ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[isaiah40]

Come on Player! I know a few people whose health insurance rates went up because of Obamacare!!!! Their rates are going up like $700 per year! How in the world is that affordable! The reason the rates are going up is because now the insurance companies are going to have to cover people with pre-exsisting conditions. Oh wait you could get insurance before with a pre-existing condition, and it didn't affect those who didn't have a pre-exsisting condition. I know because I have health insurance for my wife who has a pre-exsiting heart condition, adn just recently she had to go to the emergency room and they wanted to inject iodine into her so they can take a picture of her lungs. When she arrived at the emergency room she was short of breathe - overexerting herself - and when they checked her oxygen levels it was in the normal range of 95 - 100, but the doctor said it was too low for his liking - hers was at 97. Now you tell me what shortness of breathe has to do with tingling sensation in her left arm, a burning sensation in the same arm and tightness in the chest. NOTHING!!! The doctor saw that we had insurance so he decided to run other tests. Oh my wife refused the iodine at that time but the doctor kicked her out of the hospital because she didn't want to do what he wanted. How's that for health care!!!

[oVo]

Last week Ted Cruz said "Obamacare is hurting Americans."
There are more than six million citizens in his state that
lack any form of health insurance.

Did I miss something, Today is October 1st and it is the start
of this thing called the Affordable Care Act.

It is also the start of a Government Shutdown with a lot
of finger pointing and few negotiations to resolve it.

[Gillipig]

I wonder how many went to work anyway. Going to work without getting payed? Now that's sad, very sad.

[oVo]

Going to work without getting paid? Now that's sad.

Artists do it every day... as well as a lot of community volunteers
who just want to see improvements where they live.

[Gillipig]

If you're good at something never do it for free, am I right phatscotty?

Spoiler

On a more serious note, but not so serious that you'll ask me why I am so serious, I think the artists who are good at what they do usually find a way to get payed for what they do.

[oVo]

Come on Player! I know a few people whose health insurance rates went up because of Obamacare!!!!

How does that happen before the Affordable Care Act is in effect?

I have health insurance for my wife who has a pre-exsiting heart condition. [...] Recently she went to the emergency room [...] but the doctor kicked her out. How's that for health care!!!

That sounds ridiculous, did they at least do an ekg on her while there? I'm guessing she's okay now and there were no complications after the ER visit. Is there more to this story? Have your health insurance premiums increased and have you researched what --if any-- effect the Affordable Care Act will have on you?

[PLAYER57832]

Come on Player! I know a few people whose health insurance rates went up because of Obamacare!!!! Their rates are going up like $700 per year!

The exchanges are only operational today????

Or, perhaps you just mean that insurance rates did not suddenly drop for those who have insurance? Thinking they would was the crazy idea. Insurance keeps going up because medical care keeps improving, getting more technical and that increases costs phenomenally. What should happen is that the rates should slow.

How in the world is that affordable! The reason the rates are going up is because now the insurance companies are going to have to cover people with pre-exsisting conditions. Oh wait you could get insurance before with a pre-existing condition, and it didn't affect those who didn't have a pre-exsisting condition. I know because I have health insurance for my wife who has a pre-exsiting heart condition,

Really? and its not government subsidized Medicaid and doesn't cost you a fortune? The you, or rather she, is lucky indeed!

adn just recently she had to go to the emergency room and they wanted to inject iodine into her so they can take a picture of her lungs. When she arrived at the emergency room she was short of breathe - overexerting herself - and when they checked her oxygen levels it was in the normal range of 95 - 100, but the doctor said it was too low for his liking - hers was at 97. Now you tell me what shortness of breathe has to do with tingling sensation in her left arm, a burning sensation in the same arm and tightness in the chest. NOTHING!!!

Having been an EMT for about 10 years, I can tell you that it has a LOT to do with heart conditions, but carry on....

The doctor saw that we had insurance so he decided to run other tests. Oh my wife refused the iodine at that time but the doctor kicked her out of the hospital because she didn't want to do what he wanted. How's that for health care!!!

Hmm, your doctor made sure your wife had coverage, so you would not be foisted with a huge bill prior to doing the procedure (standard practice, pre-approval is generally required for things that are not absolute emergencies). Your wife decided to ignore his advice, so he told her to leave?

Well, not sure what you are complaining about, though I do hope your wife is OK.

Oh, yeah, if your wife starts having jaw pain AND arm pain.... PLEASE take her to the emergency room IMMEDIATELY. In fact, just call the ambulance! It might possibly be a false alarm, but most women, particularly have many small heart attacks with few symptoms prior to having the big one that does them real harm. (seriously!)

[Nobunaga]

Meanwhile...

Oops: MSNBC Anchor Can’t Access Obamacare Exchange

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/36 ... ew-johnson


25% OF UNINSURED SAY PLAN TO STAY THAT WAY - ELECT TO PAY FINES

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... y-That-Way


Obama administration: Lawmakers, staff can get abortion coverage

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -coverage/

... This one actually violates a law made in 1983, determining that tax revenue cannot in any way be used for such a purpose. But hell, who cares - they're just laws.

... The Senate refused to negotiate with the House again yesterday, but took enough time to take a vote to maintain their own 75% taxpayer-paid subsidies for Obamacare.

...

[Night Strike]

Last week Ted Cruz said "Obamacare is hurting Americans."
There are more than six million citizens in his state that
lack any form of health insurance.

So there are exactly no downsides or problems with the law and the only thing it does is hand money and insurance to those who need it? Yeah, sure, keep believing that.

Or, perhaps you just mean that insurance rates did not suddenly drop for those who have insurance? Thinking they would was the crazy idea.

So you're now calling Obama crazy? Because he promised that insurance costs would go DOWN by $2500 due to Obamacare. Where were you when all of us were calling it a lie back then?

[MegaProphet]

Come on Player! I know a few people whose health insurance rates went up because of Obamacare!!!!

How does that happen before the Affordable Care Act is in effect?

Ask Ted Cruz, according to him that darn Obamacare has been causing problems since 2007

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/27/c ... re-speech/

[jj3044]

This appears to be one of the major cruxes of our disagreement. I did not find anything in the law stating that insurance companies need to keep costs of insurance low. Is there some price fixing measure that the law provides?

To tired to answer the whole bit right now, but the law specifies that insurance companies have to use x percent of their premiums actually providing care. There was a big news bit a few months ago about at least one of the big insurance companies paying back a part of its premiums. As I also said, I have no doubt that the companies will find ways to either get around or somehow twist this, but it is in the law for now.

As for the "keeping it low" bit, that is a disingenuous argument, because medicine keeps advancing phenomenally and each advance increases expenses. That is also why the act could be 100% fully successful... and still be labeled a "failure" by those who just plain hate Obama.

You are correct, the law states that insurance companies have to spend at least 85 cents of every dollar directly to pay medical claims. That means that the 15% they take in has to go towards overhead and if anything left, profit. Typical profits are only in the 1-2%.

No, most of that 15% goes toward administration, not profit. Whether that is too high or too low is another point. I just said it is in place. Currently, some plans spend as much as 50% on "overhead" and profits.

lol? Please show me an example of an insurance company using up to 50% of premium revenue on overhead and profits. That is not the case at all. If it were the case, their competition in that state would drive them out of business very quickly. In fact there were instances last year where insurers had to pay money back to their customers because they didn't use at least 85% of the premium revenue on claims. I believe Highmark was an example (but I'd need to check, can't remember the company off the top of my head).

Here is a question I would like to ask to everyone who is against the law. What would success look like? Meaning, what outcomes from the act would make you sit down and say "geez, I was wrong about that one!"?

Serious question. I want to see where everyone's heads are.

If costs of insurance and healthcare dropped significantly (to offset the relative cost of the law in tax dollars) without sacrificing the excellent care most Americans already get, I would say the Affordable Care Act is a success.

Excellent response, thank you. I look forward to others.

Well, I would disagree with the point that most Americans already get excellent care. Most of those making over $75K or so get excellent care. For everyone else.. its far less wonderful.

Still, if more people get care and the rates of increases slows a tad, it has been a success. Success ALSO might mean moving us closer to another idea that really will fix the issues. That is, if the Affordable Care Act is replaced, but replaced by something better than what we had or have, then it is STILL a success in my mind.

Regarding your first point, there are a lot of people who had great coverage before the ACA, and not necessarily those that make 75k or more. In fact, I work with several manufacturing companies that have VERY rich benefits, and their average rate of pay isn't even close tot he figure you provided.

Your second point, I completely agree with. This isn't perfect, but it is putting up on a better path.

[jj3044]

You are correct, the law states that insurance companies have to spend at least 85 cents of every dollar directly to pay medical claims. That means that the 15% they take in has to go towards overhead and if anything left, profit. Typical profits are only in the 1-2%.

Okay, given your response, how do you not think this is a benefit to insurance companies? Player, thoughts?

The logic here is flawed (or, rather, you're not really addressing the point). If insurance companies can pull 1-2% profits (or 15% for costs and profit), that becomes material in the context of how much dollars are taken in by insurance companies. So, if (as in my scenario) the costs of health insurance increases to drive more dollars of profit for insurance companies, the percentage of profits allowed to be taken by the insurance companies is largely irrelevant. Plus, this:

So far we’ve learned that individuals must purchase qualified health insurance and insurers will no longer be able to decline coverage to individuals with preexisting medical conditions. This is similar to the auto insurance industry. Auto insurance is mandatory in many states. As a result, in these states, the pool of potential customers is equal to the entire driving population of that state. Hence, the pool of customers is very large. To compare, let’s say you own a shop that produces widgets and the government requires everyone to buy one. That would be great for your business. Here’s the main difference. Although people’s driving habits will vary and some will be a lower risk than others, with medical insurance, the potential loss is far greater and the risk is much higher with people who already have a serious health condition. Even though the pool of potential customers will be larger, in the aggregate, it will also be less healthy.

Because the risk is greater, premiums will likely increase. There are a few possible scenarios. Insurance companies may segment their business where one segment is the most healthy, another has some medical conditions and another has the most severe conditions. However, this would result in a large difference in premiums between the most and least healthy and would probably not be received very well. If you think about it, the individuals with the worst medical conditions would be required to pay the most. Is this fair? I suppose it depends who you ask.

TGD, are you insinuating that insurance companies should operate at a 0 margin? They have to make SOME profit, right? I mean, they are private companies, after all...

As for the quote above, this individual must not understand the fundamental rules of the ACA. Insurance companies cannot charge more for a preexisting condition anymore. They can only build premium schedules on demographics.

Now, adverse selection may occur where the unhealthier individuals are picking the richer plans and the healthier individuals are picking the lower cost, catastrophic coverage plans, but that has nothing to do with preexisting coverage, just the level of coverage that you WANT for you and your family.

[Nobunaga]

The whole thing is designed to fall apart.

Three years they've had to set this up, but flaws are found on a daily basis, Obamacare "navigators" can't navigate their way out of a parking lot, rates are skyrocketing and insurance companies are completely abandoning entire states (Kentucky went from 32 to 2 overnight).

Well, either it was designed to fall apart (to be later replaced by some manner of Federal Act wich will never be repealed), or this is simply a demonstration of how well our government manages things. 3 years... and so many problems...

[jj3044]

The whole thing is designed to fall apart.

Three years they've had to set this up, but flaws are found on a daily basis, Obamacare "navigators" can't navigate their way out of a parking lot, rates are skyrocketing and insurance companies are completely abandoning entire states (Kentucky went from 32 to 2 overnight).

Well, either it was designed to fall apart (to be later replaced by some manner of Federal Act wich will never be repealed), or this is simply a demonstration of how well our government manages things. 3 years... and so many problems...

There will always be flaws with an implementation this huge. No matter if you have a squad of the best project managers ever there will be issues. My company had an IT system replacement that took 2 years. Three years wasn't a lot of time at all to tackle something this large.

As for the navigators, have you interacted with one? The exchanges opened today you know... so this is day #1...

[Metsfanmax]

The whole thing is designed to fall apart.

Three years they've had to set this up, but flaws are found on a daily basis, Obamacare "navigators" can't navigate their way out of a parking lot, rates are skyrocketing and insurance companies are completely abandoning entire states (Kentucky went from 32 to 2 overnight).

Well, either it was designed to fall apart (to be later replaced by some manner of Federal Act wich will never be repealed), or this is simply a demonstration of how well our government manages things. 3 years... and so many problems...

There will always be flaws with an implementation this huge. No matter if you have a squad of the best project managers ever there will be issues. My company had an IT system replacement that took 2 years. Three years wasn't a lot of time at all to tackle something this large.

As for the navigators, have you interacted with one? The exchanges opened today you know... so this is day #1...

Did you actually witness one attempting to leave a parking lot, or is that pure conjecture?

[oVo]

So there are exactly no downsides or problems with the law and the only thing it does is hand money and insurance to those who need it? Yeah, sure, keep believing that.

I have yet to hear anyone say there are no downsides or problems with initiating and implementing this Affordable Care Act. It is a huge undertaking and one of the first surprises was that opponents to the concept are willing to spend absurd amounts of money to block it. They are not generating constructive criticism or presenting alternative proposals to improve a healthcare system that has needed overhauled for decades.

[Phatscotty]

So there are exactly no downsides or problems with the law and the only thing it does is hand money and insurance to those who need it? Yeah, sure, keep believing that.

I have yet to hear anyone say there are no downsides or problems with initiating and implementing this Affordable Care Act. It is a huge undertaking and one of the first surprises was that opponents to the concept are willing to spend absurd amounts of money to block it. They are not generating constructive criticism or presenting alternative proposals to improve a healthcare system that has needed overhauled for decades.

That's bull. They spent absurd amounts of money (certainly not 2.6 trillion, like the Democrats are trying to spendm but that's not absurd at all at a time we can't even make the interest payments on yesterdays debt and multiple downgrades) trying to block it because it was railroaded through Congress, behind closed doors, nobody read the bill when they voted on it, it did not have a single Republican vote to support the passage of Obamacare, while there are Democrats voting to repeal/defund Obamacare


The creative criticism was there, but why would the other side listen when the Democrats have their super majority? They passed a Democrat only bill. It should not surprise you or anyone that Republicans are against it.

Republicans wanted each part of Obamacare debated and voted on separately, because there were many things in Obamacare that Republicans also supported. But the fact that Obama had an individual mandate on it, promised up and down that it wasn't a tax (while the only way it could exist is if it is a tax as the Supreme Court passed it) then of course they will try to block it. And remember all the people suffering in 2009, who couldn't wait another day for healthcare reform....well here we are, 4 years later and they are still waiting. It was all pure BS.

Democrats fucked up big time i the way they passed it in 2009, like they thought they would have their super majority forever. But what happened was the American People took Congress away from the Democrats in 2010, and the American People did it in such a way the Democrats suffered the worst lost since 1938. Clearly Americans did not like what the Democrats did or how they did it. That any chance of real healthcare reform was ruined by Obama's greed to 'get it ALL' and make this the centerpiece of "fundamental transformation", that's the real tragedy

[Phatscotty]

Come on Player! I know a few people whose health insurance rates went up because of Obamacare!!!!

How does that happen before the Affordable Care Act is in effect?

The same way Obama promised 4 years ago the average family's premium would drop by an average price of $2,500.

How can a stock price rise or drop before the economy takes a crap/rebounds? It's called planning ahead based on expectations.


Also, Player said Obamacare was already helping here and other people, that was probably in 2011-ish. Obama and Democrats have been saying for years people are already getting help from Obamacare, and regularly uses it as a reason why "Republicans want you to get sick and die!"

[Phatscotty]

[thegreekdog]

You are correct, the law states that insurance companies have to spend at least 85 cents of every dollar directly to pay medical claims. That means that the 15% they take in has to go towards overhead and if anything left, profit. Typical profits are only in the 1-2%.

Okay, given your response, how do you not think this is a benefit to insurance companies? Player, thoughts?

The logic here is flawed (or, rather, you're not really addressing the point). If insurance companies can pull 1-2% profits (or 15% for costs and profit), that becomes material in the context of how much dollars are taken in by insurance companies. So, if (as in my scenario) the costs of health insurance increases to drive more dollars of profit for insurance companies, the percentage of profits allowed to be taken by the insurance companies is largely irrelevant. Plus, this:

So far we’ve learned that individuals must purchase qualified health insurance and insurers will no longer be able to decline coverage to individuals with preexisting medical conditions. This is similar to the auto insurance industry. Auto insurance is mandatory in many states. As a result, in these states, the pool of potential customers is equal to the entire driving population of that state. Hence, the pool of customers is very large. To compare, let’s say you own a shop that produces widgets and the government requires everyone to buy one. That would be great for your business. Here’s the main difference. Although people’s driving habits will vary and some will be a lower risk than others, with medical insurance, the potential loss is far greater and the risk is much higher with people who already have a serious health condition. Even though the pool of potential customers will be larger, in the aggregate, it will also be less healthy.

Because the risk is greater, premiums will likely increase. There are a few possible scenarios. Insurance companies may segment their business where one segment is the most healthy, another has some medical conditions and another has the most severe conditions. However, this would result in a large difference in premiums between the most and least healthy and would probably not be received very well. If you think about it, the individuals with the worst medical conditions would be required to pay the most. Is this fair? I suppose it depends who you ask.

TGD, are you insinuating that insurance companies should operate at a 0 margin? They have to make SOME profit, right? I mean, they are private companies, after all...

As for the quote above, this individual must not understand the fundamental rules of the ACA. Insurance companies cannot charge more for a preexisting condition anymore. They can only build premium schedules on demographics.

Now, adverse selection may occur where the unhealthier individuals are picking the richer plans and the healthier individuals are picking the lower cost, catastrophic coverage plans, but that has nothing to do with preexisting coverage, just the level of coverage that you WANT for you and your family.

I think insurance companies should operate on whatever margin they want. I think you're missing my point (which is weird since I've made it 20 times in this thread). Insurance companies like the affordable care act. It makes people buy their product. And provides that the government will pay for it if people can't afford it.

Player (or you) - can you provide the link to the law where it says something about the insurance company, 85 cents, 15%, etc.?

[Night Strike]

There will always be flaws with an implementation this huge. No matter if you have a squad of the best project managers ever there will be issues. My company had an IT system replacement that took 2 years. Three years wasn't a lot of time at all to tackle something this large.

I have yet to hear anyone say there are no downsides or problems with initiating and implementing this Affordable Care Act. It is a huge undertaking and one of the first surprises was that opponents to the concept are willing to spend absurd amounts of money to block it. They are not generating constructive criticism or presenting alternative proposals to improve a healthcare system that has needed overhauled for decades.

This is precisely why there should never be programs this large. The federal government was never designed to institute massive domestic programs, which is why they're so bad at it. It was designed to be a liaison to other countries, operate national defense, and mediate disputes between the states. It was never meant to rule our lives through bloated national programs.

And yes, there have been PLENTY of alternative proposals out there. Just because the progressives don't like them doesn't mean they don't exist.

[oVo]

National Defense is the biggest budget qualifying as a "massive program" and so does Social Security, Medicare, FEMA and the Corp of Engineers.

111th Congress - Roll Call & basics
HR 3590: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Passed House March 21, 2010

113th Congress - Roll Call & basics
HR 45: To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
and health care-related provisions in the Health Care
and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.
Passed House May 16, 2013

Recent Events:
A bumpy start isn't a surprise is it? Whitehouse Site
As Millions login to sites in the first hour yesterday.
Affordable Care and Health Care Reform

Due to the lapse in government funding, only websites supporting excepted functions will be updated unless otherwise funded. As a result, the information on this website may not be up to date, the transactions submitted via the website may not be processed, and the agency may not be able to respond to inquiries until appropriations are enacted.

Updates regarding government operating status and resumption of normal operations can be found at http://www.usa.gov. Revised October 1, 2013.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not a big fan of pointing to "hahahaha, he can't log on" as evidence that the Affordable Care Act is flawed. Seems like an easy way out.

[oVo]

I'm not a fan of the obstructionist mentality, like GOPers who spoke out the day this President was inaugurated saying, "I'm going to do all I can to insure Obama is a one term President." The democratically elected government and public officials are supposed to represent the citizens first and that shouldn't be trumped by party affiliation. I anticipate bias, but also expect some people to move beyond business as usual and stagnant party politics.

States who have put in place as many speed bumps as possible to slow the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's implementation can't point and laugh without looking like fucktards. Since they are the initial flaw and a bad joke that must be overcome.

[BigBallinStalin]

If the tables were turned, Democrats would be pulling all the stops as well. Nearly all politicians nearly all the time act on their self-interests, so I don't find contrary expectations and hopes to be useful or even reasonable.

Nor would I find criticisms aimed at one party to generate any useful knowledge; all that accomplishes is 'ignore what my side would've done if the circumstances were different' and 'yay, go us, we're so awesome!'. That kind of thinking promotes idiocy; therefore, Ezra Klein is certainly a dildo.

I'll retract that conclusion because dildos are much more valuable than the Ezra Kleins and Billy Mahers of this world. Instead, they are degenerates.