ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
That is excellent. Thank you.
That is excellent. Thank you.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Yes, the ACA partially accomplished a couple of things that it wanted to do. It wanted to get everyone insured. Thus far it has failed, but there are certainly more people insured than before.
The law intended to get people on insurance who otherwise struggled to get insurance due to pre-existing conditions. The law has caused that to happen, again not completely, but it is better than before.
But supporters also claimed that with all these new people in the market for insurance, we would see all these new companies entering the exchanges, causing competition and a corresponding decrease in insurance premiums. Huge fail there. You post, "occasionally an insurer will leave a marketplace." In Minnesota, Medica, United Healthcare and BCBS are the insurers. They are the huge providers of insurance coverage in this state and they are running for the hills. That is why, as Scooby has pointed out, people get their notices and find out how much their premiums are jumping and they are shocked.
You and others like you can continue with the "nothing to see here, move along" mantra, but the public ain't buying it.
You haven't humiliated anyone.
Yes, the ACA partially accomplished a couple of things that it wanted to do. It wanted to get everyone insured. Thus far it has failed, but there are certainly more people insured than before.
The law intended to get people on insurance who otherwise struggled to get insurance due to pre-existing conditions. The law has caused that to happen, again not completely, but it is better than before.
But supporters also claimed that with all these new people in the market for insurance, we would see all these new companies entering the exchanges, causing competition and a corresponding decrease in insurance premiums. Huge fail there. You post, "occasionally an insurer will leave a marketplace." In Minnesota, Medica, United Healthcare and BCBS are the insurers. They are the huge providers of insurance coverage in this state and they are running for the hills. That is why, as Scooby has pointed out, people get their notices and find out how much their premiums are jumping and they are shocked.
You and others like you can continue with the "nothing to see here, move along" mantra, but the public ain't buying it.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Where in gods name did people say premiums would go down? This is a classic strawman argument of making up a claim and then arguing against it. This isn't Fox news. What advocates did say is it would ease the cost increases for insurance. While we can't know exactly the hypothetical rate people would have paid in a non-ACA world, St. Clown's link spelled it out that increases are at 15 year lows. We've seen this across the board.
Secondly, you show your bias which you freely attribute to me by taking a provision of the law which hasn't even been in effect for 3 years and jumping to conclusions. One has to wonder what people like you were saying about Medicare and Social Security then they were in their infancy.
Lastly, the polling I found from Gallup this year had the ACA at 47/49 on approval-disapproval which pretty much matches the split in this country so I'm not sure the public has come around to your viewpoint en masse.
Where in gods name did people say premiums would go down? This is a classic strawman argument of making up a claim and then arguing against it. This isn't Fox news. What advocates did say is it would ease the cost increases for insurance. While we can't know exactly the hypothetical rate people would have paid in a non-ACA world, St. Clown's link spelled it out that increases are at 15 year lows. We've seen this across the board.
Secondly, you show your bias which you freely attribute to me by taking a provision of the law which hasn't even been in effect for 3 years and jumping to conclusions. One has to wonder what people like you were saying about Medicare and Social Security then they were in their infancy.
Lastly, the polling I found from Gallup this year had the ACA at 47/49 on approval-disapproval which pretty much matches the split in this country so I'm not sure the public has come around to your viewpoint en masse.
Wasn't it the President who also claimed that you could keep your own doctor and your plan?
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Here's the problem. First, because the ACA was such a change, no one including the big insurers had any idea how this would work. No one knew how many would or would not sign up. No one knew what usage of health care would be like. It was just a crapshoot.
What we are starting to see is that the insurers grossly underestimated what their premiums should be. Thus, this ACA "effect" you love to tout of slowing the cost increases for insurance is a mirage. It's a mirage caused by creating a new system and asking the insurers to guess what the premiums should be. It's a mirage created by the reinsurance paid by the government for the first three years to help offset some of their costs, reinsurance which is about to end and from what I've been able to find will certainly boost costs by a minimum of 5-7% per year.
But that mirage is about to disappear, along with its creator. Meanwhile I'll be listening to sad stories where employees tell me they got their notice and their insurance premium went up 15% this year.
Where in gods name did people say premiums would go down? This is a classic strawman argument of making up a claim and then arguing against it. This isn't Fox news. What advocates did say is it would ease the cost increases for insurance. While we can't know exactly the hypothetical rate people would have paid in a non-ACA world, St. Clown's link spelled it out that increases are at 15 year lows. We've seen this across the board.
Secondly, you show your bias which you freely attribute to me by taking a provision of the law which hasn't even been in effect for 3 years and jumping to conclusions. One has to wonder what people like you were saying about Medicare and Social Security then they were in their infancy.
Lastly, the polling I found from Gallup this year had the ACA at 47/49 on approval-disapproval which pretty much matches the split in this country so I'm not sure the public has come around to your viewpoint en masse.
Here's the problem. First, because the ACA was such a change, no one including the big insurers had any idea how this would work. No one knew how many would or would not sign up. No one knew what usage of health care would be like. It was just a crapshoot.
What we are starting to see is that the insurers grossly underestimated what their premiums should be. Thus, this ACA "effect" you love to tout of slowing the cost increases for insurance is a mirage. It's a mirage caused by creating a new system and asking the insurers to guess what the premiums should be. It's a mirage created by the reinsurance paid by the government for the first three years to help offset some of their costs, reinsurance which is about to end and from what I've been able to find will certainly boost costs by a minimum of 5-7% per year.
But that mirage is about to disappear, along with its creator. Meanwhile I'll be listening to sad stories where employees tell me they got their notice and their insurance premium went up 15% this year.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Right here buddy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o65vMUk5so
Right here buddy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_o65vMUk5so
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
I agree up to a point in that yes the actual makeup of the insurance pool was an unknown, and insurers and the govt need a longer trend than they currently have to smooth out rate expectations. That's just life though. What I tend to push back against is the notion that everything should have worked exactly as expected from day 1. Even Social Security, widely thought of as the most successful govt program in history, has had some tweaks since its passage in the 1930's.
What I don't necessarily agree with is the idea that a mirage has been created on lower costs. More likely some insurers guessed at rates but also low-balled them a bid to attract new customers. But, that's par for the course on any insurer trying to gain new customers. Hence the free market aspect we've heard about. This happened at my employer where the existing insurance option went up 15% YoY but if you switched it was no increase. A 2nd new carrier offered 5%. The actions of individual carriers is not dictated by the law. You also must shop around. However the cost savings are real in several areas not related to this. First is insurers must put 80% of premiums towards claims instead of pocketing half of it. Next if you have insurance you now by law have a out of pocket maximum. As someone who's wife had twin boys last year, let me tell you that's a BIG savings. Lastly preventative care and regular check ups are now covered by insurance.
As advocates said before, during, and after the law passed - any tweaks to make it work better are totally welcome. But, I wrote out here during the discussion that there's two ways to judge the law's success. 1) Do more people have insurance, 2) did the cost curve bend, as in total payouts are less than expected payouts. Check and check.
Scoobs can't see your link but Obama claimed premiums would be $2,500 lower than they would have been had the law not been enacted, not that you'd be paying $2,500 less than before. For someone who's a supposed liberal you sure do parrot conservative talking points a lot.
I agree up to a point in that yes the actual makeup of the insurance pool was an unknown, and insurers and the govt need a longer trend than they currently have to smooth out rate expectations. That's just life though. What I tend to push back against is the notion that everything should have worked exactly as expected from day 1. Even Social Security, widely thought of as the most successful govt program in history, has had some tweaks since its passage in the 1930's.
What I don't necessarily agree with is the idea that a mirage has been created on lower costs. More likely some insurers guessed at rates but also low-balled them a bid to attract new customers. But, that's par for the course on any insurer trying to gain new customers. Hence the free market aspect we've heard about. This happened at my employer where the existing insurance option went up 15% YoY but if you switched it was no increase. A 2nd new carrier offered 5%. The actions of individual carriers is not dictated by the law. You also must shop around. However the cost savings are real in several areas not related to this. First is insurers must put 80% of premiums towards claims instead of pocketing half of it. Next if you have insurance you now by law have a out of pocket maximum. As someone who's wife had twin boys last year, let me tell you that's a BIG savings. Lastly preventative care and regular check ups are now covered by insurance.
As advocates said before, during, and after the law passed - any tweaks to make it work better are totally welcome. But, I wrote out here during the discussion that there's two ways to judge the law's success. 1) Do more people have insurance, 2) did the cost curve bend, as in total payouts are less than expected payouts. Check and check.
Scoobs can't see your link but Obama claimed premiums would be $2,500 lower than they would have been had the law not been enacted, not that you'd be paying $2,500 less than before. For someone who's a supposed liberal you sure do parrot conservative talking points a lot.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Scooby if you are so cavalier about 2.5K kindly write me a check for that amount.
The health care system does need re-doing. That's part of what the ACA is attempting to do. Step 1 is to get people covered. Step 2 is to go after anybody price gouging particularly with pharmaceuticals.
Scooby if you are so cavalier about 2.5K kindly write me a check for that amount.
The health care system does need re-doing. That's part of what the ACA is attempting to do. Step 1 is to get people covered. Step 2 is to go after anybody price gouging particularly with pharmaceuticals.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
So many more people are ensured. Preventative health care is now largely included in coverage (it wasn't before). There is a' no pre existing conditions' clause (many couldn't get insurance because of some pre existing conditions - no more). Limited accessability due to lack of previous health care (used to be that if you weren't covered, it was extremely difficult to get coverage - no more). The marketplace is more transparent due to exchanges for those that spend time shopping....and healthcare costs have moderated? Sounds like ACA is largely a win.
So many more people are ensured. Preventative health care is now largely included in coverage (it wasn't before). There is a' no pre existing conditions' clause (many couldn't get insurance because of some pre existing conditions - no more). Limited accessability due to lack of previous health care (used to be that if you weren't covered, it was extremely difficult to get coverage - no more). The marketplace is more transparent due to exchanges for those that spend time shopping....and healthcare costs have moderated? Sounds like ACA is largely a win.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Since Obamacare has passed I've easily cleared that. Easily.
Since Obamacare has passed I've easily cleared that. Easily.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
No, my rates for my family have increased 10K over the last 6 years. Blue Cross Blue Shield increased rates 37% last year alone.
No, my rates for my family have increased 10K over the last 6 years. Blue Cross Blue Shield increased rates 37% last year alone.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Yeah I'm with dxm in calling BS on this. My total out of pocket premium isn't even 10K in total. Granted I get insurance through work, but still. Unless you didn't have insurance previously and now you do, that's a bit much.
Yeah I'm with dxm in calling BS on this. My total out of pocket premium isn't even 10K in total. Granted I get insurance through work, but still. Unless you didn't have insurance previously and now you do, that's a bit much.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
What part of 37% don't you get? And that was just last year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/u...es-seek-big-rate-increases-for-2016.html?_r=0
Call BS all you want.
What part of 37% don't you get? And that was just last year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/u...es-seek-big-rate-increases-for-2016.html?_r=0
Call BS all you want.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Using this calculator, plugging in my personal information, and assuming our three kids were still under the age of 21 (they're not), my "average" anticipated annual premium is about $17,000.
http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/
Using this calculator, plugging in my personal information, and assuming our three kids were still under the age of 21 (they're not), my "average" anticipated annual premium is about $17,000.
http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Scoobs, what they request and what they are granted are two different things.
Why can't you get insurance through your employer?
Scoobs, what they request and what they are granted are two different things.
Why can't you get insurance through your employer?
unofan
Well-known member
If you still had 3 kids under 21, you and your spouse would also be some number of years younger.
Just saying, if you play with the scenario in an effort to make your premium higher, it's not shocking that your premium would be higher.
- Status