ObamaCare Costs

[KeithE]

[Haruo]

Our union reported it was able to save a significant amount without reducing benefits for the coming year by changing insurers. Whether this is related to the onset of Obamacare I have no idea. It seems most of the one-time, one-year stuff I'm running into shows savings to the policyholder for next year. But whether this will continue beyond the first year is the question. And on that part I agree with ET and Keith in practicing skepticism.

[ET]

[ET]

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

are the costs as of the federal program (for those 36 states that are relying on the fed in whole or part).

To get your costs (single coverage) click on your state and enter in your age. Pick the plan you want from those eligible (there was no mention of Platinum in Alabama). Do it again for your spouse and add (no married couple break). You can see what children cost by using the which has apparently been updated to be zip code specific (it cross-checked with the above link perfectly for cases of interest to me).

To determine what rating area you are in enter your state and then look for your county or Metropolitan Statistical Area at .

The costs are highly age dependent but a 64 year old cannot be charged more than 3 times a 21 year old and is true from what I’ve checked.

For me (tentative plan is to retire in January) a Cobra Plan (for 18 months) is a better deal to get me to Medicare age 65. OC Gold Plan (slightly better coverage to the BCBS Cobra Plan 320) would us $1293/month while Cobra Plan will cost us $973/month. But the key for me is that my wife (who is 16 months younger than me will be able to get some coverage to get her to 65- as Type 2 Diabetic, you cannot get coverage on open market even though it is diet controlled, takes no medicine and goes to doctor just twice a year) could get health care insurance (sickness, injuries do happen).

For my son and his family, it is good deal - $800/year cheaper than current premiums for his entire family (wife, 1 child) than coverage just for himself. Wife us currently uncovered - can’t afford it. Son was required by UMC rules to have it.

For my daughter and her family they have free family insurance through Casting Crowns.

So OC is doing what it claims to do- provide competitively priced insurance for those who cannot currently afford it. Estimates are that 30M of the 45M uninsured will eventually take advantage of this (about 10% of Americans*). Those of us that get insurance through employer (80% of Americans) do not need new insurance - for the most part we have a better deal with our companies paying part or all of our premiums. But we also have also benefitted (whether you know it or not) by the fact your insurance cannot be cancelled when you get sick and there is no limit on eligible medical expenses since 2011.

The rates above are subject to change as plans are added or subtracted through 30 Sept (that’s next Monday)

* We sure are doing a whole lot of fighting over 10% of Americans. Shouldn’t we be fighting to improve the ~30% of Americans who are not being paid a “living wage”($17/hr = $35,000/year).

Just another example how the media “frames” the discussion in this country.

And once again, OC is not doing much to lower health care costs. Universal care with stricter treatment rules could half our costs as most other civilized countries have demonstrated (and with slightly better health results).

[Hal Eaton]

As usual, I have neither the time, nor the interest, nor the worry over $, nor the financial/medical/psychological education to offer a reasoned post on this thread.

So I'll go with principles instead of charts, put-downs, emotional word battles, references to "he said, you said, I said," or exhausting differences of opinion as to how I personally will either enjoy or reject Obamacare.

Item: Obamacare was rammed down the throats of the American public, the majority of whom did not want the attempted solution to our medical insurance situation.
1. I don't know who invented the term "Obamacare," but it was a masterful coinage to gain support for a publicized effort to play on the common man's (and woman's) dislike for the POTUS, whether the antipathy was based on politics, race, financial stress, or whatever. The name of the Congress-passed law was the ACA - - the Affordable Care Act. A recent you-tube man-on-the-street video showed that many people were firmly against "Obamacare," while claiming they were in favor of the Affordable Care Act. Of the supposed 16,000 pages of the Act, not many of us have any real idea of the true nature of the legalities, costs, or even the aim of the law. Instead, we (both the public and the politicians) take cute pot-shots at the situation, guided, for the most part, by the lady news "reporters" on the various TV news "shows" (obviously chosen for their blond hair, healthy looks, and commitment to the owners' political ties).

2. Obama tried to reform a failed medical coverage situation in which millions of people (those without influence, whether financially or politically) were unable to enjoy the benefits of medical care. Those who bray against the effort obviously have little regard for the woes of the uninsured, since they have offered no solution to the problem. (I've got mine, so don't bother me.)

3. As is nearly always the case, we pass laws, unsure of their ultimate effect. So we make changes, alterations, corrections as needed - - as we have done with Social Security, Medicare, Medic-Aid, Income Tax, National Security, Homeland Security, etc., etc., etc. Only on rare occasions do we reject a law because of its inequities, proven liabilities, or unfairness; almost never do we lose sight of the principles involved.

Item: Briefly mentioned on this thread: the single-payer solution to the question at issue. While arguments against the government's "intrusion" into the mix are offered routinely, there are many reasons to probe the efficacy of such an effort. The system - - Medicare - - is mostly in place, and could be expanded to cover almost everybody. Whatever the cost, it would be covered by a change in the tax structure, which would be far less than the declared costs of ACA. Fears, such as abuses by both patients and practitioners, are expected (and experienced) already. Remember, too, that such a system is already in place for all members of the Armed Forces (and their families), and for some 3 million retired veterans (and families). (And members of Congress?!!!)

[KeithE]

[Haruo]

The paper here (Seattle Times) said yesterday that Boehner had added "reductions in funding for Medicare and Medicaid" to the conditions for ending the shutdown. I think this will cost the GOP votes even in areas where they and their Tea Party faction have done well in past elections. I think the story was the same as .

[Hal Eaton]

Here I go again - - - this time, due to a reference on last night's news . . .

The reporter (this time, a male) told us that a Florida woman had reported that, under the Affordable Care Act, her insurance costs would go from $50 per month to $500 monthly.

WOW!! What we really needed from the Fox News "reporter" was not criticism of the ACA; what we were most curious about was the source of that "$50 per month" medical insurance she was about to lose.

The "reporter" should have ascertained the name of the insuring company; then we could all have signed up; the government could pay for those who couldn't afford it, and "VOILA!" Problem solved!

As is true with most malcontents, whether political, religious, economic, or merely sorehead, let them keep on talking; sooner or later, they are backed into a corner from which there is no escape.

The current Congressional "investigation" of the computer glitches in the ACA enrollment process is a search for "accountability" for assigning blame (note the focus on who was close to the POTUS and when did he know about it, and did he tell Obama, and how soon did HE know about it, and was there a "cover-up"-- that's Congressionalese for making a political point). No one has suggested that the folks hired to make the web-site operational should be held to their contractual obligations. Instead, the targets for disdain are the administrative executives, none of whom are 'puter nerds.

Today I received a "recall" notice on my 5-year-old Mercury automobile as required by the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act." The steering may fall apart, and I could be killed!

Now, since this federal act came right from DC, it is obviously Obama's fault that the weakness was so late in being corrected. Thus, I will never vote for him again.

Instead, I will vote for Teddy Cruz (which see) or Randy Paul (which see) or whoever . . .

I will vote the straight Tea Party ticket. (Note: "Tea" is an abbreviation for "Teatrical.")

[Sandy]

[ET]

.

Really no comment necessary. If they'll lie about one thing, no reason to believe they haven't lied about the eventual costs.

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Only a few million can't keep their insurance if they like it. Got it. These are the people too stupid to know that they had crummy insurance which obamacare replaced with gummit approved insurance. They should be thanking The Anointed One instead of complaining.

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Gummit knows best...let the citizen be dogooned if he thinks he knows best for himself or herself.

I do recognize that Obamacare is wildly successful in adding to the medicaid rolls and forcing someone with money (so far, evidently not the young and healthy Americans who cannot buy Obamacare insurance because of the gummit rollout debacle) to pay for it.

That's the liberal, socialist American way. I get that.

[Hal Eaton]

I have just been watching the current Congressional "investigative" role as they tried valiantly to make political points by questioning Mrs. Sibelius.

The "R" Congressmen bullied, demanded "Yes-or-No" answers to complicated questions, and generally failed to answer the "D" folks evaluations of their motives in trying to depose the ACA.

The lady handled her critics well--so well, in fact, that I wondered if the opposition had previously ascertained that she didn't have a license to carry before they tried to destroy her credibility by quoting and re-quoting from the vast collection of paper-work out of her office.

AU's Rob Boston evaluated such verbosity as "rancid rhetoric" and "partisan posturing."

There might be some of that on this thread . . .

[Hal Eaton]

ET's comment that "Obama administration knew that millions could not keep their health insurance" is a direct quote from Robert Laszewski, hardly a non-partisan source.

Laszewski heads an outfit whose honest claim is that it's "Clients include health insurance companies, HMOs, Blue Cross plans, hospitals and physician groups."

I'll look elsewhere for authoritative resources, opinions, and analyses.

Figures don't lie, but . . .

And William Thornton opines, "That's the liberal, socialist American way. I get that."

The opposition might add, "William's view is the conservative, fascist American way."

Are these the only two choices? IMO TIC

[Sandy]

[ET]

[William Thornton]

Hal, folks have been reported for labels here.

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

There's been so much misinformation put out on ACA that there were inevitably people who went out and bought individual insurance policies that wouldn't meet the criteria. Of course, who benefits from that? Insurance companies who sell the policies and then cancel so they don't have to pay the benefits. That's a long standing tactic in the insurance business, BTW, and it is something that the ACA rules are aimed at limiting.

Insurance companies have been as busy at capitalizing on the misinformation by ripping people off as they have been in pushing propaganda to try to derail the ACA. I've said all along that once people begin experiencing the benefits of the ACA, the negativity will die down. After several million people with pre-existing conditions, several million young adults and several million underinsured and uninsured begin to realize the additional spendable income they have because their insurance is working like it should, instead of being ripped off, and employers realize that the boost in policyholders and increased competition lowers what they have to pay for employee benefits, the critics won't have much of an audience left.

The ACA isn't, by any means, the best possible solution to the woefully horrible situation we have with health care in this country today. It's basically the old Republican plan from the 90's that was put forward in opposition to Clinton's Health Security plan. But it is a major improvement over the way things are now. The majority of voters in 2012 affirmed making the change by re-electing the President and sending more than a dozen Republicans, including some of the most vocal opponents of ACA, home. Whether the Democrats, if they succeed in getting the house back, and enough Senate seats to be filibuster proof, would tackle a single payer, universal health care system, I don't know, but that's where I would like to see it go.

[Ed Pettibone]

Sandy writes "Whether the Democrats, if they succeed in getting the house back, and enough Senate seats to be filibuster proof, would tackle a single payer, universal health care system, I don't know, but that's where I would like to see it go."

Ed: WHY? see http://www.freemarketcure.com/singlepayermyths.php