Obamacare cost...

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Well, I just got a renewal letter from my individual high-deductible plan.
Premium is indeed increasing. From $284 to $311 a month for my family of five. That is a nearly 10% increase.

I was reading something about this yesterday, but some of the states were able to put Obamacare cancellations off for a year -- the story was about Indiana and I imagine that Utah did the same thing.

I have a Humana catastrophic plan and there's no way that thing fits within the ACA. I actually have two identical plans that cover one half of my family and the other one covers the other half and both have $10,000 deductibles. Yet, I also received a renewal letter which shocked me. And no, they're not grandfathered in, I got both policies after March 2010.

[ERCougar]

I was reading something about this yesterday, but some of the states were able to put Obamacare cancellations off for a year -- the story was about Indiana and I imagine that Utah did the same thing.

I have a Humana catastrophic plan and there's no way that thing fits within the ACA. I actually have two identical plans that cover one half of my family and the other one covers the other half and both have $10,000 deductibles. Yet, I also received a renewal letter which shocked me. And no, they're not grandfathered in, I got both policies after March 2010.

Mine's a Humana plan too.

I've been shocked by a few things after reading this thread.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Mine's a Humana plan too.

I've been shocked by a few things after reading this thread.

Judging by the cost of your health insurance, that plan is being cancelled at the end of next year/beginning of 2015 if no modifications are made to Obamacare. You probably have a $10k deductible and that thing isn't passing muster. Not all states did what Indiana and presumably Utah did, and that's why a ton of people in Florida and California are losing their health insurance right now.

The Obama Administration and the insurance companies have absolutely no interest in you being able to keep your health insurance plan because you and what you pay for your family are needed to prop up the risk pools. The Obama administration has quite a bit of latitude on what's grandfathered in and what's not and what can qualify under the ACA. The current aspect that's being hammered on is Obama selling this thing with the "if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan" lie. He didn't say this once, he said it routinely at every rally he held for it. And the thing is, his administration can still do some things to stem all the cancellations and not make that such an explicit lie. But they're not going to do this because they need people like you and me paying into this thing to subsidize the sick.

On top of that, I imagine there are quite a few people that got individual plans that later developed a condition that would be a pre-existing condition if they were to try to sign up with a new plan. But they're able to remain on their individual plan because they played by the rules, were smart and got a health insurance plan before they got sick. Now these people are having the rug pulled out from underneath them. Right now there's absolutely no guarantee that there will be an individual health insurance market within a few years with the way things are going unless the government massively subsidizes these markets and greatly expands the people that get subsidies.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

This is for all of you who bought Obama's promise to be the most transparent administration in history:

Any guesses on how they're pressuring these insurance companies?

[il Padrino Ute]

This is for all of you who bought Obama's promise to be the most transparent administration in history:

Any guesses on how they're pressuring these insurance companies?

But, Fox News lies!

Wait....can we get a ruling on CNN?

[imanihonjin]

I would like to chime in for Virginia Coug, as he is a "moderate" only interested in bi-partisan solutions that work, that while this bill might have a flaw here or there, such as the fact that it will not decrease the cost of providing health care. None of these minor issues are relevant and really Republicans are to blame because it was a conservative think tank that came up with the individual mandate. Just like the Democrat Party is to blame for slavery. He has knowledge about this people!

The most important thing about this bill is it's problems discredit Republican thinking. That is how "moderates" are approaching forming opinions on this piece of legislation.

You left out the parts about republicans only hating Obamacare because it came from Obama and the fact that Republicans (more specifically, tea partiers) = the KKK. Also, that he knows people who work for congressmen/women/people on the hill.

[VirginiaCougar]

I would like to chime in for Virginia Coug, as he is a "moderate" only interested in bi-partisan solutions that work, that while this bill might have a flaw here or there, such as the fact that it will not decrease the cost of providing health care. None of these minor issues are relevant and really Republicans are to blame because it was a conservative think tank that came up with the individual mandate. Just like the Democrat Party is to blame for slavery. He has knowledge about this people!

The most important thing about this bill is it's problems discredit Republican thinking. That is how "moderates" are approaching forming opinions on this piece of legislation.

Sounds like he should chime in for himself, particularly if he is going to be misrepresented that badly. Goat, you've got a lot of misplaced anger there, my CS friend.

Obamacare is a flawed bill. But it does some good things. It does enhance coverage, something that was sorely missing in the US. It fixes issues with older children, pre-existing conditions, dropped coverage if you get sick, etc. One of the common complaints I hear here and elsewhere is a false comparison of plans. They compare the crappy coverage plans they had to the newer plans (what the Aetna CEO said). Honestly, hiding in crappy insurance coverage plans is another form of free-riding. In the long run I suspect having better, more comprehensive and standardized coverage will be beneficial. It may even reduce costs a bit over time.

It is true that ACA really is more about access to insurance than cost reduction. It does have cost reduction elements in it, but they have been delayed. That was a bad idea. I would not have chosen ACA as an approach to the problem, but I do believe it was better than the path we were on. Again, I wouldn't have done it this way, but a strong individual mandate must be in place if this type of system is going to work. You must bring the healthier, often younger free-riders into the system. I also think if you are going to use that Heritage Plan as the basis for policy, I believe you also needed the public option - an honest broker competitor in the market system to help further push prices down. Once you have everyone in, then the size of those state exchange and federal pools should also be able to leverage better rates.

The Obama Administration is responsible for how poorly ACA has rolled out. It doesn't doom ACA, time will tell if this approach is helpful.

But I do fundamentally believe, as much as you might disparage it, that we would have had a better bill if the GOP had participated in the early days of the process. There were many Republicans who wanted to do this and were stopped, and I am sorry if that truth troubles you as much as it appears to.

I do blame Tea Party Republicans because they have hamstrung the party. They didn't come to DC to fix problems, to find solutions - they came specifically to break it and have made every effort to do so. Lee's recent statement at Heritage that the Tea Party has been good for the party overall is absurd and so patently false in action that it is beyond comedy. I think Bennett-Wyden would have been better that ACA, but the Tea Party made sure that didn't happen. They have been a primary cause of breakdown on every significant issue facing the US, from the debt to social security, issues where principled compromise could have brought meaningful solutions which are surprisingly still within our grasp as a nation. Again, they came to break the system, based on a narrow and ahistorical ideology, not fix it.

Mentioning the philosophical roots of ACA is just one of many examples of this problem.

[snowcat]

But I do fundamentally believe, as much as you might disparage it, that we would have had a better bill if the GOP had participated in the early days of the process. There were many Republicans who wanted to do this and were stopped, and I am sorry if that truth troubles you as much as it appears to.

Obama, Reid and Pelosi gave the collective finger to your party when the ACA was passed. The tea party is a direct response to the finger they gave to your party.

[Uncle Ted]

I do blame Tea Party Republicans because they have hamstrung the party. They didn't come to DC to fix problems, to find solutions - they came specifically to break it and have made every effort to do so. Lee's recent statement at Heritage that the Tea Party has been good for the party overall is absurd and so patently false in action that it is beyond comedy. I think Bennett-Wyden would have been better that ACA, but the Tea Party made sure that didn't happen. They have been a primary cause of breakdown on every significant issue facing the US, from the debt to social security, issues where principled compromise could have brought meaningful solutions which are surprisingly still within our grasp as a nation. Again, they came to break the system, based on a narrow and ahistorical ideology, not fix it.

RMoney wanted to repeal Obamacare. Does that make him one of those SOB Tea Party Republicans?

Edit: Please let the record show that RMoney did graduate from Harvard Law.

[imanihonjin]

But I do fundamentally believe, as much as you might disparage it, that we would have had a better bill if the GOP had participated in the early days of the process. There were many Republicans who wanted to do this and were stopped, and I am sorry if that truth troubles you as much as it appears to.

Why do continue to say this crap, as if saying it one more time will actually make it true? The dems didn't need and in fact didn't get one single republican to vote for their historic plan. What real compromise would they have made to get 10, 20 or 30 republicans to vote for it when they didn't need a single one of them?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

But I do fundamentally believe, as much as you might disparage it, that we would have had a better bill if the GOP had participated in the early days of the process. There were many Republicans who wanted to do this and were stopped, and I am sorry if that truth troubles you as much as it appears to.

I do blame Tea Party Republicans because they have hamstrung the party. They didn't come to DC to fix problems, to find solutions - they came specifically to break it and have made every effort to do so. Lee's recent statement at Heritage that the Tea Party has been good for the party overall is absurd and so patently false in action that it is beyond comedy. I think Bennett-Wyden would have been better that ACA, but the Tea Party made sure that didn't happen. They have been a primary cause of breakdown on every significant issue facing the US, from the debt to social security, issues where principled compromise could have brought meaningful solutions which are surprisingly still within our grasp as a nation. Again, they came to break the system, based on a narrow and ahistorical ideology, not fix it.

Mentioning the philosophical roots of ACA is just one of many examples of this problem.

Do yourself a favor and stop parroting this bullshit. Seriously, just stop it. You're talking about the Tea Party hamstringing the Republicans during the healthcare debate. How many tea party-elected Republicans were in the House and Senate in February 2009 when the stimulus bill was passed without a single GOP vote in the House and only the two GOP women from Maine in the Senate?

Then when the debate was raging by the middle of 2009 regarding Obamacare, how many of the Republicans in the House and Senate were elected by the tea party?

What indication has Obama ever given that he willingly works with Republicans? We have accounts from the likes of Bob Woodward that directly refutes this "truth" that you allude to. We have Obama's comments to Canter. We have Rahm Emanuel saying "f*** 'em, we have the votes." We had a massive stimulus bill that was passed within about a month of inauguration that was a brazen payoff to Democratic constituencies, and it passed with only two GOP votes in either house of Congress -- the GOP wasn't exactly Tea Party-addled at that point.

Your conclusory statement doesn't establish this "truth."

[Color Me Badd Fan]

BTW, I know exactly why you keep on repeating it -- because you're trying to argue that the Republicans are responsible for Obamacare through omission. In other words, you're trying to deflect blame from those that: a) voted for it; and b) and failed miserably at administering it, and instead place the blame on those that warned everyone repeatedly how big of a mess this was going to be.

In your same post you AGAIN parrot a Democratic talking point; namely, your catastrophic insurance is total shit and who cares if Obamacare outlaws it. This latest point was the subject of a column from Sally Kohn on cnn.com. Sally Kohn is described on CNN as a "progressive activist, columnist and television commentator."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/opinio...act/index.html

So again, you're above all the partisan riff raff, but you're repeating talking points from people like Paul Krugman and this self-described "progressive activist."

[imanihonjin]

They compare the crappy coverage plans they had to the newer plans (what the Aetna CEO said). Honestly, hiding in crappy insurance coverage plans is another form of free-riding. In the long run I suspect having better, more comprehensive and standardized coverage will be beneficial. It may even reduce costs a bit over time.

Please provide links where people here have been doing this as you have stated. I don't really care about your professed conversations with others. Furthermore, your point about the crappy insurance adding to public costs misses the mark. How it is it another form of free riding? Most people are not going to be able to simply walk away from an obligation of $10,000 or less and many of those who use these types of plans of HSA's to cover those costs. Not too many people are going to be able to declare bankruptcy over that amount....so exactly how are they free riding the system as you state?

Who the crap wants to make policy of what you suspect? I suspect that you made this conclusion thinking that access to preventative care will reduce the long term medical costs of an individual and therefore be beneficial to society in the long run. First of all studies have shown that there is no substantial long term savings that will result from access to preventative care. Even if there are, most catastrophic plans, at least every plan I have had, provide preventative care an no cost. So exactly, where do you get your long term saving from for providing more comprehensive coverage.

[VirginiaCougar]

RMoney wanted to repeal Obamacare. Does that make him one of those SOB Tea Party Republicans?

Edit: Please let the record show that RMoney did graduate from Harvard Law.

I think Romney would do some things different. But I also think most of that was for public consumption, for the right-wingers. The same thing that cost him the election. He doesn't have a problem with most of the elements of ACA, never did. Just look at Romneycare. Would he have repealed ACA? We will never know, but I don't think so. At least not of his own volition. He would have tweeked it, I am certain. Major change would have been much, much less likely.

[LA Ute]

Judging by the cost of your health insurance, that plan is being cancelled at the end of next year/beginning of 2015 if no modifications are made to Obamacare. You probably have a $10k deductible and that thing isn't passing muster. Not all states did what Indiana and presumably Utah did, and that's why a ton of people in Florida and California are losing their health insurance right now.

The Obama Administration and the insurance companies have absolutely no interest in you being able to keep your health insurance plan because you and what you pay for your family are needed to prop up the risk pools. The Obama administration has quite a bit of latitude on what's grandfathered in and what's not and what can qualify under the ACA. The current aspect that's being hammered on is Obama selling this thing with the "if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan" lie. He didn't say this once, he said it routinely at every rally he held for it. And the thing is, his administration can still do some things to stem all the cancellations and not make that such an explicit lie. But they're not going to do this because they need people like you and me paying into this thing to subsidize the sick.

On top of that, I imagine there are quite a few people that got individual plans that later developed a condition that would be a pre-existing condition if they were to try to sign up with a new plan. But they're able to remain on their individual plan because they played by the rules, were smart and got a health insurance plan before they got sick. Now these people are having the rug pulled out from underneath them. Right now there's absolutely no guarantee that there will be an individual health insurance market within a few years with the way things are going unless the government massively subsidizes these markets and greatly expands the people that get subsidies.

Good summary. As has often been said, elections have consequences.