news release today from the Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs said, “In the case of ACA individual plans, the 2015 rates were inadequate and needed to be adjusted significantly in 2016.”

And make the profit required by shareholders.

 

[Godsbrother]

to be fair, the ones that cost as much as cobra are gold and platinum plans.

how different is the coverage in those plans than what you had/have with cobra?

ACA plans are not as good.

Exactly my point, and you'd have a brand new 2 month deductible. Why give yourself a brand new deductible for only 2 months if you're not saving any money in premium? COBRA is the best option for you (as you're not going to be able to get subsidized coverage on the individual exchange). Yes it costs a lot, but so do the semi-compariable exchange plans, and you're not giving yourself a brand new deductible.

When my son lost his job 2 years ago he was paying close to $400 for COBRA. He is paying less than half that for better coverage with a gold plan from the ACA. So I really think it likely varies by case.

 

[matttyl]

Hawaii rates for 2016 approved....

HONOLULU (AP) — The state has approved rate hikes for members of Kaiser and the Hawaii Medical Service Association under Affordable Care Act plans.

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports that members of HMSA, the state's largest health insurer, will see a 27 percent increase in rates, and Kaiser members will see a 34 percent increase starting next year.

As for the rational of those increases, from the Insurance Commissioner....

“We were extremely concerned by the requested increases by insurers for 2016 ACA individual plans,” said State Insurance Commissioner Gordon Ito. “Nobody likes to see prices go up for the individual consumer. However, upon close review of the carriers’ expenses, benefits paid, and other considerations our rate analysts and actuaries found premium increases were necessary for the carriers to cover their costs, enabling them to continue to pay their customers’ claims.”

Hawaii law mandates that insurance rates cannot be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. A news release today from the Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs said, “In the case of ACA individual plans, the 2015 rates were inadequate and needed to be adjusted significantly in 2016.”

And make the profit required by shareholders.

They all lost money in this market last year.

 

[matttyl]

to be fair, the ones that cost as much as cobra are gold and platinum plans.

how different is the coverage in those plans than what you had/have with cobra?

ACA plans are not as good.

Exactly my point, and you'd have a brand new 2 month deductible. Why give yourself a brand new deductible for only 2 months if you're not saving any money in premium? COBRA is the best option for you (as you're not going to be able to get subsidized coverage on the individual exchange). Yes it costs a lot, but so do the semi-compariable exchange plans, and you're not giving yourself a brand new deductible.

When my son lost his job 2 years ago he was paying close to $400 for COBRA. He is paying less than half that for better coverage with a gold plan from the ACA. So I really think it likely varies by case.

He's also receiving a subsidy, correct? I think we've been over that. The ACA may be better for Rayderr, but for 1/1/16 and on. For the next few months, COBRA may be the best bet (no new network or deductible).

 

[matttyl]

And make the profit required by shareholders.

If you want to get upset at the profit required by shareholders, look into Rx companies.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Hawaii rates for 2016 approved....

HONOLULU (AP) — The state has approved rate hikes for members of Kaiser and the Hawaii Medical Service Association under Affordable Care Act plans.

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports that members of HMSA, the state's largest health insurer, will see a 27 percent increase in rates, and Kaiser members will see a 34 percent increase starting next year.

As for the rational of those increases, from the Insurance Commissioner....“We were extremely concerned by the requested increases by insurers for 2016 ACA individual plans,” said State Insurance Commissioner Gordon Ito. “Nobody likes to see prices go up for the individual consumer. However, upon close review of the carriers’ expenses, benefits paid, and other considerations our rate analysts and actuaries found premium increases were necessary for the carriers to cover their costs, enabling them to continue to pay their customers’ claims.”

Hawaii law mandates that insurance rates cannot be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. A news release today from the Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs said, “In the case of ACA individual plans, the 2015 rates were inadequate and needed to be adjusted significantly in 2016.”

And make the profit required by shareholders.

This non-profit provider in Hawaii doesn't have shareholders.

https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/health-insurance-companies/kaiser-hawaii

And this provider doesn't have shareholders as well. https://uhahealth.com/

And the largest provider is a non-profit too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_Medical_Service_Association

http://www.hcbd.biz/newsite/Compdetail.aspx?id=33661

 

[Rayderr]

to be fair, the ones that cost as much as cobra are gold and platinum plans.

how different is the coverage in those plans than what you had/have with cobra?

ACA plans are not as good.

Exactly my point, and you'd have a brand new 2 month deductible. Why give yourself a brand new deductible for only 2 months if you're not saving any money in premium? COBRA is the best option for you (as you're not going to be able to get subsidized coverage on the individual exchange). Yes it costs a lot, but so do the semi-compariable exchange plans, and you're not giving yourself a brand new deductible.

When my son lost his job 2 years ago he was paying close to $400 for COBRA. He is paying less than half that for better coverage with a gold plan from the ACA. So I really think it likely varies by case.

Well for me, to do COBRA for my family costs $1056/month. Cheapest gold plan is $825, $567 if I use the tax credit according to the site. The gold plan has ZERO out of network coverage. So to keep my own doctor, which Obama says I can do, means I pay for everything as if I had no insurance at all. And a lot of the plans benefits don't kick in until I use up my deductible which is $2000 for this particular one.

Th most expensive gold plan is $1164/$964 with tax credit. This one actually does have out of network coverage. It'll cover up to 50% after I use up my deductible (also $2000). Oddly enough, prescriptions costs more with this one than the cheapest gold plan. And both have the issue that my daughter's pediatrician accepts neither. And neither are as good as what I had before.

 

[Godsbrother]

to be fair, the ones that cost as much as cobra are gold and platinum plans.

how different is the coverage in those plans than what you had/have with cobra?

ACA plans are not as good.

Exactly my point, and you'd have a brand new 2 month deductible. Why give yourself a brand new deductible for only 2 months if you're not saving any money in premium? COBRA is the best option for you (as you're not going to be able to get subsidized coverage on the individual exchange). Yes it costs a lot, but so do the semi-compariable exchange plans, and you're not giving yourself a brand new deductible.

When my son lost his job 2 years ago he was paying close to $400 for COBRA. He is paying less than half that for better coverage with a gold plan from the ACA. So I really think it likely varies by case.

Well for me, to do COBRA for my family costs $1056/month. Cheapest gold plan is $825, $567 if I use the tax credit according to the site. The gold plan has ZERO out of network coverage. So to keep my own doctor, which Obama says I can do, means I pay for everything as if I had no insurance at all. And a lot of the plans benefits don't kick in until I use up my deductible which is $2000 for this particular one.

Th most expensive gold plan is $1164/$964 with tax credit. This one actually does have out of network coverage. It'll cover up to 50% after I use up my deductible (also $2000). Oddly enough, prescriptions costs more with this one than the cheapest gold plan. And both have the issue that my daughter's pediatrician accepts neither. And neither are as good as what I had before.

Sounds like it doesn't work so well for you. :(

 

[The Commish]

Hawaii rates for 2016 approved....

HONOLULU (AP) — The state has approved rate hikes for members of Kaiser and the Hawaii Medical Service Association under Affordable Care Act plans.

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports that members of HMSA, the state's largest health insurer, will see a 27 percent increase in rates, and Kaiser members will see a 34 percent increase starting next year.

As for the rational of those increases, from the Insurance Commissioner....

“We were extremely concerned by the requested increases by insurers for 2016 ACA individual plans,” said State Insurance Commissioner Gordon Ito. “Nobody likes to see prices go up for the individual consumer. However, upon close review of the carriers’ expenses, benefits paid, and other considerations our rate analysts and actuaries found premium increases were necessary for the carriers to cover their costs, enabling them to continue to pay their customers’ claims.”

Hawaii law mandates that insurance rates cannot be excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. A news release today from the Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs said, “In the case of ACA individual plans, the 2015 rates were inadequate and needed to be adjusted significantly in 2016.”

And make the profit required by shareholders.

If you get this worked up over insurance companies, I can only imagine the hard on you have for the big pharm companies and the injustice they bring to this whole fiasco.

 

[BassNBrew]

Unless I can get my daughter on Medicare/CHIP (Apparently possible because of her autism) I'll have to stick with COBRA as switching pediatricians would be a bit chaotic.

Ultimately, I'll just have to get a job sooner rather than later even if it's something I don't particularly care for. Which brings me to the law of unintended consequences. Most of the job listings in fields I'm qualified for are part time. 1 is even 29 hours a week (30 hours counts as full time and the company has to offer insurance)

On the plus side, by sticking it to guys like you, we managed to get 10 million insured while leaving 40 million behind at a huge cost to the taxpayers while Big Pharma is rolling in the dough.

 

[matttyl]

Obama signs 14th bill making changes to Obamacare"President Obama signed a bill Wednesday night making an important change to Obamacare that will prevent health insurance premiums for 3 million people from going up next year."

Why? Because those people's plans won't be subject to the "Affordable Care Act". Completely ironic that they call this new bill the "Protecting Affordable Coverage for Employees Act". So you're "protecting affordable coverage" by allowing them to keep their older "junk plans" that aren't compliant with the ACA? HAHA.

 

[The Commish]

That IS pretty funny

 

[matttyl]

That IS pretty funny

You seriously can't make this stuff up. You should read the spin that the Huffington post put on their story about this bill. Oh the irony.

 

[fourd]

That IS pretty funny

You seriously can't make this stuff up. You should read the spin that the Huffington post put on their story about this bill. Oh the irony.

You mean how Dems and Reps are making the ACA better by working together? Ignoring that they are taking it apart?

 

[matttyl]

That IS pretty funny

You seriously can't make this stuff up. You should read the spin that the Huffington post put on their story about this bill. Oh the irony.

You mean how Dems and Reps are making the ACA better by working together? Ignoring that they are taking it apart?

Yup. And the fact that this is called "Protecting Affordable Coverage for Employees Act" I still can't get over. It's slogan should be "we're protecting affordable coverage from the affordable care act", as that's exactly what it's doing.

 

[matttyl]

Oklahoma individual insurance market completely shot to H E double hockey sticks.....

Firstly, every currently participating carrier aside from Blue Cross is exiting the market (Community Care, Global Health, and Assurant). There is only one carrier joining the market to replace them, UnitedHealth - but their offered plans aren't yet known, nor are their rates. So the entire state is down to 2 carriers. Next, that largest carrier, BCBS is not only doing away with their PPO network offering (Blue Choice) and only offering products with it's more restrictive and smaller networks (Blue Preferred and Blue Advantage) - they are also requesting a 31% increase for 2016. And we already know from the State Insurance Department that all they can do is "review and approve them".

I think the Global Health VP said it best when he said, "Our evaluation of the (Affordable Care Act) exchange predicts further rate volatility and a trajectory of unsustainable premium increases … together with the growing complexity in requirements and the ever-changing regulations" which is why they are leaving the market.

 

[Rich Conway]

I'm pretty sure that tGunZ and crew assured us there would be no death spirals. In fact, I think there were a number of sarcastic posts wondering why the death spirals hadn't come (despite the obvious fact that it takes years for death spirals to happen).

 

[matttyl]

I'm pretty sure that tGunZ and crew assured us there would be no death spirals. In fact, I think there were a number of sarcastic posts wondering why the death spirals hadn't come (despite the obvious fact that it takes years for death spirals to happen).

Hmmm (in Oklahoma) fewer carriers, fewer options, smaller networks, big price hikes......what would you call that? If you couldn't get people to enroll last year with 4 carriers and more network options, how are you going to do so this with with 2 carriers, smaller networks, and a 30% price hike?

 

[Tau837]

COBRA was awesome. I was disappointment I only had 18 months or so of it available. Really wish they could expanded COBRA because I'd still be using it 14 years later.

Thank you! Yes, for some people it was a great thing to have available. It wasn't forced that you accept it, but it was an option, and apparently for you it was a good option to have. If the worst part about it you had was that it was only allowed for a year and a half, then I guess it wasn't a bad thing to have during that time.

Once when I changed jobs from a large to a small company, I used my new employer insurance for myself but paid for COBRA for my wife for two years. (She is disabled and thus can go beyond 18 months.) The company reimbursed me for the amount they would have paid for her to be under their plan. That still left us paying some out of pocket every month, but it was well worth it.

I also used it at least one other time when changing jobs. It has worked out great for us.

Quoting this for the recent COBRA discussion.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I'm pretty sure that tGunZ and crew assured us there would be no death spirals. In fact, I think there were a number of sarcastic posts wondering why the death spirals hadn't come (despite the obvious fact that it takes years for death spirals to happen).

What year should I expect the death spiral happen?

 

[matttyl]

Kentucky co-op goes under, making it the 5th one this year.

51,000 people will need to find another carrier next year.

 

[matttyl]

I'm pretty sure that tGunZ and crew assured us there would be no death spirals. In fact, I think there were a number of sarcastic posts wondering why the death spirals hadn't come (despite the obvious fact that it takes years for death spirals to happen).

What year should I expect the death spiral happen?

Putting aside the bad grammar above......

What is your definition of a death spiral? Fewer carriers, higher premiums leading to less healthy people signing up and the remaining pool of insured being even older and sicker than they already have, correct? Aren't we seeing all of that? These early signs (companies going under or leaving the market and the 30+% premium increases being approved) are honestly happening faster than I thought they would. I was expecting things to be more or less "ok" till after 2016 when the federal re-insurance programs stop.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I'm pretty sure that tGunZ and crew assured us there would be no death spirals. In fact, I think there were a number of sarcastic posts wondering why the death spirals hadn't come (despite the obvious fact that it takes years for death spirals to happen).

What year should I expect the death spiral happen?

Putting aside the bad grammar above......

What is your definition of a death spiral? Fewer carriers, higher premiums leading to less healthy people signing up and the remaining pool of insured being even older and sicker than they already have, correct? Aren't we seeing all of that? These early sings (companies going under or leaving the market and the 30+% premium increases being approved) are honestly happening faster than I thought they would. I was expecting things to be more or less "ok" till after 2016 when the federal re-insurance programs stop.

Uhm....you're talking to a wall. TGunz won't believe anything unless it's roses and unicorns. Doesn't matter how many facts you throw at him.

 

[cstu]

I'm pretty sure that tGunZ and crew assured us there would be no death spirals. In fact, I think there were a number of sarcastic posts wondering why the death spirals hadn't come (despite the obvious fact that it takes years for death spirals to happen).

What year should I expect the death spiral happen?

Putting aside the bad grammar above......

What is your definition of a death spiral? Fewer carriers, higher premiums leading to less healthy people signing up and the remaining pool of insured being even older and sicker than they already have, correct? Aren't we seeing all of that? These early sings (companies going under or leaving the market and the 30+% premium increases being approved) are honestly happening faster than I thought they would. I was expecting things to be more or less "ok" till after 2016 when the federal re-insurance programs stop.

http://news.yahoo.com/-harry-reid-says-obamacare-will-lead-to-single-payer-system--174601028.html

“What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Harry Reid said.

When show panelist Steve Sebelius asked if that meant eventually doing away with insurance-based coverage, Reid replied, “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”

 

[MaxThreshold]

I'm pretty sure that tGunZ and crew assured us there would be no death spirals. In fact, I think there were a number of sarcastic posts wondering why the death spirals hadn't come (despite the obvious fact that it takes years for death spirals to happen).

What year should I expect the death spiral happen?

Putting aside the bad grammar above......

What is your definition of a death spiral? Fewer carriers, higher premiums leading to less healthy people signing up and the remaining pool of insured being even older and sicker than they already have, correct? Aren't we seeing all of that? These early sings (companies going under or leaving the market and the 30+% premium increases being approved) are honestly happening faster than I thought they would. I was expecting things to be more or less "ok" till after 2016 when the federal re-insurance programs stop.

http://news.yahoo.com/-harry-reid-says-obamacare-will-lead-to-single-payer-system--174601028.html

“What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Harry Reid said.

When show panelist Steve Sebelius asked if that meant eventually doing away with insurance-based coverage, Reid replied, “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”

.

How about something that will even work for a few years? Obamacare can't even do that

 

[tommyGunZ]

I'm pretty sure that tGunZ and crew assured us there would be no death spirals. In fact, I think there were a number of sarcastic posts wondering why the death spirals hadn't come (despite the obvious fact that it takes years for death spirals to happen).

What year should I expect the death spiral happen?

Putting aside the bad grammar above......What is your definition of a death spiral? Fewer carriers, higher premiums leading to less healthy people signing up and the remaining pool of insured being even older and sicker than they already have, correct? Aren't we seeing all of that? These early sings (companies going under or leaving the market and the 30+% premium increases being approved) are honestly happening faster than I thought they would. I was expecting things to be more or less "ok" till after 2016 when the federal re-insurance programs stop.

Of course you were. I'm sure everything is going to come crashing down any minute now.

 

[tommyGunZ]

COBRA was awesome. I was disappointment I only had 18 months or so of it available. Really wish they could expanded COBRA because I'd still be using it 14 years later.

Thank you! Yes, for some people it was a great thing to have available. It wasn't forced that you accept it, but it was an option, and apparently for you it was a good option to have. If the worst part about it you had was that it was only allowed for a year and a half, then I guess it wasn't a bad thing to have during that time.

Once when I changed jobs from a large to a small company, I used my new employer insurance for myself but paid for COBRA for my wife for two years. (She is disabled and thus can go beyond 18 months.) The company reimbursed me for the amount they would have paid for her to be under their plan. That still left us paying some out of pocket every month, but it was well worth it.

I also used it at least one other time when changing jobs. It has worked out great for us.

Quoting this for the recent COBRA discussion.

I always find your perspective interesting JWB, given that we have both had personal experiences with getting dealt an unfortunate hand w/re to health issues with close family members. It's hard for me to understand how you oppose extending the same life saving healthcare coverage you have experienced with other folks who for whatever reason were not covered.

 

[chauncey]

A few questions for the ffa brain trust:

1. How will the Aetna/Humana and Anthem/Cigna deals affect premiums and networks for 2017 plans?

2. So far ACA has had a huge impact on health insurance companies with mixed results for the consumer. Are there any efforts being made to control the actual cost of health care? What is keeping the government from regulating drug companies and health care providers the same way they are regulating insurance policies? Maybe they are already doing this and I am just not aware of it.

ETA: It looks like the government does set limits on what providers can charge for services covered by Medicare (and I assume Medicaid). If they extended these limits to services covered by private policies (reducing the actual cost of health care to the consumer), or if we find ourselves in a single payer system in the future, where does that leave providers? Will they close shop, take a pay cut, something else? How would this impact the quality and access of health care?

 

[Tau837]

COBRA was awesome. I was disappointment I only had 18 months or so of it available. Really wish they could expanded COBRA because I'd still be using it 14 years later.

Thank you! Yes, for some people it was a great thing to have available. It wasn't forced that you accept it, but it was an option, and apparently for you it was a good option to have. If the worst part about it you had was that it was only allowed for a year and a half, then I guess it wasn't a bad thing to have during that time.

Once when I changed jobs from a large to a small company, I used my new employer insurance for myself but paid for COBRA for my wife for two years. (She is disabled and thus can go beyond 18 months.) The company reimbursed me for the amount they would have paid for her to be under their plan. That still left us paying some out of pocket every month, but it was well worth it.

I also used it at least one other time when changing jobs. It has worked out great for us.

Quoting this for the recent COBRA discussion.

I always find your perspective interesting JWB, given that we have both had personal experiences with getting dealt an unfortunate hand w/re to health issues with close family members. It's hard for me to understand how you oppose extending the same life saving healthcare coverage you have experienced with other folks who for whatever reason were not covered.

It comes down to these things for me:

1. In general, I favor less Government, not more Government.

2. In general, I do not believe our Government is effective or efficient at managing large programs (e.g., Social Security, Medicare).

3. In general, I do not agree with creating new programs unless they can be funded without increasing debt/deficit.

4. IMO it is not the Government's responsibility to provide healthcare, at least not above and beyond existing Government programs (Medicare/Medicaid). Similar to other fundamentals of life like food, water, housing, and employment (well, it is fundamental for most people).

When Obamacare came about:

1. I did not believe the premises that it was being sold on, and indeed many of them have proven false.

2. I did not believe the numbers and thus did not believe its cost would be covered as was being promised. Indeed, those numbers have been proven false.

3. I did not believe the Government could manage such a new, large program effectively or efficiently. And indeed, they have proven they cannot.

I have sympathy for anyone who goes through the kind of serious health issues we have endured with my wife's disability. But she is on Social Security disability; anyone truly in a situation like hers would have access to Medicare, as she does, and would not have been uncovered prior to Obamacare.

More fundamentally, I think you and I differ on the degree to which the responsibility for healthcare of individuals should be their own responsibility vs. the Government's responsibility. It is pretty clear that I would expect a much greater percentage of individuals to be responsible for their own healthcare than you would.

On a personal level, if my wife was forced into an ACA market plan, it would be a complete disaster. We need far ranging PPO coverage, since my wife currently sees doctors in LA, San Diego, NC, and VA on a regular basis. This move towards HMO focused coverage with smaller doctor networks would be very bad for her situation, without even dealing with the fact that both premiums and deductibles/copayments would be more expensive.

Why would I support a program that provides a lower standard of healthcare than my wife requires and currently has, particularly given it is in opposition to my general views on Government as described above?

 

[matttyl]

I'm pretty sure that tGunZ and crew assured us there would be no death spirals. In fact, I think there were a number of sarcastic posts wondering why the death spirals hadn't come (despite the obvious fact that it takes years for death spirals to happen).

What year should I expect the death spiral happen?

Putting aside the bad grammar above......What is your definition of a death spiral? Fewer carriers, higher premiums leading to less healthy people signing up and the remaining pool of insured being even older and sicker than they already have, correct? Aren't we seeing all of that? These early sings (companies going under or leaving the market and the 30+% premium increases being approved) are honestly happening faster than I thought they would. I was expecting things to be more or less "ok" till after 2016 when the federal re-insurance programs stop.

Of course you were. I'm sure everything is going to come crashing down any minute now.

You don't think this exact thing has happened already in Oklahoma? (post 20083 above) Half the carriers they had, fewer and small network options, premiums that are now 50%+ higher than they were pre-ACA? We now have 5 (and growing by the week) ACA created Co-ops that have gone under, meaning less competition. We've had other actual insurance companies completely leave the market. Where are the $2,500 premium savings people were promised?

 

[matttyl]

Kentucky co-op goes under, making it the 5th one this year.

51,000 people will need to find another carrier next year.

Damn, this co-op insured 75% of the people in that state! It's not that they only got the oldest and sickest, they were by far the market leader there. This was the 2nd largest co-op in the country, behind only New York's co-op, which also folded earlier this month.

 

[Rich Conway]

I'm pretty sure that tGunZ and crew assured us there would be no death spirals. In fact, I think there were a number of sarcastic posts wondering why the death spirals hadn't come (despite the obvious fact that it takes years for death spirals to happen).

What year should I expect the death spiral happen?

I don't know why I bother, since you already know the answers, but...Every state and carrier will be different. Lots of carriers have already gone under, as you know. Lots of carriers have had to pull out of certain states. But, if you're looking for a general number, five years is probably a good baseline, and the premiums being approved now would be for year two.

Honestly, it just amazes me that you continue to think it's all sunshine and roses, while ignoring and dismissing the very real pain and hardship being inflicted upon a large number of people.

 

[matttyl]

I'm pretty sure that tGunZ and crew assured us there would be no death spirals. In fact, I think there were a number of sarcastic posts wondering why the death spirals hadn't come (despite the obvious fact that it takes years for death spirals to happen).

What year should I expect the death spiral happen?

I don't know why I bother, since you already know the answers, but...Every state and carrier will be different. Lots of carriers have already gone under, as you know. Lots of carriers have had to pull out of certain states. But, if you're looking for a general number, five years is probably a good baseline, and the premiums being approved now would be for year two.

Honestly, it just amazes me that you continue to think it's all sunshine and roses, while ignoring and dismissing the very real pain and hardship being inflicted upon a large number of people.

In fairness, this may be only half right. These rate approvals are being made IN year 2, but FOR year 3. That is, if we're considering 2014 to be year 1, 2015 to be year 2, and then approved 2016 rates to be for year 3. That said, some states (including my own) allowed people to continue with their non compliant plans into and likely through year 2014 - so their first year on an ACA plan would have been this year, 2015 - making the rate approves for 2016 year 2 for them.

Like I said from the very start - "death spirals" take years to materialize. I honestly didn't think we'd see these types of signs so soon (actual insurance carriers leaving markets including ones like Blue Cross, multiple co-ops going under, approved premium increases in the 20-50% per year range in back to back years). The huge gap in risk corridor money proving that the vast majority of carriers were operating at a huge loss last year, and thus needing to increase premiums substantially for next year was a big sign that things aren't going well at all.

ETA - I've asked him (and others here) for their thoughts on the study I've linked multiple times here entitled "The Impact of Guaranteed Issue and Community Rating Reforms on States' Individual Insurance Markets" (I can't get a link to work, but it comes right up via google search). It's a study of the 8 states that went to Guaranteed issue and community rating in the 1990s (what the ACA did in the individual market). I haven't hear anything from any of them about it.

Directly from the "Background and Summary" section of the study - "The goals of guaranteed issue and community rating reforms in the individual market were laudable - to make health insurance more accessible by ensuring that unhealthy or older individuals were not denied coverage or charged premiums higher than they could afford. However, as we discuss in this report, these reforms frequently had unintended consequences that disrupted the marketplace. Although results varied widely amount the eight states, in general we found that, measured in terms of market size, level of premium, and availability of insurance options, individual health insurance market deteriorated after the introduction of GI and CR reforms. Often, insurance companies chose to stop selling individual insurance in the market after reforms were enacted which resulted in a decrease in competition. Enrollment in individual insurance also tended to decrease, and premium rates tended to increase, sometimes dramatically."

 

[matuski]

Member name Posts matttyl 2561

This has to be some sort of record.

 

[matttyl]

Member name Posts matttyl 2561

This has to be some sort of record.

Considering I have like 8k posts total, that means that nearly a third of my posts have been in this one thread alone. That might be the record. I guess there's a lot to say about this topic.

 

[shadrap]

Member name Posts matttyl 2561

This has to be some sort of record.

Considering I have like 8k posts total, that means that nearly a third of my posts have been in this one thread alone. That might be the record. I guess there's a lot to say about this topic.

There is a lot to say & you have to keep on top of it because it's your line of work. Keep it up.

 

[jamny]

Member name Posts matttyl 2561

This has to be some sort of record.

Considering I have like 8k posts total, that means that nearly a third of my posts have been in this one thread alone. That might be the record. I guess there's a lot to say about this topic.

And thanks again for all of your efforts in this thread.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Member name Posts matttyl 2561

This has to be some sort of record.

What is your point? He does great work in this thread that is appreciated by many people.

 

[matttyl]

Thanks for all the love, guys. The next few months (open enrollment) will be very telling about how things are going. I expect to start hearing some news that certain markets, so not nationwide but maybe a few states here or there, will stagnate on their enrollment numbers. Some of these states were the primary insurer was approved for a 30-40+% increase will have a very tough time enrolling new folks with these higher rates (unless the individual is substantially subsidized). Remember, though, that roughly half of the entire individual market is unsubsidized (remember, there's "off exchange", too).

 

[tommyGunZ]

COBRA was awesome. I was disappointment I only had 18 months or so of it available. Really wish they could expanded COBRA because I'd still be using it 14 years later.

Thank you! Yes, for some people it was a great thing to have available. It wasn't forced that you accept it, but it was an option, and apparently for you it was a good option to have. If the worst part about it you had was that it was only allowed for a year and a half, then I guess it wasn't a bad thing to have during that time.

Once when I changed jobs from a large to a small company, I used my new employer insurance for myself but paid for COBRA for my wife for two years. (She is disabled and thus can go beyond 18 months.) The company reimbursed me for the amount they would have paid for her to be under their plan. That still left us paying some out of pocket every month, but it was well worth it.

I also used it at least one other time when changing jobs. It has worked out great for us.

Quoting this for the recent COBRA discussion.

I always find your perspective interesting JWB, given that we have both had personal experiences with getting dealt an unfortunate hand w/re to health issues with close family members. It's hard for me to understand how you oppose extending the same life saving healthcare coverage you have experienced with other folks who for whatever reason were not covered.

It comes down to these things for me:

1. In general, I favor less Government, not more Government.

2. In general, I do not believe our Government is effective or efficient at managing large programs (e.g., Social Security, Medicare).

3. In general, I do not agree with creating new programs unless they can be funded without increasing debt/deficit.

4. IMO it is not the Government's responsibility to provide healthcare, at least not above and beyond existing Government programs (Medicare/Medicaid). Similar to other fundamentals of life like food, water, housing, and employment (well, it is fundamental for most people).

When Obamacare came about:

1. I did not believe the premises that it was being sold on, and indeed many of them have proven false.

2. I did not believe the numbers and thus did not believe its cost would be covered as was being promised. Indeed, those numbers have been proven false.

3. I did not believe the Government could manage such a new, large program effectively or efficiently. And indeed, they have proven they cannot.

I have sympathy for anyone who goes through the kind of serious health issues we have endured with my wife's disability. But she is on Social Security disability; anyone truly in a situation like hers would have access to Medicare, as she does, and would not have been uncovered prior to Obamacare.

More fundamentally, I think you and I differ on the degree to which the responsibility for healthcare of individuals should be their own responsibility vs. the Government's responsibility. It is pretty clear that I would expect a much greater percentage of individuals to be responsible for their own healthcare than you would.

On a personal level, if my wife was forced into an ACA market plan, it would be a complete disaster. We need far ranging PPO coverage, since my wife currently sees doctors in LA, San Diego, NC, and VA on a regular basis. This move towards HMO focused coverage with smaller doctor networks would be very bad for her situation, without even dealing with the fact that both premiums and deductibles/copayments would be more expensive.

Why would I support a program that provides a lower standard of healthcare than my wife requires and currently has, particularly given it is in opposition to my general views on Government as described above?

So you're a "keep your gov't hands off my Medicare" conservative, eh? You're happy to have your seat on the big gov't train, but you'll be damned if we add anymore cars to the train to let other less fortunate folks on.

 

[The Commish]

 

[Godsbrother]

COBRA was awesome. I was disappointment I only had 18 months or so of it available. Really wish they could expanded COBRA because I'd still be using it 14 years later.

Thank you! Yes, for some people it was a great thing to have available. It wasn't forced that you accept it, but it was an option, and apparently for you it was a good option to have. If the worst part about it you had was that it was only allowed for a year and a half, then I guess it wasn't a bad thing to have during that time.

Once when I changed jobs from a large to a small company, I used my new employer insurance for myself but paid for COBRA for my wife for two years. (She is disabled and thus can go beyond 18 months.) The company reimbursed me for the amount they would have paid for her to be under their plan. That still left us paying some out of pocket every month, but it was well worth it.

I also used it at least one other time when changing jobs. It has worked out great for us.

Quoting this for the recent COBRA discussion.

I always find your perspective interesting JWB, given that we have both had personal experiences with getting dealt an unfortunate hand w/re to health issues with close family members. It's hard for me to understand how you oppose extending the same life saving healthcare coverage you have experienced with other folks who for whatever reason were not covered.

It comes down to these things for me:

1. In general, I favor less Government, not more Government.

2. In general, I do not believe our Government is effective or efficient at managing large programs (e.g., Social Security, Medicare).

3. In general, I do not agree with creating new programs unless they can be funded without increasing debt/deficit.

4. IMO it is not the Government's responsibility to provide healthcare, at least not above and beyond existing Government programs (Medicare/Medicaid). Similar to other fundamentals of life like food, water, housing, and employment (well, it is fundamental for most people).

When Obamacare came about:

1. I did not believe the premises that it was being sold on, and indeed many of them have proven false.

2. I did not believe the numbers and thus did not believe its cost would be covered as was being promised. Indeed, those numbers have been proven false.

3. I did not believe the Government could manage such a new, large program effectively or efficiently. And indeed, they have proven they cannot.

I have sympathy for anyone who goes through the kind of serious health issues we have endured with my wife's disability. But she is on Social Security disability; anyone truly in a situation like hers would have access to Medicare, as she does, and would not have been uncovered prior to Obamacare.

More fundamentally, I think you and I differ on the degree to which the responsibility for healthcare of individuals should be their own responsibility vs. the Government's responsibility. It is pretty clear that I would expect a much greater percentage of individuals to be responsible for their own healthcare than you would.

On a personal level, if my wife was forced into an ACA market plan, it would be a complete disaster. We need far ranging PPO coverage, since my wife currently sees doctors in LA, San Diego, NC, and VA on a regular basis. This move towards HMO focused coverage with smaller doctor networks would be very bad for her situation, without even dealing with the fact that both premiums and deductibles/copayments would be more expensive.

Why would I support a program that provides a lower standard of healthcare than my wife requires and currently has, particularly given it is in opposition to my general views on Government as described above?

So you're a "keep your gov't hands off my Medicare" conservative, eh? You're happy to have your seat on the big gov't train, but you'll be damned if we add anymore cars to the train to let other less fortunate folks on.

Fortunately Just Win's wife didn't need to get privatized health care before the ACA when health insurance providers could turn people away for pre-existing conditions.

 

[Tau837]

COBRA was awesome. I was disappointment I only had 18 months or so of it available. Really wish they could expanded COBRA because I'd still be using it 14 years later.

Thank you! Yes, for some people it was a great thing to have available. It wasn't forced that you accept it, but it was an option, and apparently for you it was a good option to have. If the worst part about it you had was that it was only allowed for a year and a half, then I guess it wasn't a bad thing to have during that time.

Once when I changed jobs from a large to a small company, I used my new employer insurance for myself but paid for COBRA for my wife for two years. (She is disabled and thus can go beyond 18 months.) The company reimbursed me for the amount they would have paid for her to be under their plan. That still left us paying some out of pocket every month, but it was well worth it.

I also used it at least one other time when changing jobs. It has worked out great for us.

Quoting this for the recent COBRA discussion.

I always find your perspective interesting JWB, given that we have both had personal experiences with getting dealt an unfortunate hand w/re to health issues with close family members. It's hard for me to understand how you oppose extending the same life saving healthcare coverage you have experienced with other folks who for whatever reason were not covered.

It comes down to these things for me:

1. In general, I favor less Government, not more Government.

2. In general, I do not believe our Government is effective or efficient at managing large programs (e.g., Social Security, Medicare).

3. In general, I do not agree with creating new programs unless they can be funded without increasing debt/deficit.

4. IMO it is not the Government's responsibility to provide healthcare, at least not above and beyond existing Government programs (Medicare/Medicaid). Similar to other fundamentals of life like food, water, housing, and employment (well, it is fundamental for most people).

When Obamacare came about:

1. I did not believe the premises that it was being sold on, and indeed many of them have proven false.

2. I did not believe the numbers and thus did not believe its cost would be covered as was being promised. Indeed, those numbers have been proven false.

3. I did not believe the Government could manage such a new, large program effectively or efficiently. And indeed, they have proven they cannot.

I have sympathy for anyone who goes through the kind of serious health issues we have endured with my wife's disability. But she is on Social Security disability; anyone truly in a situation like hers would have access to Medicare, as she does, and would not have been uncovered prior to Obamacare.

More fundamentally, I think you and I differ on the degree to which the responsibility for healthcare of individuals should be their own responsibility vs. the Government's responsibility. It is pretty clear that I would expect a much greater percentage of individuals to be responsible for their own healthcare than you would.

On a personal level, if my wife was forced into an ACA market plan, it would be a complete disaster. We need far ranging PPO coverage, since my wife currently sees doctors in LA, San Diego, NC, and VA on a regular basis. This move towards HMO focused coverage with smaller doctor networks would be very bad for her situation, without even dealing with the fact that both premiums and deductibles/copayments would be more expensive.

Why would I support a program that provides a lower standard of healthcare than my wife requires and currently has, particularly given it is in opposition to my general views on Government as described above?

So you're a "keep your gov't hands off my Medicare" conservative, eh? You're happy to have your seat on the big gov't train, but you'll be damned if we add anymore cars to the train to let other less fortunate folks on.

Medicare exists, and my wife qualifies, and we pay premiums for it, so of course we use that coverage. If that coverage went away for some reason, we'd deal with it and be responsible for the resulting increased expenses.

What does that have to do with Obamacare? That is the subject of this thread and my post that you responded to here.

I should have known better than to engage you in real conversation. Given my opinion isn't the same as yours, I should have known you would just respond with a personal attack.

Don't bother addressing me with any more posts in this thread.

 

[Tau837]

COBRA was awesome. I was disappointment I only had 18 months or so of it available. Really wish they could expanded COBRA because I'd still be using it 14 years later.

Thank you! Yes, for some people it was a great thing to have available. It wasn't forced that you accept it, but it was an option, and apparently for you it was a good option to have. If the worst part about it you had was that it was only allowed for a year and a half, then I guess it wasn't a bad thing to have during that time.

Once when I changed jobs from a large to a small company, I used my new employer insurance for myself but paid for COBRA for my wife for two years. (She is disabled and thus can go beyond 18 months.) The company reimbursed me for the amount they would have paid for her to be under their plan. That still left us paying some out of pocket every month, but it was well worth it.

I also used it at least one other time when changing jobs. It has worked out great for us.

Quoting this for the recent COBRA discussion.

I always find your perspective interesting JWB, given that we have both had personal experiences with getting dealt an unfortunate hand w/re to health issues with close family members. It's hard for me to understand how you oppose extending the same life saving healthcare coverage you have experienced with other folks who for whatever reason were not covered.

It comes down to these things for me:

1. In general, I favor less Government, not more Government.

2. In general, I do not believe our Government is effective or efficient at managing large programs (e.g., Social Security, Medicare).

3. In general, I do not agree with creating new programs unless they can be funded without increasing debt/deficit.

4. IMO it is not the Government's responsibility to provide healthcare, at least not above and beyond existing Government programs (Medicare/Medicaid). Similar to other fundamentals of life like food, water, housing, and employment (well, it is fundamental for most people).

When Obamacare came about:

1. I did not believe the premises that it was being sold on, and indeed many of them have proven false.

2. I did not believe the numbers and thus did not believe its cost would be covered as was being promised. Indeed, those numbers have been proven false.

3. I did not believe the Government could manage such a new, large program effectively or efficiently. And indeed, they have proven they cannot.

I have sympathy for anyone who goes through the kind of serious health issues we have endured with my wife's disability. But she is on Social Security disability; anyone truly in a situation like hers would have access to Medicare, as she does, and would not have been uncovered prior to Obamacare.

More fundamentally, I think you and I differ on the degree to which the responsibility for healthcare of individuals should be their own responsibility vs. the Government's responsibility. It is pretty clear that I would expect a much greater percentage of individuals to be responsible for their own healthcare than you would.

On a personal level, if my wife was forced into an ACA market plan, it would be a complete disaster. We need far ranging PPO coverage, since my wife currently sees doctors in LA, San Diego, NC, and VA on a regular basis. This move towards HMO focused coverage with smaller doctor networks would be very bad for her situation, without even dealing with the fact that both premiums and deductibles/copayments would be more expensive.

Why would I support a program that provides a lower standard of healthcare than my wife requires and currently has, particularly given it is in opposition to my general views on Government as described above?

So you're a "keep your gov't hands off my Medicare" conservative, eh? You're happy to have your seat on the big gov't train, but you'll be damned if we add anymore cars to the train to let other less fortunate folks on.

Fortunately Just Win's wife didn't need to get privatized health care before the ACA when health insurance providers could turn people away for pre-existing conditions.

My wife has always been covered by my insurance, and I have always ensured that there was no break in coverage by working my ### off to stay gainfully employed (and earn enough money to pay the bills). So your snide remark doesn't apply.