who cares if I'm paying for stuff I don't or can't use? The bottom line is what is this costing me? The promise was the average American would save money and have better coverage. Me as an example (and the only one I really care about) it costs me MORE, my coverage is WORSE.
I don't make a lot of money either, this is KILLING me and I am now forced to drop my satellite tv and will have to cut back on going out...how's that helping the economy, why am I supposed to be happy about this sack full of lies? How has this helped me in any way whatsoever? Explain the benefits to me, a very average middle class American, why am I supposed to be happy with the ass rape I just got?

no Ricky, that is not the case!
We were PROMISED savings! We did not get them, our costs skyrocketed. Yes a few times in the past they have as well, this time was worse and was after a promise to save up to $2500 per family. And why such a large rise now? because of the ACA provisions that had to be made.
And I have time? ONE WEEK, I have one week to decide what to do and the website is DOWN... please spare me from your support of something that is frankly unsupportable!

and further lies from Ricky, my plan is not considered poor in any way! ACA has minimums and this plan I have offered to me not only is accepted but is not even considered a bottom tier plan either! This is not "affordable health care" as was promised, it's out of control expensive crappy care. And these prices are in addition to the $400 per month my company pays! They pay $4,800 /year and I need to come up with another $5,512 totaling $10,312/year. And what is covered? nothing until I reach $5200!!!

Every so many years...
what was PROMISED?
exactly, lies and more lies.

rickyp wrote:Tom, every year,for a couple of decades in companies across the US - the experience you've just had occurs constantly. It was caused, not by the ACA, but because health care inflation greatly out stripped normal inflation.For decades.
Companies, forced by law to provide health insurance, keep trying to limit their investment. So plans keep getting worse. And health insuracne companies keep trying to ratchet up profits so the value in every plan goes down. (despite all the choice)
With or without the ACA, you would have experienced the same thing.

Bolshoi ballet.

That is patently made up.

Well, its not just those folks. The benefits in insuring everyone accrue to every tax payer, who no longer has to help foot the bill for the uninsured who take advantage of emergency departments.
Plus, the numbers of uninsured, or poorly insured (like Tom) have been increasing year after year...

Please stop with your ignorant comments.

1. The ACA will NOT cover all of the uninsured. A recent study by the CBO says there will be 30 million uninsured in ten years. So, it doesn't solve that problem.

2. An enormous number of people will have their insurance cancelled and/or their doctor drop out of the system. Many doctors are most upset with the electronic records requirement. They see it as too expensive.

3. The ACA is not Canada, or the UK, or Switzerland, so stop pining for them or pretending the ACA is them.

Your right that simply expanding the safety net would have been the best bet. That would be medicair for everyone.

I'm sure 25% of the American people would agree with you.

And you continue putting 17.7% of the GDP into health care when it should be around 11%. Imagine what that other 6% could be in whats, except for health care, a very efficient economy?

More clap-trap. It's not happening, so why blather about it?

and your "poorly insured" comment ...not so, this qualifies as middle of the road, not "poor", this is what Obama thinks is decent coverage for all! ...and "affordable" too!

Tom, if you don't mind, perhaps you can compare what coverage and the costs you used to have with what you are getting now. It would be interesting to have a real-life example of the ACA. Please include the differences in coverages as well as costs.

Doctor Fate wrote:Here's the problem: is it right to force people to pay for coverage they can't use so that others pay less?

I think most Americans would say "No!"

You have yet to demonstrate that in the case of pregnancy coverage this is actually happening.

No matter how you frame it, telling people they SHOULD pay for coverage they know they cannot use is not going to pass muster politically. That goes for maternity, pediatric, and other required coverages.

think I found that the 'not very much' is actually about -$210 in the example I looked at. If a premium that is about 30% lower is 'gouging', then I wonder if you know what the word actually means...

Um, so, you're claiming that carrying pediatric coverage and having no kids is cheaper than not carrying the coverage? Really? Insurance companies punish people who don't have kids by charging them more? Is that what you're suggesting?

Try reading what I wrote instead of asking dumb questions about what I'm 'claiming'.

People who don't have have kids are going to pay less because that's what the quotes are giving when you put in for a couple with kids and then without kids. Why? well, because while they are theoretically covered for pediatric care, they aren't actually because they'll have put down on the forms that they have no kids to cover.

How many companies are there in the California exchange? That's where she is. If you are going to use a real example, carry it to the full conclusion

No. I'm not playing your game. You want to believe that the ACA is driving down costs. Fine. Let's see.

Is that your way of admitting that the answer is somewhere north of 2?

And I do not 'believe' that no-one's premiums would not go up. You can quit deciding what I think while you are at it.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Here's the problem: is it right to force people to pay for coverage they can't use so that others pay less?

I think most Americans would say "No!"

You have yet to demonstrate that in the case of pregnancy coverage this is actually happening.

No matter how you frame it, telling people they SHOULD pay for coverage they know they cannot use is not going to pass muster politically. That goes for maternity, pediatric, and other required coverages.

think I found that the 'not very much' is actually about -$210 in the example I looked at. If a premium that is about 30% lower is 'gouging', then I wonder if you know what the word actually means...

Um, so, you're claiming that carrying pediatric coverage and having no kids is cheaper than not carrying the coverage? Really? Insurance companies punish people who don't have kids by charging them more? Is that what you're suggesting?

Try reading what I wrote instead of asking dumb questions about what I'm 'claiming'.

People who don't have have kids are going to pay less because that's what the quotes are giving when you put in for a couple with kids and then without kids. Why? well, because while they are theoretically covered for pediatric care, they aren't actually because they'll have put down on the forms that they have no kids to cover.

How many companies are there in the California exchange? That's where she is. If you are going to use a real example, carry it to the full conclusion

No. I'm not playing your game. You want to believe that the ACA is driving down costs. Fine. Let's see.

Is that your way of admitting that the answer is somewhere north of 2?

And I do not 'believe' that no-one's premiums would not go up. You can quit deciding what I think while you are at it.

You're as wise as Kathleen Sebellius and about as useless to engage.

You're wrong and you know it.

Well, that was some compelling evidence and in no way just cheap jibes.

Off you toddle, then, Chummy.

Pulling back from the nit picky discussion, I think we have to acknowledge that Obama made 2 claims that are just not true:

1. The exchange will work just like Kayak.
2. If you like your insurance plan, you can keep it.

I'm sure at some point they will solve #1 (although I had no joy when I tried). However, #2 goes to the heart of the matter which is that many insurance plans which are not compliant with ACA are being terminated. I've heard reports that 5 to 15 million Americans are in such plans. That's significant.

However, you feel about these insurance plans -- and I used to have one before the Massachusetts law went into effect -- you have to admit that Obama oversold the ACA and deliberately? told a mistruth about it to gather sufficient public support. What he meant to say was "If I like your insurance plan, you can keep it".

GMTom wrote: (there ARE several preventative procedures that are covered 100% but even those have hidden costs associated with them, for example I had a colonoscopy several months ago, the procedure was covered but anesthesia, consultation and facility expenses were not covered at all, this "free" procedure cost me several hundred dollars but yes, some (few) expenses are covered "free")

President Obama thinks you are a wimp for needing anesthesia for your colonoscopy. :)

fate

Bolshoi ballet.

That is patently made up

Really? You're claiming that health insurance premiums haven't been going up, and that companies offering coverage and actual coverage is going down?
I'll offer some evidence here... but I'd be really interested in what source you have that contradicts this ...
You don't have any do you?

During the latter half of the 1990s, health care cost inflation slowed after several years of rapidly rising price increases. Many hoped that the various policies and programs implemented by government, employers, and insurers in the '90s to control costs would continue to moderate these increases for the foreseeable future. However, in the last several years, rising health care costs have again become an issue.

In 2000, the average annual health insurance premium in the private sector rose to $2,655 for single coverage and $6,772 for family coverage, an increase of 33.3 percent and 36.7 percent, respectively, since 1996, according to new data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey,1 conducted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).

Dissatisfaction with the system is also rising. According to a recent Harris Poll survey, 56 percent of the public, 46 percent of physicians, 48 percent of employers, 50 percent of health plan managers, and 51 percent of hospital managers said that the health care system requires "radical change."2 The survey report predicted that dissatisfaction with the health care system would increase over the next few years as a result of increased out-of-pocket costs, concerns about prescription drug prices, and a possible increase in the number of uninsured Americans.

tom

who cares if I'm paying for stuff I don't or can't use? The bottom line is what is this costing me? The promise was the average American would save money and have better coverage. Me as an example (and the only one I really care about) it costs me MORE, my coverage is WORSE.
I don't make a lot of money either, this is KILLING me and I am now forced to drop my satellite tv and will have to cut back on going out...how's that helping the economy, why am I supposed to be happy about this sack full of lies? How has this helped me in any way whatsoever? Explain the benefits to me, a very average middle class American, why am I supposed to be happy with the ass rape I just go

Tom, based on the trends, this was going to happen to you at some point. Companies can't afford to offer great insurance. And becasue they aren't afraid of losing their work force because of a decline in benefits packages they cut back.
At least now, you have the alternative of going private, and perhaps getting a subsidy. Good luck.

I suppose now the right are going to ignore the last 35 years of medical inflation, declining value in health insurance, and escalating personal costs for consumers like Tom and blame it on the ACA....
Like the ACA created the situation .
Like Fate blaming the projected 30 million, uncovered on the ACA.

What that continuing uncovered population is, are citizens of places like Texas where they fall below the income level where ACA subsidies will help and above the income level considered poverty in Texas. (All of these people are in state that have refused to take up the Federal offer on medicaid. All are Republican states and 24 of the 26 are states that get more from the Federal government than they contribute..

A sweeping national effort to extend health coverage to millions of Americans will leave out two-thirds of the poor blacks and single mothers and more than half of the low-wage workers who do not have insurance, the very kinds of people that the program was intended to help, according to an analysis of census data by The New York Times.
Because they live in states largely controlled by Republicans that have declined to participate in a vast expansion of Medicaid, the medical insurance program for the poor, they are among the eight million Americans who are impoverished, uninsured and ineligible for help. The federal government will pay for the expansion through 2016 and no less than 90 percent of costs in later years.

If the Republican governors were actually interested in helping their poor they'd have taken the medicaid deal.
They don't pay a thing for years, and never pay more than 10% of the costs....
But ideology trumps decency.

tom

and your "poorly insured" comment ...not so, this qualifies as middle of the road, not "poor", this is what Obama thinks is decent coverage for all! ...and "affordable" to

Well, its a helluva lot lousier than what i get. Without insurance premiums.
And I pay the same level of taxation you do in New York. So, its kind like mines free...
So yeah. You are poorly insured, and paying through the nose. And it was getting worse every year through the 90s and 00's

ray

1. The exchange will work just like Kayak.
2. If you like your insurance plan, you can keep it.

yep. he was wrong.
he didn't calculate that people would want to keep crappy insurance that didn't meet minimum standards, and which would become transparent to them only when they required the insurance...
His critics get to jump all over these misstatements and make hay today. But they don''t offer solid alternative, so this will pass.

If crappy insurance were to replaced with better insurance at the same or better price, then who cares if you have to get rid of the old plan? The problem is you now are forced to get rid of the lesser expensive plan and replace it with a more expensive one you do not feel is a good value to you.

Let's say we forced everyone to get rid of say all standard gasoline powered cars and required all new cars must be hybrids. The car you had planned on buying was say a Mazda 3 (what we bought for my wife a year ago), it was a decent car with good gas mileage and is fairly inexpensive, Now you are forced into better gas mileage but the cost is now 2-3 times what you had planned on. The government might even issue you a subsidy of $5000.00 am I now going to be excited over paying so much more for my better car at a better than normal market price?
-that answer is NO!

It's very similar here, we are given a better plan but the price is more than we want, maybe more than we can afford, and we are to be excited at the better plan?

I'm also waiting for the (many) incredibly ignorant and stupid people to suddenly find this is not what they thought. So many people think this is a free, one payer system. They don't realize they need top pay for insurance. While the percentage is low it's still many MILLIONS of people who are still in the dark and are about to wake up to a rude reality!

tom

if crappy insurance were to replaced with better insurance at the same or better price, then who cares if you have to get rid of the old plan? The problem is you now are forced to get rid of the lesser expensive plan and replace it with a more expensive one you do not feel is a good value to you.

Well, we don't know about value do we?
What are your annual limits for claims? What are your "lifetime limits"?
What level of co-payment is there?
What's covered and whats not?
Without that complete information its really hard to accept your judgement. And its really hard to agree with your conclusion. Its also hard to understand how you jumped to your conclusion without doing enough research to find out what else is available?

if your insurer was only spending less than 85% of accepted premiums on paying claims ...its pretty good evidence that the structure of the plan was poor value. Do you know what that level was?