rickyp wrote:fate

Yes, it was going on, BUT now there's more of it AND it's government-mandated.

So standards that ensure that policies actually offer real value..... are a mistake?
Because its those standards that are causing people to have their policies cancelled right?

That's not the case--unless mandatory pediatric and maternity coverage for single men and post-menopausal women are "real value."

Wait awhile, and as people carefully consider their alternatives, versus just reacting to sticker shock .... or percieved sticker shock, you might end up more like Dianne Barrette.

Trust me. Time is on my side. How do I know? Because the best the D's have are cries for the GOP to help them fix the law. If it was working, they'd be beating their chests in triumph instead of pleading for help.

It's both healthcare and politics, after all.

And, I notice you don't address the politics. Could it be because you know it's a loser for your side?

From your link:

I’ve used the term “seems” and “apparently” a lot, because it’s hard to know whether there’s some quirk to Barrette’s situation—or if I’m misreading the plan data. Keep in mind, too, that the policies all come with restrictions: Among other things, coverage would be limited to a network of physicians that is probably pretty narrow. And none of these policies would spare Barrette from financial pressures: If she got sick enough to end up in the hospital, even with these plans she’d likely be out several thousand dollars. Still, she wouldn’t owe tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is what a serous illness costs to treat—and what her current plan wouldn't cover. These are the kinds of expenses that can ruin somebody financially.

Lots of speculation. More:

Even so, Barrette’s take is a reminder that people can have a longer-view perspective about medical bills than pundits frequently assume. When I gave her a broad description of the plans available, she seemed interested. I noted that she’d be paying $100 or $150 extra a month for policies that still had high cost-sharing, so that she would still be a lot of money out of her own pocket. (I also made very clear that I’m not an insurance agent or broker—that, when she finally goes shopping for insurance, she should talk to a real expert for advice.) Here was her response: "I would jump at it," she said. "With my age, things can happen. I don’t want to have bills that could make me bankrupt. I don’t want to lose my house."

Barrette can't be sure until she sees the numbers for herself. And so far she hasn't been able to do so, thanks to the technological problems at healthcare.gov. But as she’s become more aware of her options, she said, she’s no longer aghast at losing her plan—and curious to see what alternatives are available. "Maybe," she told me, "it’s a blessing in disguise."

Maybe, maybe not.

There are so many holes in your "proof" it's not even funny.

Meanwhile, the President's still a liar.

and what do you think of this Fate....

Across the country, insurance companies have sent misleading letters to consumers, trying to lock them into the companies' own, sometimes more expensive health insurance plans rather than let them shop for insurance and tax credits on the Obamacare marketplaces -- which could lead to people like Donna spending thousands more for insurance than the law intended. In some cases, mentions of the marketplace in those letters are relegated to a mere footnote, which can be easily overlooked.

The extreme lengths to which some insurance companies are going to hold on to existing customers at higher price, as the Affordable Care Act fundamentally re-orders the individual insurance market, has caught the attention of state insurance regulators.

The insurance companies argue that it's simply capitalism at work. But regulators don't see it that way. By warning customers that their health insurance plans are being canceled as a result of Obamacare and urging them to secure new insurance plans before the Obamacare launched on Oct. 1, these insurers put their customers at risk of enrolling in plans that were not as good or as affordable as what they could buy on the marketplaces.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/insuran ... -obamacare

Fate

That's not the case--unless mandatory pediatric and maternity coverage for single men and post-menopausal women are "real value.

"

If this were the only difference, I'd probably agree with you. But. at the risk of seeming arrogant again, I doubt that these are the only differences...
The Insurance industry is fighting a battle to retain as many consumers in more profitable plans. And they aren't above tactics that misinform people....

First of all my numbers were wrong 170 million Americans get coverage throug work and while I couldn't get an actual only 3.6 percent buy it on their own. 3.6 percent of 317 million is only 11 million. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3975425/
This story says in 2010 14 million bought their own healthcare (interestingly those who bought their own insurance talked about 20 percent rate hikes)http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/june/21/consumers-who-buy-their-own-health-insurance-report-big-rate-increase-requests.aspx
Employer plans are prohibited from not covering those with pre-existing conditions already. According to the Huffington Post article 93.5 percent of employers will continue with their coverage as opposed to 1 percent that definitely won't.
Here is a view from the employer side of things. http://www.employmentlawdaily.com/index ... rt-ruling/
The anecdotal stories you are talking about DF only apply to a very small percentage of people. As long as the employer still cover then I don't think it will have a huge impact (3.6 percent is a small number and we can probably safely say half of those opposed ACA already and not all of those people who supported the ACA previously are going to change their minds, so we're talking maybe about 1 percent who change their minds about the ACA)

rickyp wrote:and what do you think of this Fate....

Across the country, insurance companies have sent misleading letters to consumers, trying to lock them into the companies' own, sometimes more expensive health insurance plans rather than let them shop for insurance and tax credits on the Obamacare marketplaces -- which could lead to people like Donna spending thousands more for insurance than the law intended. In some cases, mentions of the marketplace in those letters are relegated to a mere footnote, which can be easily overlooked.

The extreme lengths to which some insurance companies are going to hold on to existing customers at higher price, as the Affordable Care Act fundamentally re-orders the individual insurance market, has caught the attention of state insurance regulators.

The insurance companies argue that it's simply capitalism at work. But regulators don't see it that way. By warning customers that their health insurance plans are being canceled as a result of Obamacare and urging them to secure new insurance plans before the Obamacare launched on Oct. 1, these insurers put their customers at risk of enrolling in plans that were not as good or as affordable as what they could buy on the marketplaces.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/insuran ... -obamacare

I think it's worth exactly what you paid for it. Of course, insurance companies are trying to make money. Meanwhile, the healthcare.gov website offers no alternative.

What do I think? It's evidence this program is a disaster. They knew this would happen and have nothing ready to help people.

And, the President's still a liar.

Fate

That's not the case--unless mandatory pediatric and maternity coverage for single men and post-menopausal women are "real value.

"

If this were the only difference, I'd probably agree with you. But. at the risk of seeming arrogant again, I doubt that these are the only differences...
The Insurance industry is fighting a battle to retain as many consumers in more profitable plans. And they aren't above tactics that misinform people....

Says one guy on a website that tilts so heavily left that it can barely remain upright.

Meanwhile, the President lied dozens of times--in many different forums. Insurance companies don't have a reputation to protect. The President did. He will be the biggest loser.

Have a nice day!

freeman3 wrote: The anecdotal stories you are talking about DF only apply to a very small percentage of people. As long as the employer still cover then I don't think it will have a huge impact (3.6 percent is a small number and we can probably safely safe half of those opposed ACA already)

Here's the problem: for every "anecdote," there are not only real people attached, but they have family and friends they will kvetch to. In a country already against the law, it's going to hurt.

The growing backlash involves people whose plans are being discontinued because the policies don’t meet the law’s more-stringent standards. They’re finding that many alternative policies come with higher premiums and deductibles.

After receiving a letter from her insurer that her plan was being discontinued, Deborah Persico, a 58-year-old lawyer in the District, found a comparable plan on the city’s new health insurance exchange. But her monthly premium, now $297, would be $165 higher, and her maximum out-of-pocket costs would double.

That means she could end up paying at least $5,000 more a year than she does now. “That’s just not fair,” said Persico, who represents indigent criminal defendants. “This is ridiculous.”

If the poor, sick and uninsured are the winners under the Affordable Care Act, the losers appear to include some relatively healthy middle-income small-business owners, consultants, lawyers and other self-employed workers who buy their own insurance. Many make too much to qualify for new federal subsidies provided by the law but not enough to absorb the rising costs without hardship. Some are too old to go without insurance because they have children or have minor health issues, but they are too young for Medicare.

Others are upset because they don’t want coverage for services they’ll never need or their doctors don’t participate in any of their new insurance options.

“There are definitely winners and losers,” said Sabrina Corlette, a senior research fellow at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. “The problem is that even if the majority are winners . . . they’re not the ones writing to their congressmen.”

You all are welcome to continue to tell me I'm wrong. I'll let the American people speak for me.

thanks for telling me how much I don't know about my insurance Ricky, and thanks for pointing out how you know more!? No, I have never had limited coverage and in my area we have always had 2 or 3 big plans that cover virtually everyone in the area. None of these plans is limited to a certain max and never have been. You keep harping on these things trying to support Obama and the Democrats position but you simply can not honestly support the lies he made.

Bottom line
We could keep our current plans...lie
We would save money under ACA... lie
We would get better value and better care ...lie
it would be easy to shop for insurance ...lie

there is simply no getting around these LIES, every one is false.

You want to claim the new offerings are "better" sometimes yes but often times no and he bottom line, the new plan costs more and the promise was a lie

You want to claim the very poor will save money, maybe for some but the vast majority are spending more, a lot more and the promise was an average family would save up to $2500/year

better value? not for me, not for anyone I have spoken to in person yet, still trying to find someone I know (middle class mind you) that has "better value"

shopping the website is not easy, requires a lot of personal info such as everyone in the families social security numbers, page after page of personal info required and it's still down if/when you finish!

Yet here we have a few of you trying to defend the lies, trying to find reasons to support Obama, moving the goal posts, simply try to dispute the lies.

Tom here's why I think that you might know less than you think....
Ylou wouldn't be the first US consumer to learn. only after they got sick, that the quality of their insurance was less than they thought.
Rule 1. You get what you pay for. If you were paying much less than now, you weren't covered the same way.
As evidence: from 2009.... (Which also illustrates how the problem you are encountering isn't new or a by product of the ACA but a consequence of runaway health care costs ...only.

Compounding the problem of limited policies is the fact that policyholders are often unaware of those limits—until it’s too late.
"I think people don’t understand insurance, period," said Stephen Finan, associate director of policy at the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. "They know they need it. They look at the price, and that’s it. They don’t understand the language, and insurance companies go to great lengths to make it incomprehensible. Even lawyers don’t always understand what it means."
Case in point: Jim Stacey of Fayetteville, N.C. In 2000, Stacey and his wife, Imelda, were pleased to buy a plan at what they considered an "incredible" price from the Mid-West National Life Insurance Co. of Tennessee. The policy’s list of benefits included a lifetime maximum payout of up to $1 million per person. But after Stacey learned he had prostate cancer in 2005, the policy paid only $1,480 of the $17,453 it cost for the implanted radioactive pellets he chose to treat the disease.
"To this day, I don’t know what went wrong," Stacey said about the bill.
We sent the policy, along with the accompanying Explanation of Benefit forms detailing what it did and didn’t pay, to Karen Pollitz, research professor at the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute. We asked Pollitz, an expert on individual health insurance, to see whether she could figure out why the policy covered so little.
"The short answer is, 'Beats the heck out of me,' " she e-mailed back to us. The Explanation of Benefit forms were missing information that she would expect to see, such as specific billing codes that explain what treatments were given. And there didn’t seem to be any connection between the benefits listed in the policy and the actual amounts paid.
Contacted for comment, a spokeswoman for HealthMarkets, the parent company of Mid-West National, referred us to the company Web site. It stated that the company "pays claims according to the insurance contract issued to each customer" and that its policies "satisfy a need in the marketplace for a product that balances the cost with the available benefit options." The spokeswoman declined to answer specific questions about Stacey’s case, citing patient privacy laws.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012 ... /index.htm

Once again, RickyP, that is incorrect. Not everyone gets what they pay for, How do the people who are unable to pay, get anything if "Rule #1" is in play?

Many are getting what they do NOT pay for. Would you concede that?

rickyp wrote:Tom here's why I think that you might know less than you think....
Ylou wouldn't be the first US consumer to learn. only after they got sick, that the quality of their insurance was less than they thought.

The response to allegations of arrogance? More arrogance. Well played!

Rule 1. You get what you pay for.

In so many ways, wow!

Let's see.

1. It's not true. Right now, under the ACA, the young don't get what they pay for. They are subsidizing the old.

Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), age rating bands of 3:1 will
prevent insurers from charging an adult age 64 or older more
than three times the premium they charge a 21 year-old for the
same coverage purchased in the nongroup insurance market.

2. The healthy are subsidizing the sick. Insurance companies who are now forced to pick up the tab for pre-existing conditions--are they doing that out of charity or are they passing those costs along? If the former, prove it. If the latter, it undercuts your declarative and idiotic statement.

3. Those with means are supporting those with less. The Medicaid roles are being enlarged. Those under 400% of the poverty level will be subsidized. Where does that money come from? Those who have the means.

Those are but three examples of how you DON'T get what you pay for under the ACA.

Maybe you should think before you write.

fate

1. It's not true. Right now, under the ACA, the young don't get what they pay for. They are subsidizing the old.

Its also true that a young person of 27 who gets into a car accident and needs a half a million dollars in medical care is being taken care of by the premiums from all those other people who aren't afflicted. That's the nature of all insurance and especially of medicaid and medicair as well. Your country made a decision in the early 60's to stop watching as your senior citizens died from lack of access to medical care.
Would you turn back the clock and have your seniors who can't pay their insurance premiums die or have them find treatment only at packed emergency wards?

Fate

2. The healthy are subsidizing the sick. Insurance companies who are now forced to pick up the tab for pre-existing conditions--are they doing that out of charity or are they passing those costs along? If the former, prove it. If the latter, it undercuts your declarative and idiotic statement.

From 1982 on the US has forced treatment of the indigent at emergency wards. Please explain how everyone else hasn''t been picking up the cost for the indigent being treated in EMTs... Would you have stopped that and allowed EMT to turn away those without insurance or the means to pay?
With an insurance plan, these indigent can now get access to care at a more reasonable cost. Clinics and doctors offices being cheaper than EMTs...
This is an improvement on what you have no in terms of delivery costs and also in efficacy, as the poor get their treatments earlier on when it is likely to be more effective and less costly than an advanced problem. Sensible and cost effective.

3. Those with means are supporting those with less. The Medicaid roles are being enlarged. Those under 400% of the poverty level will be subsidized. Where does that money come from? Those who have the means.

Yes.
Its bloody civilized isn't it? And its an honest approach to the cost of providing health care as opposed to the farce of proving health care through emergency wards. (Lets imagine that was all free .... like magic!!!)
Its also, in the long term, cheaper. As proved by every nation in the modern world who socialize their medicine in this way. (With apologies to Danivon for the use of the world socialism in less than exact terms )

bbauska

Many are getting what they do NOT pay for. Would you concede that?

Sure.
Would you concede that in countries that have long practiced this, the cost of providing healthcare is far lower despite the universal coverage?
And more effective?

If the bill that arrives to the nation as a whole is lower when everyone is covered
than the bill that arrives when some are left with no real access.....
can you concede that the more logical solution is the one that costs less ....but provides more?

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Many are getting what they do NOT pay for. Would you concede that?

Sure.
Would you concede that in countries that have long practiced this, the cost of providing healthcare is far lower despite the universal coverage?
And more effective?

If the bill that arrives to the nation as a whole is lower when everyone is covered
than the bill that arrives when some are left with no real access.....
can you concede that the more logical solution is the one that costs less ....but provides more?

Sure. Other countries have done this, with a plan that is not this. Are you saying the ACA follows those models of other countries?

Ready, fire, aim!

It's the rickyp way!

rickyp wrote:fate

1. It's not true. Right now, under the ACA, the young don't get what they pay for. They are subsidizing the old.

Its also true that a young person of 27 who gets into a car accident and needs a half a million dollars in medical care is being taken care of by the premiums from all those other people who aren't afflicted.

Did you read what I said? "(The young) are subsidizing the old."

You reply about a person of 27 in a car accident. Um, care to stay on point? Your original statement, which I rebutted in three ways was:

Rule 1. You get what you pay for.

Right now, you're 0-for-1. You have not proved your thesis that Tom, or anyone else, gets what he/she pays for.

That's the nature of all insurance and especially of medicaid and medicair as well. Your country made a decision in the early 60's to stop watching as your senior citizens died from lack of access to medical care.

You're amazing. It is rare to find someone who contradicts himself more rapidly than you do. The young are subsidizing the old--that's the nature of Medicaid (false, that's for the poor, who may or may not be old) and Medicare (sic). Then, in an amazing turn, you blame LBJ (I suppose) for the death of our elderly because we deny them medical care? Which is it? Do the young prop up Medicare or are we allowing the elderly to die without care?

Again, would you mind thinking before you post?

Would you turn back the clock and have your seniors who can't pay their insurance premiums die or have them find treatment only at packed emergency wards?

Under the ACA, the young are propping up those who are not on Medicare yet, so I've no idea what you're babbling about.

Fate

2. The healthy are subsidizing the sick. Insurance companies who are now forced to pick up the tab for pre-existing conditions--are they doing that out of charity or are they passing those costs along? If the former, prove it. If the latter, it undercuts your declarative and idiotic statement.

From 1982 on the US has forced treatment of the indigent at emergency wards. Please explain how everyone else hasn''t been picking up the cost for the indigent being treated in EMTs... Would you have stopped that and allowed EMT to turn away those without insurance or the means to pay?

Why don't you explain your error instead of transferring the burden? Oh, because you haven't got a clue what you're writing? Does your computer have a random posting algorithm built into it?

That would explain a lot.

Your post has nothing to do with my charge that under the ACA, the healthy subsidize those with pre-existing conditions. That alone disproves the "you get what you pay for" bilge.

I said nothing like what you are saying. I'm simply pointing out the ridiculousness of your original statement. You have no defense, you go into "flail mode."

With an insurance plan, these indigent can now get access to care at a more reasonable cost.

And, under Obamacare, more than 30 million of them will remain without insurance (per the CBO).

3. Those with means are supporting those with less. The Medicaid roles are being enlarged. Those under 400% of the poverty level will be subsidized. Where does that money come from? Those who have the means.

Yes.
Its bloody civilized isn't it?

No, it's bloody socialized.

Look, you claimed "you get what you pay for." That's flat-out false. Others get what Tom, I, and others pay for--because they don't pay for anything.

Those with means also pay the tax burden. They pay for defense, education, infrastructure, and for government.

"You get what you pay for" is a joke. Many pay for nothing yet get quite a bit.

Now, before you or some other jabberwocky mounts a high horse and begins a monologue about those who cannot provide for themselves, I'm not against helping others. All I'm saying, which seems to be difficult for you to grasp is this: Tom, and anyone who is actually a tax PAYER does not "get" what they "pay" for. They get a LOT less. That is heightened by the ACA.

Here is an informative article about why premiums are going up for some (yes it has a point of view but it appears to clearly explain what is going on). http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1153 ... d-coverage

freeman3 wrote:Here is an informative article about why premiums are going up for some (yes it has a point of view but it appears to clearly explain what is going on). http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1153 ... d-coverage

I'd really only disagree on a few points. The major one: we don't really know that most people won't be affected by the law. We won't know that until the employer mandate kicks in. At that point, we will see what effect the law will have on "most people."

Maybe Cohn is right. Maybe he's not.

What we do know is rickyp is wrong. From your link:

Is it fair to make the young, healthy, and wealthy subsidize the old, sick, and non-wealthy? Those are obviously issues about which intelligent, honest people can disagree.

So, again, we don't get what we pay for. Others get what we pay for. Is that "fair?" That's the debate.

Something else that is not up for debate: the politics of the President lying about the ACA. That was a major mistake.