Democrats Run Away From Obamacare

[A2SG]

Uh huh. Cuz that's what businesses do - throw massive hissy fits and raise their rates, "just 'cuz."

If there was a valid reason for the rate increases, please inform us.

-- A2SG, be nice to have some facts for a change....

 

[A2SG]

How is a 2,200% increase in the cost of a colonoscopy "better coverage?"

Better yet, how is that a "good thing?"

Charging more for something that was already covered isn't an example of better coverage. Covering a needed procedure or medication that wasn't covered before, on the other hand, would be. The ACA does mandate that insurance plans cover necessary medical care that many substandard plans did not cover before, so in many cases it does mandate better coverage.

-- A2SG, rate increases like that are not mandated by the ACA, so why blame the law for them....?

 

[Sadalbari]

Wait so...the OP doesn't even HAVE an "Obamacare" (incorrect nomenclature in the first place) plan and he's whining about his insurance company raising his rates for an elective procedure for his wife? Anybody else find that ironic in an unfunny way?

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Wait so...the OP doesn't even HAVE an "Obamacare" (incorrect nomenclature in the first place) plan and he's whining about his insurance company raising his rates for an elective procedure for his wife? Anybody else find that ironic in an unfunny way?

You must not be paying much attention to the news or other threads in this forum on the topic. Yes, private health care costs have gone up dramatically in response to the new mandates of Obamacare impacting those plans. We lost our "cadillac" plan at work because our company would have paid a 40% excise tax that is part of the Affordable Care Act. It's part of Obamacare's Goldilocks feature - your health plan can't be too bad, or too good, it has to be just what the Democrats said we should have.

Millions have lost their health care entirely, and 7 million people PER YEAR could be losing employer funded healthcare for many years for this same reason. Gee, what a deal. Idiots.

And we'll fire them for it. Which brings us back to the topic of why Democrats are running from the decisively unpopular Obamacare in an election year. Who would have guessed?

 

[EdwinWillers]

Charging more for something that was already covered isn't an example of better coverage. Covering a needed procedure or medication that wasn't covered before, on the other hand, would be. The ACA does mandate that insurance plans cover necessary medical care that many substandard plans did not cover before, so in many cases it does mandate better coverage.

-- A2SG, rate increases like that are not mandated by the ACA, so why blame the law for them....?

Well let's assume obamacare mandates "better coverage." Is that a fair statement?

If it is, why in the world would you wonder why insurance companies are increasing their rates? Do you really see no relation between "better coverage" and an increase in rates to pay for that "better coverage?" Or do you have a different definition of the word "better" than mine?

Sure, there may be no explicit rate increases mandated in obamacare - but then asserting that is just dodging the issue, isn't it? Besides, no one ever accused obamacare of mandating rate increases explicitly. The accusation is, and always has been what obamacare requires insurance companies to cover that they didn't cover before and how that would drive costs up.

Now I don't know about you, but if I were a restauranteur serving hamburgers and the government mandated I made T-Bone steaks available to my customers, guess what? I'm going to increase my rates - whether the government explicitly told me to increase them or not.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Have you tried the healthcare insurance exchanges to see if you can get a better plan? I'm willing to bet you haven't even tried for a quote.

healthcare.gov has the info.

Anyway if you can't find a better plan you can always not be so cheap and get your wife the tests she apparently needs.

I would pay 400% more for the equivalent plan. Yes, I looked it up. And the out of pocket fees are about the same. But you think I would pay 400% more for the same coverage? Uh, nope.

But, the reason Democrats are running away from the ACA aka Obamacare is the horrible poll numbers, and how that effected the 2010 mid term. They aren't dumb.

 

[A2SG]

Well let's assume obamacare mandates "better coverage." Is that a fair statement?

Depends. How many insurance plans didn't cover the minimum coverage now required? For those that didn't, coverage is better now.

If it is, why in the world would you wonder why insurance companies are increasing their rates? Do you really see no relation between "better coverage" and an increase in rates to pay for that "better coverage?" Or do you have a different definition of the word "better" than mine?

The usual excuse given is that more coverage requires more premiums. This assumes that plans overall did not cover what the ACA now requires they cover. Was this the case? Were that many plans so woefully inadequate?

Sure, there may be no explicit rate increases mandated in obamacare - but then asserting that is just dodging the issue, isn't it? Besides, no one ever accused obamacare of mandating rate increases explicitly.

The insurance industry does all it can to imply that, even if they don't outright say so. "Due to provisions in the new health care law...." is an oft-heard excuse.

The accusation is, and always has been what obamacare requires insurance companies to cover that they didn't cover before and how that would drive costs up.

Right. And were so many plans so inadequate they didn't cover the necessary services the ACA now mandates?

Now I don't know about you, but if I were a restauranteur serving hamburgers and the government mandated I made T-Bone steaks available to my customers, guess what? I'm going to increase my rates - whether the government explicitly told me to increase them or not.

So how many insurance plans were the equivalent of McDonalds, and not sufficient to the health care needs of the insured?

I suspect far, far less than the insurance companies now use to justify their rate increases. But if you have facts to back up the assertion that their costs have gone up as dramatically as their rate increases seem to indicate, all due to provisions in the ACA, feel free to provide documentation to that effect.

-- A2SG, I'm all ears....and fortunately for me, that's covered under my health insurance!

 

[Vylo]

You must not be paying much attention to the news or other threads in this forum on the topic. Yes, private health care costs have gone up dramatically in response to the new mandates of Obamacare impacting those plans. We lost our "cadillac" plan at work because our company would have paid a 40% excise tax that is part of the Affordable Care Act. It's part of Obamacare's Goldilocks feature - your health plan can't be too bad, or too good, it has to be just what the Democrats said we should have.

Millions have lost their health care entirely, and 7 million people PER YEAR could be losing employer funded healthcare for many years for this same reason. Gee, what a deal. Idiots.

And we'll fire them for it. Which brings us back to the topic of why Democrats are running from the decisively unpopular Obamacare in an election year. Who would have guessed?

Thing is, that excise tax isn't in effect, so your employer didn't have reason to drop your plan.

That tax needs to be stripped out too. Dropping a 40% tax overnight is like a financial bomb going off.

 

[Sadalbari]

You must not be paying much attention to the news or other threads in this forum on the topic. Yes, private health care costs have gone up dramatically in response to the new mandates of Obamacare impacting those plans. We lost our "cadillac" plan at work because our company would have paid a 40% excise tax that is part of the Affordable Care Act. It's part of Obamacare's Goldilocks feature - your health plan can't be too bad, or too good, it has to be just what the Democrats said we should have.

Millions have lost their health care entirely, and 7 million people PER YEAR could be losing employer funded healthcare for many years for this same reason. Gee, what a deal. Idiots.

And we'll fire them for it. Which brings us back to the topic of why Democrats are running from the decisively unpopular Obamacare in an election year. Who would have guessed?

Anecdotal.

 

[TheGuide]

If you're 62 you were born around 1952 which means you were 9 years old when you got laid off in 1961. I have trouble believing that

You're right. I meant 2001. I worked for WorldCom. My entire department loss their job.

 

[TheGuide]

You got laid off when you were 9 years old (what?!) and haven't found work in the following 51 years?

I'm hoping this is a series of typos.

It was a typo. 2001.

 

[jayem]

Premiums likely will increase in the individual market. Because of guaranteed issue. Insurers can't deny coverage and medical underwriting is very limited (age and smoking are about it.) Higher premiums will especially be felt by younger and healthier people, who now share the risk with the older and sicker folks. I don't like anyone paying more, but that's how it should have been all long. Insurers should never have been allowed to cherry pick their customers. It's not in the public interest to deny coverage, or price it exorbitantly, to those people who need it the most.

Medical underwriting was always very restricted in the group market. Premiums are based on the risk of the entire employee group (maybe with a smoking, or limited other adjustments.) But no one could be denied coverage because of health status. An advantage of single-payer is that the risk pool is not divided into individual and employee group insurance markets. It's more efficient, and ultimately fairer and cheaper for everyone when everyone in a community shares the risk.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Why do they need to drop that?

If when I turn 24 in 1.5 years my father cannot claim me on his taxes ( unless I was a dependent adult (meaning mentally unable to live on my own or bedridden or something like that) If that is the case then I have NO right to benefit from his insurance. Either allow them to be claimed on their taxes longer. ( Remember, that means the government gets less money because of deductions) or drop them from the insurance. It is not that hard. Remember, I am 22.5 that means that if they did that within TWO years I would be booted off his insurance, yet I still would vote for that law as quickly as I would vote to repeal the death penalty, and if you know me and have read my posts on the subject that is pretty darn quick.

 

[HonestTruth]

Lol

Interesting reaction to the news that American lives are being saved thanks to ACA.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Interesting reaction to the news that American lives are being saved thanks to ACA.

Hey, you can repeat that nonsense as often as you like, it still doesn't make it true - nor will it ever.

Obamacare is not "saving lives." Period. Debunked and trash receptacle lid replaced. If anything, it's making millions of lives utterly miserable (something which, for whatever reason simply refuse to admit).

Cheerleading is fine - if there's something to cheer about.

But a bunch of wishful smilies do not the plethora of real experiences of real live people negate.

 

[Sadalbari]

Hey, you can repeat that nonsense as often as you like, it still doesn't make it true - nor will it ever.

Obamacare is not "saving lives." Period. Debunked and trash receptacle lid replaced. If anything, it's making millions of lives utterly miserable (something which, for whatever reason simply refuse to admit).

Cheerleading is fine - if there's something to cheer about.

But a bunch of wishful smilies do not the plethora of real experiences of real live people negate.

Actually it is saving lives.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Actually it is saving lives.

It is not saving any life. That bill will not save anybody no piece of law will. They had healthcare before they may choose to seek it or not. The only difference is now it SUPPOSEDLY cheaper, but they still have that choice to seek it or not.

 

[HonestTruth]

Actually it is saving lives.

Edwin may not want to believe ACA is saving lives but the facts are there with plenty of evidence to prove it is doing so every day (I am one such example and have stated so previously).

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Edwin may not want to believe ACA is saving lives but the facts are there with plenty of evidence to prove it is doing so every day (I am one such example and have stated so previously).

So you can demonstrate there is a 100% probability that you would be dead now without Obamacare? I thought doctors saved lives, not insurance companies.

 

[Sadalbari]

It is not saving any life. That bill will not save anybody no piece of law will. They had healthcare before they may choose to seek it or not. The only difference is now it SUPPOSEDLY cheaper, but they still have that choice to seek it or not.

Actually it is saving lives