Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-19-2013, 05:10 PM   #41
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Well, it's certainly true for small employers: The law was written specifically to allow them to use the exchanges.
Beg pardon, you changed my words. My point was specific to the City of Chicago. The point that the City has withdrawn the healthcare benefit has been made more than once and I have still not seen a source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
Lowering the average cost is not the same as loweing the total cost...

Obamacare was touted as a plan to lower the total cost... so far it does not seem to be doing that...
The PPACA is a plan to provide affordable coverage for everyone. Lower cost would be nice but was not "touted".

Quote:
Originally Posted by anethum View Post
It is way too soon to draw any conclusions. The major elements of the law haven't even gone into effect yet.
+1
__________________

__________________
MichaelB is offline  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 02-19-2013, 06:58 PM   #42
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan View Post
Not to be disagreeable, with your statement or to even say your wrong, but did people really have such small lifetime caps, that this was a truly big issue for the masses? I still am hanging on to my grandfathered plan, and it has a 7 million dollar cap, which was standard issue for the policy.
Yes, people really did, and it's pretty easy to exceed $1 million or $2 million in medical bills in the USA.
__________________

__________________
anethum is offline  
Old 02-19-2013, 07:18 PM   #43
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Mulligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by anethum
Yes, people really did, and it's pretty easy to exceed $1 million or $2 million in medical bills in the USA.
I didn't realize many would have such a low lifetime limit. It doesn't appear that removing the lifetime limits was that expensive for individual HD plans. I noticed my exact premium on ehealth jumped about $15 from what I am paying, when this was added along with the free annual visit. Factoring in that office visit cost, it doesn't appear removing the max limit was a major cost for insurers so far.
__________________
Mulligan is offline  
Old 02-19-2013, 08:01 PM   #44
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Beg pardon, you changed my words.
Apologies. I thought you were responding to the general issue mentioned in the FIRE'd@51 quote you clipped, not the specific issue about the City of Chicago doing this. "As I was . . ."
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now  
Old 02-19-2013, 09:06 PM   #45
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Apologies. I thought you were responding to the general issue mentioned in the FIRE'd@51 quote you clipped, not the specific issue about the City of Chicago doing this. "As I was . . ."
In the words of that most erudite of American statesmen


__________________
MichaelB is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 05:50 AM   #46
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
teejayevans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by FIRE'd@51



IMO, until everyone is in the same risk pool, schemes like Obamacare are really not much more than "re-arranging the deck chairs".
But for some it provides a chair where before we had to stand.
__________________
teejayevans is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 06:04 AM   #47
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by teejayevans View Post
But for some it provides a chair where before we had to stand.
And that's really the critical part of the calculus. If the impact on you and you alone is all that matters, then the impact of the changes will vary based on how fortunate or unfortunate you are. If you consider the overall impact, without elevating your own personal circumstance above others, and especially valuing more highly the difference between "inadequate" and "adequate" as compared to the difference between "adequate" and "supreme", then the impact of changes will be more definitive.
__________________
bUU is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 11:19 AM   #48
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post

The PPACA is a plan to provide affordable coverage for everyone. Lower cost would be nice but was not "touted".

The original reason that health care reform was mentioned, and what was told to the public was to lower the cost of healthcare..... not provide universal coverage.

Now, I agree that it did morph into a plan to cover as many people as they could at an affordable price, but that was not the original problem they were trying to fix.... which is why the vote was as lopsided as it was...

"Any doubt as to the Senate origin of Obamacare is dispelled by Sen. Harry Reid’s official website, which confirms that on Nov. 18, 2009, “Senator Harry Reid unveiled the Senate health care bill that makes health care more affordable while reducing the federal deficit”"
__________________
Texas Proud is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 11:32 AM   #49
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
The original reason that health care reform was mentioned, and what was told to the public was to lower the cost of healthcare..... not provide universal coverage.
+1
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 11:34 AM   #50
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
The original reason that health care reform was mentioned, and what was told to the public was to lower the cost of healthcare..... not provide universal coverage.

Now, I agree that it did morph into a plan to cover as many people as they could at an affordable price, but that was not the original problem they were trying to fix.... which is why the vote was as lopsided as it was...

"Any doubt as to the Senate origin of Obamacare is dispelled by Sen. Harry Reid’s official website, which confirms that on Nov. 18, 2009, “Senator Harry Reid unveiled the Senate health care bill that makes health care more affordable while reducing the federal deficit”"

Obamacare is to get more people covered. lowering the cost was a false promise to get it passed
__________________
gerrym51 is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 11:44 AM   #51
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrym51 View Post
Obamacare is to get more people covered. lowering the cost was a false promise to get it passed
I agree that what was passed and what was promised was not the same... that is why so many people did not like (and a good number still do not like) what was passed...

Like most things that are passed into law, you have to accept that it is what it is until a new law changes it.... (and we all know how ofter that happens)....
__________________
Texas Proud is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 11:48 AM   #52
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
The original reason that health care reform was mentioned, and what was told to the public was to lower the cost of healthcare..... not provide universal coverage.
I think you can choose to think of it that way, if it serves your personal preference to do so, however the health care reform efforts in question always involved making health care more affordable - not more affordable for you personally - not to lower any individual's costs - but to make health care more affordable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
"Any doubt as to the Senate origin of Obamacare is dispelled by Sen. Harry Reid’s official website, which confirms that on Nov. 18, 2009, “Senator Harry Reid unveiled the Senate health care bill that makes health care more affordable while reducing the federal deficit”"
Precisely. If you choose to interpret that statement as meaning that it will result in you personally paying less for health care, that's your prerogative, but that's not the actual meaning of those words.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrym51 View Post
Obamacare is to get more people covered. lowering the cost was a false promise to get it passed
You are also entitled to view things in that manner if it is your preference, but the reality is that lowering the cost of health care for those who could not afford health care as things were actually results in getting more people covered - the two halves of your sentence, which you decided to present as alternatives in some manner, actually are cause-and-effect.
__________________
bUU is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 12:07 PM   #53
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 559
i am not out to get people angry. the president wanted to cover more people.

there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to do this-but is does cost money.

increasing the coverages of insurance-mandating coverages-and eliminating caps is not going to lower the cost-regardless of what was said.
__________________
gerrym51 is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 12:18 PM   #54
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrym51 View Post
i am not out to get people angry. the president wanted to cover more people.

there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to do this-but is does cost money.

increasing the coverages of insurance-mandating coverages-and eliminating caps is not going to lower the cost-regardless of what was said.
Not covering people costs money, too.

One mandate which absolutely saves money is requiring plans to cover contraception.
__________________
anethum is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 12:21 PM   #55
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 50
[QUOTE=bUU;1286367]....the health care reform efforts in question always involved making health care more affordable - not more affordable for you personally - not to lower any individual's costs - but to make health care more affordable.

[QUOTE]

I seem to recall the President promising a $2,500 per year per family reduction in health insurance premiums (per a Forbes.com story: 'The president promised it would, saying, “we can cut the average family’s premium by about $2,500 per year.”'). Many people relied on that promise.

Thus far my premiums have INCREASED by about that much. I'll gladly pay the $20 co-pay for the now "free" annual checkup if I can get my $2,400 in increased premiums back.
__________________
jarts98 is online now  
Old 02-20-2013, 12:30 PM   #56
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrym51 View Post

there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to do this-but is does cost money.
.
Exactly.

Originally, to sell the program, it was touted as a program to control and reduce the aggregate cost of healthcare to our nation. Whether it will succeed in that endeavor will be unknown for some time to come. The politicians will say whatever they have to say to sell whatever they're pushing...... nothing new there.

As to the humanitarian aspects, I'm certainly all for efforts to have a system where everyone can receive health care regardless of their economic circumstances. Obamacare is one way to approach this goal. We'll see how it turns out and how much it costs as we move ahead with it.
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 01:02 PM   #57
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by anethum View Post
Not covering people costs money, too.

One mandate which absolutely saves money is requiring plans to cover contraception.
i'm a pharmacist. most plans i've dealt with do cover contraceptives beffore
obamacare was created.

are you talking about no co-pays or about organizations like the catholic church that don't.
__________________
gerrym51 is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 01:55 PM   #58
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
I can buy health insurance now. The insurer can't cancel it should I develop an expensive illness because I didn't sufficiently document the acne I had at age 13.

I'm happy. We'll pay $13,752 this year for the privilege of being insurance moochers and looters. I'm OK with that.


(Yes, this is a high deductible, HSA eligible plan. Insuring old people is expensive, or as one noble youth expressed to me regarding budgetary matters, "Old people suck.")
__________________
M Paquette is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 02:14 PM   #59
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU View Post
I think you can choose to think of it that way, if it serves your personal preference to do so, however the health care reform efforts in question always involved making health care more affordable - not more affordable for you personally - not to lower any individual's costs - but to make health care more affordable.

Precisely. If you choose to interpret that statement as meaning that it will result in you personally paying less for health care, that's your prerogative, but that's not the actual meaning of those words.

You are also entitled to view things in that manner if it is your preference, but the reality is that lowering the cost of health care for those who could not afford health care as things were actually results in getting more people covered - the two halves of your sentence, which you decided to present as alternatives in some manner, actually are cause-and-effect.
You can think whatever you like, but you can not rewrite history on a whim... it is not my personal preference to believe what I see as plain facts... and someone provided a quote from the President stating that insurance premiums were going to go down....

So what does 'more affordable' really mean A good amount of people who did not have health care insurance did not want to have health care insurance... they did not say 'we want to make sure all the uninsured will be insured', but said 'make health care more affordable', which to me means exactly what it says.... I am not the one trying to put a spin on the words spoken.... sure, there are always unintended things that come up, but making health care insurance more expensive for the majority of people so other can be insured is not making health care more affordable...


So, you are entitled to your view, but mine is based on what was being said at the time.... not what is being said now...
__________________
Texas Proud is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 02:25 PM   #60
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
travelover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,906
I think I hear a pig trotting...........
__________________

__________________
Yes, I have achieved work / life balance.
travelover is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:12 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.