Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
tommyboy

Obamacare: Obama just straight up lied to you, in your face

Recommended Posts

I wonder if it's still too early to determine if this rollout has been a failure or a success.

The best part about the six number was that only 5 of them were unique visits!

I think you misread that. Of the 6 who signed up, they chose 5 insurance companies.

Oh. Yeah. Just reread it. So are we leaning "success" more now with that newly found knowledge?

I've mostly tried to stay out of this dumpster fire of a thread, but out of curiosity- what the hell are you talking about?

Scroll up a bit. There's a CNN article that states only 6 people signed up on the first day.

Ah. Thanks.

So why are Sheik and others referring to that as if that was the number for all of October?

I think it's because these are the first numbers being released and since it is such a ridiculously low number it is very comical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if it's still too early to determine if this rollout has been a failure or a success.

The best part about the six number was that only 5 of them were unique visits!

I think you misread that. Of the 6 who signed up, they chose 5 insurance companies.

Oh. Yeah. Just reread it. So are we leaning "success" more now with that newly found knowledge?

I've mostly tried to stay out of this dumpster fire of a thread, but out of curiosity- what the hell are you talking about?

Scroll up a bit. There's a CNN article that states only 6 people signed up on the first day.

Ah. Thanks.

So why are Sheik and others referring to that as if that was the number for all of October?

We were actually making a joke prior to the official numbers coming out. The joke turned out to be somewhat accurate. We realize that the number "6" was only for Day 1, but it's funny that we had put the number right around that number for the month.... as a joke.

It's true. If you have to explain them, they really aren't that funny. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if it's still too early to determine if this rollout has been a failure or a success.

The best part about the six number was that only 5 of them were unique visits!

I think you misread that. Of the 6 who signed up, they chose 5 insurance companies.

Oh. Yeah. Just reread it. So are we leaning "success" more now with that newly found knowledge?

I've mostly tried to stay out of this dumpster fire of a thread, but out of curiosity- what the hell are you talking about?

Scroll up a bit. There's a CNN article that states only 6 people signed up on the first day.

Ah. Thanks.

So why are Sheik and others referring to that as if that was the number for all of October?

We were actually making a joke prior to the official numbers coming out. The joke turned out to be somewhat accurate. We realize that the number "6" was only for Day 1, but it's funny that we had put the number right around that number for the month.... as a joke.

It's true. If you have to explain them, they really aren't that funny. :shrug:

No, very funny. Don't stop because someone needed it explained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my business can file for bankruptcy, but I'm off the hook for it personally?

Got it. I GTG...gonna quick take a 2-3 year trip around the world and spend like it's 1999...then come home and start a new business, since my old one will be a pile of smoldering embers. Thanks for the advice, and don't miss me too much while I'm gone! ;)

It's called "Limited Liability Corp." (LLC) for a reason. You are protecting "yourself" from your business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were actually making a joke prior to the official numbers coming out. The joke turned out to be somewhat accurate. We realize that the number "6" was only for Day 1, but it's funny that we had put the number right around that number for the month.... as a joke.

It's true. If you have to explain them, they really aren't that funny. :shrug:

Gotcha. It read like you were saying that was the number for the month or something. My bad. Continue torching dumpster.

Edited by TobiasFunke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me again how two adults, one of whom is physically disabled, and the other of which has leukemia (both who had to stop working for health reasons...so they were no longer employed by anybody) are going to afford COBRA or a PEC plan?

FWIW, my insurance premiums are going DOWN 31% on January 1 as a direct result of the ACA. For more coverage, and lower deductibles. Tough to get a good deal on insurance when you can't get insurance through your employer (because YOU are your employer). Until October 1, 2013, that is.

Datonn, I think you and I had a few messages back and forth earlier about your situation. Again, I'm very sorry about your MIL and the situation that you went through, as I'm going through that very same situation with my uncle, and it's not a pleasant one. Again, I don't mean for anything I write to come off as insensitive, but there is really no other way to put certain things....

Both your MIL and FIL had the option for continuous coverage not only once, but I believe twice. If both of them at one point in their lives had group coverage available to them, both of them had COBRA eligibility on their own employer's plan, but also on their spouse's employer plan (COBRA is an individual right, so your MIL could choose to remain on COBRA through your FIL's employer even if he doesn't). I fully understand that COBRA can be very expensive, but technically it's the exact same cost as the insurance was when they were an employee of that group - it's just that now the employer isn't subsidizing it for them. So the coverage may have been $500 a month lets say in total, but the employer was paying $300 of it, leaving your MIL to pay the balance of $200 each month. When she went on COBRA, the cost to do so was still $500, but the employer wasn't chipping in their $300 each month. Either could have remained on COBRA for up to 18 months and then have been HIPAA eligible for guaranteed coverage in the individual market, so they had the right to continuous coverage (but I understand they may not have had the means, that's a different question).

My next question is where this might get a bit insensitive, and I do apologize in advance if it comes off that way. Who's responsibility is it to pay that increased cost if they decide to go with COBRA and then then a HIPAA plan? Initially it's theirs - but if it gets to be too much, shouldn't your (or your wife's) moral responsibility to help them trump the public's social obligation to do so? That isn't an easy question to ask, and I'm not it's not an easy one to answer, either. But if the opposite were true, and at their death you (or your wife) were to inherit $10M from their estate, I'm sure most wouldn't have an issue with that - so why an issue with the other? Shouldn't you and your wife and any other family step in (which for all I know you may have, I'm not saying you didn't) to help them in that situation rather than have them go uninsured and rack up what I believe you previously said was a few hundred thousand in medical claims leaving them with nothing?

Also, I'm glad to hear you will be saving money on your premiums. That seems to be the extreme rarity in the market. I've only seem a few cases of someone who won't be subsidized and who doesn't currently live in a total "guaranteed issue" state or that didn't already have highly rated coverage who will now be saving money on a new ACA compliant plan.

You make is sound oh so simple. Everyone just has a grand sitting around every month to pay for a relative's COBRA.

I never said it was simple or easy, it's the way things are. What's easier, paying a grand a month for COBRA, or paying tens or hundreds of thousands in medical bills?

Who should bear more of the responsibility of paying for what's now mandated coverage here, the person and their family combining resources to pay for COBRA and/or a HIPAA guaranteed plan, or the general public (via taxes paying for subsidies for expensive coverage or increased medical expenses and medical insurance costs to cover the uninsured)? The care is still getting paid for one way or another, we all understand that. Shouldn't someone's moral obligation to help family in need supersede the general public's mandated duty to?

And if you don't have a grand sitting around every month to pay for COBRA, how will you have a grand sitting around every month to pay for an ACA compliant plan?

If we're going to bring "moral obligations" into the discussion (which is a good thing, I think), then I think we need to broaden the discussion to talk about other moral obligations as well. I personally cannot believe how millionaires and billionaires are *ever* able to file for bankruptcy. I've said it once, and I'll say it again: when folks like Donald Trump can file for bankruptcy, or when folks like Dave Ramsey can file for bankruptcy, then re-build their financial lives to the point of having millions/billions in the bank, they should still be required to pay back whatever they had owed pre-bankruptcy, as much as they can. And then after they die? The people they STILL owed money to should get first-dibs on anything and everything from their estate. Without them being able to "gift" money to their spouse, kids, ??? before their death. Bankruptcy is legalized stealing in our nation. Taking something from someone else, then not paying for it (or forcing the millions of other people buying the same goods or services to pick up your tab). And while many people legitimately need it to keep from winding up homeless under a bridge, abuse of that system is rampant. And nobody who has ever declared bankruptcy should *EVER* be living a life of luxury again...not until all of their debtors have been satisfied. Let 'em keep "a" home, and let them have "a" vehicle. But if they die and they still owed other people money? Let the proceeds of said home/vehicle go to the people they still owed money to. Long before any heirs see a dime.

How about our moral obligation in our society to not hide behind 8,000 deductions, loopholes, or overseas accounts in effort to get out of paying taxes? Things won't be right in our nation until we stop having "taxable income" and simply tax income (at probably 1/3 of the rates we all pay now). Ever. Or our moral obligation to spend (much) more on things that build/grow, instead of things designed to kill/destroy? Or not spending trillions on national "wants," when hundreds of national NEEDS are being left un/under funded? Professional sports stadiums come to mind, as one example of a great-many.

Not a :hijack: As it's all inter-related. You cannot enforce "morals" and "self-reliance" in one regard...but then all but completely ignore it in other regards. Not in a "moral" manner, anyway. Because all those people who are on State/Federal assistance are *also* paying for people who have filed for bankruptcy, paying so that grown men can be paid millions to run around on an athletic field...and often had little/no say or choice in the matter.

Trump never filed for bankruptcy. His businesses, have, but he himself hasn't (though he did come close because he was funneling his own money into a company that was going bankrupt.) And in terms of the Trump business bankruptcies, there are many different types of bankruptcy (chapters if you will) And the companies did emerge from bankruptcy.

So my business can file for bankruptcy, but I'm off the hook for it personally?

Got it. I GTG...gonna quick take a 2-3 year trip around the world and spend like it's 1999...then come home and start a new business, since my old one will be a pile of smoldering embers. Thanks for the advice, and don't miss me too much while I'm gone! ;)

Your business can do almost anything and you'd be off the hook for it personally. Limited liability is not a novel or controversial concept. In fact it's pretty much mandatory for a functioning economy, especially new/small businesses. Nobody's starting a business if there's a chance they and their family will be in poverty for decades to come if it fails.

Sarcasm alarms down?! :shrug:

And to Rayderr (apart from asking about the batteries in his sarcasm alarms too), you're right...I know NOTHING about business. Other than how to grow a company by ~400% (from already being one of the larger companies in our industry) during a time when about 15% of our competitors went out of business...and we were the only one of the companies left standing to show earnings growth between 2009-2012. But I'm just shooting from the hip here, leaving it up to the Magic 8-ball on my desk to make the hard decisions. So maybe you'd be so kind as to educate me (all of us, really) on how business works? Pretty please?!

I guess I do know one thing about business: what it feels like (and what it causes) when a few clients don't pay their bills after you busted your ### to deliver work on-time, on-spec, and on-budget while incurring thousands in expenses in the process, then them hiding behind bankruptcy while still living a lifestyle that makes me look like I'm living in a hobo village. While I'm left to either eat it, or unfairly pass said costs through to non-deadbeat clients. So there is at least that one thing I know. But maybe you'll help double/triple my knowledge about business today? :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were actually making a joke prior to the official numbers coming out. The joke turned out to be somewhat accurate. We realize that the number "6" was only for Day 1, but it's funny that we had put the number right around that number for the month.... as a joke.

It's true. If you have to explain them, they really aren't that funny. :shrug:

Gotcha. It read like you were saying that was the number for the month or something. My bad. Continue torching dumpster.

Best not to take me too seriously in the future. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were actually making a joke prior to the official numbers coming out. The joke turned out to be somewhat accurate. We realize that the number "6" was only for Day 1, but it's funny that we had put the number right around that number for the month.... as a joke.

It's true. If you have to explain them, they really aren't that funny. :shrug:

Gotcha. It read like you were saying that was the number for the month or something. My bad. Continue torching dumpster.

Best not to take me too seriously in the future. :thumbup:

SNL got it right, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, very funny. Don't stop because someone needed it explained.

No worries with me stopping. I was just saying as I explained it to him, it really started to take all of the humor out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were actually making a joke prior to the official numbers coming out. The joke turned out to be somewhat accurate. We realize that the number "6" was only for Day 1, but it's funny that we had put the number right around that number for the month.... as a joke.

It's true. If you have to explain them, they really aren't that funny. :shrug:

Gotcha. It read like you were saying that was the number for the month or something. My bad. Continue torching dumpster.

Best not to take me too seriously in the future. :thumbup:

SNL got it right, too.

:lmao:

Again, it's funny because it's true!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me again how two adults, one of whom is physically disabled, and the other of which has leukemia (both who had to stop working for health reasons...so they were no longer employed by anybody) are going to afford COBRA or a PEC plan?

FWIW, my insurance premiums are going DOWN 31% on January 1 as a direct result of the ACA. For more coverage, and lower deductibles. Tough to get a good deal on insurance when you can't get insurance through your employer (because YOU are your employer). Until October 1, 2013, that is.

Datonn, I think you and I had a few messages back and forth earlier about your situation. Again, I'm very sorry about your MIL and the situation that you went through, as I'm going through that very same situation with my uncle, and it's not a pleasant one. Again, I don't mean for anything I write to come off as insensitive, but there is really no other way to put certain things....

Both your MIL and FIL had the option for continuous coverage not only once, but I believe twice. If both of them at one point in their lives had group coverage available to them, both of them had COBRA eligibility on their own employer's plan, but also on their spouse's employer plan (COBRA is an individual right, so your MIL could choose to remain on COBRA through your FIL's employer even if he doesn't). I fully understand that COBRA can be very expensive, but technically it's the exact same cost as the insurance was when they were an employee of that group - it's just that now the employer isn't subsidizing it for them. So the coverage may have been $500 a month lets say in total, but the employer was paying $300 of it, leaving your MIL to pay the balance of $200 each month. When she went on COBRA, the cost to do so was still $500, but the employer wasn't chipping in their $300 each month. Either could have remained on COBRA for up to 18 months and then have been HIPAA eligible for guaranteed coverage in the individual market, so they had the right to continuous coverage (but I understand they may not have had the means, that's a different question).

My next question is where this might get a bit insensitive, and I do apologize in advance if it comes off that way. Who's responsibility is it to pay that increased cost if they decide to go with COBRA and then then a HIPAA plan? Initially it's theirs - but if it gets to be too much, shouldn't your (or your wife's) moral responsibility to help them trump the public's social obligation to do so? That isn't an easy question to ask, and I'm not it's not an easy one to answer, either. But if the opposite were true, and at their death you (or your wife) were to inherit $10M from their estate, I'm sure most wouldn't have an issue with that - so why an issue with the other? Shouldn't you and your wife and any other family step in (which for all I know you may have, I'm not saying you didn't) to help them in that situation rather than have them go uninsured and rack up what I believe you previously said was a few hundred thousand in medical claims leaving them with nothing?

Also, I'm glad to hear you will be saving money on your premiums. That seems to be the extreme rarity in the market. I've only seem a few cases of someone who won't be subsidized and who doesn't currently live in a total "guaranteed issue" state or that didn't already have highly rated coverage who will now be saving money on a new ACA compliant plan.

You make is sound oh so simple. Everyone just has a grand sitting around every month to pay for a relative's COBRA.

I never said it was simple or easy, it's the way things are. What's easier, paying a grand a month for COBRA, or paying tens or hundreds of thousands in medical bills?

Who should bear more of the responsibility of paying for what's now mandated coverage here, the person and their family combining resources to pay for COBRA and/or a HIPAA guaranteed plan, or the general public (via taxes paying for subsidies for expensive coverage or increased medical expenses and medical insurance costs to cover the uninsured)? The care is still getting paid for one way or another, we all understand that. Shouldn't someone's moral obligation to help family in need supersede the general public's mandated duty to?

And if you don't have a grand sitting around every month to pay for COBRA, how will you have a grand sitting around every month to pay for an ACA compliant plan?

If we're going to bring "moral obligations" into the discussion (which is a good thing, I think), then I think we need to broaden the discussion to talk about other moral obligations as well. I personally cannot believe how millionaires and billionaires are *ever* able to file for bankruptcy. I've said it once, and I'll say it again: when folks like Donald Trump can file for bankruptcy, or when folks like Dave Ramsey can file for bankruptcy, then re-build their financial lives to the point of having millions/billions in the bank, they should still be required to pay back whatever they had owed pre-bankruptcy, as much as they can. And then after they die? The people they STILL owed money to should get first-dibs on anything and everything from their estate. Without them being able to "gift" money to their spouse, kids, ??? before their death. Bankruptcy is legalized stealing in our nation. Taking something from someone else, then not paying for it (or forcing the millions of other people buying the same goods or services to pick up your tab). And while many people legitimately need it to keep from winding up homeless under a bridge, abuse of that system is rampant. And nobody who has ever declared bankruptcy should *EVER* be living a life of luxury again...not until all of their debtors have been satisfied. Let 'em keep "a" home, and let them have "a" vehicle. But if they die and they still owed other people money? Let the proceeds of said home/vehicle go to the people they still owed money to. Long before any heirs see a dime.

How about our moral obligation in our society to not hide behind 8,000 deductions, loopholes, or overseas accounts in effort to get out of paying taxes? Things won't be right in our nation until we stop having "taxable income" and simply tax income (at probably 1/3 of the rates we all pay now). Ever. Or our moral obligation to spend (much) more on things that build/grow, instead of things designed to kill/destroy? Or not spending trillions on national "wants," when hundreds of national NEEDS are being left un/under funded? Professional sports stadiums come to mind, as one example of a great-many.

Not a :hijack: As it's all inter-related. You cannot enforce "morals" and "self-reliance" in one regard...but then all but completely ignore it in other regards. Not in a "moral" manner, anyway. Because all those people who are on State/Federal assistance are *also* paying for people who have filed for bankruptcy, paying so that grown men can be paid millions to run around on an athletic field...and often had little/no say or choice in the matter.

Trump never filed for bankruptcy. His businesses, have, but he himself hasn't (though he did come close because he was funneling his own money into a company that was going bankrupt.) And in terms of the Trump business bankruptcies, there are many different types of bankruptcy (chapters if you will) And the companies did emerge from bankruptcy.

So my business can file for bankruptcy, but I'm off the hook for it personally?

Got it. I GTG...gonna quick take a 2-3 year trip around the world and spend like it's 1999...then come home and start a new business, since my old one will be a pile of smoldering embers. Thanks for the advice, and don't miss me too much while I'm gone! ;)

Your business can do almost anything and you'd be off the hook for it personally. Limited liability is not a novel or controversial concept. In fact it's pretty much mandatory for a functioning economy, especially new/small businesses. Nobody's starting a business if there's a chance they and their family will be in poverty for decades to come if it fails.

Sarcasm alarms down?! :shrug:

And to Rayderr (apart from asking about the batteries in his sarcasm alarms too), you're right...I know NOTHING about business. Other than how to grow a company by ~400% (from already being one of the larger companies in our industry) during a time when about 15% of our competitors went out of business...and we were the only one of the companies left standing to show earnings growth between 2009-2012. But I'm just shooting from the hip here, leaving it up to the Magic 8-ball on my desk to make the hard decisions. So maybe you'd be so kind as to educate me (all of us, really) on how business works? Pretty please?!

I guess I do know one thing about business: what it feels like (and what it causes) when a few clients don't pay their bills after you busted your ### to deliver work on-time, on-spec, and on-budget while incurring thousands in expenses in the process, then them hiding behind bankruptcy while still living a lifestyle that makes me look like I'm living in a hobo village. While I'm left to either eat it, or unfairly pass said costs through to non-deadbeat clients. So there is at least that one thing I know. But maybe you'll help double/triple my knowledge about business today? :wub:

Then next time don't say such a stupid ### thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were actually making a joke prior to the official numbers coming out. The joke turned out to be somewhat accurate. We realize that the number "6" was only for Day 1, but it's funny that we had put the number right around that number for the month.... as a joke.

It's true. If you have to explain them, they really aren't that funny. :shrug:

Gotcha. It read like you were saying that was the number for the month or something. My bad. Continue torching dumpster.

No need. You just shat on it.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were actually making a joke prior to the official numbers coming out. The joke turned out to be somewhat accurate. We realize that the number "6" was only for Day 1, but it's funny that we had put the number right around that number for the month.... as a joke.

It's true. If you have to explain them, they really aren't that funny. :shrug:

Gotcha. It read like you were saying that was the number for the month or something. My bad. Continue torching dumpster.

No need. You just shat on it.

:goodposting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were actually making a joke prior to the official numbers coming out. The joke turned out to be somewhat accurate. We realize that the number "6" was only for Day 1, but it's funny that we had put the number right around that number for the month.... as a joke.

It's true. If you have to explain them, they really aren't that funny. :shrug:

Gotcha. It read like you were saying that was the number for the month or something. My bad. Continue torching dumpster.

No need. You just shat on it.

:goodposting:

I thought it was funny :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell me again how two adults, one of whom is physically disabled, and the other of which has leukemia (both who had to stop working for health reasons...so they were no longer employed by anybody) are going to afford COBRA or a PEC plan?

FWIW, my insurance premiums are going DOWN 31% on January 1 as a direct result of the ACA. For more coverage, and lower deductibles. Tough to get a good deal on insurance when you can't get insurance through your employer (because YOU are your employer). Until October 1, 2013, that is.

Datonn, I think you and I had a few messages back and forth earlier about your situation. Again, I'm very sorry about your MIL and the situation that you went through, as I'm going through that very same situation with my uncle, and it's not a pleasant one. Again, I don't mean for anything I write to come off as insensitive, but there is really no other way to put certain things....

Both your MIL and FIL had the option for continuous coverage not only once, but I believe twice. If both of them at one point in their lives had group coverage available to them, both of them had COBRA eligibility on their own employer's plan, but also on their spouse's employer plan (COBRA is an individual right, so your MIL could choose to remain on COBRA through your FIL's employer even if he doesn't). I fully understand that COBRA can be very expensive, but technically it's the exact same cost as the insurance was when they were an employee of that group - it's just that now the employer isn't subsidizing it for them. So the coverage may have been $500 a month lets say in total, but the employer was paying $300 of it, leaving your MIL to pay the balance of $200 each month. When she went on COBRA, the cost to do so was still $500, but the employer wasn't chipping in their $300 each month. Either could have remained on COBRA for up to 18 months and then have been HIPAA eligible for guaranteed coverage in the individual market, so they had the right to continuous coverage (but I understand they may not have had the means, that's a different question).

My next question is where this might get a bit insensitive, and I do apologize in advance if it comes off that way. Who's responsibility is it to pay that increased cost if they decide to go with COBRA and then then a HIPAA plan? Initially it's theirs - but if it gets to be too much, shouldn't your (or your wife's) moral responsibility to help them trump the public's social obligation to do so? That isn't an easy question to ask, and I'm not it's not an easy one to answer, either. But if the opposite were true, and at their death you (or your wife) were to inherit $10M from their estate, I'm sure most wouldn't have an issue with that - so why an issue with the other? Shouldn't you and your wife and any other family step in (which for all I know you may have, I'm not saying you didn't) to help them in that situation rather than have them go uninsured and rack up what I believe you previously said was a few hundred thousand in medical claims leaving them with nothing?

Also, I'm glad to hear you will be saving money on your premiums. That seems to be the extreme rarity in the market. I've only seem a few cases of someone who won't be subsidized and who doesn't currently live in a total "guaranteed issue" state or that didn't already have highly rated coverage who will now be saving money on a new ACA compliant plan.

You make is sound oh so simple. Everyone just has a grand sitting around every month to pay for a relative's COBRA.

I never said it was simple or easy, it's the way things are. What's easier, paying a grand a month for COBRA, or paying tens or hundreds of thousands in medical bills?

Who should bear more of the responsibility of paying for what's now mandated coverage here, the person and their family combining resources to pay for COBRA and/or a HIPAA guaranteed plan, or the general public (via taxes paying for subsidies for expensive coverage or increased medical expenses and medical insurance costs to cover the uninsured)? The care is still getting paid for one way or another, we all understand that. Shouldn't someone's moral obligation to help family in need supersede the general public's mandated duty to?

And if you don't have a grand sitting around every month to pay for COBRA, how will you have a grand sitting around every month to pay for an ACA compliant plan?

If we're going to bring "moral obligations" into the discussion (which is a good thing, I think), then I think we need to broaden the discussion to talk about other moral obligations as well. I personally cannot believe how millionaires and billionaires are *ever* able to file for bankruptcy. I've said it once, and I'll say it again: when folks like Donald Trump can file for bankruptcy, or when folks like Dave Ramsey can file for bankruptcy, then re-build their financial lives to the point of having millions/billions in the bank, they should still be required to pay back whatever they had owed pre-bankruptcy, as much as they can. And then after they die? The people they STILL owed money to should get first-dibs on anything and everything from their estate. Without them being able to "gift" money to their spouse, kids, ??? before their death. Bankruptcy is legalized stealing in our nation. Taking something from someone else, then not paying for it (or forcing the millions of other people buying the same goods or services to pick up your tab). And while many people legitimately need it to keep from winding up homeless under a bridge, abuse of that system is rampant. And nobody who has ever declared bankruptcy should *EVER* be living a life of luxury again...not until all of their debtors have been satisfied. Let 'em keep "a" home, and let them have "a" vehicle. But if they die and they still owed other people money? Let the proceeds of said home/vehicle go to the people they still owed money to. Long before any heirs see a dime.

How about our moral obligation in our society to not hide behind 8,000 deductions, loopholes, or overseas accounts in effort to get out of paying taxes? Things won't be right in our nation until we stop having "taxable income" and simply tax income (at probably 1/3 of the rates we all pay now). Ever. Or our moral obligation to spend (much) more on things that build/grow, instead of things designed to kill/destroy? Or not spending trillions on national "wants," when hundreds of national NEEDS are being left un/under funded? Professional sports stadiums come to mind, as one example of a great-many.

Not a :hijack: As it's all inter-related. You cannot enforce "morals" and "self-reliance" in one regard...but then all but completely ignore it in other regards. Not in a "moral" manner, anyway. Because all those people who are on State/Federal assistance are *also* paying for people who have filed for bankruptcy, paying so that grown men can be paid millions to run around on an athletic field...and often had little/no say or choice in the matter.

Trump never filed for bankruptcy. His businesses, have, but he himself hasn't (though he did come close because he was funneling his own money into a company that was going bankrupt.) And in terms of the Trump business bankruptcies, there are many different types of bankruptcy (chapters if you will) And the companies did emerge from bankruptcy.

So my business can file for bankruptcy, but I'm off the hook for it personally?

Got it. I GTG...gonna quick take a 2-3 year trip around the world and spend like it's 1999...then come home and start a new business, since my old one will be a pile of smoldering embers. Thanks for the advice, and don't miss me too much while I'm gone! ;)

Your business can do almost anything and you'd be off the hook for it personally. Limited liability is not a novel or controversial concept. In fact it's pretty much mandatory for a functioning economy, especially new/small businesses. Nobody's starting a business if there's a chance they and their family will be in poverty for decades to come if it fails.

Sarcasm alarms down?! :shrug:

And to Rayderr (apart from asking about the batteries in his sarcasm alarms too), you're right...I know NOTHING about business. Other than how to grow a company by ~400% (from already being one of the larger companies in our industry) during a time when about 15% of our competitors went out of business...and we were the only one of the companies left standing to show earnings growth between 2009-2012. But I'm just shooting from the hip here, leaving it up to the Magic 8-ball on my desk to make the hard decisions. So maybe you'd be so kind as to educate me (all of us, really) on how business works? Pretty please?!

I guess I do know one thing about business: what it feels like (and what it causes) when a few clients don't pay their bills after you busted your ### to deliver work on-time, on-spec, and on-budget while incurring thousands in expenses in the process, then them hiding behind bankruptcy while still living a lifestyle that makes me look like I'm living in a hobo village. While I'm left to either eat it, or unfairly pass said costs through to non-deadbeat clients. So there is at least that one thing I know. But maybe you'll help double/triple my knowledge about business today? :wub:

Then next time don't say such a stupid ### thing.

And he STILL doesn't get it. Wow! :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You seemed to be confused about this. I'm not sure if you know this, but at one time Insurance companies wouldn't give insurance to individuals who had pre-existing conditions. These people wanted to buy policies. In some cases,The medical insurance companies would not insure them, or would drop them. Diminishing profits are A prority over human beings.. These people cannot get policies and they have families who need coverage. Yeah, the nerve of these so-called sick people. Crazy isn't it?

There was insurance for people with pre-existing conditions before ACA...

That made me spit out my morning coffee

It's true, being ignorant of that doesn't change reality.. You can save more coffee by being better informed or believing less of the liberal spin evidently.. My cousin is diabetic, and he had been on one of these plans since 2005. I don't remember the exact #'s, but he was paying nearly $600 a month for insurance and his new plan will be approximately $50 less a month. (While my plan doubled)

I wanted to clear up a few misconceptions here of Ballstein. First I'll address the second bolded part - it's simply not true. Some people did have their policies canceled, I can't deny that - but they were canceled because the person lied or knowingly mislead the carrier when completing their insurance application. I've seen it happen. If someone says on an application that they are perfectly healthy, or fails to mention something that they know is a medical condition/situation they have, and the insurance company finds out, it's quite literally insurance fraud, and the insurer can drop the policy.

On the first bolded part, the majority of states do offer plans that are "guaranteed issue". My home state Virginia is one of them. That doesn't mean we are a "guaranteed issue" state like New York or Mass with their high rates, it means that we have at least one what's called "insurer of last resorts", or a plan that can not be declined to anyone and one where the applicant doesn't need to answer a single medical question. I understand that these policies are very expensive (because they are guaranteed issue, much like the Obamacare plans and their high rates which are also guaranteed issue), but it is a coverage option for anyone. Here is a list of all the states, and if they have an "insurer of last resorts" -

http://www.zanebenefits.com/blog/bid/111113/State-by-State-Guide-to-Guaranteed-Issue-Health-Insurance-in-2012

Looking through it, there are only 3 states (Georgia, Hawaii and Arizona) which offer no plan for those people.

The Truth About the Insurance Industry

Insurers often complain that their critics don't understand their business practices. It would be hard to say that about Wendell Potter. Potter, whose name sounds like that of a character in a Frank Capra movie, worked in the health insurance industry for more than 20 years. He rose to be a senior executive at Cigna. He was on their calls, at their board meetings, in their books. And today, at a hearing before Sen. Jay Rockefeller's Commerce Committee, he testified against them.

What drove Potter from the health insurance business was, well, the health insurance business. The industry, Potter says, is driven by "two key figures: earnings per share and the medical-loss ratio, or medical-benefit ratio, as the industry now terms it. That is the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what it has left over to cover sales, marketing, underwriting and other administrative expenses and, of course, profits."

Think about that term for a moment: The industry literally has a term for how much money it "loses" paying for health care.

The best way to drive down "medical-loss," explains Potter, is to stop insuring unhealthy people. You won't, after all, have to spend very much of a healthy person's dollar on medical care because he or she won't need much medical care. And the insurance industry accomplishes this through two main policies. "One is policy rescission," says Potter. "They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee has never missed a premium payment."

And don't be fooled: rescission is important to the business model. Last week, at a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, Rep. Bart Stupak, the committee chairman, asked three insurance industry executives if they would commit to ending rescission except in cases of intentional fraud. "No," they each said.

Potter also emphasized the practice known as "purging." This is where insurers rid themselves of unprofitable accounts by slapping them with "intentionally unrealistic rate increases." One famous example came when Cigna decided to drive the Entertainment Industry Group Insurance Trust in California and New Jersey off of its books. It hit them with a rate increase that would have left some family plans costing more than $44,000 a year, and it gave them three months to come up with the cash.

The issue isn't that insurance companies are evil. It's that they need to be profitable. They have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for shareholders. And as Potter explains, he's watched an insurer's stock price fall by more than 20 percent in a single day because the first-quarter medical-loss ratio had increased from 77.9 percent to 79.4 percent.

The reason we generally like markets is that the profit incentive spurs useful innovations. But in some markets, that's not the case. We don't allow a bustling market in heroin, for instance, because we don't want a lot of innovation in heroin creation, packaging and advertising. Are we really sure we want a bustling market in how to cleverly revoke the insurance of people who prove to be sickly?

Ezra Klien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just the tip of the iceberg too. Imagine when the #### really starts hitting the fan.

Even the average Joe will remember who tried stopping this trainwreck. 2014!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You seemed to be confused about this. I'm not sure if you know this, but at one time Insurance companies wouldn't give insurance to individuals who had pre-existing conditions. These people wanted to buy policies. In some cases,The medical insurance companies would not insure them, or would drop them. Diminishing profits are A prority over human beings.. These people cannot get policies and they have families who need coverage. Yeah, the nerve of these so-called sick people. Crazy isn't it?

There was insurance for people with pre-existing conditions before ACA...

That made me spit out my morning coffee

It's true, being ignorant of that doesn't change reality.. You can save more coffee by being better informed or believing less of the liberal spin evidently.. My cousin is diabetic, and he had been on one of these plans since 2005. I don't remember the exact #'s, but he was paying nearly $600 a month for insurance and his new plan will be approximately $50 less a month. (While my plan doubled)

I wanted to clear up a few misconceptions here of Ballstein. First I'll address the second bolded part - it's simply not true. Some people did have their policies canceled, I can't deny that - but they were canceled because the person lied or knowingly mislead the carrier when completing their insurance application. I've seen it happen. If someone says on an application that they are perfectly healthy, or fails to mention something that they know is a medical condition/situation they have, and the insurance company finds out, it's quite literally insurance fraud, and the insurer can drop the policy.

On the first bolded part, the majority of states do offer plans that are "guaranteed issue". My home state Virginia is one of them. That doesn't mean we are a "guaranteed issue" state like New York or Mass with their high rates, it means that we have at least one what's called "insurer of last resorts", or a plan that can not be declined to anyone and one where the applicant doesn't need to answer a single medical question. I understand that these policies are very expensive (because they are guaranteed issue, much like the Obamacare plans and their high rates which are also guaranteed issue), but it is a coverage option for anyone. Here is a list of all the states, and if they have an "insurer of last resorts" -

http://www.zanebenefits.com/blog/bid/111113/State-by-State-Guide-to-Guaranteed-Issue-Health-Insurance-in-2012

Looking through it, there are only 3 states (Georgia, Hawaii and Arizona) which offer no plan for those people.

The Truth About the Insurance Industry

Insurers often complain that their critics don't understand their business practices. It would be hard to say that about Wendell Potter. Potter, whose name sounds like that of a character in a Frank Capra movie, worked in the health insurance industry for more than 20 years. He rose to be a senior executive at Cigna. He was on their calls, at their board meetings, in their books. And today, at a hearing before Sen. Jay Rockefeller's Commerce Committee, he testified against them.

What drove Potter from the health insurance business was, well, the health insurance business. The industry, Potter says, is driven by "two key figures: earnings per share and the medical-loss ratio, or medical-benefit ratio, as the industry now terms it. That is the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what it has left over to cover sales, marketing, underwriting and other administrative expenses and, of course, profits."

Think about that term for a moment: The industry literally has a term for how much money it "loses" paying for health care.

The best way to drive down "medical-loss," explains Potter, is to stop insuring unhealthy people. You won't, after all, have to spend very much of a healthy person's dollar on medical care because he or she won't need much medical care. And the insurance industry accomplishes this through two main policies. "One is policy rescission," says Potter. "They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee has never missed a premium payment."

And don't be fooled: rescission is important to the business model. Last week, at a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, Rep. Bart Stupak, the committee chairman, asked three insurance industry executives if they would commit to ending rescission except in cases of intentional fraud. "No," they each said.

Potter also emphasized the practice known as "purging." This is where insurers rid themselves of unprofitable accounts by slapping them with "intentionally unrealistic rate increases." One famous example came when Cigna decided to drive the Entertainment Industry Group Insurance Trust in California and New Jersey off of its books. It hit them with a rate increase that would have left some family plans costing more than $44,000 a year, and it gave them three months to come up with the cash.

The issue isn't that insurance companies are evil. It's that they need to be profitable. They have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for shareholders. And as Potter explains, he's watched an insurer's stock price fall by more than 20 percent in a single day because the first-quarter medical-loss ratio had increased from 77.9 percent to 79.4 percent.

The reason we generally like markets is that the profit incentive spurs useful innovations. But in some markets, that's not the case. We don't allow a bustling market in heroin, for instance, because we don't want a lot of innovation in heroin creation, packaging and advertising. Are we really sure we want a bustling market in how to cleverly revoke the insurance of people who prove to be sickly?

Ezra Klien

Not surprising from Klein. In a nutshell, he wants insurance companies out of business because in essence he believes that for profit entities shouldn't be involved. The only solution to that is single payer, which surprise surprise, fits his political agenda. The whole premise behind Obamacare is passing the cost from those who are sick or have pre-existing conditions on to those who do not. Obviously to keep costs lower to their existing policyholders, insurance companies have not offered coverage in the past to some people mentioned above. They could have, but their policyholders would have had to pay more to offset that. Rather than pay more, obviously the insured would have left and went with another insurance company. The law essentially is going to force that transfer of cost to occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I do know one thing about business: what it feels like (and what it causes) when a few clients don't pay their bills after you busted your ### to deliver work on-time, on-spec, and on-budget while incurring thousands in expenses in the process, then them hiding behind bankruptcy while still living a lifestyle that makes me look like I'm living in a hobo village. While I'm left to either eat it, or unfairly pass said costs through to non-deadbeat clients. So there is at least that one thing I know. But maybe you'll help double/triple my knowledge about business today? :wub:

If you're in the business of financing projects for your clients then you need to expect some clients to default... Every creditor in the world knows this except for you evidently..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got my open enrollment at work which is a very large company.

The short of it? My options have been dropped from 4 to 3 now. The cost to keep the same insurance as I had last year will be another $600 on top of what I paid last year.

Of course, I am sure this is just a coincidence and has nothing to do with Obamacare. Oh and there was a nice message basically saying that if I don't sign up for one of these insurance options that I am pretty much screwed if I don't with the higher costs through Obamacare sans any subsidy (which I would not qualify for because I turned town the coverage from work).

very large company - self insured?

keep the same insurance - so no new mandated benefits?

Of course, I am sure this is just a coincidence and has nothing to do with Obamacare. - I don't think has that much to do with ObamaCare, but the rate of growth for health care has slowed down. So ObamaCare is not adding cost (at least yet) to the overall health care market.

So while I'm not a big fan of ObamaCare, I don't see how ObamaCare is the driver for your particular increase in cost. Unless the company is paying a smaller share to avoid cadillac plan tax. But since these plans don't really cover much more that doesn't seem like the best approach to avoid that tax.

There is lots of change happening in health care today because every one knows that the rate of growth of cost from the recent past is unsustainable. Most of this change has very little to do with the ACA and is happening with or without. For one thing, ACA is not even the biggest government mandated change for 2014, That would be ICD-10.

Like I said, I am sure it is all just a happy coincidence as there is nothing in the documents that say "Hey, because Obamcare is screwing everything up- you are screwed in these areas."

Well, that is except for the part that specifically informs me that if I don't get coverage through their much less generous terms than previously offered that I am pretty much screwed as I would not be able to get a cheaper plan that may better fit my needs and since I declined this coverage would not qualify for any assistance regardless of otherwise qualifying.

And of course, Obamacare has no impact on insurance unless you buy in the single serve marketplaces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has someone made an Obamacare "Mission Accomplished" graphic yet?

Did Bush ever say that, or was it just on the sign?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Wall Street Journal needed an expert to weigh in on ACA. So the got....Suzanne Somers!

And this editorial is as badly written as a Three's Company episode

Yet, apparently she is right about some things.

Suzanne Somers says even with Obamacare, tens of millions will remain uninsured

The actress Suzanne Somers, best known for her role on the 1970s sitcom Three’s Company, sparked controversy recently when she wrote a column for the Wall Street Journal that harshly criticized President Barack Obama’s health care law.

In her column, topped by the provocative title, "The Affordable Care Act Is a Socialist Ponzi Scheme," Somers argued that "the word ‘affordable’ is a misnomer. So far, all you are hearing on the news is how everyone’s premiums are doubling and tripling and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize that the whole thing is a big mess. Plus, even after Obamacare is fully implemented, there still will be tens of millions of people not covered. So what’s the point? Medical care will be degraded, the costs will skyrocket, and most frightening of all, your most intimate and personal information is now up for grabs."

The column prompted a backlash, as critics took issue with the substance of her arguments while also snickering at the Journal’s need to append multiple corrections to the column. (The correction called a quotation Somers had attributed to V.I. Lenin "widely disputed," a quotation attributed to Winston Churchill unconfirmed, said Somers had misstated the type of animal used on a cover of Maclean’s magazine in 2008 -- it was a dog, not a horse.)

"In fewer than 600 words, Somers managed to purvey untruths, misinterpretations, made-up quotes and irrelevant anecdotes," said one particularly stinging response by the Los Angeles Times’ Robin Abcarian.

But it turns out that not everything Somers said is wrong.

Here we’ll take a look at her claim that "even after Obamacare is fully implemented, there still will be tens of millions of people not covered."

We can’t predict the future, but we can turn to the best available independent analysis of the health care law’s impact -- projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO’s most recent projections, from February 2013, produced the following figures:

Year

Number of non-elderly people without insurance

Percentage of the population without insurance

2013

55 million

20%

2014

44 million

16%

2015

37 million

14%

2016

31 million

11%

2017

29 million

10%

2018

29 million

10%

2019

29 million

10%

2020

29 million

10%

2021

29 million

10%

2022

29 million

10%

2023

30 million

10%

So, Somers is right -- by 2023, there will still be 30 million Americans without insurance. Presumably these will be a combination of people who opt to pay a penalty rather than signing up for insurance, people or families who are exempted because they can’t find affordable coverage, and undocumented immigrants, who are exempt from the mandate to purchase insurance.

Obamacare supporters will surely counter that the number of uninsured Americans will drop over this decade-long period by 25 million people, or almost half, despite overall population growth. In addition, the percentage of uninsured Americans will be cut in half, from 20 percent today to 10 percent a decade from now, according to CBO.

Our ruling

Somers wrote that, "even after Obamacare is fully implemented, there still will be tens of millions of people not covered." She’s right -- by 2023, CBO projects that 30 million Americans will lack health insurance. While this is lower than today’s figure both in absolute numbers and in the percentage of the population, that doesn’t take away from the basic accuracy of Somers’ claim. We rate her claim True.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got my open enrollment at work which is a very large company.

The short of it? My options have been dropped from 4 to 3 now. The cost to keep the same insurance as I had last year will be another $600 on top of what I paid last year.

Of course, I am sure this is just a coincidence and has nothing to do with Obamacare. Oh and there was a nice message basically saying that if I don't sign up for one of these insurance options that I am pretty much screwed if I don't with the higher costs through Obamacare sans any subsidy (which I would not qualify for because I turned town the coverage from work).

very large company - self insured?

keep the same insurance - so no new mandated benefits?

Of course, I am sure this is just a coincidence and has nothing to do with Obamacare. - I don't think has that much to do with ObamaCare, but the rate of growth for health care has slowed down. So ObamaCare is not adding cost (at least yet) to the overall health care market.

So while I'm not a big fan of ObamaCare, I don't see how ObamaCare is the driver for your particular increase in cost. Unless the company is paying a smaller share to avoid cadillac plan tax. But since these plans don't really cover much more that doesn't seem like the best approach to avoid that tax.

There is lots of change happening in health care today because every one knows that the rate of growth of cost from the recent past is unsustainable. Most of this change has very little to do with the ACA and is happening with or without. For one thing, ACA is not even the biggest government mandated change for 2014, That would be ICD-10.

Like I said, I am sure it is all just a happy coincidence as there is nothing in the documents that say "Hey, because Obamcare is screwing everything up- you are screwed in these areas."

Well, that is except for the part that specifically informs me that if I don't get coverage through their much less generous terms than previously offered that I am pretty much screwed as I would not be able to get a cheaper plan that may better fit my needs and since I declined this coverage would not qualify for any assistance regardless of otherwise qualifying.

And of course, Obamacare has no impact on insurance unless you buy in the single serve marketplaces.

So as of yet "ObamaCare must be responsible" because of :whoosh:

I am willing to concede that I could be overlooking/"conveniently forgetting" a driver of cost that could come from changes caused by the ACA, but without one - or without one of the premises above being wrong then your rates are simply going up because health care cost increases continue (even though it has gotten better) to outpace the rest of the economy,

But while acknowledging that makes for a good conversation it does makes for poor right wing nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got my open enrollment at work which is a very large company.

The short of it? My options have been dropped from 4 to 3 now. The cost to keep the same insurance as I had last year will be another $600 on top of what I paid last year.

Of course, I am sure this is just a coincidence and has nothing to do with Obamacare. Oh and there was a nice message basically saying that if I don't sign up for one of these insurance options that I am pretty much screwed if I don't with the higher costs through Obamacare sans any subsidy (which I would not qualify for because I turned town the coverage from work).

very large company - self insured?

keep the same insurance - so no new mandated benefits?

Of course, I am sure this is just a coincidence and has nothing to do with Obamacare. - I don't think has that much to do with ObamaCare, but the rate of growth for health care has slowed down. So ObamaCare is not adding cost (at least yet) to the overall health care market.

So while I'm not a big fan of ObamaCare, I don't see how ObamaCare is the driver for your particular increase in cost. Unless the company is paying a smaller share to avoid cadillac plan tax. But since these plans don't really cover much more that doesn't seem like the best approach to avoid that tax.

There is lots of change happening in health care today because every one knows that the rate of growth of cost from the recent past is unsustainable. Most of this change has very little to do with the ACA and is happening with or without. For one thing, ACA is not even the biggest government mandated change for 2014, That would be ICD-10.

Like I said, I am sure it is all just a happy coincidence as there is nothing in the documents that say "Hey, because Obamcare is screwing everything up- you are screwed in these areas."

Well, that is except for the part that specifically informs me that if I don't get coverage through their much less generous terms than previously offered that I am pretty much screwed as I would not be able to get a cheaper plan that may better fit my needs and since I declined this coverage would not qualify for any assistance regardless of otherwise qualifying.

And of course, Obamacare has no impact on insurance unless you buy in the single serve marketplaces.

So as of yet "ObamaCare must be responsible" because of :whoosh:

I am willing to concede that I could be overlooking/"conveniently forgetting" a driver of cost that could come from changes caused by the ACA, but without one - or without one of the premises above being wrong then your rates are simply going up because health care cost increases continue (even though it has gotten better) to outpace the rest of the economy,

But while acknowledging that makes for a good conversation it does makes for poor right wing nonsense.

Do you buy the argument that because ACA hasn't really done anything to address the obvious cost issues, that it's part of the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has someone made an Obamacare "Mission Accomplished" graphic yet?

Did Bush ever say that, or was it just on the sign?

Does it matter?

Yes. Hence the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/10/obamacare_polls_americans_want_to_reform_the_affordable_care_act_not_repeal.html

Obamacare is under attack. Its website is glitchy, its prices are uneven, and insurance policies that don’t meet its standards are being withdrawn. But President Obama is sticking with it, scolding its Republican critics, and betting that in the long run, he’ll win. He may be right.

Obama’s bet, on a message level, is that the public likes the idea of the Affordable Care Act, even if they’re unhappy with its implementation or some of its features. He’s for something that addresses our health care needs. Republicans, lacking a plausible alternative, offer nothing but obstruction. The law is being implemented. The GOP can’t fight it without, in effect, rolling back coverage and benefits. Changing the law’s details is a popular position. Repealing it isn’t.

Look at the polls. In a CBS News survey taken Oct. 1–2, a majority of Americans—51 to 43 percent—disapproved of the Affordable Care Act. Only 43 percent, however, said the law went “too far in changing the U.S. health care system.” Thirty percent said the law was about right, and 20 percent said it didn’t go far enough. The plurality supported the law or an extension of it. In an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll taken Oct. 7–9, 43 percent of respondents said the law was a bad idea. Only 38 percent called it a good idea. But 50 percent opposed “totally eliminating federal funding” for it, compared with 39 percent who favored cutting off funds.

Twenty-one percent of Americans in a Gallup poll conducted Oct. 12–13 said they’d like major changes to the law. Ninteen percent said they’d like minor changes. But only 29 percent said they’d like the law to be repealed entirely—less than the 32 percent who took that position three years ago, and not much more than the 24 percent who said they’d like to keep the law as it is. When Gallup pressed further, asking respondents whether the changes they had in mind would scale the law back or expand it, 40 percent of those who wanted changes (and who answered the question either way) said they preferred to expand the law.

A CNN/ORC survey taken Oct. 18–20 found that respondents opposed the law, 56 to 41 percent. But when pressed further, 12 percent—nearly a quarter of those who opposed the law—said it wasn’t liberal enough. Only 38 percent of the entire sample—less than the number who favored the law—said it was too liberal. In a CBS News poll taken Oct. 18–21, a majority disapproved of the law, 51 to 43 percent. But when pressed as to why, the numbers turned upside-down. The percentage who said the law went too far dropped to 43. Twenty-nine percent said the law was about right, and 22 percent—nearly all of them Democrats and independents—said it didn’t go far enough.

Now comes a second NBC/Journal poll, conducted Oct. 25–28. The numbers look grim: Forty-seven percent say Obamacare is a bad idea, up from 43 percent in early October. When they’re asked whether the law “is working well the way it is,” “needs minor modifications to improve it,” “needs a major overhaul,” or “should be totally eliminated,” only 6 percent say it’s working well as is. But among the remaining options, 38 percent of respondents say the law needs minor modifications, 28 percent say it needs a major overhaul, and only 24 percent say it should be completely eliminated. The poll doesn’t ask those who favor a major overhaul whether the law should go further or be scaled back, so we don’t know whether, as in the other surveys, what looks like a majority for repeal or major rollback is really a minority. But the poll does ask whether Obamacare’s website problems “are short-term technical issues that happen in large projects like this and can be corrected” or “point to longer-term issues with the new health care law and its overall design that cannot be corrected.” On that question, 31 percent say the law’s faults can’t be corrected. Thirty-seven percent say they can, and 30 percent say it’s too soon to tell. There’s a majority for fixing or revising the program, but not for purging it.

This puts Republicans in a difficult spot. Their mantra, repeated over and over and over, is that the law must be “entirely repealed and replaced.” “One thing that all Republicans agreed on back in 2009 is that we thought Obamacare was a terrible mistake,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell reminded the public on Oct. 20. “We still think that, and we're going to do everything we can in the future to try to repeal it.” At an Oct. 29 press conference, House Speaker John Boehner agreed: “We want to repeal Obamacare and replace it with patient-centered health care.” When a reporter asked whether “Republicans would like to join in with some Democrats to change the law,” Boehner scoffed, “There is no way to fix this monstrosity.”

The polls don’t support that view. There’s a big gap between the public’s dissatisfaction and the GOP’s full-throated antagonism. Obama is filling that gap. He’s incorporating the dissatisfaction into his message of fixing, changing, and improving the law. That’s why he went to Boston yesterday to tout the Massachusetts law on which the Affordable Care Act was modeled. Obama and Gov. Deval Patrick recalled the early flaws in the Massachusetts program and how they were ironed out. Obama also told the story of President Bush’s prescription drug program: “Once it was the law, everybody pitched in to try to make it work.” He conceded Obamacare’s troubles and promised, “We are going to keep working to improve the law.”

The alternative, he argued, was callous spite. “If Republicans in Congress were as eager to help Americans get covered as some Republican governors have shown themselves to be, we'd make a lot of progress,” said Obama. Other governors, he warned, were “so locked in to the politics of this thing that they won't lift a finger to help their own people, and that’s leaving millions of Americans uninsured unnecessarily. That’s a shame. Because if they put as much energy into making this law work as they do in attacking the law, Americans would be better off.”

Obamacare’s problems could worsen. The public could turn against it. It could be repealed. But if its basic concept is as sound as the Massachusetts program—if it’s addressing a widespread problem and can be cleaned up with technical repairs and policy revisions—then the public will stick with it. And the GOP, eventually, will become the party of reform, not repeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that article makes sense, and it represents my own position. I didn't like Obamacare, didn't want it. But it's here, and not going away. So it needs to be fixed to make it better.

To me the most obvious solution is this: if your current insurance is cancelled due to Obamacare's new restrictions, and you find yourself forced to accept a new insurance which costs more money, then the federal government should provide you (or more likely the insurance company) a subsidy to take care of most or all of the difference. This will, of course, cause Obamacare to cost much more to the taxpayer than it does now. So be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You seemed to be confused about this. I'm not sure if you know this, but at one time Insurance companies wouldn't give insurance to individuals who had pre-existing conditions. These people wanted to buy policies. In some cases,The medical insurance companies would not insure them, or would drop them. Diminishing profits are A prority over human beings.. These people cannot get policies and they have families who need coverage. Yeah, the nerve of these so-called sick people. Crazy isn't it?

There was insurance for people with pre-existing conditions before ACA...

That made me spit out my morning coffee

It's true, being ignorant of that doesn't change reality.. You can save more coffee by being better informed or believing less of the liberal spin evidently.. My cousin is diabetic, and he had been on one of these plans since 2005. I don't remember the exact #'s, but he was paying nearly $600 a month for insurance and his new plan will be approximately $50 less a month. (While my plan doubled)

I wanted to clear up a few misconceptions here of Ballstein. First I'll address the second bolded part - it's simply not true. Some people did have their policies canceled, I can't deny that - but they were canceled because the person lied or knowingly mislead the carrier when completing their insurance application. I've seen it happen. If someone says on an application that they are perfectly healthy, or fails to mention something that they know is a medical condition/situation they have, and the insurance company finds out, it's quite literally insurance fraud, and the insurer can drop the policy.

On the first bolded part, the majority of states do offer plans that are "guaranteed issue". My home state Virginia is one of them. That doesn't mean we are a "guaranteed issue" state like New York or Mass with their high rates, it means that we have at least one what's called "insurer of last resorts", or a plan that can not be declined to anyone and one where the applicant doesn't need to answer a single medical question. I understand that these policies are very expensive (because they are guaranteed issue, much like the Obamacare plans and their high rates which are also guaranteed issue), but it is a coverage option for anyone. Here is a list of all the states, and if they have an "insurer of last resorts" -

http://www.zanebenefits.com/blog/bid/111113/State-by-State-Guide-to-Guaranteed-Issue-Health-Insurance-in-2012

Looking through it, there are only 3 states (Georgia, Hawaii and Arizona) which offer no plan for those people.

The Truth About the Insurance Industry

Insurers often complain that their critics don't understand their business practices. It would be hard to say that about Wendell Potter. Potter, whose name sounds like that of a character in a Frank Capra movie, worked in the health insurance industry for more than 20 years. He rose to be a senior executive at Cigna. He was on their calls, at their board meetings, in their books. And today, at a hearing before Sen. Jay Rockefeller's Commerce Committee, he testified against them.

What drove Potter from the health insurance business was, well, the health insurance business. The industry, Potter says, is driven by "two key figures: earnings per share and the medical-loss ratio, or medical-benefit ratio, as the industry now terms it. That is the ratio between what the company actually pays out in claims and what it has left over to cover sales, marketing, underwriting and other administrative expenses and, of course, profits."

Think about that term for a moment: The industry literally has a term for how much money it "loses" paying for health care.

The best way to drive down "medical-loss," explains Potter, is to stop insuring unhealthy people. You won't, after all, have to spend very much of a healthy person's dollar on medical care because he or she won't need much medical care. And the insurance industry accomplishes this through two main policies. "One is policy rescission," says Potter. "They look carefully to see if a sick policyholder may have omitted a minor illness, a pre-existing condition, when applying for coverage, and then they use that as justification to cancel the policy, even if the enrollee has never missed a premium payment."

And don't be fooled: rescission is important to the business model. Last week, at a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, Rep. Bart Stupak, the committee chairman, asked three insurance industry executives if they would commit to ending rescission except in cases of intentional fraud. "No," they each said.

Potter also emphasized the practice known as "purging." This is where insurers rid themselves of unprofitable accounts by slapping them with "intentionally unrealistic rate increases." One famous example came when Cigna decided to drive the Entertainment Industry Group Insurance Trust in California and New Jersey off of its books. It hit them with a rate increase that would have left some family plans costing more than $44,000 a year, and it gave them three months to come up with the cash.

The issue isn't that insurance companies are evil. It's that they need to be profitable. They have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit for shareholders. And as Potter explains, he's watched an insurer's stock price fall by more than 20 percent in a single day because the first-quarter medical-loss ratio had increased from 77.9 percent to 79.4 percent.

The reason we generally like markets is that the profit incentive spurs useful innovations. But in some markets, that's not the case. We don't allow a bustling market in heroin, for instance, because we don't want a lot of innovation in heroin creation, packaging and advertising. Are we really sure we want a bustling market in how to cleverly revoke the insurance of people who prove to be sickly?

Ezra Klien

Not surprising from Klein. In a nutshell, he wants insurance companies out of business because in essence he believes that for profit entities shouldn't be involved. The only solution to that is single payer, which surprise surprise, fits his political agenda. The whole premise behind Obamacare is passing the cost from those who are sick or have pre-existing conditions on to those who do not. Obviously to keep costs lower to their existing policyholders, insurance companies have not offered coverage in the past to some people mentioned above. They could have, but their policyholders would have had to pay more to offset that. Rather than pay more, obviously the insured would have left and went with another insurance company. The law essentially is going to force that transfer of cost to occur.

Perhaps, but Ballstein's point in posting this piece was to illustrate the shady tactics insurance companies used prior to the ACA to get rid of unhealthy people. Tactics that matttyl, not surprisingly, doesn't seem to believe existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that article makes sense, and it represents my own position. I didn't like Obamacare, didn't want it. But it's here, and not going away. So it needs to be fixed to make it better.

To me the most obvious solution is this: if your current insurance is cancelled due to Obamacare's new restrictions, and you find yourself forced to accept a new insurance which costs more money, then the federal government should provide you (or more likely the insurance company) a subsidy to take care of most or all of the difference. This will, of course, cause Obamacare to cost much more to the taxpayer than it does now. So be it.

:lmao:

And you call yourself conservative and suggest you care about the budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got my open enrollment at work which is a very large company.

The short of it? My options have been dropped from 4 to 3 now. The cost to keep the same insurance as I had last year will be another $600 on top of what I paid last year.

Of course, I am sure this is just a coincidence and has nothing to do with Obamacare. Oh and there was a nice message basically saying that if I don't sign up for one of these insurance options that I am pretty much screwed if I don't with the higher costs through Obamacare sans any subsidy (which I would not qualify for because I turned town the coverage from work).

very large company - self insured?

keep the same insurance - so no new mandated benefits?

Of course, I am sure this is just a coincidence and has nothing to do with Obamacare. - I don't think has that much to do with ObamaCare, but the rate of growth for health care has slowed down. So ObamaCare is not adding cost (at least yet) to the overall health care market.

So while I'm not a big fan of ObamaCare, I don't see how ObamaCare is the driver for your particular increase in cost. Unless the company is paying a smaller share to avoid cadillac plan tax. But since these plans don't really cover much more that doesn't seem like the best approach to avoid that tax.

There is lots of change happening in health care today because every one knows that the rate of growth of cost from the recent past is unsustainable. Most of this change has very little to do with the ACA and is happening with or without. For one thing, ACA is not even the biggest government mandated change for 2014, That would be ICD-10.

Like I said, I am sure it is all just a happy coincidence as there is nothing in the documents that say "Hey, because Obamcare is screwing everything up- you are screwed in these areas."

Well, that is except for the part that specifically informs me that if I don't get coverage through their much less generous terms than previously offered that I am pretty much screwed as I would not be able to get a cheaper plan that may better fit my needs and since I declined this coverage would not qualify for any assistance regardless of otherwise qualifying.

And of course, Obamacare has no impact on insurance unless you buy in the single serve marketplaces.

So as of yet "ObamaCare must be responsible" because of :whoosh:

I am willing to concede that I could be overlooking/"conveniently forgetting" a driver of cost that could come from changes caused by the ACA, but without one - or without one of the premises above being wrong then your rates are simply going up because health care cost increases continue (even though it has gotten better) to outpace the rest of the economy,

But while acknowledging that makes for a good conversation it does makes for poor right wing nonsense.

Do you buy the argument that because ACA hasn't really done anything to address the obvious cost issues, that it's part of the problem?

The rate of the growth of healthcare has slowed since the passage of ACA. I don't believe that ACA is all that responsible - it is normal market mechanism including the industry trying to fix itself before a government solution (ACA fits within the industry solution). So maybe the slowing down in the rate of growth would be greater without the ACA, maybe the ACA will cause this change in the near future, but even if so health care costs are going up at a slower rate than in the recent past. So how can that be part of the here and now problem? Since insurance companies are (or soon will be) required to spend a certain percentage on actual healthcare they don't really have the option of "banking" expected future costs, can they?

So while I understand that those with crappy plans because either they didn't cover anything, they had large built it in profit margins in the high risk-high rewards market, or the plans looked good on paper but were designed to quickly shed anyone that actually put in claims are facing having to find new plans. With two of the three of these groups needing to spend more to now have real coverage and to absorb the costs of the third group. Those are legitimate gripes, but I'm not sure I agree that any of these people are really losing with the resulting changes. It is a hard sell that I'm not willing to attempt to argue that the lifelong consumer protections are worth the higher costs. None of this however applies to Chad's situation as he presented it.

I still don't like the ACA, but where is it driving up costs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps, but Ballstein's point in posting this piece was to illustrate the shady tactics insurance companies used prior to the ACA to get rid of unhealthy people. Tactics that matttyl, not surprisingly, doesn't seem to believe existed.

When did I ever say that? I never said the insurance company prior to the ACA was perfect by any means. Of course there is a term called "medical loss ratio", in fact the government came in and defined it specifically and said how large it could be. Every industry has a number similar to that, it's just dubbed something else. Really it's nothing more than "gross profit", which now can only be a maximum of 20% (though on industry average it wasn't much more than that to start with), but it could be negative and the insurance company would have no recourse (I can't think of another industry that would be the case for).

I also specifically said in post #768 that people did have their policies canceled, and I said that I've personally seen it happen (I guess you missed that post - well you shouldn't have as it's the post that Ballstein specifically responded to above). They are saying the same thing that I did about policy "rescission", just from a different perspective. If you apply for auto insurance and fail to mention that you have had a pair of DUIs or a bunch of speeding tickets, should the insurance company still have to cover you if they find out? Of course that's the extreme end of it, and maybe something different would be if the person didn't know that she (not he, haha) were pregnant when taking the application. That's a very grey area, I agree - and that's the type of case I've seen. If you take a health application when you actually are pregnant and you didn't know about it, should the insurance company still have to cover any procedure when they didn't know about that when underwriting you and would have made a different decision if they had? Of course, if you have had "continuous coverage", it wouldn't matter as they couldn't deem them to be "pre-existing" at that time.

"Purging" don't happen very often, as it's can't the way things are typically set up. Insurance companies can't increase rates on only certain people, they have to increase them "across the board" for everyone in a particular insurance pool (typically everyone with a certain type of policy) and can only do so after getting approval from that state's Board of Insurance (BOI). That's the entire idea of insurance, spreading the risk across many people. The carrier has to justify any increase to the BOI before it's approved. Things can be different in large and/or self insured groups - which I would assume the "Entertainment Industry Group Insurance Trust" would be. They CAN NOT just increase rates on certain people who have had large claims, they have to increase everyone in that pool by the same rate - which is why it would benefit you to be part of a larger pool like "the state of California" rather than the "Entertainment Industry Group Insurance Trust" which would have far less people to spread risk among.

Again, I'm by no means saying the previous way things were set up were 100% perfect, they obviously weren't likely did need some adjustments (as it had received numerous times). I just think the current ACA structure (increasing prices for the young, guaranteed issue "anytime" without pre-ex, noncollectable penalties for not complying, covering things that I don't think need coverage with this type of policy that will only increase cost and decrease the number insured) is at all better. I also take a bit of offense to someone calling out my knowledge of the industry who apparently didn't know that men can't get pregnant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that article makes sense, and it represents my own position. I didn't like Obamacare, didn't want it. But it's here, and not going away. So it needs to be fixed to make it better.

To me the most obvious solution is this: if your current insurance is cancelled due to Obamacare's new restrictions, and you find yourself forced to accept a new insurance which costs more money, then the federal government should provide you (or more likely the insurance company) a subsidy to take care of most or all of the difference. This will, of course, cause Obamacare to cost much more to the taxpayer than it does now. So be it.

Who is having their plans cancelled?

  1. Those in plans of last resort that the industry built in large profit margins to cover the risk. These people are making out.
  2. Those better served in the exchange than the groups that small business owners could join.
  3. Those who had plans that did not cover the minimal requirements mandated by the ACA,
  4. Those who were healthy and had plans that they could keep until the actually required coverage when they would be dropped
  5. Who else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't like the ACA, but where is it driving up costs?

It's driving up the cost of coverage, not the cost of care. Those two are related, but not the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't like the ACA, but where is it driving up costs?

It's driving up the cost of coverage, not the cost of care. Those two are related, but not the same.

If "gross profits" are now capped and the cost of care is not going up (at least due to ACA) how can the cost of equivalent levels of coverage be being driven higher by ACA? Not for specific individuals but for the coverage providing industry?

Edited by Bottomfeeder Sports

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that article makes sense, and it represents my own position. I didn't like Obamacare, didn't want it. But it's here, and not going away. So it needs to be fixed to make it better.

To me the most obvious solution is this: if your current insurance is cancelled due to Obamacare's new restrictions, and you find yourself forced to accept a new insurance which costs more money, then the federal government should provide you (or more likely the insurance company) a subsidy to take care of most or all of the difference. This will, of course, cause Obamacare to cost much more to the taxpayer than it does now. So be it.

:lmao:

And you call yourself conservative and suggest you care about the budget.

Being conservative is not the equivalent of being ideologically rigid. Given the current involvement of the government in health care, which is not going away, we cannot just rely on the old formula "more spending bad, less spending good." We need fluidity and thoughtfulness. This is something you and the rest of the Tea Party have never understood, which is the main reason I oppose you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that article makes sense, and it represents my own position. I didn't like Obamacare, didn't want it. But it's here, and not going away. So it needs to be fixed to make it better.

To me the most obvious solution is this: if your current insurance is cancelled due to Obamacare's new restrictions, and you find yourself forced to accept a new insurance which costs more money, then the federal government should provide you (or more likely the insurance company) a subsidy to take care of most or all of the difference. This will, of course, cause Obamacare to cost much more to the taxpayer than it does now. So be it.

Who is having their plans cancelled?

  1. Those in plans of last resort that the industry built in large profit margins to cover the risk. These people are making out.
  2. Those better served in the exchange than the groups that small business owners could join.
  3. Those who had plans that did not cover the minimal requirements mandated by the ACA,
  4. Those who were healthy and had plans that they could keep until the actually required coverage when they would be dropped
  5. Who else?

I have no idea how much of what you've written is true, but here's what I do know:

1. For the past few weeks, I have been reading several stories of people all over the USA who were satisfied with their health care and who are now seeing it cancelled, and being replaced with something much more expensive which they cannot afford.

2. According to NBC News and the Los Angeles Times, two sources I tend to respect, the number of people negatively affected by this runs into the millions.

So my response to you is that if you're correct, and people aren't being hurt like is being claimed, no problem. But if they really are being hurt, then I want to help them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't like the ACA, but where is it driving up costs?

It's driving up the cost of coverage, not the cost of care. Those two are related, but not the same.

If "gross profits" are now capped and the cost of care is not going up (at least due to ACA) how can the cost of equivalent levels of coverage be being driven higher by ACA? Not for specific individuals but for the coverage providing industry?

I'm not talking about specific individuals, I'm talking the average cost per individual (no matter if they previously had coverage, or previously didn't but could obtain it). That will now have to go up considerably to cover everyone without underwriting, with guaranteed issue and without pre-ex limits.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that article makes sense, and it represents my own position. I didn't like Obamacare, didn't want it. But it's here, and not going away. So it needs to be fixed to make it better.

To me the most obvious solution is this: if your current insurance is cancelled due to Obamacare's new restrictions, and you find yourself forced to accept a new insurance which costs more money, then the federal government should provide you (or more likely the insurance company) a subsidy to take care of most or all of the difference. This will, of course, cause Obamacare to cost much more to the taxpayer than it does now. So be it.

Who is having their plans cancelled?

  1. Those in plans of last resort that the industry built in large profit margins to cover the risk. These people are making out.
  2. Those better served in the exchange than the groups that small business owners could join.
  3. Those who had plans that did not cover the minimal requirements mandated by the ACA,
  4. Those who were healthy and had plans that they could keep until the actually required coverage when they would be dropped
  5. Who else?

1 is an extremely small percentage, maybe 5%. This group DID NOT have "large profit margins to cover the risk" at all, this was a group of people that the insurance industry lost money on, but were mandated to cover by law in all but 3 states.

2 is also a very small percentage. Over 90% of the groups I've seen are having their small business plan premiums go up substantially to go to the exchange from what they had. If nothing else, they should be able to keep what they had if they wanted like the President promised over and over. If they actually are better served in the exchange than in the small group they were previously in, they could still enroll on the exchange if they desired to, they shouldn't be forced to.

3 is a HUGE number (over half the individual market, actually), but the entire group is based on a lie that you could keep your coverage. So what if a single male doesn't have maternity or pediatric oral care, he has absolutely no need for either - same with a couple in their 50s or 60s. Shouldn't individuals be able to pick their own coverage? Why does the government think they know what people need better than those people themselves? Again, where is the choice here?

4 This is a lie. I posted above about "rescission", which in most cases is a fancy word for "insurance fraud".

5 - people who had employment based coverage that's getting dropped by the employer because it's now too expensive to carry with all the additional mandated coverage? What about them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't like the ACA, but where is it driving up costs?

It's driving up the cost of coverage, not the cost of care. Those two are related, but not the same.

If "gross profits" are now capped and the cost of care is not going up (at least due to ACA) how can the cost of equivalent levels of coverage be being driven higher by ACA? Not for specific individuals but for the coverage providing industry?

I'm not talking about specific individuals, I'm talking the average cost per individual (no matter if they previously had coverage, or previously didn't but could obtain it). That will now have to go up considerably to cover everyone without underwriting, with guaranteed issue and without pre-ex limits.

Insurance industry cost have gone up where in this equation? What are they paying for today that they didn't pay for yesterday? Remixing the population pools doesn't change anything. Adding new sick people would without offsetting with healthy people would but only if these people are getting more costly care they weren't already receiving care. But if that is the case the rate of the growth of health care itself would have to go up also. Maybe it will. But it hasn't! And it is not projected to as linked yesterday morning. So what am I missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't like the ACA, but where is it driving up costs?

It's driving up the cost of coverage, not the cost of care. Those two are related, but not the same.

If "gross profits" are now capped and the cost of care is not going up (at least due to ACA) how can the cost of equivalent levels of coverage be being driven higher by ACA? Not for specific individuals but for the coverage providing industry?

You think you can magically cover more people (many of which are more costly to cover) without addressing the cost of care and then not have the cost of coverage increase for everyone?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't like the ACA, but where is it driving up costs?

It's driving up the cost of coverage, not the cost of care. Those two are related, but not the same.

If "gross profits" are now capped and the cost of care is not going up (at least due to ACA) how can the cost of equivalent levels of coverage be being driven higher by ACA? Not for specific individuals but for the coverage providing industry?

I'm not talking about specific individuals, I'm talking the average cost per individual (no matter if they previously had coverage, or previously didn't but could obtain it). That will now have to go up considerably to cover everyone without underwriting, with guaranteed issue and without pre-ex limits.

Insurance industry cost have gone up where in this equation? What are they paying for today that they didn't pay for yesterday? Remixing the population pools doesn't change anything. Adding new sick people would without offsetting with healthy people would but only if these people are getting more costly care they weren't already receiving care. But if that is the case the rate of the growth of health care itself would have to go up also. Maybe it will. But it hasn't! And it is not projected to as linked yesterday morning. So what am I missing?

You live in 1 of the few areas in the US where the cost of insurance hasn't jumped substantially... It may not effect you. Don't assume the ACA isn't negatively impacting others based on the rates in your area..

My policy was canceled... My cost has gone up 110%... I was happy with the insurance I had...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that article makes sense, and it represents my own position. I didn't like Obamacare, didn't want it. But it's here, and not going away. So it needs to be fixed to make it better.

To me the most obvious solution is this: if your current insurance is cancelled due to Obamacare's new restrictions, and you find yourself forced to accept a new insurance which costs more money, then the federal government should provide you (or more likely the insurance company) a subsidy to take care of most or all of the difference. This will, of course, cause Obamacare to cost much more to the taxpayer than it does now. So be it.

Who is having their plans cancelled?

  • Those in plans of last resort that the industry built in large profit margins to cover the risk. These people are making out.
  • Those better served in the exchange than the groups that small business owners could join.
  • Those who had plans that did not cover the minimal requirements mandated by the ACA,
  • Those who were healthy and had plans that they could keep until the actually required coverage when they would be dropped
  • Who else?
I have no idea how much of what you've written is true, but here's what I do know:

1. For the past few weeks, I have been reading several stories of people all over the USA who were satisfied with their health care and who are now seeing it cancelled, and being replaced with something much more expensive which they cannot afford.

2. According to NBC News and the Los Angeles Times, two sources I tend to respect, the number of people negatively affected by this runs into the millions.

So my response to you is that if you're correct, and people aren't being hurt like is being claimed, no problem. But if they really are being hurt, then I want to help them.

Tim there are winners and losers across the economic spectrum with every policy change. Campaign promises don't change that. But the insurance industry altering their offerings pretty much annually isn't new. The NBC article simply states that this is why the administration should have known people couldn't keep their plans. The industry changes too much on its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Insurance industry cost have gone up where in this equation? What are they paying for today that they didn't pay for yesterday? Remixing the population pools doesn't change anything. Adding new sick people would without offsetting with healthy people would but only if these people are getting more costly care they weren't already receiving care. But if that is the case the rate of the growth of health care itself would have to go up also. Maybe it will. But it hasn't! And it is not projected to as linked yesterday morning. So what am I missing?

First off, your post is extremely hard to read.

As for what they are paying for today that they didn't pay for yesterday - easy, all the currently uninsurable people that they before could either only offer "a plan of last resort" (or in 3 states decline all together). Now they have to offer them a plan at the very same cost and very same benefits and without pre-exisiting limits they currently could use. Because of that, costs will skyrocket for the individual insured - which we've already seen. You've apparently already known that answer, which you put above and I underlined for you. Before the insurance company could either decline them or put them in a different risk pool or on plans with higher deductibles and with pre-existing limits.

As for the "growth of health care", that won't go up until and unless those people start receiving care via the ACA, which won't occur till 1/1/14 (if the website ends up allowing it). Get back to me in 2-3 years with that figure if the ACA goes forward as scheduled without major changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You live in 1 of the few areas in the US where the cost of insurance hasn't jumped substantially... It may not effect you. Don't assume the ACA isn't negatively impacting others based on the rates in your area..

My policy was canceled... My cost has gone up 110%... I was happy with the insurance I had...

But it wouldn't cover you if you got pregnant!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim there are winners and losers across the economic spectrum with every policy change. Campaign promises don't change that. But the insurance industry altering their offerings pretty much annually isn't new. The NBC article simply states that this is why the administration should have known people couldn't keep their plans. The industry changes too much on its own.

Not what it said, read it again. It said the administration DID KNOW that people wouldn't be able to keep their plans, as that was the entire plan from day 1. That was not the fault of the insurance carriers, they had no choice in the matter - any policy issued after 3.28.2010 regardless of what it covered or didn't wouldn't be compliant and thus had to be replaced with a plan that had to place those people in insurance pools with many more sick people thus increasing their rates - as we've seen, and which was the plan from the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that ACA won't actually expand coverage and that the number of uninsured under Obamacare won't ever fall below 30 million.

A McKinsey report now estimates ACA will cost taxpayers at least an additional $400 billion more than originally proposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You live in 1 of the few areas in the US where the cost of insurance hasn't jumped substantially... It may not effect you. Don't assume the ACA isn't negatively impacting others based on the rates in your area..

My policy was canceled... My cost has gone up 110%... I was happy with the insurance I had...

But it wouldn't cover you if you got pregnant!!!

I think I am beyond my child bearing years...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that article makes sense, and it represents my own position. I didn't like Obamacare, didn't want it. But it's here, and not going away. So it needs to be fixed to make it better.

To me the most obvious solution is this: if your current insurance is cancelled due to Obamacare's new restrictions, and you find yourself forced to accept a new insurance which costs more money, then the federal government should provide you (or more likely the insurance company) a subsidy to take care of most or all of the difference. This will, of course, cause Obamacare to cost much more to the taxpayer than it does now. So be it.

Who is having their plans cancelled?

  • Those in plans of last resort that the industry built in large profit margins to cover the risk. These people are making out.
  • Those better served in the exchange than the groups that small business owners could join.
  • Those who had plans that did not cover the minimal requirements mandated by the ACA,
  • Those who were healthy and had plans that they could keep until the actually required coverage when they would be dropped
  • Who else?
I have no idea how much of what you've written is true, but here's what I do know:

1. For the past few weeks, I have been reading several stories of people all over the USA who were satisfied with their health care and who are now seeing it cancelled, and being replaced with something much more expensive which they cannot afford.

2. According to NBC News and the Los Angeles Times, two sources I tend to respect, the number of people negatively affected by this runs into the millions.

So my response to you is that if you're correct, and people aren't being hurt like is being claimed, no problem. But if they really are being hurt, then I want to help them.

Tim there are winners and losers across the economic spectrum with every policy change. Campaign promises don't change that. But the insurance industry altering their offerings pretty much annually isn't new. The NBC article simply states that this is why the administration should have known people couldn't keep their plans. The industry changes too much on its own.

My attitude toward this is exactly the same as it was to the sequester: I am not in favor of suddenn changes to the system which hurt people. Change is inevitable, but in our day and age there should be ways to make it less painful by doing things more thoughtfully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.