• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Observation about Obamacare

Interesting. Are you self-employed, or is this through an employer?

Neither, retired 61yo. We purchase individual plans from BCBS...which are being discontinued due to lack of maternity care and child dental...
 
Precisely, which is why partisan hacks attempting to describe Obamacare as "a government takeover of healthcare" or "socialist" make my head spin.

There is some thread of truth to this assertion. Consider who was responsible for regulating the minimum coverage of health insurance policies prior to ACA. Who is administrating the "exchange"? Who validates that the mandate is adhered to?

FWIW, yeah 'socialist' is quite over-the-top rhetoric but it seems that all sides employ this tactic of late!
 
It's amazing that it is that much. Excluding paying for insurance, I haven't spent that much in healthcare cost during my entire adult life, let alone in one year.

I've also read that something like 70% of the lifetime cost of healthcare is in the last few years of life. Maybe those death panels were a good idea after all. Hmm.

A lot of the cost comes at the end of life, and is mostly paid for by Medicare. Nevertheless, Medicare consumes only about 7% of the GDP, compared to 11% for the youngsters (under 65, that is).
 
It's amazing that it is that much. Excluding paying for insurance, I haven't spent that much in healthcare cost during my entire adult life, let alone in one year.

I believe Pareto rule explains why.
 
A lot of the cost comes at the end of life, and is mostly paid for by Medicare. Nevertheless, Medicare consumes only about 7% of the GDP, compared to 11% for the youngsters (under 65, that is).

Also medicaid pays a surprising portion of old-age care. It's part of the reason why it couldn't cover all aspects uninsured poor.
 
Neither, retired 61yo. We purchase individual plans from BCBS...which are being discontinued due to lack of maternity care and child dental...

I have yet to receive any notice from BSBS that my insurance will be discontinued. Did BCBS not offer you an alternative policy?

How does the Obamacare exchange plans compare in price to what you have now? Might be time for you to switch anyway.
 
I have yet to receive any notice from BSBS that my insurance will be discontinued. Did BCBS not offer you an alternative policy?

How does the Obamacare exchange plans compare in price to what you have now? Might be time for you to switch anyway.

If anyone wanted an honest debate about ACA ( Never seen on this site) then we would not be wasting time about anecdotes about individuals in a country of 300+ million. An honest discussion would not point only to pros ( as you seem to do). nor only cons as anti-ACA folks here seem to do.

My view this law has both pros and cons. There are winners the biggest that come to mind for me are low income and folks who are either 50-64 and people with pre-existing conditions. Losers are mainly young, healthy folks who earn a decent income and do not work for a company that gives out insurance. Common sense says that this group will pay more on average than they would previously would have as the delta between them and the folks who are older or sicker is now capped.

Of course there are more winners and losers that people can add. There is also the fair debate ( in my view) as to how do we pay for an additional entitlement when the great debate in the land is how we pay for the real albatross for our fiscal stability ( though and important program) Medicare.

Let the insults rain down!
 
If anyone wanted an honest debate about ACA ( Never seen on this site) then we would not be wasting time about anecdotes about individuals in a country of 300+ million. An honest discussion would not point only to pros ( as you seem to do). nor only cons as anti-ACA folks here seem to do.

My view this law has both pros and cons. There are winners the biggest that come to mind for me are low income and folks who are either 50-64 and people with pre-existing conditions. Losers are mainly young, healthy folks who earn a decent income and do not work for a company that gives out insurance. Common sense says that this group will pay more on average than they would previously would have as the delta between them and the folks who are older or sicker is now capped.

Of course there are more winners and losers that people can add. There is also the fair debate ( in my view) as to how do we pay for an additional entitlement when the great debate in the land is how we pay for the real albatross for our fiscal stability ( though and important program) Medicare.

Let the insults rain down!

No insults from me, I agree!

But just to waste a little more time with anecdotes about indivudals, my wife does not have insurance because she has been turned down due to a pre-existing condition. this condition has caused her no harm, and has not resulted in any medical expenses, but apparently most insurance companies believe that it makes her a higher risk. She will be one of the winners of Obamacare because she can now purchase insurance, and the tax payer will not be a loser, because we do not qualify for any subsidies.
 
No insults from me, I agree!

But just to waste a little more time with anecdotes about indivudals, my wife does not have insurance because she has been turned down due to a pre-existing condition. this condition has caused her no harm, and has not resulted in any medical expenses, but apparently most insurance companies believe that it makes her a higher risk. She will be one of the winners of Obamacare because she can now purchase insurance, and the tax payer will not be a loser, because we do not qualify for any subsidies.

Fair enough. We have a winner in our family as well. My son just starting work probably will not take company offered insurance because he can stay on ours until he is 26.

There clearly are winners and losers!
 
Is that $240 month total? what was the subsidy? What is his actual cost now?

What was his income? Why did he not get medicaid for free?
 
After looking at this thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/off-topic-discussion/175028-sense-does-make.html I decided to check to see what a 25 year old male smoker in Illinois would pay for the same Health Insurance coverage I had when I was a self-employed 25 year old smoker back in 2002 and the difference is quite interesting.

I had a $2,500 deductible, $5,000 max out of pocket with 80% coinsurance back then ($25 copay) and I paid about $300 a month for it.

Comparatively, a 25 year old male smoker in Illinois can now get a plan with a $1,500 deductible, $3,500 max out of pocket with 80% coinsurance ($10 copay) for about $240 per month.

Not too shabby. That's without adjusting for inflation, too.

If we adjust for inflation, my coverage then was the equivalent of a plan with a $3,250 deductible, $6,500 out of pocket with a $30 copay today and it cost me $390 per month (this website: CPI Inflation Calculator was used for inflation calculations).

What's interesting is that there is a plan available today that would only cost $230 per month that has $3250 as the max out of pocket cost and deductible which has a 100% coinsurance.

So it looks like I would have saved a lot of money on health insurance if Obamacare existed in 2002. I found this interesting.

The Massachusetts plan had much the same effect on the individual market. The problem was , this was achieved by combing that sector with the small business group, which shot their premiums through the roof, causing many in the state to still wrestle with premiums that were shooting up 20% per year at one point. I'm not sure if the mechanism is the same with the ACA, but if it is, your savings were basically achieved by forcing small business to heavily subsidize your plan. Not what I would necessarily consider a success, given the heavy pressures that sector is already under

Health Reform Lessons from Massachusetts, Part VII : Columbia Journalism Review

that entire series is really worth the read, and the same can be said about Trudy's coverage on healthcare, in general

PS also, it's worth keeping in mind that the economy has had a depressing effect on healthcare and insurance costs in general. But that pressure isn't something that is likely to exist for the long term. Nor is a slackening of prices, due to people not being able to afford care, necessarily a good thing, to begin with

<<<One of the Massachusetts law’s objectives was insurance market reform, which would merge two formerly separate types of policy markets—the individual market, where people bought policies on their own, and the small group market, where small businesses bought policies for their workers. The idea was to expand the so-called risk pool, bringing insurers a better mix of sick and healthy people who would in turn make premiums more affordable and coverage more attractive—at least for individuals. More attractive individual coverage, a.k.a. lower-priced policies, would help insurers enlarge their market share. “Blue Cross wanted the merged market so they could increase their market,” one business executive told me. “They were the major driver behind combining the small group and individual markets, which was a huge cost shift onto small employers.”

It was yet another example of the balloon problem in American health care—fix one problem and another pops up somewhere else. Jon Hurst, president of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, told me: “Despite all this new business insurers and hospitals get, they keep billing us double digit increases.” Rates had been high even before reform, but Hurst added: “You would have thought rates would come down, but they haven’t. We have poured billions into the health care industry in this state and they haven’t given us any return.” Businesses with more than ten full-time workers must offer coverage, or they may be assessed $295 per year per employee.

At the beginning of the year, Hurst said, his trade association—which employs five workers and represents about 3000 small businesses across the state—got hit with a sixteen percent rate increase from Blue Cross Blue Shield. That meant that Hurst’s group now pays $18,000 per year for family coverage. That was a relative bargain. Other small business owners, Hurst said, were paying $23,000 and $24,000 for similar policies.

To prevent steep premium increases, association employees’ copayments rose from $5 to $25, amounts that are pretty typical. Other small businesses are also making workers bear the increased costs one way or another. The next option, Hurst explained, is the $1000 deductible. There’s a feeling, he explained, that insurers have stacked the deck and are pushing toward a $1000 deductible for small businesses, because that is where they can make more profit. Hurst was frustrated the day I interviewed him.>>>
 
I have yet to receive any notice from BSBS that my insurance will be discontinued. Did BCBS not offer you an alternative policy?

No. I THINK the letter was sent way before BCBS knew the options available.

How does the Obamacare exchange plans compare in price to what you have now? Might be time for you to switch anyway.

Don't know yet. In my state BCBS only allows shopping through the exchange...which I STILL CANNOT GET THROUGH! :2mad:
 
Precisely, which is why partisan hacks attempting to describe Obamacare as "a government takeover of healthcare" or "socialist" make my head spin.

Just remember that all motion is relative. Your head isn't spinning, their heads are.
 
Also medicaid pays a surprising portion of old-age care. It's part of the reason why it couldn't cover all aspects uninsured poor.

That't right. Medicare doesn't cover long term nursing home care.
 
Who is this directed at?

You, your the one with the example.

I want to check it agianst the truth of the ACA cost calculator.

You need
age
income
smoking
state
 
You, your the one with the example.

I want to check it agianst the truth of the ACA cost calculator.

You need
age
income
smoking
state

Did you read the OP at all? All of your questions are answered there besides the income, because that is irrelevant to insurance rates. There are no subsidies involved, so there's no reason to wonder about income.
 
Did you read the OP at all? All of your questions are answered there besides the income, because that is irrelevant to insurance rates. There are no subsidies involved, so there's no reason to wonder about income.

Income means everything now with Obamacare. Its the difference between paying $0 month or $450 month for the same HC.
 
Back
Top Bottom