|
Post by leftturnonly on Oct 27, 2016 5:20:02 GMT
My idea on how ACA was intended to be was that it would likely be more expensive the first few years while people without coverage caught up on neglected issues and then it would decrease as the demand leveled off and became more predictable. If it would have been presented to the public by either Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama YEARS ago in this way, we'd have an entirely different country than we do today and we in what's left of the middle class would be in a far better position than we are now. The lies have devastated us.
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
Jun 26, 2014 23:58:32 GMT
|
Post by sassyangel on Oct 27, 2016 5:25:46 GMT
This is absolutely true. I could name 50 people I know personally off the top of my head who rationalize that the $300 "penalty" they pay is far cheaper than the starting $300 a month they'd have to pay for single coverage. Although I think deliberately going without insurance is incredibly risky (especially in this country) I can't really argue with that thinking the way its currently set up. The penalty is no real incentive penalty at all. What happens if they need care though? Where do they go? Are ER's required to take care of them? Then they're up the proverbial creek without a paddle, I guess. Hence why I said "incredibly risky". Most ER's around here can't turn them away, but they'd have a damn hefty bill, I'd imagine. We have health insurance and both hospitals around here are fairly militant about collecting our out of pockets. Its healthcare russian roulette. Betting against the house on something catastrophic never happening to you. Seeing the terrifying premium prices some people here have had quoted for high deductible family coverage, I understand why they take that risk to a degree, even though its something I wouldn't do myself now. I've been without insurance when I got laid off from my job, had an ankle injury and didnt get care because I knew exactly what it would cost, and am paying for it now with various ankle issues.
|
|
mlana
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,523
Jun 27, 2014 19:58:15 GMT
|
Post by mlana on Oct 27, 2016 5:28:24 GMT
We're self-employed and we have Kaiser. Originally we got insurance thru them as a company, listing DH and I as separate employees, rather than as insured and spouse. We had our DD on a separate plan. Our insurance for the two of us was over $1500/month with another $200/ month for DD's policy.
We got notice in 2015 that our costs for 2016, for just us, was going to be over $2500/month. Given that DH had a stroke in 2015 and our income had taken a hit, that was simply not something we could afford. It was way more than our mortgage! I got in touch with the agent who had sold us the original policies and she got us on the exchange. We got a very similar policy for all 3 of us for just a bit over $400 with the subsidy. We knew that we probably wouldn't qualify for this for very long, so I have tried to make sure that we have had as many health issues addressed this year as possible.
I just got notice that our premiums for next year have increased by more than 50%, plus the amount of coinsurance has gone up, too. I am not sure that we will qualify for the full subsidy next year, either. I'll be tracking our 2017 income very carefully. I'm more concerned about the increase in co-insurance amounts than I am the premium increase. DH has to have certain lab tests on a regular basis and the difference in percentages can be more than the premium increase.
Marcy
|
|
luvnlifelady
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,428
Jun 26, 2014 2:34:35 GMT
|
Post by luvnlifelady on Oct 27, 2016 5:29:59 GMT
For those of you blaming insurance companies--just what are they supposed to do? They are now required to accept pre-existing conditions and the previously uninsurable. Do you know why they were uninsurable? Because their care would be so cost prohibitive that in order for the companies to remain solvent, they would have to pass those astronomical costs on to everyone else. Just like those of use who were opposed to Obamacare warned. It was always as plain as the nose on your face that this was going to be the result. Don't go blaming the big, bad insurance companies. Not being snarky, but I'm with others and don't know what those people are supposed to do? Not being covered so they can receive services?
|
|
luvnlifelady
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,428
Jun 26, 2014 2:34:35 GMT
|
Post by luvnlifelady on Oct 27, 2016 5:43:12 GMT
Im worried about this up coming year for insurance. My daughters plan is being discontinued, and I have a bad feeling mine is about to get to a point I can't afford it. No job on the horizon for me till July and for the first time since this all started, Im seriously considering not getting insurance and taking the penalty at tax time for this year. We haven't used our insurance this year at all anyway so I paid money for nothing. Its a mess Can you get on your state aid for Medical insurance. When my DH at the time was unemployed, that's what we did. Now that we divorcing, it's a whole different mess.
|
|
luvnlifelady
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,428
Jun 26, 2014 2:34:35 GMT
|
Post by luvnlifelady on Oct 27, 2016 5:56:06 GMT
The actual cause of much of the rise in costs is that the coverage is going to the sickest people are the ones utilizing this insurance. They are not paying the full cost as they are likely subsidized. Their costs are outpacing the premiums, even with the subsidies paid by the taxpayers. The healthy people who should be counterbalancing the sick ones with their premiums are NOT signing up. The 20 somethings and early 30 somethings are choosing to pay the fine instead of paying for the premium because it's cheaper and they're more risk tolerant. Not to mention that those of us not in the exchanges but utilizing company sponsored plans are seeing tremendous increases in both premiums and deductibles for lesser services. We were warned about it from the beginning. While some are getting improved health care, many are foregoing medical care because they can't afford the deductible they had to choose in order to afford the premiums. So they skip getting checkups, skip getting med refills because the doc won't enter another Rx without a visit. Then they risk getting sicker instead. And when they finally give in, it's because they have ended in the ER due to a catastrophic event that should have been mitigated by proper routine care. That they can't afford now. I don't know what the answer is but this isn't it. I agree. Seems like more thing would be helped if caughter early through preventative care rather than people waiting until things have gotten worse.
|
|
Grom Pea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,944
Jun 27, 2014 0:21:07 GMT
|
Post by Grom Pea on Oct 27, 2016 6:00:07 GMT
We're self-employed and we have Kaiser. Originally we got insurance thru them as a company, listing DH and I as separate employees, rather than as insured and spouse. We had our DD on a separate plan. Our insurance for the two of us was over $1500/month with another $200/ month for DD's policy. We got notice in 2015 that our costs for 2016, for just us, was going to be over $2500/month. Given that DH had a stroke in 2015 and our income had taken a hit, that was simply not something we could afford. It was way more than our mortgage! I got in touch with the agent who had sold us the original policies and she got us on the exchange. We got a very similar policy for all 3 of us for just a bit over $400 with the subsidy. We knew that we probably wouldn't qualify for this for very long, so I have tried to make sure that we have had as many health issues addressed this year as possible. I just got notice that our premiums for next year have increased by more than 50%, plus the amount of coinsurance has gone up, too. I am not sure that we will qualify for the full subsidy next year, either. I'll be tracking our 2017 income very carefully. I'm more concerned about the increase in co-insurance amounts than I am the premium increase. DH has to have certain lab tests on a regular basis and the difference in percentages can be more than the premium increase. Marcy Wow do you have a platinum plan? I have Kaiser for individuals and I pay between $200-$300 per month for the cheapest plan with the highest deductible. Still it's something. Also for those on the exchange, you can get insurance outside of the exchange. In fact dh almost got us to switch insurance because the exchange was $3 a month cheaper for a family plan than directly through blue cross which is his insurance. I said no because I like Kaiser and strewn he went to make appointments, many doctors would not take patients through the exchange and kept trying to turn hon away until they realized he had private insurance. It's horrible that people who are paying for a service through the exchange are not really getting what they paid for and they're not really saving that much $
|
|
|
Post by gale w on Oct 27, 2016 7:15:19 GMT
I just looked at our new rate, which came in the mail today. I am sick over this. Our plan, which started out at $750 before the ACA, is now going from 1577 (which is what it went up to after the ACA) to $2186 per month. We simply can't afford that increase. We already have a high deductible ($12000 total). DH is going to flip the hell right out. I don't even want to tell him.
|
|
|
Post by gale w on Oct 27, 2016 7:21:42 GMT
Is there a site that is NOT the government run marketplace where I can look at prices now? I tried ehealthinsurance.com but it will only show me short term plans since open enrollment hasn't started. I don't understand why we can't at least look at pricing outside of the open enrollment period. I do not want to tell dh about this increase until I know our other options but I don't want it hanging over my head until November 1st.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Oct 27, 2016 10:45:17 GMT
My idea on how ACA was intended to be was that it would likely be more expensive the first few years while people without coverage caught up on neglected issues and then it would decrease as the demand leveled off and became more predictable. If it would have been presented to the public by either Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama YEARS ago in this way, we'd have an entirely different country than we do today and we in what's left of the middle class would be in a far better position than we are now. The lies have devastated us. What did Hillary have to do with this years ago? She wanted a single-payer plan when she ran in 2008. What you call lies, I call a human inability to perfectly predict the future behavior of other humans, but YMMV. I think it's worth pointing out that we have this mess in part because Republicans absolutely would not countenance a single payer plan OR offer any viable solution of their own. For all the times they've tried to repeal the ACA over the past six years or so, they've failed to come up with and coalesce around any single viable alternative. Their alternative is just to repeal and leave millions of Americans without healthcare coverage. Obama had two choices - let things stay as they were, which meant millions were uninsured and many of us (my family included at that time) could not afford their health insurance premiums and deductibles - or try to come up with a plan that was a step toward fixing some of that, that he could get enough support for in Congress to pass. That's what he did. Republicans had ample opportunity during their majority to create and present a better plan that could get enough support, and have utterly failed to do so. Ultimately this is all about politics. Republicans flatly refused to allow anything successful to go through Congress during Obama's presidency. You don't like lies? I don't like childish, petty obstructionism. They'd rather complain about how terrible Obama's plan is than actually do anything to improve the lives of the American people. At least Obama and the Democrats tried to do something. Most Republicans would rather score political points than lift a finger to help. The most do-nothing congress of all time is mad that a Democratic president actually did something and will do everything they can to keep it from being successful. I get that what we have is not working. Everyone gets that. I don't know why we cling to the idea that healthcare should be (a) administered largely through people's employers and (b) run for profit, but in my opinion, the sooner we recognize that those ideas are not helping us, the better.
|
|
|
Post by lbp on Oct 27, 2016 13:22:03 GMT
Not just the exchange! Our company insurance went up 18.9%. For this reason we are going to offer 3 different plans some with very high deductibles, that may have more affordable premiums. I am not sure how much longer we will be able to afford to pay half of our employees insurance. We are a small company (less than 50) and are not obligated to offer insurance. We are looking to see if our employees would be better off in the exchange or with a group policy. 3 companies to choose from! What a luxury these days. No, not 3 companies, 3 plans from the same company. Plans with different deductibles, out of pocket expense, or an HMO, which will be our base plan.
|
|
pudgygroundhog
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,643
Location: The Grand Canyon
Jun 25, 2014 20:18:39 GMT
|
Post by pudgygroundhog on Oct 27, 2016 13:43:40 GMT
I just signed up for my benefits yesterday through work. I'm very fortunate - my plan was already very affordable and choosing the same plan this year did not result in a large increase (a few bucks a month). When we sign up we can see what the plan costs, what my employer pays, and what I pay - clearly my employer is absorbing the bulk of the cost and I'm lucky that I work for a large company that can do that. I feel for people who have very expensive premiums and high deductibles - it's easy to see how medical expenses are a huge part of debt in the US.
I hope that the next Congress and President can work on solutions. I worry that if Clinton is elected and we have another obstructionist Republican Congress that we won't get anywhere.
Clearly our current system needs improvements - what are some ideas to move in a positive direction?
|
|
suzastampin
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,587
Jun 28, 2014 14:32:59 GMT
|
Post by suzastampin on Oct 27, 2016 14:18:41 GMT
Gee...maybe if these salaries were cut a bit, premiums wouldn't have to go up quite so much. Personally, I think it's insane for salaries to be this high in any capacity. Nobody is worth this much! Yet, we are all struggling to pay the exorbitant premiums. I think insurance companies should be non-profits.
|
|
suzastampin
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,587
Jun 28, 2014 14:32:59 GMT
|
Post by suzastampin on Oct 27, 2016 14:29:41 GMT
Dh's went up 12% and the deductible went up by about $400. Mine did not go up at all.. sort of. My health insurance company will no longer be offering plans in my state. I am so ticked that we have to begin this research process all over again. We've always had to go for a more expensive plan for me because I am a bigger healthcare consumer than anyone else in my family and because I need name brand drugs. Why in the world there are no generic combination long acting asthma inhalers and no more generic albuterol inhalers at the moment is beyond me!!! As mush as I dislike government interference in healthcare, I'd much rather see pharmaceutical controls than some of the nonsense shoved into Obamacare that is increasing costs. I'm sorry but "premiums are lower than you think" does not apply to those of us who saw significant increases with the institution of the ACA and are now continuing to see increases. I find it so ironic that as a healthcare provider I have not seen ANY increase in my income in the last 13 or so years. Not a dime. I make exactly what I made in 2002 or 2003 as I do today. With inflation, that means I make less. Yet, my healthcare out of pocket costs have pretty much doubled for less coverage than I had back then. Melissa, my dr. changed my bronchodilator and cortisone inhalers to the combo Breo. If you go on their website you can see if you are eligible for a free year of it. I was, and it's great to not only get rid of two inhalers and copays plus get it for free. I don't know if you can get a second year free, but my doctor told me that if I couldn't or copays were high after the year, that he will supply me with samples. I've felt great with the Breo.
|
|
|
Post by jamh on Oct 27, 2016 15:56:00 GMT
For those of you wondering what people without insurance do when they need medical care, they do what folks have always done and go to the hospital ER which has to provide treatment. I live near one of the largest cities in the U.S., and a nurse friend says that ERs are absolutely flooded all day but especially at night. On some days the TV stations will report that some of the big ERs are so full, they are diverting people to other places. If people say they don't have insurance, they are charged a tiny token amount.
jamh
|
|
mlana
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,523
Jun 27, 2014 19:58:15 GMT
|
Post by mlana on Oct 27, 2016 16:58:20 GMT
We're self-employed and we have Kaiser. Originally we got insurance thru them as a company, listing DH and I as separate employees, rather than as insured and spouse. We had our DD on a separate plan. Our insurance for the two of us was over $1500/month with another $200/ month for DD's policy. We got notice in 2015 that our costs for 2016, for just us, was going to be over $2500/month. Given that DH had a stroke in 2015 and our income had taken a hit, that was simply not something we could afford. It was way more than our mortgage! I got in touch with the agent who had sold us the original policies and she got us on the exchange. We got a very similar policy for all 3 of us for just a bit over $400 with the subsidy. We knew that we probably wouldn't qualify for this for very long, so I have tried to make sure that we have had as many health issues addressed this year as possible. I just got notice that our premiums for next year have increased by more than 50%, plus the amount of coinsurance has gone up, too. I am not sure that we will qualify for the full subsidy next year, either. I'll be tracking our 2017 income very carefully. I'm more concerned about the increase in co-insurance amounts than I am the premium increase. DH has to have certain lab tests on a regular basis and the difference in percentages can be more than the premium increase. Marcy Wow do you have a platinum plan? I have Kaiser for individuals and I pay between $200-$300 per month for the cheapest plan with the highest deductible. Still it's something. Also for those on the exchange, you can get insurance outside of the exchange. In fact dh almost got us to switch insurance because the exchange was $3 a month cheaper for a family plan than directly through blue cross which is his insurance. I said no because I like Kaiser and strewn he went to make appointments, many doctors would not take patients through the exchange and kept trying to turn hon away until they realized he had private insurance. It's horrible that people who are paying for a service through the exchange are not really getting what they paid for and they're not really saving that much $ No, we have a silver plan. It's the only level that was eligible for a subsidy. The deductible is high, but last year's was covered by the plan, so we went straight to paying the OOPM's 20%. we had KP prior to going thru the exchange and there has been no difference whatsoever in how we're treated. We are in an HMO plan, so we only see Kaiser's in-house doctors and they don't know nor care how we're insured. Our original plan was a PPO plan, but we found the KP were as good as or better than the outside doctors. Changing to a less expensive HMO plan was an easy decision for us. Marcy
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Oct 27, 2016 17:00:09 GMT
I just signed up for my benefits yesterday through work. I'm very fortunate - my plan was already very affordable and choosing the same plan this year did not result in a large increase (a few bucks a month). When we sign up we can see what the plan costs, what my employer pays, and what I pay - clearly my employer is absorbing the bulk of the cost and I'm lucky that I work for a large company that can do that. I feel for people who have very expensive premiums and high deductibles - it's easy to see how medical expenses are a huge part of debt in the US. I hope that the next Congress and President can work on solutions. I worry that if Clinton is elected and we have another obstructionist Republican Congress that we won't get anywhere. Clearly our current system needs improvements - what are some ideas to move in a positive direction? I have little hope in moving in a positive direction - I think both sides are very entrenched. I've thought some about what might help alleviate some of the biggest issues with preACA and the two biggest I heard about at the time were pre-existing conditions and medical bankruptcies. I think barring refusals due to pre-existing conditions was a beneficial move and really the only other option was to strengthen the high risk pools being run by the states. I wonder about the cost of offering a government run catastrophic policy. I'd love to see how the numbers stack up compared to what we're paying now. I think the only thing that will really impact costs is either strong governmental price controls (which have their own issues and are extremely unpopular) or more transparency to the consumer. If families weren't paying tens of thousands of dollars in insurance, more of the routine care could be paid for directly which would dramatically impact the huge overhead costs. The catastrophic policy would kick in to prevent families from going bankrupt over medical bills.
|
|
Grom Pea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,944
Jun 27, 2014 0:21:07 GMT
|
Post by Grom Pea on Oct 27, 2016 17:04:33 GMT
Wow do you have a platinum plan? I have Kaiser for individuals and I pay between $200-$300 per month for the cheapest plan with the highest deductible. Still it's something. Also for those on the exchange, you can get insurance outside of the exchange. In fact dh almost got us to switch insurance because the exchange was $3 a month cheaper for a family plan than directly through blue cross which is his insurance. I said no because I like Kaiser and strewn he went to make appointments, many doctors would not take patients through the exchange and kept trying to turn hon away until they realized he had private insurance. It's horrible that people who are paying for a service through the exchange are not really getting what they paid for and they're not really saving that much $ No, we have a silver plan. It's the only level that was eligible for a subsidy. The deductible is high, but last year's was covered by the plan, so we went straight to paying the OOPM's 20%. we had KP prior to going thru the exchange and there has been no difference whatsoever in how we're treated. We are in an HMO plan, so we only see Kaiser's in-house doctors and they don't know nor care how we're insured. Our original plan was a PPO plan, but we found the KP were as good as or better than the outside doctors. Changing to a less expensive HMO plan was an easy decision for us. Marcy I like that Kaiser doctors are Kaiser insured so if the doctor prescribed something the insurance doesn't come back and say it wasn't covered. I had the cheapest plan all throughout my second pregnancy and never paid a dime for regular care and only one copay for genetic counseling, which was required for those over 35. I bumped up to a better plan when I gave birth so I had to pay more that year, but it was good to have the extra coverage. Dh is the only one in a different plan but he needed to go see specialists that were out of plan. I'm a big fan of Kaiser :-)
|
|
|
Post by red88 on Oct 27, 2016 17:20:00 GMT
This is absolutely true. I could name 50 people I know personally off the top of my head who rationalize that the $300 "penalty" they pay is far cheaper than the starting $300 a month they'd have to pay for single coverage. Although I think deliberately going without insurance is incredibly risky (especially in this country) I can't really argue with that thinking the way its currently set up. The penalty is no real incentive penalty at all. What happens if they need care though? Where do they go? Are ER's required to take care of them? They often die. Just lost my niece recently because she had no insurance. She was 26 years old.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Oct 27, 2016 17:45:42 GMT
If it would have been presented to the public by either Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama YEARS ago in this way, we'd have an entirely different country than we do today and we in what's left of the middle class would be in a far better position than we are now. The lies have devastated us. What did Hillary have to do with this years ago? She wanted a single-payer plan when she ran in 2008. What you call lies, I call a human inability to perfectly predict the future behavior of other humans, but YMMV. I think it's worth pointing out that we have this mess in part because Republicans absolutely would not countenance a single payer plan OR offer any viable solution of their own. For all the times they've tried to repeal the ACA over the past six years or so, they've failed to come up with and coalesce around any single viable alternative. Their alternative is just to repeal and leave millions of Americans without healthcare coverage. Obama had two choices - let things stay as they were, which meant millions were uninsured and many of us (my family included at that time) could not afford their health insurance premiums and deductibles - or try to come up with a plan that was a step toward fixing some of that, that he could get enough support for in Congress to pass. That's what he did. Republicans had ample opportunity during their majority to create and present a better plan that could get enough support, and have utterly failed to do so. Ultimately this is all about politics. Republicans flatly refused to allow anything successful to go through Congress during Obama's presidency. You don't like lies? I don't like childish, petty obstructionism. They'd rather complain about how terrible Obama's plan is than actually do anything to improve the lives of the American people. At least Obama and the Democrats tried to do something. Most Republicans would rather score political points than lift a finger to help. The most do-nothing congress of all time is mad that a Democratic president actually did something and will do everything they can to keep it from being successful. I get that what we have is not working. Everyone gets that. I don't know why we cling to the idea that healthcare should be (a) administered largely through people's employers and (b) run for profit, but in my opinion, the sooner we recognize that those ideas are not helping us, the better. Focusing on what I bolded first, the health insurance premiums and deductibles have surpassed millions of Americans ability to pay. Now. AFTER Obama's plan. It is to the point now where many pay a fortune for premiums, then pay for Dr's visits and Rx's and it's only when they begin hitting catastrophic costs that they can begin putting in claims. Catastrophic Insurance used to do the same thing at a much cheaper cost than health insurance, not more. It is all about the politics. The faults in Obamacare that make it unsustainable were obvious right from the beginning. That is not the fault of the Republicans. That is a fault of the plan. Whatever the Republicans are justly responsible for, Obamacare is entirely on the shoulders of the Democrats. They passed it. They can't pass the blame for the faults of Obamacare onto the Republicans. I voted for a man who I believe was fully capable of implementing a plan that would overhaul the health care system to be viable and sustainable. And he was a Republican. Not Obama. I don't know why you assume that - at the minimum here, me, since you did quote me - that a) I want health insurance so dependent on being a perk from employers or b) run for such huge profits. I will add c) hospitals and other health facilities being run for huge profit. I don't. (To be clearer, I'm OK with health insurance being offered by employers as part of compensation, but I am NOT OK with virtually all health insurance being dependent on employment.) On the flip side, I have said outright this entire time that there are parts of Obamacare that I think are very important. I don't think it's gone far enough in some respects. My concerns have been all about the economics - and the slight of hand "now it's a tax and now it's not" that allowed it to survive the first round through the Supreme Court disgusts me and should concern ALL of us. As I said, I don't think Obamacare went far enough in some respects. I would like to have a policy that allowed you to cover the people you are responsible for. You have a dependent person over the age of 16, 18, 26? They should be able to be on your policy. You are young and have responsibilities for parents or siblings? They should be able to be on your policy. Real life family groups and the distribution of responsibility for who pays to maintain that family unit do not always emulate the perfect little family that the original plans were designed for. Those models are outdated and don't reflect the composition of a significant number of American families today. Hillary as First Lady secluded herself and tried to control the health care of Americans (if I remember right, it was 1/6 of our economy at the time) without any transparency and without being elected to a position of such responsibility. Look how she has conducted her political life since. She's been extremely secretive, without transparency and without assuming the true responsibility of her actions. She has done absolutely nothing to assuage me to believe that she is capable of turning this train wreck around. On the contrary, everything I've seen puts her directly behind the wheel with her foot on the gas of that careening train. Obama lied. He flat out lied. People believed his lies and voted for him. Obamacare never was going to be sustainable. It was only a way to break the back of healthcare in America so that the Feckless Federal Bureaucracy could get their hands on all that money. We don't take care of our vets on a Federal level. Why in the world would anyone believe the Feds will take care of the rest of us? They won't. Whatever the answer is, the more of the same Hillary policy isn't it. ETA to rearrange and better group similar thoughts together and reduce overspacing.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Oct 27, 2016 17:58:04 GMT
3 companies to choose from! What a luxury these days. No, not 3 companies, 3 plans from the same company. Plans with different deductibles, out of pocket expense, or an HMO, which will be our base plan. That sounds more like what I've seen and heard. Sorry I misread it the first time.
|
|
luvnlifelady
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,428
Jun 26, 2014 2:34:35 GMT
|
Post by luvnlifelady on Oct 27, 2016 18:13:44 GMT
What happens if they need care though? Where do they go? Are ER's required to take care of them? They often die. Just lost my niece recently because she had no insurance. She was 26 years old. Wow, sorry to hear that. WTH is this country coming to that it won't help out the poor and needy?
|
|
luvnlifelady
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,428
Jun 26, 2014 2:34:35 GMT
|
Post by luvnlifelady on Oct 27, 2016 18:36:18 GMT
For those of you wondering what people without insurance do when they need medical care, they do what folks have always done and go to the hospital ER which has to provide treatment. I live near one of the largest cities in the U.S., and a nurse friend says that ERs are absolutely flooded all day but especially at night. On some days the TV stations will report that some of the big ERs are so full, they are diverting people to other places. If people say they don't have insurance, they are charged a tiny token amount. jamh Are they later billed and then have to fight it if they can't pay? Or does the token amount satisfy the bill? It's sad that those that are uninsured now have to use the ER for what is basically Urgent Care. That probably explains why they are more crowded at night as most other places are closed.
|
|
|
Post by gale w on Oct 27, 2016 18:40:29 GMT
For those of you wondering what people without insurance do when they need medical care, they do what folks have always done and go to the hospital ER which has to provide treatment. I live near one of the largest cities in the U.S., and a nurse friend says that ERs are absolutely flooded all day but especially at night. On some days the TV stations will report that some of the big ERs are so full, they are diverting people to other places. If people say they don't have insurance, they are charged a tiny token amount. jamh Are they later billed and then have to fight it if they can't pay? Or does the token amount satisfy the bill? It's sad that those that are uninsured now have to use the ER for what is basically Urgent Care. That probably explains why they are more crowded at night as most other places are closed. Things might be different now but back when I had no insurance I ended up with a hospital bill and they ended up garnishing my wages when I couldn't keep up with the payments they wanted. Smaller payments were unacceptable at the time. I had no problems with having to pay it but it would have been easier for me if I was able to make smaller payments since I also had car payments, car insurance, and rent to pay at the time. I ended up having to refinance my car.
|
|
luvnlifelady
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,428
Jun 26, 2014 2:34:35 GMT
|
Post by luvnlifelady on Oct 27, 2016 18:53:56 GMT
Are they later billed and then have to fight it if they can't pay? Or does the token amount satisfy the bill? It's sad that those that are uninsured now have to use the ER for what is basically Urgent Care. That probably explains why they are more crowded at night as most other places are closed. Things might be different now but back when I had no insurance I ended up with a hospital bill and they ended up garnishing my wages when I couldn't keep up with the payments they wanted. Smaller payments were unacceptable at the time. I had no problems with having to pay it but it would have been easier for me if I was able to make smaller payments since I also had car payments, car insurance, and rent to pay at the time. I ended up having to refinance my car. Wow, that's a bummer. I would be like you and want to pay but within manageable time. Not sure what I will do now with the divorce and providing for the kids. Maybe STBXH's plan at work will be ok but we opted out of it before. We were spoiled before and didn't realize it when he worked for his dad and we had good coverage fully paid for.
|
|
|
Post by terri on Oct 27, 2016 19:25:20 GMT
I don't use the Affordable Care Act for insurance as we get it through my husband's company. We just filled out the information for open enrollment, and it went up a lot. I personally can't complain because I am grateful to still have insurance, but just wanted to share that medical insurance going up is not just for people with Obamacare. You may not be on the exchange, but all plans were impacted by ACA, even employer. Could you (or anyone) explain to me how private plans are impacted by the ACA? I feel like I should understand this but I don't. I know our insurance has gone up approximately 20% a year every year in the last decade except last year, so before and after the ACA. I'm wondering if we should also be preparing for huge rate increases in the future. Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
Post by gale w on Oct 27, 2016 19:55:10 GMT
I don't know why or how they were impacted but our premium doubled when the ACA went into effect. So it was impacted somehow.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Oct 27, 2016 20:13:07 GMT
What did Hillary have to do with this years ago? She wanted a single-payer plan when she ran in 2008. What you call lies, I call a human inability to perfectly predict the future behavior of other humans, but YMMV. I think it's worth pointing out that we have this mess in part because Republicans absolutely would not countenance a single payer plan OR offer any viable solution of their own. For all the times they've tried to repeal the ACA over the past six years or so, they've failed to come up with and coalesce around any single viable alternative. Their alternative is just to repeal and leave millions of Americans without healthcare coverage. Obama had two choices - let things stay as they were, which meant millions were uninsured and many of us (my family included at that time) could not afford their health insurance premiums and deductibles - or try to come up with a plan that was a step toward fixing some of that, that he could get enough support for in Congress to pass. That's what he did. Republicans had ample opportunity during their majority to create and present a better plan that could get enough support, and have utterly failed to do so. Ultimately this is all about politics. Republicans flatly refused to allow anything successful to go through Congress during Obama's presidency. You don't like lies? I don't like childish, petty obstructionism. They'd rather complain about how terrible Obama's plan is than actually do anything to improve the lives of the American people. At least Obama and the Democrats tried to do something. Most Republicans would rather score political points than lift a finger to help. The most do-nothing congress of all time is mad that a Democratic president actually did something and will do everything they can to keep it from being successful. I get that what we have is not working. Everyone gets that. I don't know why we cling to the idea that healthcare should be (a) administered largely through people's employers and (b) run for profit, but in my opinion, the sooner we recognize that those ideas are not helping us, the better. Focusing on what I bolded first, the health insurance premiums and deductibles have surpassed millions of Americans ability to pay. Now. AFTER Obama's plan. It is to the point now where many pay a fortune for premiums, then pay for Dr's visits and Rx's and it's only when they begin hitting catastrophic costs that they can begin putting in claims. Catastrophic Insurance used to do the same thing at a much cheaper cost than health insurance, not more. It is all about the politics. The faults in Obamacare that make it unsustainable were obvious right from the beginning. That is not the fault of the Republicans. That is a fault of the plan. Whatever the Republicans are justly responsible for, Obamacare is entirely on the shoulders of the Democrats. They passed it. They can't pass the blame for the faults of Obamacare onto the Republicans. I voted for a man who I believe was fully capable of implementing a plan that would overhaul the health care system to be viable and sustainable. And he was a Republican. Not Obama. I don't know why you assume that - at the minimum here, me, since you did quote me - that a) I want health insurance so dependent on being a perk from employers or b) run for such huge profits. I will add c) hospitals and other health facilities being run for huge profit. I don't. (To be clearer, I'm OK with health insurance being offered by employers as part of compensation, but I am NOT OK with virtually all health insurance being dependent on employment.) On the flip side, I have said outright this entire time that there are parts of Obamacare that I think are very important. I don't think it's gone far enough in some respects. My concerns have been all about the economics - and the slight of hand "now it's a tax and now it's not" that allowed it to survive the first round through the Supreme Court disgusts me and should concern ALL of us. As I said, I don't think Obamacare went far enough in some respects. I would like to have a policy that allowed you to cover the people you are responsible for. You have a dependent person over the age of 16, 18, 26? They should be able to be on your policy. You are young and have responsibilities for parents or siblings? They should be able to be on your policy. Real life family groups and the distribution of responsibility for who pays to maintain that family unit do not always emulate the perfect little family that the original plans were designed for. Those models are outdated and don't reflect the composition of a significant number of American families today. Hillary as First Lady secluded herself and tried to control the health care of Americans (if I remember right, it was 1/6 of our economy at the time) without any transparency and without being elected to a position of such responsibility. Look how she has conducted her political life since. She's been extremely secretive, without transparency and without assuming the true responsibility of her actions. She has done absolutely nothing to assuage me to believe that she is capable of turning this train wreck around. On the contrary, everything I've seen puts her directly behind the wheel with her foot on the gas of that careening train. Obama lied. He flat out lied. People believed his lies and voted for him. Obamacare never was going to be sustainable. It was only a way to break the back of healthcare in America so that the Feckless Federal Bureaucracy could get their hands on all that money. We don't take care of our vets on a Federal level. Why in the world would anyone believe the Feds will take care of the rest of us? They won't. Whatever the answer is, the more of the same Hillary policy isn't it. ETA to rearrange and better group similar thoughts together and reduce overspacing. That's a lot of assertions re:lying, lack or transparency and the supposed intent of the ACA without anything to back them up. I guess it's your crystal ball giving you all that information? Meanwhile, Republicans have had a majority in the House for ages and in the Senate since last year, and they've done exactly what to improve healthcare in this country? Oh yeah, nothing. There's plenty of blame to go around for the faults of the ACA and Republicans absolutely do have their share in that, no two ways around it. They had ample opportunities to make positive contributions and simply chose not to. If you're not part of the solution ...
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Oct 27, 2016 20:16:47 GMT
You may not be on the exchange, but all plans were impacted by ACA, even employer. Could you (or anyone) explain to me how private plans are impacted by the ACA? I feel like I should understand this but I don't. I know our insurance has gone up approximately 20% a year every year in the last decade except last year, so before and after the ACA. I'm wondering if we should also be preparing for huge rate increases in the future. Thanks in advance. I'm sure there are those who have more info - we have some HR peas on the board. There were coverage mandates in the ACA that cover ALL plans - so employer plans must cover certain procedures at no copay or or coinsurance, all plans must include yearly physicals, some immunizations, pregnancy etc. They also changed the family members who must be covered - increased it to children up to 26. Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head, I think there were also so mental health changes, but I'm not as familiar with them and don't have time to google.
|
|
|
Post by gale w on Oct 27, 2016 20:19:49 GMT
I was sort of surprised that Indiana's went down a teeny, tiny bit. It turns out that information may be wrong. Indiana is expected to go up by double digits. The article says don't worry-the extra costs will be offset by subsidies. But not everyone is eligible so for some, like us, that will not be the case. www.forbes.com/sites/gracemarieturner/2016/10/27/middle-income-americans-take-the-biggest-hit-with-obamacare/#66da088e1393And at least one state is challenging the administration’s overly-optimistic numbers. Indiana says it is wrong in claiming its benchmark plan will be 3% cheaper than last year.
“The health insurance rates in the Indiana Marketplace are going to increase. In fact, many Hoosiers will see a double digit increase in rates.,” said Stephen W. Robertson, Commissioner of Indiana Department of Insurance in a news release. Next year, based upon current enrollment, the average rate will increase by 18.7% over the 2016 rates for the Indiana Marketplace.
|
|