Report your experience with getting insurance via ACA (1 Viewer)

[Ministry of Pain]

HealthCare.gov pricing feature can be off the mark

Thanks Dallas. So the administration and the government can't even be honest about the costs at this point in the process. I'm speechless, what else could you possibly need to start reconsidering this whole thing?

This whole ACA has really jaded me and it's not GOP/DNC, it's the whole thing. All the politicians are corrupt, it doesn't matter what flag they waive to try and appeal to you.

You gotta admire how the French handled this back in the 1700s, I think we CAN learn from our European counterparts, we just need to go back in history and borrow a couple of lessons left behind. Now I am NOT promoting violence but more of a guillotine(in VOTES at the POLL) to the whole GD system. We are all getting bent over the desk, it's amazing we can't all come together and use this as a way to unite. I'm not kidding.

I don't want to fight Left/Right because that just plays into their hands, don't you all get it? You all think I'm the nutcase but I feel like I am one of the few people in here that can see what is happening.

And turning the anger towards the President, waste of time. I already know who I am voting for in 2016, Hillary Clinton. No one has a better resume and more experience than her. But she is 1 person, just like Obama, yes they have all kinds of powers but ultimately it is the 535 idiots in the House and Senate. They need to go and new parties need to come in that are not going to be so divisive towards the people in this country. One person is not going to change anything, you have to go in and cut the cancer out, it's really that simple although I know I am speaking in a vacuum here.

This issue is going to go on and on and on, it never ends. It won't be fully rolling for quite some time and then it ramps up rather slowly so the ramifications on all the conjecture both ways, that won't be decided for quite some time.

Where is the emergency glass on the mary-jane? That was the best healthcare plan I ever had back in Cali.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

How are the most poor and vulnerable among us going to confirm their identity through a credit reporting agency when producing an ID to vote is too burdensome? And they're going to need the subsidy the most.

Sort of weird.

Another outstanding point that we cannot seem to get an answer for. You need a credit report, many poor people have never had credit or the opp to perhaps obtain it and they need this the most. That is going to crete red tape and lines worse than the DMV before this is all over.

The lower middle to upper middle class are just going to get bent over on this and I wonder what the incentive is going to be for them to continue. They already are getting screwed and not able to find jobs that match their skills or previous job levels, now they have to lose more of their hard earned money for all of this.

Why are the top 1% in this country not footing the bill for all of this? Fine, those folks will pass it on by raising the cost of whatever goods/services they produce or sell...FINE. Maybe everyone doesn't need an i-Phone, Warren Buffett doesn't have one, has only sent 1 email in his entire life to Microsoft and it ended up in a MInnesota court...you following all this? Probably not, old man MOP is crazy lunatic with no remorse for his own family and friends plus Walgreens employees, yeah keep telling yourself that.

I thought of another thread...goods/services they can't charge enough for. Mainly popular things/goods that you refuse to buy into and are shocked that people who make half of what you do seem to have them all.

I think I'm done throwing up this morning but the day is early still.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

B/c you don't have any data MOP. You're just inventing a bunch of bull#### to scare people.

Some will pay more, some will pay less.

No, many (most) will pay a lot more so that some can have the option of paying anything at all. That's the only way this thing works. If there aren't enough people that decide to pay more, and opt to go without, this whole thing falls apart.

Hey Kee, are you angry because you believe that post to be false? If so, can you share in what way so we can all learn? Or are you mad because you know that post is true and it pisses you off?

I'm mad because it's true... I will end up paying a lot more so some people can get away with paying little-to-none.

Kee, I think most in here respect you a lot more than me so I appreciate you weighing in on this.

 

[datonn]

How are the most poor and vulnerable among us going to confirm their identity through a credit reporting agency when producing an ID to vote is too burdensome? And they're going to need the subsidy the most.

Sort of weird.

Another outstanding point that we cannot seem to get an answer for. You need a credit report, many poor people have never had credit or the opp to perhaps obtain it and they need this the most. That is going to crete red tape and lines worse than the DMV before this is all over.

The lower middle to upper middle class are just going to get bent over on this and I wonder what the incentive is going to be for them to continue. They already are getting screwed and not able to find jobs that match their skills or previous job levels, now they have to lose more of their hard earned money for all of this.

Why are the top 1% in this country not footing the bill for all of this? Fine, those folks will pass it on by raising the cost of whatever goods/services they produce or sell...FINE. Maybe everyone doesn't need an i-Phone, Warren Buffett doesn't have one, has only sent 1 email in his entire life to Microsoft and it ended up in a MInnesota court...you following all this? Probably not, old man MOP is crazy lunatic with no remorse for his own family and friends plus Walgreens employees, yeah keep telling yourself that.

I thought of another thread...goods/services they can't charge enough for. Mainly popular things/goods that you refuse to buy into and are shocked that people who make half of what you do seem to have them all.

I think I'm done throwing up this morning but the day is early still.

Other than smartphones (item #1 on the list, per your post), can I help work on that list of things that I am shocked people who make half what I do seem to have/consume all the time:

1. smartphones

2. houses (versus renting)

3. new(er) vehicles

4. large screen TVs

5. lots 'o alcohol

6. cigarettes

7. drugs (of the illegal variety)

 

[Keerock]

B/c you don't have any data MOP. You're just inventing a bunch of bull#### to scare people.

Some will pay more, some will pay less.

No, many (most) will pay a lot more so that some can have the option of paying anything at all. That's the only way this thing works. If there aren't enough people that decide to pay more, and opt to go without, this whole thing falls apart.

Hey Kee, are you angry because you believe that post to be false? If so, can you share in what way so we can all learn? Or are you mad because you know that post is true and it pisses you off?

I'm mad because it's true... I will end up paying a lot more so some people can get away with paying little-to-none.

Kee, I think most in here respect you a lot more than me so I appreciate you weighing in on this.

So you're saying you don't respect me?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Kee, I think most in here respect you a lot more than me so I appreciate you weighing in on this.

So you're saying you don't respect me?

You are in the Justice League, not the Legion of Doom in here

 

[Foosball God]

HealthCare.gov pricing feature can be off the mark

Well yeah, if you don't put in your actual information then you're not going to get your actual rate. If some assumptions have to be made then sometimes those assumptions will be wrong for a particular person/enrollment group.

 

[Foosball God]

HealthCare.gov pricing feature can be off the mark

Thanks Dallas. So the administration and the government can't even be honest about the costs at this point in the process. I'm speechless, what else could you possibly need to start reconsidering this whole thing?

This whole ACA has really jaded me and it's not GOP/DNC, it's the whole thing. All the politicians are corrupt, it doesn't matter what flag they waive to try and appeal to you.

You gotta admire how the French handled this back in the 1700s, I think we CAN learn from our European counterparts, we just need to go back in history and borrow a couple of lessons left behind. Now I am NOT promoting violence but more of a guillotine(in VOTES at the POLL) to the whole GD system. We are all getting bent over the desk, it's amazing we can't all come together and use this as a way to unite. I'm not kidding.

I don't want to fight Left/Right because that just plays into their hands, don't you all get it? You all think I'm the nutcase but I feel like I am one of the few people in here that can see what is happening.

And turning the anger towards the President, waste of time. I already know who I am voting for in 2016, Hillary Clinton. No one has a better resume and more experience than her. But she is 1 person, just like Obama, yes they have all kinds of powers but ultimately it is the 535 idiots in the House and Senate. They need to go and new parties need to come in that are not going to be so divisive towards the people in this country. One person is not going to change anything, you have to go in and cut the cancer out, it's really that simple although I know I am speaking in a vacuum here.

This issue is going to go on and on and on, it never ends. It won't be fully rolling for quite some time and then it ramps up rather slowly so the ramifications on all the conjecture both ways, that won't be decided for quite some time.

Where is the emergency glass on the mary-jane? That was the best healthcare plan I ever had back in Cali.

You can't have it both ways. If you want an anonymous shopper component then you're going to have to enter in generic information. The rating engine needs specific information in order to provide the correct rate, and if you don't provide that information the front end has to make some assumptions and send that. Anonymous shopper was always going to be informational only and you had to go in and make sure it would be your actual rate.

 

[matttyl]

HealthCare.gov pricing feature can be off the mark

Well yeah, if you don't put in your actual information then you're not going to get your actual rate. If some assumptions have to be made then sometimes those assumptions will be wrong for a particular person/enrollment group.

How can you enter in your actual information when all it asks is below 50 or above 50?!

 

[TheIronSheik]

Maybe they should have just let 25 people a week sign up. Staggered it out over a couple hundred thousand years.

 

[Foosball God]

HealthCare.gov pricing feature can be off the mark

Well yeah, if you don't put in your actual information then you're not going to get your actual rate. If some assumptions have to be made then sometimes those assumptions will be wrong for a particular person/enrollment group.

How can you enter in your actual information when all it asks is below 50 or above 50?!

Then you create an account and enter it in. Listen, I'm not going to defend that level because I think they need to provide more options than that. My main point is that there is always going to be some level of assumption built into an anonymous shopper component, so there is always going to be the possibility of a rate variance. Even in today's world that is true. Healthcare.gov use to has provided this for years, but it has always been couched with the warnings that it was for education purposes only and actual rates may vary.

 

[dallas]

HealthCare.gov pricing feature can be off the mark

Well yeah, if you don't put in your actual information then you're not going to get your actual rate. If some assumptions have to be made then sometimes those assumptions will be wrong for a particular person/enrollment group.

I get that. It seems like a birthdate could help narrow down the cost a lot and would be a simple question to answer rather than the over/under 50. If the rates are going to be inaccurate then they should just stick to their original plan to make everyone register. I don't see the benefit to showing incorrect pricing even if it was only incorrect to 10% of people (which it sounds like it will incorrect for a much higher %).

 

[Foosball God]

HealthCare.gov pricing feature can be off the mark

Well yeah, if you don't put in your actual information then you're not going to get your actual rate. If some assumptions have to be made then sometimes those assumptions will be wrong for a particular person/enrollment group.

I get that. It seems like a birthdate could help narrow down the cost a lot and would be a simple question to answer rather than the over/under 50. If the rates are going to be inaccurate then they should just stick to their original plan to make everyone register. I don't see the benefit to showing incorrect pricing even if it was only incorrect to 10% of people (which it sounds like it will incorrect for a much higher %).

I agree that the way they are presenting it now doesn't make much sense. But I disagree with the premise of the headline which is that the pricing engine is giving incorrect rates. It's giving correct rates for the inputs it receives.

 

[Chaka]

Please try and keep politics out of this!!

How's that working out?

 

[tom22406]

Please try and keep politics out of this!!

How's that working out?

Like a fart in church on a wooden bench.

 

[matttyl]

HealthCare.gov pricing feature can be off the mark

Well yeah, if you don't put in your actual information then you're not going to get your actual rate. If some assumptions have to be made then sometimes those assumptions will be wrong for a particular person/enrollment group.

How can you enter in your actual information when all it asks is below 50 or above 50?!

Then you create an account and enter it in. Listen, I'm not going to defend that level because I think they need to provide more options than that. My main point is that there is always going to be some level of assumption built into an anonymous shopper component, so there is always going to be the possibility of a rate variance. Even in today's world that is true. Healthcare.gov use to has provided this for years, but it has always been couched with the warnings that it was for education purposes only and actual rates may vary.

Hmm, ehealth.com, which I've asked people to look into, asks for zip code, DOB and tobacco use before giving you rates - so their rates are accurate. That's been working since October 1st just fine. Why can't healthcare.gov do the same when someone wants an anonymous quote? Maybe they should just provide a link to ehealth!

 

[matttyl]

I agree that the way they are presenting it now doesn't make much sense. But I disagree with the premise of the headline which is that the pricing engine is giving incorrect rates. It's giving correct rates for the inputs it receives.

No it's not. It's assuming that EVERYONE who says they are under 50 is actually 27 years old. That's correct for like 2% of people under 50.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

How are the most poor and vulnerable among us going to confirm their identity through a credit reporting agency when producing an ID to vote is too burdensome? And they're going to need the subsidy the most.

Sort of weird.

Another outstanding point that we cannot seem to get an answer for. You need a credit report, many poor people have never had credit or the opp to perhaps obtain it and they need this the most.

Meow! [thud]

You get that those people are on Medicaid already, right?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

How are the most poor and vulnerable among us going to confirm their identity through a credit reporting agency when producing an ID to vote is too burdensome? And they're going to need the subsidy the most.

Sort of weird.

Another outstanding point that we cannot seem to get an answer for. You need a credit report, many poor people have never had credit or the opp to perhaps obtain it and they need this the most.

Meow! [thud]

You get that those people are on Medicaid already, right?

Well if all the poor people or 1/6 of the country can get Medicaid already then why are doing this to begin with?

 

[Foosball God]

HealthCare.gov pricing feature can be off the mark

Well yeah, if you don't put in your actual information then you're not going to get your actual rate. If some assumptions have to be made then sometimes those assumptions will be wrong for a particular person/enrollment group.

How can you enter in your actual information when all it asks is below 50 or above 50?!

Then you create an account and enter it in. Listen, I'm not going to defend that level because I think they need to provide more options than that. My main point is that there is always going to be some level of assumption built into an anonymous shopper component, so there is always going to be the possibility of a rate variance. Even in today's world that is true. Healthcare.gov use to has provided this for years, but it has always been couched with the warnings that it was for education purposes only and actual rates may vary.

Hmm, ehealth.com, which I've asked people to look into, asks for zip code, DOB and tobacco use before giving you rates - so their rates are accurate. That's been working since October 1st just fine. Why can't healthcare.gov do the same when someone wants an anonymous quote? Maybe they should just provide a link to ehealth!

Their rates are probably fairly accurate, but unless they are running through the same eligibility rules as the Exchange Rating Engine is then it isn't going to be 100% accurate. I've already said that the current way they are presenting this doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[Foosball God]

How are the most poor and vulnerable among us going to confirm their identity through a credit reporting agency when producing an ID to vote is too burdensome? And they're going to need the subsidy the most.

Sort of weird.

Another outstanding point that we cannot seem to get an answer for. You need a credit report, many poor people have never had credit or the opp to perhaps obtain it and they need this the most.

Meow! [thud]

 

[matttyl]

Their rates are probably fairly accurate, but unless they are running through the same eligibility rules as the Exchange Rating Engine is then it isn't going to be 100% accurate. I've already said that the current way they are presenting this doesn't make a lot of sense.

they are presenting the full (unsubsidized) rates on ehealth.com - so income and "eligibility" doesn't matter. So if anything, someone would be paying less if they qualify for that.

 

[Foosball God]

Their rates are probably fairly accurate, but unless they are running through the same eligibility rules as the Exchange Rating Engine is then it isn't going to be 100% accurate. I've already said that the current way they are presenting this doesn't make a lot of sense.

they are presenting the full (unsubsidized) rates on ehealth.com - so income and "eligibility" doesn't matter. So if anything, someone would be paying less if they qualify for that.

Of course eligibility matters. If they aren't eligible for a plan then they won't be able to get that plan. If they can't get the plan then the "price" they pay for insurance is going to be off.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

How are the most poor and vulnerable among us going to confirm their identity through a credit reporting agency when producing an ID to vote is too burdensome? And they're going to need the subsidy the most.

Sort of weird.

Another outstanding point that we cannot seem to get an answer for. You need a credit report, many poor people have never had credit or the opp to perhaps obtain it and they need this the most.

Meow! [thud]

You get that those people are on Medicaid already, right?

Well if all the poor people or 1/6 of the country can get Medicaid already then why are doing this to begin with?

To solve the pre-existing condition / free rider problem. And to internalize costs that are currently externalized (such as the costs of health care that is provided to the uninsured).

This is what I'm talking about. If you don't even understand what the ACA was passed to do, it is extremely hard to take any criticisms you have particularly seriously.

The uninsured problem isn't about the poorest Americans. They have a single-payer system. It does affect a proportion of the working poor, but they likely can be identified through Experian, since the working poor generally have rent and utility payments and the like. Experian has a process for verifying those who don't generate a credit history, often young adults still living with their parents (although even then that seems like a made up issue since parents can keep their kids on their own plans up to age 26).

 

[matttyl]

Unless the parents are also on an individual policy and they don't qualify for a subsidy while their "working poor" child would.

 

[Chaka]

It's not the greatest system but it isn't the demon some make it out to be.

I am not sure why so many people are opposed to paying a little bit more to help out those in need. It would be nice to know that people cared enough to do that even for complete strangers.

Besides it's not like that isn't happening already as insurance companies pass on costs from ER visits, which is pretty much the most expensive medical delivery system possible.

 

[matttyl]

Paying "a little bit more" would be one thing. Paying a whole lot more is something completely different. If I were to go to an ACA plan, my costs would over double. That's not "a little bit more" at all.

I'm all for charity....to a point.

When asked, the average American was happy to say "no, insurance companies shouldn't be able to exclude someone for pre-ex conditions, or even charge more for them." On the surface that just sounds wonderful for all.....until they saw the costs that go along with it.

Would I pay 5, 10, even 15% more on my groceries bill so no one in this country would go hungry? Of course I would. That's not what we're talking about here for many, many people, though.

 

[StrikeS2k]

It's not the greatest system but it isn't the demon some make it out to be.

I am not sure why so many people are opposed to paying a little bit more to help out those in need. It would be nice to know that people cared enough to do that even for complete strangers.

Besides it's not like that isn't happening already as insurance companies pass on costs from ER visits, which is pretty much the most expensive medical delivery system possible.

While I am somewhat opposed to that, my main complaints have to do with the government forcing people to have health insurance and dictating the minimum requirements for the plans I am allowed to purchase.

 

[Warrior]

GTA Online is also having problems on its initial launch day.

Health care is a government mandate. GTA Online is not.

Open enrollment doesn't end until March of next year. Pretty sure they have a little time to get this sorted out.

The funnier part is that GTA Online probably got sorted out more quickly than this will.

Gee I would think the funny part is that the all powerful market driven private sector company is having the same issues as the allegedly incompetent public sector.

For a video game that they charged you $50 for and had a budget a small fraction of what ACA has to deal with. And they'll probably have it working in a couple of days, because unlike the federal government Rockstar actually needs to concern itself with the product it delivers and its reputation.

so you are saying Rockstar charges a price that does not incorporate its business costs into running a seemless experience for its customers?interesting.

They know their customers don't expect a seamless experience for $50.

Health care has been mandated by the government. Given the fact that you guys got this all put in place based on how important you view this coverage, it's hilarious that you're now comparing the delivery of the product to a $50 video game.

Agreed. Key Word Is 'Mandated'

 

[TheIronSheik]

It's not the greatest system but it isn't the demon some make it out to be.

I am not sure why so many people are opposed to paying a little bit more to help out those in need. It would be nice to know that people cared enough to do that even for complete strangers.

Besides it's not like that isn't happening already as insurance companies pass on costs from ER visits, which is pretty much the most expensive medical delivery system possible.

Because I don't want to. Why should I be forced to pay more so others don't have to?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Unless the parents are also on an individual policy and they don't qualify for a subsidy while their "working poor" child would.

So let's summarize.

In some rare instance, a single parent who doesn't qualify for a subsidy might have a dependent child with no credit history who does qualify for a subsidy. In such a situation, that single parent could claim the child as a dependent up to age 26 on a family plan (a new option, and insurers are not allowed to impose residency or marital status, or school requirements) or that child could get subsidized individual coverage (a new option). But it's possible that in order to fully take advantage of these increased choices under ACA, that child will have to clear some bureaucratic hurdles (which were anticipated and accounted for when Experian was bid to handle manual verifications).

Explain to me again how this illustrates a problem with the ACA? Even leaving aside that we're dealing with a reported sample of one bureaucratic foul-up, and that bureaucratic foul-ups are common place in the private health insurance system, the situation you're describing is an improvement.

 

[Sarnoff]

It's not the greatest system but it isn't the demon some make it out to be.

I am not sure why so many people are opposed to paying a little bit more to help out those in need. It would be nice to know that people cared enough to do that even for complete strangers.

Besides it's not like that isn't happening already as insurance companies pass on costs from ER visits, which is pretty much the most expensive medical delivery system possible.

I just want to make sure I understand something here. The only way this system is going to work is if the young and healthy participate as well, to subsidize costs incurred by the older and sicker people, right? If we absolutely need a flood of 20-somethings to buy into the system for it to be solvent, why are they allowed to stay on their parent's plans until they're 25?

 

[Chaka]

It's not the greatest system but it isn't the demon some make it out to be.

I am not sure why so many people are opposed to paying a little bit more to help out those in need. It would be nice to know that people cared enough to do that even for complete strangers.

Besides it's not like that isn't happening already as insurance companies pass on costs from ER visits, which is pretty much the most expensive medical delivery system possible.

Because I don't want to. Why should I be forced to pay more so others don't have to?

Because you are a nice guy who doesn't want to see people suffer when you can help prevent it?

 

[Foosball God]

It's not the greatest system but it isn't the demon some make it out to be.

I am not sure why so many people are opposed to paying a little bit more to help out those in need. It would be nice to know that people cared enough to do that even for complete strangers.

Besides it's not like that isn't happening already as insurance companies pass on costs from ER visits, which is pretty much the most expensive medical delivery system possible.

I just want to make sure I understand something here. The only way this system is going to work is if the young and healthy participate as well, to subsidize costs incurred by the older and sicker people, right? If we absolutely need a flood of 20-somethings to buy into the system for it to be solvent, why are they allowed to stay on their parent's plans until they're 25?

It's not like being on your parent's plan makes you free. Instead of the kid paying it will be the parent. End result is there is still the money coming into the system.

 

[TheIronSheik]

It's not the greatest system but it isn't the demon some make it out to be.

I am not sure why so many people are opposed to paying a little bit more to help out those in need. It would be nice to know that people cared enough to do that even for complete strangers.

Besides it's not like that isn't happening already as insurance companies pass on costs from ER visits, which is pretty much the most expensive medical delivery system possible.

Because I don't want to. Why should I be forced to pay more so others don't have to?

Because you are a nice guy who doesn't want to see people suffer when you can help prevent it?

You have me confused with someone else. I cheer hometown athletes who hurt their ankles.

 

[Chaka]

It's not the greatest system but it isn't the demon some make it out to be.

I am not sure why so many people are opposed to paying a little bit more to help out those in need. It would be nice to know that people cared enough to do that even for complete strangers.

Besides it's not like that isn't happening already as insurance companies pass on costs from ER visits, which is pretty much the most expensive medical delivery system possible.

Because I don't want to. Why should I be forced to pay more so others don't have to?

Because you are a nice guy who doesn't want to see people suffer when you can help prevent it?

You have me confused with someone else. I cheer hometown athletes who hurt their ankles.

I doubt that.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

It's not the greatest system but it isn't the demon some make it out to be.

I am not sure why so many people are opposed to paying a little bit more to help out those in need. It would be nice to know that people cared enough to do that even for complete strangers.

Besides it's not like that isn't happening already as insurance companies pass on costs from ER visits, which is pretty much the most expensive medical delivery system possible.

Because I don't want to. Why should I be forced to pay more so others don't have to?

The flippant answer is because your side lost the election.

The non-flippant answer is because you already pay more because other people don't. Some of that is captured in your insurance premiums which are affected by the costs of treating the uninsured. Part of it is captured in some people who are forced onto Medicaid because of pre-existing conditions (I know a guy who was upper management at a small contracting business who was fired because his daughter's cystic fibrosis brought the company's rates through the roof. The guy had to go manage a Home Depot because he literally couldn't afford to take a job that took him off Medicaid).

The final part of the answer is that we still don't have great data that you'll be paying much more on day one under the exchanges (and that the day one picture doesn't tell us anything about how the exchanges work as a market to control costs because the cost controlling feature of the market-price competition-won't take effect until people start shopping). I don't even know what the fair comparison is. The quotes I get under the DC exchange are lower than the total cost of insurance under my employer's coverage if I consider the total cost. The same holds true if I use a single rate instead of a family rate. The rates are also lower than the national average for 2013 reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

On the other hand, the rates are significantly higher than the rates I see on ehealth. But all I see on ehealth is a quote. I have insurance, so I'm not going to apply and find out the actual rate. My suspicion is that the rates you get in quotes on ehealth don't match up to the actual rates that people get through those plans after putting in actual applications. And the reason I suspect that is that otherwise, all those HR people who work securing the best rates they can get for companies (including large Fortune 100 companies and sophisticated law firms) are apparently idiots who can only negotiate rates that are 80% higher than what an individual can do while going online.

 

[TheIronSheik]

It's not the greatest system but it isn't the demon some make it out to be.

I am not sure why so many people are opposed to paying a little bit more to help out those in need. It would be nice to know that people cared enough to do that even for complete strangers.

Besides it's not like that isn't happening already as insurance companies pass on costs from ER visits, which is pretty much the most expensive medical delivery system possible.

Because I don't want to. Why should I be forced to pay more so others don't have to?

The flippant answer is because your side lost the election.

The non-flippant answer is because you already pay more because other people don't. Some of that is captured in your insurance premiums which are affected by the costs of treating the uninsured. Part of it is captured in some people who are forced onto Medicaid because of pre-existing conditions (I know a guy who was upper management at a small contracting business who was fired because his daughter's cystic fibrosis brought the company's rates through the roof. The guy had to go manage a Home Depot because he literally couldn't afford to take a job that took him off Medicaid).

The final part of the answer is that we still don't have great data that you'll be paying much more on day one under the exchanges (and that the day one picture doesn't tell us anything about how the exchanges work as a market to control costs because the cost controlling feature of the market-price competition-won't take effect until people start shopping). I don't even know what the fair comparison is. The quotes I get under the DC exchange are lower than the total cost of insurance under my employer's coverage if I consider the total cost. The same holds true if I use a single rate instead of a family rate. The rates are also lower than the national average for 2013 reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

On the other hand, the rates are significantly higher than the rates I see on ehealth. But all I see on ehealth is a quote. I have insurance, so I'm not going to apply and find out the actual rate. My suspicion is that the rates you get in quotes on ehealth don't match up to the actual rates that people get through those plans after putting in actual applications. And the reason I suspect that is that otherwise, all those HR people who work securing the best rates they can get for companies (including large Fortune 100 companies and sophisticated law firms) are apparently idiots who can only negotiate rates that are 80% higher than what an individual can do while going online.

My side lost the election?

 

[Mystery Achiever]

Hmm, ehealth.com, which I've asked people to look into, asks for zip code, DOB and tobacco use before giving you rates - so their rates are accurate. That's been working since October 1st just fine. Why can't healthcare.gov do the same when someone wants an anonymous quote? Maybe they should just provide a link to ehealth!

FWIW, I got the same rates at my state site as Anthem (who obviously has all of my data, but a slightly higher rate at ehealth.

(I did not need to create an account to browse the state site.)

ETA- I have not tried to sign up for a new pan yet, so can't confirm if any of those numbers are what I'll actually be offered.

 

[Chaka]

It's not the greatest system but it isn't the demon some make it out to be.

I am not sure why so many people are opposed to paying a little bit more to help out those in need. It would be nice to know that people cared enough to do that even for complete strangers.

Besides it's not like that isn't happening already as insurance companies pass on costs from ER visits, which is pretty much the most expensive medical delivery system possible.

Because I don't want to. Why should I be forced to pay more so others don't have to?

The flippant answer is because your side lost the election.

The non-flippant answer is because you already pay more because other people don't. Some of that is captured in your insurance premiums which are affected by the costs of treating the uninsured. Part of it is captured in some people who are forced onto Medicaid because of pre-existing conditions (I know a guy who was upper management at a small contracting business who was fired because his daughter's cystic fibrosis brought the company's rates through the roof. The guy had to go manage a Home Depot because he literally couldn't afford to take a job that took him off Medicaid).

The final part of the answer is that we still don't have great data that you'll be paying much more on day one under the exchanges (and that the day one picture doesn't tell us anything about how the exchanges work as a market to control costs because the cost controlling feature of the market-price competition-won't take effect until people start shopping). I don't even know what the fair comparison is. The quotes I get under the DC exchange are lower than the total cost of insurance under my employer's coverage if I consider the total cost. The same holds true if I use a single rate instead of a family rate. The rates are also lower than the national average for 2013 reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

On the other hand, the rates are significantly higher than the rates I see on ehealth. But all I see on ehealth is a quote. I have insurance, so I'm not going to apply and find out the actual rate. My suspicion is that the rates you get in quotes on ehealth don't match up to the actual rates that people get through those plans after putting in actual applications. And the reason I suspect that is that otherwise, all those HR people who work securing the best rates they can get for companies (including large Fortune 100 companies and sophisticated law firms) are apparently idiots who can only negotiate rates that are 80% higher than what an individual can do while going online.

My side lost the election?

I didn't realize curmudgeon with a heart of gold was a side.

 

[Chaka]

Is it just the ACA or are some people simply opposed to the greatest nation in world history providing health care to all her citizens?

We already do through Emergency Rooms is not an acceptable answer.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

It's not the greatest system but it isn't the demon some make it out to be.

I am not sure why so many people are opposed to paying a little bit more to help out those in need. It would be nice to know that people cared enough to do that even for complete strangers.

Besides it's not like that isn't happening already as insurance companies pass on costs from ER visits, which is pretty much the most expensive medical delivery system possible.

Because I don't want to. Why should I be forced to pay more so others don't have to?

The flippant answer is because your side lost the election.

The non-flippant answer is because you already pay more because other people don't. Some of that is captured in your insurance premiums which are affected by the costs of treating the uninsured. Part of it is captured in some people who are forced onto Medicaid because of pre-existing conditions (I know a guy who was upper management at a small contracting business who was fired because his daughter's cystic fibrosis brought the company's rates through the roof. The guy had to go manage a Home Depot because he literally couldn't afford to take a job that took him off Medicaid).

The final part of the answer is that we still don't have great data that you'll be paying much more on day one under the exchanges (and that the day one picture doesn't tell us anything about how the exchanges work as a market to control costs because the cost controlling feature of the market-price competition-won't take effect until people start shopping). I don't even know what the fair comparison is. The quotes I get under the DC exchange are lower than the total cost of insurance under my employer's coverage if I consider the total cost. The same holds true if I use a single rate instead of a family rate. The rates are also lower than the national average for 2013 reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

On the other hand, the rates are significantly higher than the rates I see on ehealth. But all I see on ehealth is a quote. I have insurance, so I'm not going to apply and find out the actual rate. My suspicion is that the rates you get in quotes on ehealth don't match up to the actual rates that people get through those plans after putting in actual applications. And the reason I suspect that is that otherwise, all those HR people who work securing the best rates they can get for companies (including large Fortune 100 companies and sophisticated law firms) are apparently idiots who can only negotiate rates that are 80% higher than what an individual can do while going online.

My side lost the election?

I am didn't realisze curmudgeon with a heart of gold was a side.

Hey, I'm being flippant.

But in the most general terms, yes, the side that believes that, as a general principle, that some people shouldn't have to give a little bit more so that the system can work more fairly for those with a little bit less (or more generally the side that is against the ACA) lost the two elections that matter. They lost big enough in 2008 that Obama had the votes to push this through. And they lost in 2012 in the respect that they didn't get the Presidency so that it could be repealed in an up or down vote and they didn't get a veto proof Congress to veto it otherwise.

If that's not Shiekhy's side, he should perhaps consider not adopting their argument.

 

[MaxThreshold]

It's not the greatest system but it isn't the demon some make it out to be.

I am not sure why so many people are opposed to paying a little bit more to help out those in need. It would be nice to know that people cared enough to do that even for complete strangers.

Besides it's not like that isn't happening already as insurance companies pass on costs from ER visits, which is pretty much the most expensive medical delivery system possible.

Because I don't want to. Why should I be forced to pay more so others don't have to?

The flippant answer is because your side lost the election.

The non-flippant answer is because you already pay more because other people don't. Some of that is captured in your insurance premiums which are affected by the costs of treating the uninsured. Part of it is captured in some people who are forced onto Medicaid because of pre-existing conditions (I know a guy who was upper management at a small contracting business who was fired because his daughter's cystic fibrosis brought the company's rates through the roof. The guy had to go manage a Home Depot because he literally couldn't afford to take a job that took him off Medicaid).

The final part of the answer is that we still don't have great data that you'll be paying much more on day one under the exchanges (and that the day one picture doesn't tell us anything about how the exchanges work as a market to control costs because the cost controlling feature of the market-price competition-won't take effect until people start shopping). I don't even know what the fair comparison is. The quotes I get under the DC exchange are lower than the total cost of insurance under my employer's coverage if I consider the total cost. The same holds true if I use a single rate instead of a family rate. The rates are also lower than the national average for 2013 reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

On the other hand, the rates are significantly higher than the rates I see on ehealth. But all I see on ehealth is a quote. I have insurance, so I'm not going to apply and find out the actual rate. My suspicion is that the rates you get in quotes on ehealth don't match up to the actual rates that people get through those plans after putting in actual applications. And the reason I suspect that is that otherwise, all those HR people who work securing the best rates they can get for companies (including large Fortune 100 companies and sophisticated law firms) are apparently idiots who can only negotiate rates that are 80% higher than what an individual can do while going online.

My side lost the election?

I am didn't realisze curmudgeon with a heart of gold was a side.

Hey, I'm being flippant.

But in the most general terms, yes, the side that believes that, as a general principle, that some people shouldn't have to give a little bit more so that the system can work more fairly for those with a little bit less (or more generally the side that is against the ACA) lost the two elections that matter. They lost big enough in 2008 that Obama had the votes to push this through. And they lost in 2012 in the respect that they didn't get the Presidency so that it could be repealed in an up or down vote and they didn't get a veto proof Congress to veto it otherwise.

If that's not Shiekhy's side, he should perhaps consider not adopting their argument.

The problem is we were already paying A LOT more prior to this. And now were expected to pay a LOT more again? When does this stop? The problem with progressives is the "it's only just a little bit more" attitude, when in reality that is almost NEVER the case. It's always "just a little bit more" and 60 years worth of "it's just a little bit more" makes it NOT "just a little bit more" anymore.

 

[Chaka]

It's not the greatest system but it isn't the demon some make it out to be.

I am not sure why so many people are opposed to paying a little bit more to help out those in need. It would be nice to know that people cared enough to do that even for complete strangers.

Besides it's not like that isn't happening already as insurance companies pass on costs from ER visits, which is pretty much the most expensive medical delivery system possible.

Because I don't want to. Why should I be forced to pay more so others don't have to?

The flippant answer is because your side lost the election.

The non-flippant answer is because you already pay more because other people don't. Some of that is captured in your insurance premiums which are affected by the costs of treating the uninsured. Part of it is captured in some people who are forced onto Medicaid because of pre-existing conditions (I know a guy who was upper management at a small contracting business who was fired because his daughter's cystic fibrosis brought the company's rates through the roof. The guy had to go manage a Home Depot because he literally couldn't afford to take a job that took him off Medicaid).

The final part of the answer is that we still don't have great data that you'll be paying much more on day one under the exchanges (and that the day one picture doesn't tell us anything about how the exchanges work as a market to control costs because the cost controlling feature of the market-price competition-won't take effect until people start shopping). I don't even know what the fair comparison is. The quotes I get under the DC exchange are lower than the total cost of insurance under my employer's coverage if I consider the total cost. The same holds true if I use a single rate instead of a family rate. The rates are also lower than the national average for 2013 reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

On the other hand, the rates are significantly higher than the rates I see on ehealth. But all I see on ehealth is a quote. I have insurance, so I'm not going to apply and find out the actual rate. My suspicion is that the rates you get in quotes on ehealth don't match up to the actual rates that people get through those plans after putting in actual applications. And the reason I suspect that is that otherwise, all those HR people who work securing the best rates they can get for companies (including large Fortune 100 companies and sophisticated law firms) are apparently idiots who can only negotiate rates that are 80% higher than what an individual can do while going online.

My side lost the election?

I am didn't realisze curmudgeon with a heart of gold was a side.

Hey, I'm being flippant.

But in the most general terms, yes, the side that believes that, as a general principle, that some people shouldn't have to give a little bit more so that the system can work more fairly for those with a little bit less (or more generally the side that is against the ACA) lost the two elections that matter. They lost big enough in 2008 that Obama had the votes to push this through. And they lost in 2012 in the respect that they didn't get the Presidency so that it could be repealed in an up or down vote and they didn't get a veto proof Congress to veto it otherwise.

If that's not Shiekhy's side, he should perhaps consider not adopting their argument.

Fairness doesn't enter into it for me. Fairness is a moving target for everyone. To me it is simple human decency to care for those in need.

In this case our health care system is horribly broken making it impossible for everyone to afford care. Simple human decency means that we should help those who cannot afford health care. The ACA may not be the answer but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything.

Again those who cannot afford it should go to ERs is not an acceptable answer.

 

[Chaka]

It's not the greatest system but it isn't the demon some make it out to be.

I am not sure why so many people are opposed to paying a little bit more to help out those in need. It would be nice to know that people cared enough to do that even for complete strangers.

Besides it's not like that isn't happening already as insurance companies pass on costs from ER visits, which is pretty much the most expensive medical delivery system possible.

Because I don't want to. Why should I be forced to pay more so others don't have to?

The flippant answer is because your side lost the election.

The non-flippant answer is because you already pay more because other people don't. Some of that is captured in your insurance premiums which are affected by the costs of treating the uninsured. Part of it is captured in some people who are forced onto Medicaid because of pre-existing conditions (I know a guy who was upper management at a small contracting business who was fired because his daughter's cystic fibrosis brought the company's rates through the roof. The guy had to go manage a Home Depot because he literally couldn't afford to take a job that took him off Medicaid).

The final part of the answer is that we still don't have great data that you'll be paying much more on day one under the exchanges (and that the day one picture doesn't tell us anything about how the exchanges work as a market to control costs because the cost controlling feature of the market-price competition-won't take effect until people start shopping). I don't even know what the fair comparison is. The quotes I get under the DC exchange are lower than the total cost of insurance under my employer's coverage if I consider the total cost. The same holds true if I use a single rate instead of a family rate. The rates are also lower than the national average for 2013 reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

On the other hand, the rates are significantly higher than the rates I see on ehealth. But all I see on ehealth is a quote. I have insurance, so I'm not going to apply and find out the actual rate. My suspicion is that the rates you get in quotes on ehealth don't match up to the actual rates that people get through those plans after putting in actual applications. And the reason I suspect that is that otherwise, all those HR people who work securing the best rates they can get for companies (including large Fortune 100 companies and sophisticated law firms) are apparently idiots who can only negotiate rates that are 80% higher than what an individual can do while going online.

My side lost the election?

I am didn't realisze curmudgeon with a heart of gold was a side.

Hey, I'm being flippant.

But in the most general terms, yes, the side that believes that, as a general principle, that some people shouldn't have to give a little bit more so that the system can work more fairly for those with a little bit less (or more generally the side that is against the ACA) lost the two elections that matter. They lost big enough in 2008 that Obama had the votes to push this through. And they lost in 2012 in the respect that they didn't get the Presidency so that it could be repealed in an up or down vote and they didn't get a veto proof Congress to veto it otherwise.

If that's not Shiekhy's side, he should perhaps consider not adopting their argument.

The problem is we were already paying A LOT more prior to this. And now were expected to pay a LOT more again? When does this stop? The problem with progressives is the "it's only just a little bit more" attitude, when in reality that is almost NEVER the case. It's always "just a little bit more" and 60 years worth of "it's just a little bit more" makes it NOT "just a little bit more" anymore.

Okay fine. So we shouldn't help those who can't afford health care under our current & past broken system?

Is it survival of the fittest? #### 'em?

 

[cstu]

The problem is we were already paying A LOT more prior to this. And now were expected to pay a LOT more again? When does this stop? The problem with progressives is the "it's only just a little bit more" attitude, when in reality that is almost NEVER the case. It's always "just a little bit more" and 60 years worth of "it's just a little bit more" makes it NOT "just a little bit more" anymore.

If that's the case why did Clinton sign the biggest welfare reform in history? As much as you want to deny it Progressives are interested in what is best for the country, not just spending as much as possible.

 

[cstu]

Because I don't want to. Why should I be forced to pay more so others don't have to?

Perhaps so we can live in a better society where people don't die because they lack health insurance?

It's common sense to me that we shouldn't let people die simply because they are poor. We are a rich enough country that we can do that. There are a lot of things we can cut (including entitlements) but helping keep people alive should be a basic thing the government does if we are to have a government at all.

 

[Plorfu]

ETA- I have not tried to sign up for a new pan yet.

Just get a cast iron skillet. I use mine for ####### everything

 

[Mystery Achiever]

ETA- I have not tried to sign up for a new pan yet.

Just get a cast iron skillet. I use mine for ####### everything

But, for the record, I prefer stainless steel.

 

[3C's]

Yeah yeah yeah, the numbers are all bad and stuff. But have you seen how much people pay for entertainment? This is probably going to be pretty cheap in comparison if we all take the time to sit back and laugh about it a little.

And you are bringing up an excellent point indirectly. The person who wasn't paying, now they pay $200 a month, that $200 was used before for things like entertainment. Now instead of going to the movies for $10-$15, they gotta stay home. Enough of that happens and suddenly we don't need all those folks at the movie theatre working so they cut back on staff or decrease hours for everyone there. It has a domino effect on things does it not?

Probably. But if they just take a moment to laugh about it, they've replaced the value of the movie at least. I'm not sure on the dominoes and all of that, but how amusingly bad this is does provide some replacement value for the money in and of itself.

Why would we possibly care whether jobs are created in the health care services industry or in the movie theater concession industry?

Serious question. While laughter IS the best medicine, are slippery slopes covered under the pre-existing condition clause or are they treated as something else? Maybe like accupuncture?Schlzm

If you want a serious answer, you might try posting a comprehensible question.

I'm sorry. It's hard to take people like MoP seriously on economic issues when they make comments that a show a fundamental lack of understanding of economics.

I'm sorry, but who are you?Schlzm

I'm Ramsey Hunt Experience.

Would it help if I signed all my posts?