Obama care website is finaly working.

[nddons]

The decision to end the plan was your insurers, not the government. They could have decided to maintain the plan.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...-cancel-policies-and-what-you-can-do-about-it.

You and other Obamacare defenders are completely out of your mind on this point. They could NOT have maintained it, and their decision to end them was a direct result of government interference in the insurance relationship that people have, and have generally been happy with, with their insurance companies.

 

[LDJones]

Excuse me, ma'am, but I do not think the law you cite stands for the proposition you are advancing.

Looks like she Godwin'd you!

 

[LDJones]

The fact is that including coverage for those items DECREASES the cost of insurance to you. Math. It is simply far more cost effective to provide preventative care than restorative care. Since the members of the same policy you take out get the same benefits as you get, providing them with preventative care costs you less. Math.

You keep making that statement as if it is gospel. It's not. There are some gains to be found for some preventative, but others end up costing more than the treatment ultimately would.

Sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching. Studies have concluded that preventing illness can in some cases save money but in other cases can add to health care costs.3 For example, screening costs will exceed the savings from avoided treatment in cases in which only a very small fraction of the population would have become ill in the absence of preventive measures. Preventive measures that do not save money may or may not represent cost-effective care (i.e., good value for the resources expended). Whether any preventive measure saves money or is a reasonable investment despite adding to costs depends entirely on the particular intervention and the specific population in question. For example, drugs used to treat high cholesterol yield much greater value for the money if the targeted population is at high risk for coronary heart disease, and the efficiency of cancer screening can depend heavily on both the frequency of the screening and the level of cancer risk in the screened population.4

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558

 

[nddons]

As an employer, I would LOVE to quit offering employer sponsored health care, there is no logical reason that I should be involved in the procurement of health insurance for other people. That ain't my expertise.

Unfortunately, we have had had a quirk in the laws for 70 years that provides tax reasons to do so, and they continue under ACA. Employers ain't dropping healthcare due to ACA.

The employer mandate was deferred for one year. Wait until it comes into force next year. You ain't seen nothing yet.

 

[EppyGA]

It is a tragedy in slow motion.

Spike, the assumption you make is this is plan that was designed to work and work well. I would argue that is designed to be a tragedy so they can demonize the insurance companies and move on to single payer. Never forget that single payer is the end game for them.

 

[LDJones]

Are you sure there are really "millions of people" "now scrambling"? They were all given adequate notice, and, they can likely sign up for much better plans than before. There are a great many of the "millions of people" who actually had crappy policies at expensive rates. It just so happens that those narratives are getting lost by the sensational ones that Fox News and the Daily Caller keep digging up (frequently to be exposed for inaccurate).

If you really care about "millions", what do you think of the over 1 million people in Texas that won't get Medicaid because Rick Perry doesn't want them to have health insurance? What about the 700k in Florida in similar circumstances? What is your solution for them?

Wow, did the DNC mail out their talking points? I've heard these verbatim from the Obama mouthpieces. Where do they get this shinola?? "Crappy policies at expensive rates"....but they were happy with it, and the replacement has a higher deductible and higher premiums, but we're supposed to bow and say, "Thank you, massa!"??!

Amazing.

 

[LDJones]

The leap from Matthew's question to Peggy's reply is why conversations with people like Peggy are so frustrating. There's a distinct, huffy sort of self righteousness about sticking up for the less fortunate, as if the rest of us don't get that the less fortunate and their needs do matter. Most people are willing to some extent to bear some of the burdens of their fellow humans, especially those who have experienced true misfortune, as opposed to self-inflicted dysfunctional choices. And don't stretch that. Any parent knows what I mean there.

Where it becomes a problem is when "helping" others actually hurts them, and ultimately all of us, by creating systems that: 1) foster dependency and poor choices, over generations; 2) transfer one's earned resources ever more and more to those in control to administer to those who become mired in those systems; and 3) reduce one's earned resources to the point where one has difficulty meeting one's own needs and staying out of the system, thereby throwing one ultimately onto the mercy of the system.

It's a formula for socialism, control by elites. No attempts to distract with references to Rosa Parks and cries of "discrimination" can hide that fact. If my policy costs $300 per month more as a result of ACA, that's $300 less per month that I can't spend on healthy food to help keep myself out of the system. That doesn't go anywhere good in terms of health and health care.

Yes, ACA is the law of the land. But so were slavery and Prohibition. Both were inherently opposed to what America is all about ... personal freedom. In retrospect, we can see their flaws so clearly. ACA will unfold, and we will see it clearly one day.

At the very least, we should expect transparency for our tax dollars. Even Peggy admits we were lied to. The only way the president could have not lied would have been to say something like, "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it ... but only if I like it, too."

There was an election coming up, though, so he didn't say that. Too socialist. But the truth nonetheless.

Hear, hear..... we love you, Becky.

 

[LDJones]

I must be living in an alternate universe.

Yes, you do...it's called Colorado.

 

[LDJones]

The employer mandate was deferred for one year. Wait until it comes into force next year. You ain't seen nothing yet.

Hopefully the notices will start hitting about October next year.

 

[nddons]

Yes, and to get those 15 million uninsured insured, we only had to cancel insurance or raise premiums/deductibles for 129 million.

It's all very logical.

 

[AcroGimp]

Hopefully the notices will start hitting about October next year.

You can count on orders from FedGov to NOT issue those notices until after the election, just like they are currently ordering Insurance companies not to talk about Obamacare enrollment numbers, and just as they did last year with sequestration required layoffs going into the 2012 election (they told defense contractrs to make no announcements even though required by law, and then offered to reimburse any penalties from failure to provide mandatory notices).

You can also count on the complicit lapdog media not calling them on it - the 4th Estate has become a 5th Column, it is shameful.

'Gimp

 

[JoseCuervo]

This is actually a bigger lie than what Obama promised.

AP, how can I (or anyone) shop for coverage in Obamacare when the web site hasn't worked since it opened?

Pick up the phone. It works fine.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I must be living in an alternate universe. I saw no significant changes in my health care plan this season. I don't know ANYONE who has had their health care policy cancelled or seen significant increases in premiums or declines in benefits - at least not any more than last year and the year before that and the year before that and the year before that and...

If Obamacare is responsible for any of this, what was causing it to occur prior to Obamacare? If someone can point out the specific clauses of the ACA that are causing so many people to lose their healthcare and suffer I'd appreciate it. I don't buy the argument that no one has read it, the entire law is online and anyone can read it any time they want. I think the most disturbing thing about all of this is how so many people are hoping so badly for it to fail. Why?

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Exactly. This.

Fox News and the Daily Caller have found a handful of corner cases are proof of some horrible cause and effect.

Ignoring, of course, the millions being denied insurance and healthcare by Rick Perry and Rick Scott.

 

[JoseCuervo]

It has been posted several times in this thread:

Because the policies are not compliant with ACA mandates and are not eligible for grandfathering as their inception dates are after march 2010. Yet they are policies consciously chosen by the subscribers because they offered a mix of features that fit the subscribers health insurance needs.

And yet, they had some crazy level of annual churn like 80%. Obviously not policies that people liked. And, a small number.

 

[JoseCuervo]

The employer mandate was deferred for one year. Wait until it comes into force next year. You ain't seen nothing yet.

Has nothing to do with employers dropping insurance. Just has to do with bringing policies into compliance. Much ado about nothing.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Wow, did the DNC mail out their talking points? I've heard these verbatim from the Obama mouthpieces. Where do they get this shinola?? "Crappy policies at expensive rates"....but they were happy with it, and the replacement has a higher deductible and higher premiums, but we're supposed to bow and say, "Thank you, massa!"??!

Amazing.

Little known fact. If you don't use your insurance policy, you are happy with it. If you attempt to use the crappy policies, you may not be happy.

Look how many people move treatments around Dec/Jan to play deductible games each year. Do you think the decisions on when to have treatments should be based upon the terms of your insurance company or your Dr?

 

[JoseCuervo]

You can count on orders from FedGov to NOT issue those notices until after the election, just like they are currently ordering Insurance companies not to talk about Obamacare enrollment numbers, and just as they did last year with sequestration required layoffs going into the 2012 election (they told defense contractrs to make no announcements even though required by law, and then offered to reimburse any penalties from failure to provide mandatory notices).

You can also count on the complicit lapdog media not calling them on it - the 4th Estate has become a 5th Column, it is shameful.

'Gimp

Employers already had to send notices to employees, THIS year. We sent them.

 

[weilke]

And yet, they had some crazy level of annual churn like 80%. Obviously not policies that people liked. And, a small number.

Sometimes you just make number up, right ?

 

[weilke]

Employers already had to send notices to employees, THIS year. We sent them.

But not about cancellation, right ? Just about the fact that there is this great website where everyone can go and shop health insurance .

 

[weilke]

Look how many people move treatments around Dec/Jan to play deductible games each year. Do you think the decisions on when to have treatments should be based upon the terms of your insurance company or your Dr?

Most of the people who will sign up through the exchanges will end up in high-deductible plans, simply because those will be the only plans affordable to normal folks.

The 'december rush' of folks who have finally met their deductible will remain a staple of medical practice in anything that deals with semi-elective procedures.

 

[AcroGimp]

Employers already had to send notices to employees, THIS year. We sent them.

You are missing the point. I was responding to a stated hope that if the expected accelerated cancellations occur next year as the employer mandate comes into effect that it be close to the election so people are voting with a sense of the personal impact to them.

I was suggesting that the Administration will order businesses to either not do it (offer further waivers) or require they remain quiet, which this Administration has done and is currently doing.

I know employer plan cancellation notices are going out this year, I received one myself.

'Gimp

 

[weilke]

Little known fact. If you don't use your insurance policy, you are happy with it. If you attempt to use the crappy policies, you may not be happy.

I have one of those 'crappy' high deductible plans through my employer. I use it, yet I am happy with it.

It's a mystery, I know.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Sometimes you just make number up, right ?

Yup. On my phone, ain't searching for the exact number. My memory is good enough.

 

[weilke]

Yup. On my phone, ain't searching for the exact number. My memory is good enough.

So the answer is yes.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I have one of those 'crappy' high deductible plans through my employer. I use it, yet I am happy with it.

It's a mystery, I know.

You are an exception.

It is a mystery.

 

[JoseCuervo]

So the answer is yes.

You say "yes".

I say "yup".

You can decide if the difference is material.

 

[weilke]

My wife and kids live in one of these workers paradise states that operate their own exchange. Just tried to see whether individual coverage through the exchange can beat my employer coverage. That states website is heralded as one of the examples of the sites that supposedly work. Well, I can't get past the signup page

 

[nddons]

This is a common refrain against the ACA.

Each of these items are preventative health care. As such, they decrease the amount that must be paid out by the insurance companies because they decrease the potential for even more expensive disease or disability.

Prenatal care protects against birth defects and premature birth, and protects the health of both the unborn and their mothers. The cost of care for birth defects, prematurity, and other preventable childbirth problems can become astronomical.

Abortion and the pill can prevent unwanted pregnancies. Pregnancy and its treatment is far more expensive than its prevention. This says nothing about the social cost of unwanted or unloved or impoverished children.

The pill can prevent numerous other female issues than simply pregnancy, some of which are expensive or debilitating.

Pediatric dentistry: I have a hard time believing that your insurance premium is seriously impacted by teaching youngsters to brush their teeth or quit thumb-sucking. But it probably does not impact the social order to a large degree, either.

So, what's the big deal if covering women's and children's care actually decreases the cost of medical insurance? What else could it be? Oh, I see, with the exception of dentistry, all of these have to do with human female reproduction. Female sexuality.

These women are having sex without you. You have no control over their sexual habits. The gods know this is wrong! You must do something to prevent, or at least punish, this uncontrolled sexuality. The least you can do is to refuse to include their health care in your plan -- even if doing so increases your premium.

So, complain away about preventative care for women's health issues. The gods, or at least the primitive ape brain, know that women should not be having sex without your permission.

Do YOU need any of these coverages at your current age? If not, why should you be paying for coverage you will never use?

The government may say I need to pay $200 more per month for coverage against injuries suffered from alien invasions, but I don't think it's discriminatory for me to say "I don't need it, and I don't want to, so I shouldn't have to pay for it."

But I know, it takes a village, right, AP?

 

[JoseCuervo]

You are missing the point. I was responding to a stated hope that if the expected accelerated cancellations occur next year as the employer mandate comes into effect that it be close to the election so people are voting with a sense of the personal impact to them.

I was suggesting that the Administration will order businesses to either not do it (offer further waivers) or require they remain quiet, which this Administration has done and is currently doing.

I know employer plan cancellation notices are going out this year, I received one myself.

'Gimp

And those cancellations could have occurred lat year. Or in 2008. Or in 2004. Or in 2000.

But let's blame ACA for business practices for the last 70 years.

 

[JoseCuervo]

My wife and kids live in one of these workers paradise states that operate their own exchange. Just tried to see whether individual coverage through the exchange can beat my employer coverage. That states website is heralded as one of the examples of the sites that supposedly work. Well, I can't get past the signup page

Pick up the phone.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Do YOU need any of these coverages at your current age? If not, why should you be paying for coverage you will never use?

The government may say I need to pay $200 more per month for coverage against injuries suffered from alien invasions, but I don't think it's discriminatory for me to say "I don't need it, and I don't want to, so I shouldn't have to pay for it."

But I know, it takes a village, right, AP?

You never need any coverage. Until you need the coverage. That is the point of insurance and shared risk pools.

 

[txflyer]

Meh. Not sure that a 4% annual increase is anything to "brace" for. Seems about normal for inflation of insurance.

That's just the dental portion that ends up costing about $300 more per year. The health portion is the bulk of the premiums. It costs more like $4000.00 per year for a $10,000.00 deductible. If it goes up 2%, that'll be another $800.00 annual. $1200.00 more per year. Out of my pocket. For the same plan. That's what I'm bracing for.

Not normal for inflation of insurance. I wish I could inflate my profits like that. I'd go out of business. ACA is just a very clever hidden tax.

The way you like ACA, I wonder if you've ever worked for yourself ... so I say again, you're welcome whoever you are out there.

 

[JoseCuervo]

That's just the dental portion that ends up costing about $300 more per year. The health portion is the bulk of the premiums. It costs more like $4000.00 per year for a $10,000.00 deductible. If it goes up 2%, that'll be another $800.00 annual. $1200.00 more per year. Out of my pocket. For the same plan. That's what I'm bracing for.

Not normal for inflation of insurance. I wish I could inflate my profits like that. I'd go out of business. ACA is just a very clever hidden tax.

The way you like ACA, I wonder if you've ever worked for yourself ... so I say again, you're welcome whoever you are out there.

Maybe my math ain't so good, but you pay $7500 a year for dental insurance?


And 2% annual increases on the health portion are shocking?


And, I hope you don't think I like ACA. The only part I like is the part related to investments I hold in insurance companies.

 

[AcroGimp]

And those cancellations could have occurred lat year. Or in 2008. Or in 2004. Or in 2000.

But let's blame ACA for business practices for the last 70 years.

Wrong, we blame Obamacare because the explanations that accompany the cancellations are clearly stating the reason(s) for the cancellations - e.g., additional coverages, plan changes mandated by ACA, etc.

It is not a crappy 'high deductible plan' being replaced if the actual reason for the plan cancellation is the law REQUIRES additional coverage be added (like mammograms birth control pills, abortion coverage and pap smears for men) AND the law then also REQUIRES plan cancellations/lack of grandfathering BECAUSE the plans are changed.

Try actually researching what the law and related requirements actually say and do. These elements were present in the law and initial regulations in 2010, some people saw it then and clearly and correctly identified what the results would be (again back in 2010), but the media CHOSE not to cover the story and mocked it instead (the official approach to well-researched/well-presented opposition for these folks).

The government's own estimates, contained within the Federal Register in 2010, estimated as many as 93 million people would lose existing coverage due to the way the law was written, of course, that is the same government that estmiated the costs at around $900B for 10 years - now revised to $2.7T for the same period.

'Gimp

 

[nddons]

Not only that, but considering that employers have been employing women despited the slightly higher expenses for health insurance, this is clearly a straw-person argument.

How PC of you!

 

[nddons]

Why would it be against the law? Sounds like a good businessman would want to be able to hire the cheaper employee, and your daughter will cost him more than your son would.

If you really want to have it go to a distraction argument, let's hear your support for ENDA and advocating that LGBT community should get lower insurance rates....




Are you sure there are really "millions of people" "now scrambling"? They were all given adequate notice, and, they can likely sign up for much better plans than before. There are a great many of the "millions of people" who actually had crappy policies at expensive rates. It just so happens that those narratives are getting lost by the sensational ones that Fox News and the Daily Caller keep digging up (frequently to be exposed for inaccurate).

If you really care about "millions", what do you think of the over 1 million people in Texas that won't get Medicaid because Rick Perry doesn't want them to have health insurance? What about the 700k in Florida in similar circumstances? What is your solution for them?

Utter bull****. You, Ezekiel Emmanuel, Obama, and Jay Carney keep repeating this "crappy policy" bull**** with no knowledge of that whatsoever. People liked their coverage. People could afford this coverage. And people are being denied this coverage that they liked because of Obamacare.

The examples of this are legion. If people are getting out of crappy policies, why aren't they paraded in front of TV cameras exclaiming that? Because they don't exist, that's why.

 

[denverpilot]

I live in a small state. Here are the stats as of nov 1st:

- cancellations: 2500
- new sign-ups: 20 (twenty, that is 'four hands' for you democrats)

Makes one wonder where all these people are who are finding a better deal than they had, whom Jose has made up out of thin air, and how many of them there are.

 

[nddons]

The leap from Matthew's question to Peggy's reply is why conversations with people like Peggy are so frustrating. There's a distinct, huffy sort of self righteousness about sticking up for the less fortunate, as if the rest of us don't get that the less fortunate and their needs do matter. Most people are willing to some extent to bear some of the burdens of their fellow humans, especially those who have experienced true misfortune, as opposed to self-inflicted dysfunctional choices. And don't stretch that. Any parent knows what I mean there.

Where it becomes a problem is when "helping" others actually hurts them, and ultimately all of us, by creating systems that: 1) foster dependency and poor choices, over generations; 2) transfer one's earned resources ever more and more to those in control to administer to those who become mired in those systems; and 3) reduce one's earned resources to the point where one has difficulty meeting one's own needs and staying out of the system, thereby throwing one ultimately onto the mercy of the system.

It's a formula for socialism, control by elites. No attempts to distract with references to Rosa Parks and cries of "discrimination" can hide that fact. If my policy costs $300 per month more as a result of ACA, that's $300 less per month that I can't spend on healthy food to help keep myself out of the system. That doesn't go anywhere good in terms of health and health care.

Yes, ACA is the law of the land. But so were slavery and Prohibition. Both were inherently opposed to what America is all about ... personal freedom. In retrospect, we can see their flaws so clearly. ACA will unfold, and we will see it clearly one day.

At the very least, we should expect transparency for our tax dollars. Even Peggy admits we were lied to. The only way the president could have not lied would have been to say something like, "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it ... but only if I like it, too."

There was an election coming up, though, so he didn't say that. Too socialist. But the truth nonetheless.

Awesome post, Becky.

 

[nddons]

I must be living in an alternate universe. I saw no significant changes in my health care plan this season. I don't know ANYONE who has had their health care policy cancelled or seen significant increases in premiums or declines in benefits - at least not any more than last year and the year before that and the year before that and the year before that and...

If Obamacare is responsible for any of this, what was causing it to occur prior to Obamacare? If someone can point out the specific clauses of the ACA that are causing so many people to lose their healthcare and suffer I'd appreciate it. I don't buy the argument that no one has read it, the entire law is online and anyone can read it any time they want. I think the most disturbing thing about all of this is how so many people are hoping so badly for it to fail. Why?

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Try to keep up. What you are seeing today is the individual policy universe. What you will see a year from now will be in the employer-sponsored universe. The delay in the business mandate simply deferred the day of reckoning for a year.

 

[txflyer]

Maybe my math ain't so good, but you pay $7500 a year for dental insurance?


And 2% annual increases on the health portion are shocking?


And, I hope you don't think I like ACA. The only part I like is the part related to investments I hold in insurance companies.

I ****ed that all up. You guys are all over this.

ACA feels like more government control. Anything that feels like that, I don't care for it.

I'll bow out of this dog fight cuz I don't really have a dog in it and don't know jack squat about it. I'll just go on writing checks and paying for everything like I always have, and go on with my life until either A) the money runs out, or B) I'm dead. Whichever comes first. Then I'll worry about ACA.