ObamaCare...coming soon

User Forum Topic
Submitted by meadandale on July 16, 2009 - 11:48am

Seems like modeling our system after the Canadians should be a great idea...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

Submitted by SK in CV on September 19, 2011 - 10:46pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
SK, my understanding of the HCRA is that the carriers currently have to accept everyone who applies for an individual policy but can charge premiums according to risk until 2014. My fear is that when 2014 comes they will have to lower the premiums of these high users of health care and charge the rest of us in the same age group accordingly to make up the difference. That will really hurt the healthy boomer set that cannot yet qualify for Medicare!

Your understanding is not correct.

Submitted by SK in CV on September 19, 2011 - 10:50pm.

Aecetia wrote:
Just one of the top ten failures of Obamacare:

"Some Americans have already had a spike in the cost of their insurance premiums of an astounding 20% to 60%. Insurance companies have raised premiums in double-digit increases. For example, Blue Shield of California​ recently increased some of its individual plans by 59%, saying that 4% of the increase is a direct result of the new health care law."

"Now, the CBO projects that the average American family will pay $2,100 more on health care premiums when the law is fully implemented (an increase of 10% to 13%)."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42461

Wow. 4% out of 59% is because of the new law. That's about 1.5% more than their closely related associate, Anthem Blue Cross has as their internal numbers. But you might as well blame the entire increase on the law. What the hell.

Submitted by Veritas on September 19, 2011 - 11:16pm.

What's good for the goose: "Grassley said, 'It’s only fair and logical that top administration officials, who fought so hard for passage of this overhaul of America’s health care system, experience it themselves. If it’s as good as promised, they’ll know it first-hand. If there are problems, they’ll be able to really understand them, as they should.'”

http://newledger.com/2010/03/exempted-fr...

"This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes." Morpheus

Submitted by harvey on September 20, 2011 - 7:02am.

Aecetia, your explanations are pretty weak: some vague quotes from partisan sources and a few statistics that show insurance companies have raised rates - just like they've been doing for years.

Most of the HCRA hasn't even gone into effect yet. There is nothing required by law right now that would cause these rate hikes.

Did it ever occur to you that insurance companies are raising rates now, before they are constrained by the legislation, so that they can alter public perception?

Here's an example of how things work in real-life:

- Insurance company spokesperson: "We have to raise rates, Obama is making us do it!"

- The "objective" WSJ reports these "facts" - blaming Obamacare for the rate hikes.

- People who read these "newspapers" (read:industry propaganda) believe it and start repeating it around the office on the internet (it never even occurs to them that the billion-dollar insurance industry is playing them...)

Know any of these people?

Submitted by SK in CV on September 20, 2011 - 7:23am.

pri_dk wrote:
Aecetia, your explanations are pretty weak: some vague quotes from partisan sources and a few statistics that show insurance companies have raised rates - just like they've been doing for years.

Most of the HCRA hasn't even gone into effect yet. There is nothing required by law right now that would cause these rate hikes.

Did it ever occur to you that insurance companies are raising rates now, before they are constrained by the legislation, so that they can alter public perception?

Here's an example of how things work in real-life:

- Insurance company spokesperson: "We have to raise rates, Obama is making us do it!"

- The "objective" WSJ reports these "facts" - blaming Obamacare for the rate hikes.

- People who read these "newspapers" (read:industry propaganda) believe it and start repeating it around the office on the internet (it never even occurs to them that the billion-dollar insurance industry is playing them...)

Know any of these people?

This kind of shit happens all the time by people bound by political ideologies. When the first version of the bill was passed by the house (and still being debated by the house), someone posted, on this board, a list of 50 claims about the law, purported to have been written by a constitutional lawyer. With citations of page and line number for every one. So I read the bill. Beginning to end. As i did with the final bill. 49 out of the 50 were outright falsities (including "death panels"). I documented exactly why each was false. The one true statement was that minority medical school students would get grants.

But people who are ideologically opposed to either the sponsor of the bill, the party proposing the bill, or for any of dozens of other reasons, ignore facts, and stick with beliefs, latch on to those falsities to support their religious like beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary. It has dumbed us down as a country. It is, and will continue to be an impediment to progress.

Submitted by harvey on September 20, 2011 - 7:54am.

SK in CV wrote:
But people who are ideologically opposed to either the sponsor of the bill, the party proposing the bill, or for any of dozens of other reasons, ignore facts, and stick with beliefs, latch on to those falsities to support their religious like beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary. It has dumbed us down as a country. It is, and will continue to be an impediment to progress.

Yup.

The #1 reason people don't believe that global warming is occurring:

Al Gore made a movie about it.

"If I don't like the messenger, then I will refuse to even consider the message."

Submitted by blahblahblah on September 20, 2011 - 8:15am.

Veritas wrote:
Just curious how you pick a physician in TJ. Do you have someone who recommended one or?

Yeah, I know someone who's been down there and had good experiences. There is a pretty big medical tourism business there now, just google "medical tourism tijuana" and lots of stuff will pop up. People from all over the US fly to SD to go down there for treatments. Of course I haven't been yet so maybe it's not that great, I will know soon though...

Submitted by bearishgurl on September 20, 2011 - 8:24am.

SK in CV wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
SK, my understanding of the HCRA is that the carriers currently have to accept everyone who applies for an individual policy but can charge premiums according to risk until 2014. My fear is that when 2014 comes they will have to lower the premiums of these high users of health care and charge the rest of us in the same age group accordingly to make up the difference. That will really hurt the healthy boomer set that cannot yet qualify for Medicare!

Your understanding is not correct.

If you've read and studied the entire bill, SK, then perhaps you can explain to us here how these carriers are going to recoup the $$ when they can't charge "Susie the recent cancer survivor" (age 59) or "Joe 6P the walking heart attack" (age 57) $1100 to $1600 a month for a premium anymore and may not deny either of them coverage.

The money to take care of these folks has to come from somewhere.

Submitted by SK in CV on September 20, 2011 - 10:36am.

bearishgurl wrote:

If you've read and studied the entire bill, SK, then perhaps you can explain to us here how these carriers are going to recoup the $$ when they can't charge "Susie the recent cancer survivor" (age 59) or "Joe 6P the walking heart attack" (age 57) $1100 to $1600 a month for a premium anymore and may not deny either of them coverage.

The money to take care of these folks has to come from somewhere.

I haven't studied the bill, but I have read it. There is nothing that will keep them from charging $1100 to $1600 a month. (Depending on Susie and Joe's age, they may already be charging those premiums.) There will still be risk-based pricing. Pricing will be significantly more complicated post-2013, in part depending on whether policies are inside or outside of the exchanges. And that complexity will vary from state to state, as some states already have guarantee issue and community rating in place, and high risk Susie and Joe may already be covered. In the majority of states, where those plans are not yet in place, that risk premium is expected to be transitional in nature and will in part be covered by reinsurance which will mitigate, in part, that risk premium.

Peripherally related, I recently sat in on a round table discussion (meaning me, and 4 guys sitting at a round table at a bar.) with 3 (of the 5) major carrier sales executives in my current state, along with a big group agent. They all expect 2012 to be the most competitive year in the last 10 with regards to pricing. Primarily as a result of 85% MLR floor (for group policies) set in place by the ACA, effective the first of this year. One way the insurance companies are attempting to circumvent the floor (or at least shift costs, effectivly circumventing it) is to include broker commissions as part of medical costs. They don't expect that will happen, and as a result, fully expect commissions to be cut, maybe dramatically from the current standard of 5% for group policies.

Submitted by blahblahblah on September 20, 2011 - 11:05am.

pri_dk wrote:

Yup.

The #1 reason people don't believe that global warming is occurring:

Al Gore made a movie about it.

"If I don't like the messenger, then I will refuse to even consider the message."

Actually some people are beginning to question it because they read the news.

Submitted by mike92104 on September 20, 2011 - 11:54am.

SK in CV wrote:

This kind of shit happens all the time by people bound by political ideologies. When the first version of the bill was passed by the house (and still being debated by the house), someone posted, on this board, a list of 50 claims about the law, purported to have been written by a constitutional lawyer. With citations of page and line number for every one. So I read the bill. Beginning to end. As i did with the final bill. 49 out of the 50 were outright falsities (including "death panels"). I documented exactly why each was false. The one true statement was that minority medical school students would get grants.

But people who are ideologically opposed to either the sponsor of the bill, the party proposing the bill, or for any of dozens of other reasons, ignore facts, and stick with beliefs, latch on to those falsities to support their religious like beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary. It has dumbed us down as a country. It is, and will continue to be an impediment to progress.

I will point out that this works both ways. There have been several people on this board who will argue to death on behalf of one political party no matter how many facts are presented to prove them wrong.

Submitted by harvey on September 20, 2011 - 11:57am.

So another cranky old scientist who does not even study climate writes a letter.

What are we supposed to do with this?

But he has a Nobel Prize!

So that means that we can also acknowledge Krugman as an authority on Economics...right?

I particularly like this part:

"I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around. The ozone hole width has peaked in 1993," he continued

Know why deforestation and ozone are less of a problem today? Because we did something about it!

http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progsregs/...
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/...

Submitted by briansd1 on September 20, 2011 - 12:40pm.

mike92104 wrote:
I will point out that this works both ways. There have been several people on this board who will argue to death on behalf of one political party no matter how many facts are presented to prove them wrong.

Arguing of behalf of a party is not the same as accepting falsehoods as facts.

Was Jesus really born of an immaculate conception?

Submitted by Veritas on September 20, 2011 - 2:05pm.

CONCHO wrote:
Veritas wrote:
Just curious how you pick a physician in TJ. Do you have someone who recommended one or?

Yeah, I know someone who's been down there and had good experiences. There is a pretty big medical tourism business there now, just google "medical tourism tijuana" and lots of stuff will pop up. People from all over the US fly to SD to go down there for treatments. Of course I haven't been yet so maybe it's not that great, I will know soon though...

Thanks. It might get to that for me, too.

Submitted by Aecetia on September 20, 2011 - 3:06pm.

Obamacare: Impact on the Uninsured
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...

Submitted by harvey on September 20, 2011 - 3:22pm.

Aecetia,

Although collecting information from a variety of sources can be valuable, any "analysis" from the Heritage Foundation is going to suspect since it is an extremely partisan organization. Their agenda is to make Obama look bad, not to educate you and I.

HCR isn't perfect, you say? No one will disagree with that. The unfortunate part is that there was plenty of opportunity to improve upon it when the legislation was being debated. But as you recall, one large group of politicians was unified and unwavering in their determination to avoid any adult discussion, instead of choosing to resort to cries of "socialism" and "you lie!"

Now the agenda is to repeal HCR and take us back to square one. This "solution" doesn't address any of the issues you describe above - e.g. illegal immigrants will still be going to the ER - but somehow it will make the world right again.

Healthcare is an extremely complex issue - probably the most complex there is. We can poke holes in any system. But it is clear to the majority of Americans that the US healthcare system is broken and there is substantial room for improvement.

The process of improving it will require some mature debate, educated discussions about the various trade-offs, and ultimately some compromise from all involved. If there's a better plan, let someone propose it.

If your representative is a Republican, you may want to write them a letter asking why the refuse to participate in the discussion like adults.

Submitted by Aecetia on September 20, 2011 - 3:25pm.

pri-

Excellent points. I think the middle class is really getting squeezed and the poor are also getting the shaft if they are being given substandard medical through medicaid. What concerns me is will physicians continue to practice if they are forced to accept patients who are not going to reimburse them as well as those with "good insurance". I have some friends who lived in England and they said there were two levels of insurance. You used the government for some things and your own if you needed treatment that would not wait. These folks were millionaires and could afford to pay for their own and are now here and not worried about Obamacare because they know they can go anywhere to get what they need. Unfortunately, we all do not have that option.

I hope things get worked out before more people drop or are dropped from their insurance because they cannot pay for it and more people start going to the ER. Last time I had to go there, there was a really long wait and yes, it did look like the cafe scene in Star Wars. I think we all want high quality and affordable medical care, but I am not sure that this bill provided that. And yes, Heritage is biased, but it is hard to find any media that do not have either a left or right leaning bias to quote.

Submitted by Arraya on September 20, 2011 - 3:31pm.

pri_dk wrote:
So another cranky old scientist who does not even study climate writes a letter.

He must feel good about himself. He made it onto a list of profession industry shills and "experts" that argued that cigarettes causes no harm.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/257...

Quote:
Some might think that this does not prove a sell out - only a collaboration with these groups. That would require believing that a well known scientist with no history of climate research of his own comes out with a list of wingnut talking points that are easily scientifically refuted just because of the goodness of his heart - because he believes his contrary "science" so much that he had to speak out - but he does not bother to publish a single paper on the topic that can be peer reviewed.

If he truly had some data to take down climate science, he would publish it somewhere. But he hasn't.

Of course he is getting paid. Of course Heartland pays its "experts." There is no other motivation for a respected scientist to act so unscientifically and tarnish an otherwise sterling reputation.

Update:
From Real Climate... hat tip to PublicityStunted

Submitted by SK in CV on September 20, 2011 - 4:41pm.

Aecetia wrote:
pri-

Excellent points. I think the middle class is really getting squeezed and the poor are also getting the shaft if they are being given substandard medical through medicaid. What concerns me is will physicians continue to practice if they are forced to accept patients who are not going to reimburse them as well as those with "good insurance". I have some friends who lived in England and they said there were two levels of insurance. You used the government for some things and your own if you needed treatment that would not wait. These folks were millionaires and could afford to pay for their own and are now here and not worried about Obamacare because they know they can go anywhere to get what they need. Unfortunately, we all do not have that option.

I hope things get worked out before more people drop or are dropped from their insurance because they cannot pay for it and more people start going to the ER. Last time I had to go there, there was a really long wait and yes, it did look like the cafe scene in Star Wars. I think we all want high quality and affordable medical care, but I am not sure that this bill provided that. And yes, Heritage is biased, but it is hard to find any media that do not have either a left or right leaning bias to quote.

I think the fallacy that you've kind of alluded to (based on this and prior comments) is that somehow the reform law is responsible for the middle class getting squeezed, or the poor getting the shaft in the quality of care. More people, including more of the middle class and poor will be covered, and more will be covered by higher quality insurance than prior to the new law. (At least once it fully takes effect in 2014.) It is possible that some may lose coverage (or more likely, have to pay for 100% of the cost of their insurance) as a result of the ACA, though many fewer than opponents of the bill claim. And tens of millions fewer than those newly insured solely as a result of the bill.

The law, as enacted will be a huge windfall for the insurance industry. The mandate will more than make up for additional burdens placed on insurance companies. (Without the mandate, probably not so much.) And if the mandate remains, it should not increase the cost of medical insurance. (Please don't read this as my support for the mandate. I think it was bad law, policywise. But in the context of the full law, it was a necessity. As a whole, the law does not work without it.)

But there is nothing that will require physicians to accept medicaid patients nor medicare patients. Medicaid is a problem. Particularly for hospitals. Medicare, currently not so much. Over 85% of primary care physicians accept medicare reimbursements. Pending changes will make that more problematic (particularly in cities like San Diego, which is reimbursed at rural rates, rather than the higher rates in Los Angeles). Those problems may, in part, be mitigated by shared savings programs designed into the law, but the results of those programs are mostly untested and unknown.

Overall, I think most of your arguments are ill timed. Doing nothing would not have cured any of those problems. They should have been made when the bill was being negotiated. Many in both houses of congress, and the white house wanted a stronger bill. Instead, they negotiated with an opposition that would not support any bill presented, regardless of the content. A humungously flawed tactic which resulted in a humungously flawed bill. Substantially better than nothing. But still flawed.

Submitted by Aecetia on September 20, 2011 - 5:29pm.

SK- Fair comments. I think we are all hoping for a positive outcome, but we probably differ in what that means for each of us. I did argue quite vocally against the bill but to no avail to many members of Congress. Many of the ones I wrote to (and not just e-mail) lost their seats in 2012. Some decided not to run. The good that may have come from the bill is the realization (by Congress) that the current system is not working for many. Why is San Diego reimbursed at a rural rate? With the cost of most college education outpacing even insurance rates, I hope we can continue to attract the best and the brightest to this field. Thanks.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on September 28, 2011 - 11:58am.

"Premiums for employer-provided health insurance jumped 8-9 percent in 2011, passing $15,000 for family coverage — which is more than the cost of a Ford Fiesta. That’s a big jump from the 3 percent increase in 2010. But it’s in line with historical increases that have averaged just over 10 percent per year since 2001, according to the annual Kaiser Family Foundation's Employer Health Benefits survey."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/091...

Submitted by SK in CV on September 28, 2011 - 8:59pm.

Zeitgeist wrote:
"Premiums for employer-provided health insurance jumped 8-9 percent in 2011, passing $15,000 for family coverage — which is more than the cost of a Ford Fiesta. That’s a big jump from the 3 percent increase in 2010. But it’s in line with historical increases that have averaged just over 10 percent per year since 2001, according to the annual Kaiser Family Foundation's Employer Health Benefits survey."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64525.html#ixzz1ZHADljip

Thanks for this Zeitgeist, I hadn't seen it. Pretty much validates that the law did exactly as it was supposed to do. It slowed the rate of increases dramatically in the eighteen months since the law was passed.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on September 28, 2011 - 11:39pm.

You are welcome. I could use a roll back in prices, but I do not think that is going to happen.

Submitted by Jazzman on October 1, 2011 - 8:27am.

pepsi wrote:
sd_matt wrote:
I was listening Dennis Prager interview a doctor. To shorten what the doc said; You are more likely to lose your savings here in the USA and more likely to die from a major illness in the more socialized systems.

I asked a nurse practitioner if she agreed with that assessment and she said yes.

Any docs here in the house? Do you agree or disagree?

I would agree to this one:

You are likely to lose your saving (first) in USA , and to die (first) from a major illness in other system.

I think that the quote was probably you are more likely to lose your savings THAN die from a major illness, THAN you would in a normal healthcare system. BTW what does "socialized" mean? According the to the principles of socialism, or behaving in a socially acceptable manner?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.