Obamacare cost...

[Moliere]

I wonder if a new type of insurance will surface. One that will cover you for up to 30 days in case of a catastrophic event. So basically you could then technically pay the obamacare fine and buy this new insurance, which would have small premiums. Then if you have a catastrophic event you have 30 days to sign up for health insurance and the new insurance will cover personal losses during that 30 day window. Chances are something like that wouldn't be possible given the current regulatory laws but I'm sure some lawyer can find a loophole.

[SCcoug]

Overall, I was pretty surprised at how slick the website was given everything I'm hearing.

Sure you went to the right site and didn't get phished?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I wonder if a new type of insurance will surface. One that will cover you for up to 30 days in case of a catastrophic event. So basically you could then technically pay the obamacare fine and buy this new insurance, which would have small premiums. Then if you have a catastrophic event you have 30 days to sign up for health insurance and the new insurance will cover personal losses during that 30 day window. Chances are something like that wouldn't be possible given the current regulatory laws but I'm sure some lawyer can find a loophole.

It's a good idea but I don't think it would be in compliance with the ACA.

[ERCougar]

I wonder if a new type of insurance will surface. One that will cover you for up to 30 days in case of a catastrophic event. So basically you could then technically pay the obamacare fine and buy this new insurance, which would have small premiums. Then if you have a catastrophic event you have 30 days to sign up for health insurance and the new insurance will cover personal losses during that 30 day window. Chances are something like that wouldn't be possible given the current regulatory laws but I'm sure some lawyer can find a loophole.

Interesting possibility.
I agree that the lack of any real penalty is a huge problem.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Blueintheface]

i just left our corporate discussion on Obamacare. This is all I heard:

[Jacob]

Here's a timeline.

So the catastrophic event happens on, say, March 13. You're in the hospital from March 13 to March 25. During that 12 day stay, you rack up 200k in medical bills. Sometime either during that stay or when you're out of the hospital you "sign up" for coverage. Coverage is effective April 1 at the earliest. Possibly during the next open enrollment. Good luck with that.

Catastrophic event = you have an accidental fall and break your back and are in the hospital for two weeks.

I think the real question is when does coverage become effective? If it's the beginning of the next month, you're screwed in my hypothetical catastrophic event. If it's during the next open enrollment (which I believe is the case under the ACA) you're screwed even under your scenario of a catastrophic illness.

I have dumbed down the definition of catastrophic event much more than your have, though not as much as the federal government or the insurance industry. The odds of me or my family ending up in intensive care for 2 weeks are so remote, that it doesn't not justify purchasing insurance between 1,000 and 2,000 per month. The chances of ending up in the hospital for 2 weeks and owing $250k are even less.
You mentioned an accident, like a car crash, I guess? We'll I've already got insurance for that, and its cheap. I've also got homeowner's insurance in case I suffer 3rd degree burns in a house fire.

[smokymountainrain]

I have dumbed down the definition of catastrophic event much more than your have, though not as much as the federal government or the insurance industry. The odds of me or my family ending up in intensive care for 2 weeks are so remote, that it doesn't not justify purchasing insurance between 1,000 and 2,000 per month. The chances of ending up in the hospital for 2 weeks and owing $250k are even less.
You mentioned an accident, like a car crash, I guess? We'll I've already got insurance for that, and its cheap. I've also got homeowner's insurance in case I suffer 3rd degree burns in a house fire.

There are any number of ways a person could end up in the hospital that wouldn't be covered by auto or homeowner's insurance. Even moreso if you factor in children. But hey, if it's a risk you're willing to take, good for you. I wish you luck.

[Jacob]

Very limited example? People are having serious injuries that cause inpatient hospital stays every day. To say it's limited is embarrassingly naive. If you're under the age of 40 (which is what we're talking about here of a young, healthy family that doesn't need day to day coverage), if you are going to have a catastrophic event, chances are it's going to be due to an injury, not a slow moving illness.

You are vastly over-stating the likelihood of such an event occurring to an individual.

I had a few minutes last night so I thought I'd try out the website. I fully expected to run into the clusterf*** that everyone has been talking about, and was pretty surprised to get through the whole process in about 15 minutes, and had 5 plans to choose at the end. Yes, the premiums were all a few hundred dollars higher than what I'm paying, but I expected that, since we're all healthy. Of course, I didn't select a plan, because I wasn't expecting to get through at all, and I think my current plan qualifies, but I can't imagine there was much more beyond that step. Also, I didn't apply for government help with premiums, but I'm doubting that's much of an issue.

Overall, I was pretty surprised at how slick the website was given everything I'm hearing.

They put in a quick work-around where people can kinda-sorta look up plans and pricing. But, as I described a page or so back, the pricing is all wrong and it doesn't allow yout to actually enroll. Were you able to create an account and give your personal information?

I wonder if a new type of insurance will surface. One that will cover you for up to 30 days in case of a catastrophic event. So basically you could then technically pay the obamacare fine and buy this new insurance, which would have small premiums. Then if you have a catastrophic event you have 30 days to sign up for health insurance and the new insurance will cover personal losses during that 30 day window. Chances are something like that wouldn't be possible given the current regulatory laws but I'm sure some lawyer can find a loophole.

It won't qualify. And I believe it is illegal to even offer such plans. But, it should be an option. If I could purchase a plan with a $24k deductible, with only the coverages I wanted (i.e. no maternity coverage, etc.) then I could likely purchase insurance at a very reasonable price. Then I could stash the $2k per month I would be paying for Obamacare, and I've have my deductible prepaid every year. Further, I probably wouldn't need the $24k so my health savings account would grow and grow.
But I'm almost certain that it is illegal to sell a health insurance plan without maternity coverage and many other coverage that you or I may not be interested in purchasing. I mention maternity coverage because it is damn expensive (though I think it need not be).

[Jacob]

There are any number of ways a person could end up in the hospital that wouldn't be covered by auto or homeowner's insurance. Even moreso if you factor in children. But hey, if it's a risk you're willing to take, good for you. I wish you luck.

Sure, there are various and sundry ways, but the point is that they occur only very rarely in the average person. Not enough to Justify $24,000 in insurance premiums per year, plus an additional thousands in co-pay, deductible, and co-insurance. What are the odds of my young and healthy family of 6 spending substantially more than $100k in covered medical expenses over the next five years? Extraordinarily unlikely.

[Katy Lied]

It won't qualify. And I believe it is illegal to even offer such plans.

What about Medicaid Gap insurance? Isn't that legal? Doesn't it behave the same way as what you describe? Covers the gaps in government coverage.

[ERCougar]

You are vastly over-stating the likelihood of such an event occurring to an individual.



They put in a quick work-around where people can kinda-sorta look up plans and pricing. But, as I described a page or so back, the pricing is all wrong and it doesn't allow yout to actually enroll. Were you able to create an account and give your personal information?
c

Yeah, I created an account and gave all my personal info (and my kids). I was right to the stage where you select a plan, with specific costs and benefits outlined. It looked very final, but of course, I wouldn't know without actually selecting it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[myboynoah]

Yeah, I created an account and gave all my personal info (and my kids). I was right to the stage where you select a plan, with specific costs and benefits outlined. It looked very final, but of course, I wouldn't know without actually selecting it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Ha, now some guy in Slovenia is charging millions to your new ERCougar credit cards.

[Uncle Ted]

Tech Expert on Healthcare.gov: 'I've Built More Complex Systems for $1M'
[...]
Hannity talked to software expert Luke Chung, president of software development firm FMS. Chung, a Harvard graduate, called Healthcare.gov a "technological disaster."


At 5:30a on the first day, Chung said he went to the website, hoping to get quotes on policies for his small business.


"I was just aghast at how awful the process was. The questions that they were asking, the personal information that they were requesting, when I just wanted to get a quote. I didn't want to apply, I just wanted to know what was available and how much it cost," said Chung, explaining that the site "kept crashing."


He said the types of errors "had nothing to do with too many users," as the White House first claimed.


Chung said the system needs a complete overhaul, not just a few "tweaks over the weekend."


He expressed amazement that the government spent upwards of $600 million to create the website, saying he's built "much more complex systems" for $1 million or less.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/10/24...lex-systems-1m

I didn't know that FMCoug went to Harvard. I wonder if FM wants to be the next Ted Cruz.

[woot]

Certain implementation decisions were purely political, not taking efficiency, effectiveness, or marketability into consideration. I think it can be likened to Bush's Iraq War. Since the Bush Administration hung their hats on the war, I'm sure some of the war-related decisions were purely political, and I'm sure some disgruntled soldiers had a lot to say about the war's implementation.

The Obama Administration hung their hats on the ACA, and some of their web site implementation decisions were purely political. Here are two simple examples that Uncle Ted has previously cited:

1. Normally the government will hire a managerial vendor who acts like a general contractor, hiring and coordinating and communicating between all the IT subcontractors. The Obama administration made the decision to act as its own general contractor to control the insertion of political strategies into the entire process. So we have a lot of government people involved in the web site design and implementation, from beginning to end. Government people who poorly understood the needs and timelines and importance of testing and other best practices.

2. Normally, web sites will furnish free quotes to people shopping their websites. So you can get a price for that urn you've been lusting after on antiquesrus.com. Even though the shipping and handling will differ depending upon your personal info (where you live, how fast you want it, etc) The obamacare web site was initially set up to furnish quotes this way. However, the quotes were coming in too high, because without personal information the web site could not reduce your premiums by the expected subsidies you might qualify for. The Obama Administration made the political decision to not allow the web site to provide any quotes unless the subsidies were calculated into the premium price, so they forced insurance shoppers to enter in a bunch of personal information, and then the obamacare website had to talk to other websites suchs as the IRS website, the Insurance Clearinghouse website, etc to verify the information. This resulted in a manitude increase on the demands of what the website had to do.

Like my earlier example from the Bush Administration, the insertion of political objectives, whether into a "market" or a war will create a lot of disincentives and inefficiencies. And I'm being equal opportunity here, not merely calling Obama the Great Satan.

Nice summary; thanks. I guess in hindsight it should be obvious that the government can't do anything without prioritizing their political goals, even if that that something is the fulfillment of their greatest political priority. It makes a funny example that way.

I remember watching the West Wing back in the day and wishing that administration would, for once, try to do something great without worrying about curating their image every step of the way. I'm sure it gets frustrating being a politician and needing to do that, but I guess I wonder how necessary it really is. Wouldn't the results at least sometimes speak for themselves? I guess not, or else it would be done, but I don't understand it.

[Katy Lied]

Maybe if we ever get another Calvin Coolidge