Obamacare: Obama just straight up lied to you, in your face (4 Viewers)

Rich Conway said:

I understand what you're saying, but I'm suggesting there has to be a better way to get the consumer this information without making the consumer jump through hoops, whether in-network or out.

I shouldn't go to the dentist, ask "what is this going to cost me", be told that my insurance will pick it up, then get a $400 bill a month later.

Click to expand...

The Commish said:

Rich Conway said:

I understand what you're saying, but I'm suggesting there has to be a better way to get the consumer this information without making the consumer jump through hoops, whether in-network or out.

I shouldn't go to the dentist, ask "what is this going to cost me", be told that my insurance will pick it up, then get a $400 bill a month later.

Click to expand...

I ALWAYS have to press for this information. Not sure why, but I do. I eventually get it and then am able to plan accordingly. I don't really get why they are so hesitant to help out in this regard.

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

The Commish said:

Rich Conway said:

I understand what you're saying, but I'm suggesting there has to be a better way to get the consumer this information without making the consumer jump through hoops, whether in-network or out.

I shouldn't go to the dentist, ask "what is this going to cost me", be told that my insurance will pick it up, then get a $400 bill a month later.

Click to expand...

I ALWAYS have to press for this information. Not sure why, but I do. I eventually get it and then am able to plan accordingly. I don't really get why they are so hesitant to help out in this regard.

Click to expand...

Cause it's a different answer depending on which carrier you have. They don't charge the same thing to everyone.

Again, if we're going to use the simple MRI - I have an actual claim receipt from Johns Hopkins on my desk as I type for one of these done last year. The total for it was 2,124. That was the amount if you have this one carrier. If you have a different carrier it might be 2,679, and a third carrier might be over 3k. If you have a PPO with the first carrier rather than their HMO it might be 2,813. If you pay in cash they might charge you 2,500 even. They don't want to be on the hook when they might mistakenly give you the wrong number cause it's not always the same amount, even for the exact same procedure.

Click to expand...

The Commish said:

matttyl said:

The Commish said:

Rich Conway said:

I understand what you're saying, but I'm suggesting there has to be a better way to get the consumer this information without making the consumer jump through hoops, whether in-network or out.

I shouldn't go to the dentist, ask "what is this going to cost me", be told that my insurance will pick it up, then get a $400 bill a month later.

Click to expand...

I ALWAYS have to press for this information. Not sure why, but I do. I eventually get it and then am able to plan accordingly. I don't really get why they are so hesitant to help out in this regard.

Click to expand...

Cause it's a different answer depending on which carrier you have. They don't charge the same thing to everyone.

Again, if we're going to use the simple MRI - I have an actual claim receipt from Johns Hopkins on my desk as I type for one of these done last year. The total for it was 2,124. That was the amount if you have this one carrier. If you have a different carrier it might be 2,679, and a third carrier might be over 3k. If you have a PPO with the first carrier rather than their HMO it might be 2,813. If you pay in cash they might charge you 2,500 even. They don't want to be on the hook when they might mistakenly give you the wrong number cause it's not always the same amount, even for the exact same procedure.

Click to expand...

That's not a reason to make it difficult for me to figure out what MY cost is I don't expect an answer immediately. I'm fine with a "we need to check and see. we'll get back to you in the next couple days" sort of answer. It's never like that though.

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

The Commish said:

Rich Conway said:

I understand what you're saying, but I'm suggesting there has to be a better way to get the consumer this information without making the consumer jump through hoops, whether in-network or out.

I shouldn't go to the dentist, ask "what is this going to cost me", be told that my insurance will pick it up, then get a $400 bill a month later.

Click to expand...

I ALWAYS have to press for this information. Not sure why, but I do. I eventually get it and then am able to plan accordingly. I don't really get why they are so hesitant to help out in this regard.

Click to expand...

Cause it's a different answer depending on which carrier you have. They don't charge the same thing to everyone.

Again, if we're going to use the simple MRI - I have an actual claim receipt from Johns Hopkins on my desk as I type for one of these done last year. The total for it was 2,124. That was the amount if you have this one carrier. If you have a different carrier it might be 2,679, and a third carrier might be over 3k. If you have a PPO with the first carrier rather than their HMO it might be 2,813. If you pay in cash they might charge you 2,500 even. They don't want to be on the hook when they might mistakenly give you the wrong number cause it's not always the same amount, even for the exact same procedure.

Click to expand...

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

The Commish said:

matttyl said:

The Commish said:

Rich Conway said:

I understand what you're saying, but I'm suggesting there has to be a better way to get the consumer this information without making the consumer jump through hoops, whether in-network or out.

I shouldn't go to the dentist, ask "what is this going to cost me", be told that my insurance will pick it up, then get a $400 bill a month later.

Click to expand...

I ALWAYS have to press for this information. Not sure why, but I do. I eventually get it and then am able to plan accordingly. I don't really get why they are so hesitant to help out in this regard.

Click to expand...

Cause it's a different answer depending on which carrier you have. They don't charge the same thing to everyone.

Again, if we're going to use the simple MRI - I have an actual claim receipt from Johns Hopkins on my desk as I type for one of these done last year. The total for it was 2,124. That was the amount if you have this one carrier. If you have a different carrier it might be 2,679, and a third carrier might be over 3k. If you have a PPO with the first carrier rather than their HMO it might be 2,813. If you pay in cash they might charge you 2,500 even. They don't want to be on the hook when they might mistakenly give you the wrong number cause it's not always the same amount, even for the exact same procedure.

Click to expand...

That's not a reason to make it difficult for me to figure out what MY cost is I don't expect an answer immediately. I'm fine with a "we need to check and see. we'll get back to you in the next couple days" sort of answer. It's never like that though.

Click to expand...

Providers don't know until their paid - if then. It is all too complicated for them yet alone consumers. And yes that is problem if you want "consumer driven" cost reductions via informed choices.

Click to expand...

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Yep, we need to look at the entire picture-

U.S. health spending between 2014 and 2019 is now projected to be $2.5 trillion less than predicted in 2010

This includes over a trillion dollars in savings to tax payers, That certainly makes delays that generate revenue less relevant, at least in the short term to the price tag of this legislation. However, as long as we running deficits...Unless I missed counted zeros this works out to about $3400 per family per year (2.5 trillion divided by 6 years divided by 120 million) per year. Of course this is not just premiums. Private insurance only realize about a fourth of this savings, and out of pocket is almost none of the savings - almost.

No! No one is crediting this all to the ACA or even primarily due to the ACA, but "runaway costs" simply don't currently exist at the macro level.

Click to expand...

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Yep, we need to look at the entire picture-

U.S. health spending between 2014 and 2019 is now projected to be $2.5 trillion less than predicted in 2010

This includes over a trillion dollars in savings to tax payers, That certainly makes delays that generate revenue less relevant, at least in the short term to the price tag of this legislation. However, as long as we running deficits...

Unless I missed counted zeros this works out to about $3400 per family per year (2.5 trillion divided by 6 years divided by 120 million) per year. Of course this is not just premiums. Private insurance only realize about a fourth of this savings, and out of pocket is almost none of the savings - almost.

No! No one is crediting this all to the ACA or even primarily due to the ACA, but "runaway costs" simply don't currently exist at the macro level.

Click to expand...

Clearly, not all of the spending reduction is due to the ACA; much is due to the recent recession and a long period of slow income growth, the growth of high deductible private health plans, cost constraints within state Medicaid programs, and Medicare policies unrelated to the ACA (e.g. sequestration)

Click to expand...

tommyGunZ said:

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Yep, we need to look at the entire picture-

U.S. health spending between 2014 and 2019 is now projected to be $2.5 trillion less than predicted in 2010

This includes over a trillion dollars in savings to tax payers, That certainly makes delays that generate revenue less relevant, at least in the short term to the price tag of this legislation. However, as long as we running deficits...Unless I missed counted zeros this works out to about $3400 per family per year (2.5 trillion divided by 6 years divided by 120 million) per year. Of course this is not just premiums. Private insurance only realize about a fourth of this savings, and out of pocket is almost none of the savings - almost.

No! No one is crediting this all to the ACA or even primarily due to the ACA, but "runaway costs" simply don't currently exist at the macro level.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing that analysis BFS. Seems like fiscal conservatives would be overjoyed about $2.5T in reduced spending, but since that would entail admitting that the ACA is not the evil bankrupting monster that they've claimed it would be, we won't see those fiscal conservatives express excitement over the 2.5T in reduced spending.

Which is insane.

Click to expand...

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Yep, we need to look at the entire picture-

U.S. health spending between 2014 and 2019 is now projected to be $2.5 trillion less than predicted in 2010

This includes over a trillion dollars in savings to tax payers, That certainly makes delays that generate revenue less relevant, at least in the short term to the price tag of this legislation. However, as long as we running deficits...

Unless I missed counted zeros this works out to about $3400 per family per year (2.5 trillion divided by 6 years divided by 120 million) per year. Of course this is not just premiums. Private insurance only realize about a fourth of this savings, and out of pocket is almost none of the savings - almost.

No! No one is crediting this all to the ACA or even primarily due to the ACA, but "runaway costs" simply don't currently exist at the macro level.

Click to expand...

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Yep, we need to look at the entire picture-

U.S. health spending between 2014 and 2019 is now projected to be $2.5 trillion less than predicted in 2010

This includes over a trillion dollars in savings to tax payers, That certainly makes delays that generate revenue less relevant, at least in the short term to the price tag of this legislation. However, as long as we running deficits...

Unless I missed counted zeros this works out to about $3400 per family per year (2.5 trillion divided by 6 years divided by 120 million) per year. Of course this is not just premiums. Private insurance only realize about a fourth of this savings, and out of pocket is almost none of the savings - almost.

No! No one is crediting this all to the ACA or even primarily due to the ACA, but "runaway costs" simply don't currently exist at the macro level.

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

tommyGunZ said:

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Yep, we need to look at the entire picture-

U.S. health spending between 2014 and 2019 is now projected to be $2.5 trillion less than predicted in 2010

This includes over a trillion dollars in savings to tax payers, That certainly makes delays that generate revenue less relevant, at least in the short term to the price tag of this legislation. However, as long as we running deficits...Unless I missed counted zeros this works out to about $3400 per family per year (2.5 trillion divided by 6 years divided by 120 million) per year. Of course this is not just premiums. Private insurance only realize about a fourth of this savings, and out of pocket is almost none of the savings - almost.

No! No one is crediting this all to the ACA or even primarily due to the ACA, but "runaway costs" simply don't currently exist at the macro level.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing that analysis BFS. Seems like fiscal conservatives would be overjoyed about $2.5T in reduced spending, but since that would entail admitting that the ACA is not the evil bankrupting monster that they've claimed it would be, we won't see those fiscal conservatives express excitement over the 2.5T in reduced spending.

Which is insane.

Click to expand...

I'll be very happy, if it happens. It hasn't yet. What has, as well as what hasn't happened has been discussed here - what he brings is projections. Of the 2.5T, just over half is Medicare and Medicaid spending reductions. I'm all for that, as if those weren't contained the wild spending growth of both would have surely crippled our nation. Also, directly from the study - "Clearly, not all of the spending reduction is due to the ACA; much is due to the recent recession and a long period of slow income growth, the growth of high deductible private health plans, cost constraints within state Medicaid programs, and Medicare policies unrelated to the ACA (e.g. sequestration). But it is also likely that the law contributed; though how much is impossible to estimate." So again, let's not give all the credit to the ACA - which again, it's all bad (and I've said that before).

Click to expand...

irishidiot said:

My in-law just got a job at a big tire center in Denver CO. Hours capped at 29. Any ideas why no full time?

Click to expand...

snogger said:

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Yep, we need to look at the entire picture-

U.S. health spending between 2014 and 2019 is now projected to be $2.5 trillion less than predicted in 2010

This includes over a trillion dollars in savings to tax payers, That certainly makes delays that generate revenue less relevant, at least in the short term to the price tag of this legislation. However, as long as we running deficits...

Unless I missed counted zeros this works out to about $3400 per family per year (2.5 trillion divided by 6 years divided by 120 million) per year. Of course this is not just premiums. Private insurance only realize about a fourth of this savings, and out of pocket is almost none of the savings - almost.

No! No one is crediting this all to the ACA or even primarily due to the ACA, but "runaway costs" simply don't currently exist at the macro level.

Click to expand...

It is good news Spending is down.. and I agree with the bold part..

Clearly, not all of the spending reduction is due to the ACA; much is due to the recent recession and a long period of slow income growth, the growth of high deductible private health plans, cost constraints within state Medicaid programs, and Medicare policies unrelated to the ACA (e.g. sequestration)

Click to expand...

Also, as I've stated numerous times..

Spending on Health care is going to continue to go down as long as People avoid using their insurance due to the Deductibles and Out of Pocket expenses....

But...what do you think will happen once all these people putting off "Minor" procedures get to a point where it is no longer a minor procedure and it becomes "Major" procedure?

Probably not the best comparison, but stick with me

It's like putting off adding oil to a car when the light says to check it..

Sure, the car will continue to run for awhile just fine.. But one day... BOOM and now that minor quart of oil just became an engine that needs replacing..

Click to expand...

Jackstraw said:

snogger said:

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Yep, we need to look at the entire picture-

U.S. health spending between 2014 and 2019 is now projected to be $2.5 trillion less than predicted in 2010

This includes over a trillion dollars in savings to tax payers, That certainly makes delays that generate revenue less relevant, at least in the short term to the price tag of this legislation. However, as long as we running deficits...

Unless I missed counted zeros this works out to about $3400 per family per year (2.5 trillion divided by 6 years divided by 120 million) per year. Of course this is not just premiums. Private insurance only realize about a fourth of this savings, and out of pocket is almost none of the savings - almost.

No! No one is crediting this all to the ACA or even primarily due to the ACA, but "runaway costs" simply don't currently exist at the macro level.

Click to expand...

It is good news Spending is down.. and I agree with the bold part..

Clearly, not all of the spending reduction is due to the ACA; much is due to the recent recession and a long period of slow income growth, the growth of high deductible private health plans, cost constraints within state Medicaid programs, and Medicare policies unrelated to the ACA (e.g. sequestration)

Click to expand...

Also, as I've stated numerous times..

Spending on Health care is going to continue to go down as long as People avoid using their insurance due to the Deductibles and Out of Pocket expenses....

But...what do you think will happen once all these people putting off "Minor" procedures get to a point where it is no longer a minor procedure and it becomes "Major" procedure?

Probably not the best comparison, but stick with me

It's like putting off adding oil to a car when the light says to check it..

Sure, the car will continue to run for awhile just fine.. But one day... BOOM and now that minor quart of oil just became an engine that needs replacing..

Click to expand...

"Free" preventative care is certainly a step in the right direction. If I know my blood sugar is high now I might be able to make changes and avoid a decade of expensive diabetes meds. That has to be a great public good no?

Click to expand...

proteus126 said:

Interesting side-effect of ACA (for me) is that it removes one more golden handcuff from Federal Employment.

A Fed in FERS has to work until minimum retirement age to be able to officially "retire", thereby acquiring the ability to continue with the Fed medical system after leaving the workforce. The Feds will continue to pay 68% of the premiums, worth about $11k/yr currently in the plan we happen to use.

Unless I see something indicating otherwise, ACA makes early retirement far more palatable because I won't feel like I'm leaving all kinds of money on the table in the form of that health care premiums cost-sharing. And I'm talking 14 years, from ages 51-65 (no kids, obv.). The one weird trick (currently) is that a household has to keep its MAGI below $63k to get a subsidy, thereby reducing the premiums I would pay to levels similar to what I currently pay as my portion for my FEHB.

That said, something feels odd about the results I got using the KFF calculator. I have a hard time believing that the steep cliff in subsidies will remain extant for very long. Currently the calculator says that if my MAGI is $63,000 I get $0 in subsidy, but if my MAGI is $62,900 the subsidy is over $800 per month. $10k/year! Can the system really be set up such that a $100 difference in income translates to a monthly premium drop from $1300 to $500 (ACA Silver, Manteo NC)? They are going to flatten that in the future, right? Any prognosticators here want to take a cut at the state of ACA subsidy calculation in 2021?

Regardless, I am wrapping my head around how to set up my finances to game the MAGI while still having a high real income to enjoy all those sun drenched days (while the taxpayer subsidizes my health care). Easily doable since many income sources don't count towards the MAGI. Roth (wife is older), premiums paid into our life insurance plans, hoarded cash of course...

To think I used to be anti-ACA!

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

proteus126 said:

Interesting side-effect of ACA (for me) is that it removes one more golden handcuff from Federal Employment.

A Fed in FERS has to work until minimum retirement age to be able to officially "retire", thereby acquiring the ability to continue with the Fed medical system after leaving the workforce. The Feds will continue to pay 68% of the premiums, worth about $11k/yr currently in the plan we happen to use.

Unless I see something indicating otherwise, ACA makes early retirement far more palatable because I won't feel like I'm leaving all kinds of money on the table in the form of that health care premiums cost-sharing. And I'm talking 14 years, from ages 51-65 (no kids, obv.). The one weird trick (currently) is that a household has to keep its MAGI below $63k to get a subsidy, thereby reducing the premiums I would pay to levels similar to what I currently pay as my portion for my FEHB.

That said, something feels odd about the results I got using the KFF calculator. I have a hard time believing that the steep cliff in subsidies will remain extant for very long. Currently the calculator says that if my MAGI is $63,000 I get $0 in subsidy, but if my MAGI is $62,900 the subsidy is over $800 per month. $10k/year! Can the system really be set up such that a $100 difference in income translates to a monthly premium drop from $1300 to $500 (ACA Silver, Manteo NC)? They are going to flatten that in the future, right? Any prognosticators here want to take a cut at the state of ACA subsidy calculation in 2021?

Regardless, I am wrapping my head around how to set up my finances to game the MAGI while still having a high real income to enjoy all those sun drenched days (while the taxpayer subsidizes my health care). Easily doable since many income sources don't count towards the MAGI. Roth (wife is older), premiums paid into our life insurance plans, hoarded cash of course...

To think I used to be anti-ACA!

Click to expand...

Yup, lots of people doing this. 63k is 400% of the poverty level for a family of 2, which you are. It's suppose to lower your after subsidy premium to 9.5% of your income - which is roughly $6k per year - and you gave the number of $500 per year which is $12k per year.

Even better (for you), as you get older and thus your unsubsidized premiums go up, so will your subsidy amount as your post subsidy figure is still suppose to be 9.5% of your income. So while your pre subsidy premium is currently 1,300 a month when you're 51, and your subsidy is $800 - when you're 60 and the pre subsidy premium is 2,000 your subsidy will grow to $1,500 a month to get your premium down to the same $500 a month (9.5% of your MAGI).

Yeah, free stuff is great, ain't it? Crazy that you seem happy to be openly "gaming the system" to your benefit.

Click to expand...

The Commish said:

It's not much different than the tax code though. As long as people are playing by the rules, have at it as far as I'm concerned. It's not their fault the rules are poorly written. No reason not to take advantage of a loophole most likely caused by politics. It's one of the few advantages of politics for some.

Click to expand...

proteus126 said:

The Commish said:

It's not much different than the tax code though. As long as people are playing by the rules, have at it as far as I'm concerned. It's not their fault the rules are poorly written. No reason not to take advantage of a loophole most likely caused by politics. It's one of the few advantages of politics for some.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't even call it a loop-hole. I just find it astounding that the subsidy kicks in so hard and fast. Which is why I'm kind of curious what the crowd thinks will be the eventual "stable state" subsidy paradigm 5-10 years down the road.

I can see the premiums subsidy being changed to:

10% if < 500% of poverty level

30% if < 400%

70% if < 300%, etc.

Not those exact numbers, of course, but a general flattening of the curve so people aren't doing idiotic gymnastics each year to try to "beat the system". I feel a little dirty trying, frankly, and my gloating was for entertainment purposes more than anything else.

Anyway, for the taxpayer my case comes out the same as far as health care costs. Either ACA subsidizes us $10k, or I stick around until retirement and the FEHB system subsidizes us $10k. And the taxpayer really is better off if people aren't "sticking around" at federal jobs if they have other places they want to be.

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

tommyGunZ said:

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Yep, we need to look at the entire picture-

U.S. health spending between 2014 and 2019 is now projected to be $2.5 trillion less than predicted in 2010

This includes over a trillion dollars in savings to tax payers, That certainly makes delays that generate revenue less relevant, at least in the short term to the price tag of this legislation. However, as long as we running deficits...Unless I missed counted zeros this works out to about $3400 per family per year (2.5 trillion divided by 6 years divided by 120 million) per year. Of course this is not just premiums. Private insurance only realize about a fourth of this savings, and out of pocket is almost none of the savings - almost.

No! No one is crediting this all to the ACA or even primarily due to the ACA, but "runaway costs" simply don't currently exist at the macro level.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing that analysis BFS. Seems like fiscal conservatives would be overjoyed about $2.5T in reduced spending, but since that would entail admitting that the ACA is not the evil bankrupting monster that they've claimed it would be, we won't see those fiscal conservatives express excitement over the 2.5T in reduced spending.

Which is insane.

Click to expand...

I'll be very happy, if it happens. It hasn't yet. What has, as well as what hasn't happened has been discussed here - what he brings is projections.

Of the 2.5T, just over half is Medicare and Medicaid spending reductions. I'm all for that, as if those weren't contained the wild spending growth of both would have surely crippled our nation. Also, directly from the study - "Clearly, not all of the spending reduction is due to the ACA; much is due to the recent recession and a long period of slow income growth, the growth of high deductible private health plans, cost constraints within state Medicaid programs, and Medicare policies unrelated to the ACA (e.g. sequestration). But it is also likely that the law contributed; though how much is impossible to estimate." So again, let's not give all the credit to the ACA - which again, it's all bad (and I've said that before).

Click to expand...

proteus126 said:

Interesting side-effect of ACA (for me) is that it removes one more golden handcuff from Federal Employment.

A Fed in FERS has to work until minimum retirement age to be able to officially "retire", thereby acquiring the ability to continue with the Fed medical system after leaving the workforce. The Feds will continue to pay 68% of the premiums, worth about $11k/yr currently in the plan we happen to use.

Unless I see something indicating otherwise, ACA makes early retirement far more palatable because I won't feel like I'm leaving all kinds of money on the table in the form of that health care premiums cost-sharing. And I'm talking 14 years, from ages 51-65 (no kids, obv.). The one weird trick (currently) is that a household has to keep its MAGI below $63k to get a subsidy, thereby reducing the premiums I would pay to levels similar to what I currently pay as my portion for my FEHB.

That said, something feels odd about the results I got using the KFF calculator. I have a hard time believing that the steep cliff in subsidies will remain extant for very long. Currently the calculator says that if my MAGI is $63,000 I get $0 in subsidy, but if my MAGI is $62,900 the subsidy is over $800 per month. $10k/year! Can the system really be set up such that a $100 difference in income translates to a monthly premium drop from $1300 to $500 (ACA Silver, Manteo NC)? They are going to flatten that in the future, right? Any prognosticators here want to take a cut at the state of ACA subsidy calculation in 2021?

Regardless, I am wrapping my head around how to set up my finances to game the MAGI while still having a high real income to enjoy all those sun drenched days (while the taxpayer subsidizes my health care). Easily doable since many income sources don't count towards the MAGI. Roth (wife is older), premiums paid into our life insurance plans, hoarded cash of course...

To think I used to be anti-ACA!

Click to expand...

The Commish said:

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

The Commish said:

matttyl said:

The Commish said:

Rich Conway said:

I understand what you're saying, but I'm suggesting there has to be a better way to get the consumer this information without making the consumer jump through hoops, whether in-network or out.

I shouldn't go to the dentist, ask "what is this going to cost me", be told that my insurance will pick it up, then get a $400 bill a month later.

Click to expand...

I ALWAYS have to press for this information. Not sure why, but I do. I eventually get it and then am able to plan accordingly. I don't really get why they are so hesitant to help out in this regard.

Click to expand...

Cause it's a different answer depending on which carrier you have. They don't charge the same thing to everyone.

Again, if we're going to use the simple MRI - I have an actual claim receipt from Johns Hopkins on my desk as I type for one of these done last year. The total for it was 2,124. That was the amount if you have this one carrier. If you have a different carrier it might be 2,679, and a third carrier might be over 3k. If you have a PPO with the first carrier rather than their HMO it might be 2,813. If you pay in cash they might charge you 2,500 even. They don't want to be on the hook when they might mistakenly give you the wrong number cause it's not always the same amount, even for the exact same procedure.

Click to expand...

That's not a reason to make it difficult for me to figure out what MY cost is I don't expect an answer immediately. I'm fine with a "we need to check and see. we'll get back to you in the next couple days" sort of answer. It's never like that though.

Click to expand...

Providers don't know until their paid - if then. It is all too complicated for them yet alone consumers. And yes that is problem if you want "consumer driven" cost reductions via informed choices.

Click to expand...

wait...what? Sorry if these are dumb questions. It's hard to understand the side of this industry that faces me. I can't imagine what it's like under the covers. So when you say providers do you mean insurance providers or healthcare providers?

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

What do you guys think of the argument I've been hearing that higher deductibles caused by ACA actually lower overall health care costs, because consumers are being more choosy about what procedures to pay for, they're shopping around more, and doctors are more cautious to order tests? If true, these are actually free market type of results that ACA has given us.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

What do you guys think of the argument I've been hearing that higher deductibles caused by ACA actually lower overall health care costs, because consumers are being more choosy about what procedures to pay for, they're shopping around more, and doctors are more cautious to order tests? If true, these are actually free market type of results that ACA has given us.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

What do you guys think of the argument I've been hearing that higher deductibles caused by ACA actually lower overall health care costs, because consumers are being more choosy about what procedures to pay for, they're shopping around more, and doctors are more cautious to order tests? If true, these are actually free market type of results that ACA has given us.

ETA if this sort of thing actually works, it might give credence to the notion that Cap and Trade might also work: government action prodding the free market to produce unforeseen positive results.

Click to expand...

snogger said:

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Yep, we need to look at the entire picture-

U.S. health spending between 2014 and 2019 is now projected to be $2.5 trillion less than predicted in 2010

This includes over a trillion dollars in savings to tax payers, That certainly makes delays that generate revenue less relevant, at least in the short term to the price tag of this legislation. However, as long as we running deficits...Unless I missed counted zeros this works out to about $3400 per family per year (2.5 trillion divided by 6 years divided by 120 million) per year. Of course this is not just premiums. Private insurance only realize about a fourth of this savings, and out of pocket is almost none of the savings - almost.

No! No one is crediting this all to the ACA or even primarily due to the ACA, but "runaway costs" simply don't currently exist at the macro level.

Click to expand...

It is good news Spending is down.. and I agree with the bold part..

Clearly, not all of the spending reduction is due to the ACA; much is due to the recent recession and a long period of slow income growth, the growth of high deductible private health plans, cost constraints within state Medicaid programs, and Medicare policies unrelated to the ACA (e.g. sequestration)

Click to expand...

Also, as I've stated numerous times..Spending on Health care is going to continue to go down as long as People avoid using their insurance due to the Deductibles and Out of Pocket expenses....

But...what do you think will happen once all these people putting off "Minor" procedures get to a point where it is no longer a minor procedure and it becomes "Major" procedure?

Probably not the best comparison, but stick with me

It's like putting off adding oil to a car when the light says to check it..

Sure, the car will continue to run for awhile just fine.. But one day... BOOM and now that minor quart of oil just became an engine that needs replacing..

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

timschochet said:

What do you guys think of the argument I've been hearing that higher deductibles caused by ACA actually lower overall health care costs, because consumers are being more choosy about what procedures to pay for, they're shopping around more, and doctors are more cautious to order tests? If true, these are actually free market type of results that ACA has given us.

ETA if this sort of thing actually works, it might give credence to the notion that Cap and Trade might also work: government action prodding the free market to produce unforeseen positive results.

Click to expand...

High deductible health plans were available long before the ACA. Higher deductibles have always meant lower premiums, this is nothing new. When premiums went up (due to the ACA), then to offset them deductibles went up - so you sying that the "higher deductibles caused by the ACA" - you're saying that premiums would have gone up otherwise (or in many cases as well).

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

timschochet said:

What do you guys think of the argument I've been hearing that higher deductibles caused by ACA actually lower overall health care costs, because consumers are being more choosy about what procedures to pay for, they're shopping around more, and doctors are more cautious to order tests? If true, these are actually free market type of results that ACA has given us.

ETA if this sort of thing actually works, it might give credence to the notion that Cap and Trade might also work: government action prodding the free market to produce unforeseen positive results.

Click to expand...

High deductible health plans were available long before the ACA. Higher deductibles have always meant lower premiums, this is nothing new. When premiums went up (due to the ACA), then to offset them deductibles went up - so you sying that the "higher deductibles caused by the ACA" - you're saying that premiums would have gone up otherwise (or in many cases as well).

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

matttyl said:

timschochet said:

What do you guys think of the argument I've been hearing that higher deductibles caused by ACA actually lower overall health care costs, because consumers are being more choosy about what procedures to pay for, they're shopping around more, and doctors are more cautious to order tests? If true, these are actually free market type of results that ACA has given us.

ETA if this sort of thing actually works, it might give credence to the notion that Cap and Trade might also work: government action prodding the free market to produce unforeseen positive results.

Click to expand...

High deductible health plans were available long before the ACA. Higher deductibles have always meant lower premiums, this is nothing new. When premiums went up (due to the ACA), then to offset them deductibles went up - so you sying that the "higher deductibles caused by the ACA" - you're saying that premiums would have gone up otherwise (or in many cases as well).

Click to expand...

i wasn't speaking of premiums going down, I was suggesting that the total cost of healthcare would go down if higher deductibles became the norm.

Click to expand...

MaxThreshold said:

timschochet said:

matttyl said:

timschochet said:

What do you guys think of the argument I've been hearing that higher deductibles caused by ACA actually lower overall health care costs, because consumers are being more choosy about what procedures to pay for, they're shopping around more, and doctors are more cautious to order tests? If true, these are actually free market type of results that ACA has given us.

ETA if this sort of thing actually works, it might give credence to the notion that Cap and Trade might also work: government action prodding the free market to produce unforeseen positive results.

Click to expand...

High deductible health plans were available long before the ACA. Higher deductibles have always meant lower premiums, this is nothing new. When premiums went up (due to the ACA), then to offset them deductibles went up - so you sying that the "higher deductibles caused by the ACA" - you're saying that premiums would have gone up otherwise (or in many cases as well).

Click to expand...

i wasn't speaking of premiums going down, I was suggesting that the total cost of healthcare would go down if higher deductibles became the norm.

Click to expand...

Well no ####, Tim. Now no one can afford to go to the Dr anymore deductibles and copays are jacked up so high, as well as premiums for the non-subsidized Americans (which is most everyone).

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

matttyl said:

timschochet said:

What do you guys think of the argument I've been hearing that higher deductibles caused by ACA actually lower overall health care costs, because consumers are being more choosy about what procedures to pay for, they're shopping around more, and doctors are more cautious to order tests? If true, these are actually free market type of results that ACA has given us.

ETA if this sort of thing actually works, it might give credence to the notion that Cap and Trade might also work: government action prodding the free market to produce unforeseen positive results.

Click to expand...

High deductible health plans were available long before the ACA. Higher deductibles have always meant lower premiums, this is nothing new. When premiums went up (due to the ACA), then to offset them deductibles went up - so you sying that the "higher deductibles caused by the ACA" - you're saying that premiums would have gone up otherwise (or in many cases as well).

Click to expand...

i wasn't speaking of premiums going down, I was suggesting that the total cost of healthcare would go down if higher deductibles became the norm.

Click to expand...

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

snogger said:

Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Yep, we need to look at the entire picture-

U.S. health spending between 2014 and 2019 is now projected to be $2.5 trillion less than predicted in 2010

This includes over a trillion dollars in savings to tax payers, That certainly makes delays that generate revenue less relevant, at least in the short term to the price tag of this legislation. However, as long as we running deficits...Unless I missed counted zeros this works out to about $3400 per family per year (2.5 trillion divided by 6 years divided by 120 million) per year. Of course this is not just premiums. Private insurance only realize about a fourth of this savings, and out of pocket is almost none of the savings - almost.

No! No one is crediting this all to the ACA or even primarily due to the ACA, but "runaway costs" simply don't currently exist at the macro level.

Click to expand...

It is good news Spending is down.. and I agree with the bold part..

Clearly, not all of the spending reduction is due to the ACA; much is due to the recent recession and a long period of slow income growth, the growth of high deductible private health plans, cost constraints within state Medicaid programs, and Medicare policies unrelated to the ACA (e.g. sequestration)

Click to expand...

Also, as I've stated numerous times..Spending on Health care is going to continue to go down as long as People avoid using their insurance due to the Deductibles and Out of Pocket expenses....

But...what do you think will happen once all these people putting off "Minor" procedures get to a point where it is no longer a minor procedure and it becomes "Major" procedure?

Probably not the best comparison, but stick with me

It's like putting off adding oil to a car when the light says to check it..

Sure, the car will continue to run for awhile just fine.. But one day... BOOM and now that minor quart of oil just became an engine that needs replacing..

Click to expand...

Then why do you keep suggesting if not outright saying that the ACA is the source, or the primary source of higher deductibles?

As for your analogy , but I've already posted this several times.

Click to expand...

BassNBrew said:

Idiots at the Marketplace cancelled my gf's policy today. She was doing her obligation to report her revised 2014 agi. Stupid rep rolled that number into the 2015 data which changed her plan. She may have gotten it sorted out but was disconnected at 45 minutes on the phone. Thank goodness she has someone like matttyl to help her get things fixed tomorrow.

Click to expand...

fourd said:

BassNBrew said:

Idiots at the Marketplace cancelled my gf's policy today. She was doing her obligation to report her revised 2014 agi. Stupid rep rolled that number into the 2015 data which changed her plan. She may have gotten it sorted out but was disconnected at 45 minutes on the phone. Thank goodness she has someone like matttyl to help her get things fixed tomorrow.

Click to expand...

This is becoming a problem for people. As tax returns are being filed for 2014 the Marketplace is adjusting subsidies for this year. The problem is they are doing it wrong. I've got several people who have had their subsidies cut because they are figuring income incorrectly. This is especially true for anyone receiving social security or with a spouse receiving social security. They are adding in the entire social security paid rather than the taxable amount. Now they have to appeal that decision. This takes more than a little time, and in the meantime their premiums have been adjusted higher. And even when they win their appeal any lost subsidies won't be recaptured until they do their taxes for 2015.

You would think it this should not be a problem since they can see the adjusted gross income which should be used to figure a subsidy. But even when the tax return is sent in to verify last year's income that isn't good enough.

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

If someone was in your exact same shoes in terms of income, but were in their 30s the subsidy wouldn't be nearly as much as their cost of coverage would be much lower (maybe 800 a month rather than your 1,800 or whatever it was). The idea was to get your premium amount to 9.5% of income if you're right at 400% of the FPL, and a lower % as your income goes down.

Click to expand...

BassNBrew said:

fourd said:

BassNBrew said:

Idiots at the Marketplace cancelled my gf's policy today. She was doing her obligation to report her revised 2014 agi. Stupid rep rolled that number into the 2015 data which changed her plan. She may have gotten it sorted out but was disconnected at 45 minutes on the phone. Thank goodness she has someone like matttyl to help her get things fixed tomorrow.

Click to expand...

This is becoming a problem for people. As tax returns are being filed for 2014 the Marketplace is adjusting subsidies for this year. The problem is they are doing it wrong. I've got several people who have had their subsidies cut because they are figuring income incorrectly. This is especially true for anyone receiving social security or with a spouse receiving social security. They are adding in the entire social security paid rather than the taxable amount. Now they have to appeal that decision. This takes more than a little time, and in the meantime their premiums have been adjusted higher. And even when they win their appeal any lost subsidies won't be recaptured until they do their taxes for 2015.You would think it this should not be a problem since they can see the adjusted gross income which should be used to figure a subsidy. But even when the tax return is sent in to verify last year's income that isn't good enough.

Click to expand...

It's even worse for the lower income people. They can lose their plan if they aren't paying attention. That likely means they would be started on a new deductible even though we're part way though the year. Have fun sorting that out with a Blue Cross rep on the phone. They could also lose their subsidy altogether.

eta - What really pisses me off is that the gov't has hired incompetent people to administer this program. They don't understand the law, they don't understand what they are doing.

Click to expand...

tommyGunZ said:

BassNBrew said:

fourd said:

BassNBrew said:

Idiots at the Marketplace cancelled my gf's policy today. She was doing her obligation to report her revised 2014 agi. Stupid rep rolled that number into the 2015 data which changed her plan. She may have gotten it sorted out but was disconnected at 45 minutes on the phone. Thank goodness she has someone like matttyl to help her get things fixed tomorrow.

Click to expand...

This is becoming a problem for people. As tax returns are being filed for 2014 the Marketplace is adjusting subsidies for this year. The problem is they are doing it wrong. I've got several people who have had their subsidies cut because they are figuring income incorrectly. This is especially true for anyone receiving social security or with a spouse receiving social security. They are adding in the entire social security paid rather than the taxable amount. Now they have to appeal that decision. This takes more than a little time, and in the meantime their premiums have been adjusted higher. And even when they win their appeal any lost subsidies won't be recaptured until they do their taxes for 2015.You would think it this should not be a problem since they can see the adjusted gross income which should be used to figure a subsidy. But even when the tax return is sent in to verify last year's income that isn't good enough.

Click to expand...

It's even worse for the lower income people. They can lose their plan if they aren't paying attention. That likely means they would be started on a new deductible even though we're part way though the year. Have fun sorting that out with a Blue Cross rep on the phone. They could also lose their subsidy altogether.

eta - What really pisses me off is that the gov't has hired incompetent people to administer this program. They don't understand the law, they don't understand what they are doing.

Click to expand...

I always find it odd when folks who constantly whine about the costs of a policy are then angry that the govt isn't spending more on that program when they are personally affected.

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

tommyGunZ said:

BassNBrew said:

fourd said:

BassNBrew said:

Idiots at the Marketplace cancelled my gf's policy today. She was doing her obligation to report her revised 2014 agi. Stupid rep rolled that number into the 2015 data which changed her plan. She may have gotten it sorted out but was disconnected at 45 minutes on the phone. Thank goodness she has someone like matttyl to help her get things fixed tomorrow.

Click to expand...

This is becoming a problem for people. As tax returns are being filed for 2014 the Marketplace is adjusting subsidies for this year. The problem is they are doing it wrong. I've got several people who have had their subsidies cut because they are figuring income incorrectly. This is especially true for anyone receiving social security or with a spouse receiving social security. They are adding in the entire social security paid rather than the taxable amount. Now they have to appeal that decision. This takes more than a little time, and in the meantime their premiums have been adjusted higher. And even when they win their appeal any lost subsidies won't be recaptured until they do their taxes for 2015.You would think it this should not be a problem since they can see the adjusted gross income which should be used to figure a subsidy. But even when the tax return is sent in to verify last year's income that isn't good enough.

Click to expand...

It's even worse for the lower income people. They can lose their plan if they aren't paying attention. That likely means they would be started on a new deductible even though we're part way though the year. Have fun sorting that out with a Blue Cross rep on the phone. They could also lose their subsidy altogether.

eta - What really pisses me off is that the gov't has hired incompetent people to administer this program. They don't understand the law, they don't understand what they are doing.

Click to expand...

I always find it odd when folks who constantly whine about the costs of a policy are then angry that the govt isn't spending more on that program when they are personally affected.

Click to expand...

Where did that happen? He's angry that the money they spent wasn't spent wisely. Hire competent people, don't waste money.

Click to expand...

matttyl said:

tommyGunZ said:

BassNBrew said:

fourd said:

BassNBrew said:

Idiots at the Marketplace cancelled my gf's policy today. She was doing her obligation to report her revised 2014 agi. Stupid rep rolled that number into the 2015 data which changed her plan. She may have gotten it sorted out but was disconnected at 45 minutes on the phone. Thank goodness she has someone like matttyl to help her get things fixed tomorrow.

Click to expand...

This is becoming a problem for people. As tax returns are being filed for 2014 the Marketplace is adjusting subsidies for this year. The problem is they are doing it wrong. I've got several people who have had their subsidies cut because they are figuring income incorrectly. This is especially true for anyone receiving social security or with a spouse receiving social security. They are adding in the entire social security paid rather than the taxable amount. Now they have to appeal that decision. This takes more than a little time, and in the meantime their premiums have been adjusted higher. And even when they win their appeal any lost subsidies won't be recaptured until they do their taxes for 2015.You would think it this should not be a problem since they can see the adjusted gross income which should be used to figure a subsidy. But even when the tax return is sent in to verify last year's income that isn't good enough.

Click to expand...

It's even worse for the lower income people. They can lose their plan if they aren't paying attention. That likely means they would be started on a new deductible even though we're part way though the year. Have fun sorting that out with a Blue Cross rep on the phone. They could also lose their subsidy altogether.

eta - What really pisses me off is that the gov't has hired incompetent people to administer this program. They don't understand the law, they don't understand what they are doing.

Click to expand...

I always find it odd when folks who constantly whine about the costs of a policy are then angry that the govt isn't spending more on that program when they are personally affected.

Click to expand...

Where did that happen? He's angry that the money they spent wasn't spent wisely. Hire competent people, don't waste money.

Click to expand...

tommyGunZ said:

matttyl said:

tommyGunZ said:

BassNBrew said:

fourd said:

BassNBrew said:

Idiots at the Marketplace cancelled my gf's policy today. She was doing her obligation to report her revised 2014 agi. Stupid rep rolled that number into the 2015 data which changed her plan. She may have gotten it sorted out but was disconnected at 45 minutes on the phone. Thank goodness she has someone like matttyl to help her get things fixed tomorrow.

Click to expand...

This is becoming a problem for people. As tax returns are being filed for 2014 the Marketplace is adjusting subsidies for this year. The problem is they are doing it wrong. I've got several people who have had their subsidies cut because they are figuring income incorrectly. This is especially true for anyone receiving social security or with a spouse receiving social security. They are adding in the entire social security paid rather than the taxable amount. Now they have to appeal that decision. This takes more than a little time, and in the meantime their premiums have been adjusted higher. And even when they win their appeal any lost subsidies won't be recaptured until they do their taxes for 2015.You would think it this should not be a problem since they can see the adjusted gross income which should be used to figure a subsidy. But even when the tax return is sent in to verify last year's income that isn't good enough.

Click to expand...

It's even worse for the lower income people. They can lose their plan if they aren't paying attention. That likely means they would be started on a new deductible even though we're part way though the year. Have fun sorting that out with a Blue Cross rep on the phone. They could also lose their subsidy altogether.

eta - What really pisses me off is that the gov't has hired incompetent people to administer this program. They don't understand the law, they don't understand what they are doing.

Click to expand...

I always find it odd when folks who constantly whine about the costs of a policy are then angry that the govt isn't spending more on that program when they are personally affected.

Click to expand...

Where did that happen? He's angry that the money they spent wasn't spent wisely. Hire competent people, don't waste money.

Click to expand...

Re-read the nested quotes - Bass' GF was the victim off poor service.

And hiring more competent people generally means spending more money. Who knew you were in favor of increasing he costs of the ACA?

Click to expand...

tommyGunZ said:

matttyl said:

tommyGunZ said:

BassNBrew said:

fourd said:

BassNBrew said:

Idiots at the Marketplace cancelled my gf's policy today. She was doing her obligation to report her revised 2014 agi. Stupid rep rolled that number into the 2015 data which changed her plan. She may have gotten it sorted out but was disconnected at 45 minutes on the phone. Thank goodness she has someone like matttyl to help her get things fixed tomorrow.

Click to expand...

This is becoming a problem for people. As tax returns are being filed for 2014 the Marketplace is adjusting subsidies for this year. The problem is they are doing it wrong. I've got several people who have had their subsidies cut because they are figuring income incorrectly. This is especially true for anyone receiving social security or with a spouse receiving social security. They are adding in the entire social security paid rather than the taxable amount. Now they have to appeal that decision. This takes more than a little time, and in the meantime their premiums have been adjusted higher. And even when they win their appeal any lost subsidies won't be recaptured until they do their taxes for 2015.You would think it this should not be a problem since they can see the adjusted gross income which should be used to figure a subsidy. But even when the tax return is sent in to verify last year's income that isn't good enough.

Click to expand...

It's even worse for the lower income people. They can lose their plan if they aren't paying attention. That likely means they would be started on a new deductible even though we're part way though the year. Have fun sorting that out with a Blue Cross rep on the phone. They could also lose their subsidy altogether.

eta - What really pisses me off is that the gov't has hired incompetent people to administer this program. They don't understand the law, they don't understand what they are doing.

Click to expand...

I always find it odd when folks who constantly whine about the costs of a policy are then angry that the govt isn't spending more on that program when they are personally affected.

Click to expand...

Where did that happen? He's angry that the money they spent wasn't spent wisely. Hire competent people, don't waste money.

Click to expand...

Re-read the nested quotes - Bass' GF was the victim off poor service.

And hiring more competent people generally means spending more money. Who knew you were in favor of increasing he costs of the ACA?

Click to expand...