For $55 per month my kids get 100% preventive care. Here are the details: https://www.hsainsurance.com/uploads/d1 ... 2da100.pdf

freeman3 wrote:Well, almost ten million have health care coverage that did not have it before while 1 million have lost coverage. http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/ar ... -79773450/
Sign-ups on the exchanges hit the seven million target set by the administration.http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/01/politics/ ... ?c=&page=1
By 2017 the CBO estimates that almost half of the uninsured will have coverage. http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research ... ver/198702
And of course the law mandates that the coverage meet minimum standards, so we are not even counting those who were previously under-insured who now have adequate coverage...
As predicted, the news would get better and the law would get more popular...

Money shot from the new RAND study. Estimated 36% of exchange enrollees previously uninsured (before March surge): pic.twitter.com/e9GpE8jToX

Health insurance premiums are showing the sharpest increases perhaps ever according to a survey of brokers who sell coverage in the individual and small group market. Morgan Stanley’s healthcare analysts conducted the proprietary survey of 148 brokers. The April survey shows the largest acceleration in small and individual group rates in any of the 12 prior quarterly periods when it has been conducted.

The average increases are in excess of 11% in the small group market and 12% in the individual market. Some state show increases 10 to 50 times that amount. The analysts conclude that the “increases are largely due to changes under the ACA.”

The analysts conducting the survey attribute the rate increases largely to a combination of four factors set in motion by Obamacare: Commercial underwriting restrictions, the age bands that don’t allow insurers to vary premiums between young and old beneficiaries based on the actual costs of providing the coverage, the new excise taxes being levied on insurance plans, and new benefit designs.

The prior survey conducted in January also showed rates rising during the fall of 2013, but the new increases will come on top of those hikes and are even sharper. That prior survey of 131 brokers found that December 2013 rates were rising in excess of 6% in the small group market, and 9% in the individual market.

The hikes in the small group market, on average, have been largest for the Blues plans, which reported average rate increases of almost 16% year-over-year for renewing contracts. In the individual market, the publicly traded health plans had higher increases than the blues, at an average of more than 11%, and private and not-for-profit plans had the highest average increases overall at 13%.

For the individual insurance market (plans sold directly to consumers); among the ten states seeing some of the sharpest average increases are: Delaware at 100%, New Hampshire 90%, Indiana 54%, California 53%, Connecticut 45%, Michigan 36%, Florida 37%, Georgia 29%, Kentucky 29%, and Pennsylvania 28%.

For all the cost and all the tumult,

rickyp wrote:fate

For all the cost and all the tumult,

the tumult?

You mean the confusion caused by the constant barrage of nonsense from Bullshit Mountain about death panels, forced birth control, loss of freedom, losing doctors and runaway cost escalation...

bbauska wrote:

rickyp wrote:fate

For all the cost and all the tumult,

the tumult?

You mean the confusion caused by the constant barrage of nonsense from Bullshit Mountain about death panels, forced birth control, loss of freedom, losing doctors and runaway cost escalation...

Or all the changes in when different aspects of the ACA will become active? Who will be under the "mandate".

A pox on both your houses...

Or all the changes in when different aspects of the ACA will become active? Who will be under the "mandate".

However, with many states opting not to implement the Medicaid expansion, millions of adults will remain outside the reach of the ACA and continue to have limited, if any, option for health coverage: most do not have access to employer-based coverage through a job, few can afford coverage on their own, and most are currently ineligible for public coverage in their state. While a small share may be eligible to purchase subsidized coverage through the new Health Insurance Marketplaces, most have incomes below the poverty level and thus will be ineligible for these premium tax credits. It is unlikely that people who fall into the coverage gap will be able to afford Marketplace coverage: The national average premium for a 40-year-old individual purchasing coverage through the Marketplace is $270 per month for a silver plan and $224 per month for a bronze plan,7 which equates to about half of income for those at the lower income range of people in the gap and about a quarter of income for those at the higher income range of people in the gap. Further, people in the coverage gap are ineligible for cost-sharing subsidies for Marketplace plans and may face additional out-of-pocket costs up to $6,350 a year if they were to purchase Marketplace coverage. Given the limited budgets of people in the coverage gap, these costs are likely prohibitively expensive.

The vast majority of the population was satisfied with their pre-ACA coverage

We know that many people are losing their doctors--because networks are paring down options to save money. That's not hard to prove. Try google. Here's one: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories ... works.aspx

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Or all the changes in when different aspects of the ACA will become active? Who will be under the "mandate".

If you are confused about all the changes is it because:?
1) The government hasn't done a great job of communicating the changes

2) the opposition has piled up bullshit and deliiberately distorted the effect of the ACA as a way of opposing the ACA and it is that disinformation that is confusing

The problem with complaining about "tumult" when much of the tumult was deliberate BS is much the same as complaining that the uninsured levels haven't been eliminated when 23 states that oppose the expansion of Medicaid and the ACA are responsibile for most of the uninsured.

However, with many states opting not to implement the Medicaid expansion, millions of adults will remain outside the reach of the ACA and continue to have limited, if any, option for health coverage: most do not have access to employer-based coverage through a job, few can afford coverage on their own, and most are currently ineligible for public coverage in their state. While a small share may be eligible to purchase subsidized coverage through the new Health Insurance Marketplaces, most have incomes below the poverty level and thus will be ineligible for these premium tax credits. It is unlikely that people who fall into the coverage gap will be able to afford Marketplace coverage: The national average premium for a 40-year-old individual purchasing coverage through the Marketplace is $270 per month for a silver plan and $224 per month for a bronze plan,7 which equates to about half of income for those at the lower income range of people in the gap and about a quarter of income for those at the higher income range of people in the gap. Further, people in the coverage gap are ineligible for cost-sharing subsidies for Marketplace plans and may face additional out-of-pocket costs up to $6,350 a year if they were to purchase Marketplace coverage. Given the limited budgets of people in the coverage gap, these costs are likely prohibitively expensive.

http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brie ... -medicaid/

rickyp wrote:fate

The vast majority of the population was satisfied with their pre-ACA coverage

And the vast majority won't be affected by the ACA.
But that hasn't stopped Mt. BS from fomenting as if everyone were affected.

fate

We know that many people are losing their doctors--because networks are paring down options to save money. That's not hard to prove. Try google. Here's one: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories ... works.aspx

its interesting to note that your source is a story about government actions to mitigate the "narrowing" of health choice by insurance companies. And its also interesting to note that narrowing is designed to help create more efficiency in the health care system. There is always a balance to be made between efficiency and "choice" of course. But to complain about "losing doctors" without discussing the whole issue is part of the BS.

Then there's the "Will i be able to keep my doctor" BS. Caused in large part by Obama. Before ACA people buying individual insurance in particular, but all insured, often saw insurance companies cancel plans and force them to shop anew ... and in many cases their new plans forced them to new doctors. The ACA hasn't changed this situation. But that's not made clear by those opposed to any change...

bbauska wrote:If the Dems like the ACA so much, they should tout it on their re-election campaigns and let the people decide. Otherwise it is obfuscation, and cowardice.

The embedded taxes affect everyone