Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-20-2013, 02:34 PM   #61
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelover View Post
I think I hear a pig trotting...........
No need. Lots of "what was said" and "what was intended" but for the most part, based on opinions. People will believe what they choose. No problem with that.
__________________

__________________
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 02-20-2013, 03:16 PM   #62
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 559
I've posted this before.

I live in mass. Prior to Romneycare which is almost a carbon copy of the presidents plan Ma. had guarantee issue. An insurance company could NOT turn you down for individual insurance plans. the price was very expensive-about 10,000 a year for good coverage for 1 person.

this was in 2006.

after Romneycare enacted the price for these individual plans DID go down-i would say about 20 percent.-these are the only plans that went down.all other plans have been going up since then.
__________________

__________________
gerrym51 is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 03:26 PM   #63
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 403
I've posted the following before, too. Although I didn't live or work in MA when Romneycare went into effect, my insurance was with Blue Cross of Massachusetts because my employer was based there. The price of my insurance (which was obviously a group plan) went down when Romneycare went into effect.
__________________
anethum is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 03:38 PM   #64
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by anethum View Post
I've posted the following before, too. Although I didn't live or work in MA when Romneycare went into effect, my insurance was with Blue Cross of Massachusetts because my employer was based there. The price of my insurance (which was obviously a group plan) went down when Romneycare went into effect.
are you still in ma. after a lull of small increase in the last 4 yrs i've had nothing but increases and deductible increases.

i can only say what i've read. individual policies definetly went down
__________________
gerrym51 is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 03:51 PM   #65
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 403
No, the MA megacorp started to lay most of us off soon thereafter, so my health insurance provider has been in my own state in more recent years.

I hope you understand that most folks insured in the rest of the country have seen nothing but increases over the years, too. I recall, however, that when I turned 50, my car insurance premiums went down.
__________________
anethum is offline  
Old 02-20-2013, 05:41 PM   #66
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
travelover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,874
Maybe I only heard what I wanted to hear, but I though the ACA was passed to address:

  • Some people were unable to get affordable (or any) insurance because of preexisting conditions. Some bankrupted by medical costs.

  • Some people were unable to afford medical insurance and were using emergency rooms when crises occurred, rather than preventative care in a doctor's office.
__________________
Yes, I have achieved work / life balance.
travelover is online now  
Old 02-20-2013, 05:45 PM   #67
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by travelover View Post
Maybe I only heard what I wanted to hear, but I though the ACA was passed to address:

  • Some people were unable to get affordable (or any) insurance because of preexisting conditions. Some bankrupted by medical costs.

  • Some people were unable to afford medical insurance and were using emergency rooms when crises occurred, rather than preventative care in a doctor's office.

these 2 may be some reasons but the main reason was to get more covered
__________________
gerrym51 is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 12:35 AM   #68
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Bay
Posts: 1,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet
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.
+1 ...and I hope we will make modifications when we discover what parts are working well and what parts aren't.
__________________
scrinch is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 01:42 AM   #69
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Katsmeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
We continue to talk about 'health care', which is only focused on medical care but does not include dental care.. I am surprised that there is little talk about this care, which is pretty important to most folks... bad teeth and bad gums can lead to other health problems...

So, why is dental care left out of the discussion when we talk 'health care'


PS.... not talking about crowns and cosmetic stuff, but basic dental care.
While there may be exceptions, for most people:

1. Lack of dental care won't kill you.
2. The expense of dental care won't bankrupt you.
3. The cost of dental care is much less than the cost of medical care.
__________________
Katsmeow is online now  
Old 02-21-2013, 04:30 AM   #70
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarts98 View Post
I seem to recall the President promising a $2,500 per year per family reduction in health insurance premiums
You say this and then you quote this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarts98 View Post
(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.”').
Do you see the difference between the quote and your interpretation of it? If not, that might explain why you said this next sentence in an accusatory manner:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarts98 View Post
Many people relied on that promise.
Regardless of the difference between the quote and how you decided to interpret it, no one "relies" on campaign promises in such a blind manner. People evaluate the proposals made in the context of the supporting information for them, and compare them to the proposals made by the opposing side, on all the critical aspects, not just money. It is a shame that other factors interfered with achieving that cost goal in that time frame, but many of the other critical aspects are being achieved on time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarts98 View Post
Thus far my premiums have INCREASED by about that much.
My premiums have stayed the same going on six years now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrym51 View Post
after Romneycare enacted the price for these individual plans DID go down-i would say about 20 percent.-these are the only plans that went down.all other plans have been going up since then.
Regardless, comparing 2013 real prices to 2006 real prices is missing the point. I'm paying almost 25% more today for milk than in 2006. Many other prices have increased due to inflation. Comparing numbers in a specific sector without factoring in broader inflation that affected all sectors misses the mark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrym51 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by anethum View Post
I've posted the following before, too. Although I didn't live or work in MA when Romneycare went into effect, my insurance was with Blue Cross of Massachusetts because my employer was based there. The price of my insurance (which was obviously a group plan) went down when Romneycare went into effect.
are you still in ma. after a lull of small increase in the last 4 yrs i've had nothing but increases and deductible increases.
As I mentioned, my premium hasn't changed in six years. Judging anything based on our own personal situation is really missing the boat, and judging anything based solely on money is also a big problem, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrinch View Post
+1 ...and I hope we will make modifications when we discover what parts are working well and what parts aren't.
I hope that ACA prompts folks to realize that it was far too small of an effort to bring about the kinds of changes a society like ours should expect of itself. ACA will do some good, but I hope that eventually people will get really serious about doing something to ensure much more affordable health care, available to everyone, regardless.
__________________
bUU is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 05:03 AM   #71
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 50
It seems to me you're saying we should ignore what any politician actually says (but instead we should just evaluate their plans). Why shouldn't we hold them accountable for what they promise? (That's all politicians, not just Democrats or Republicans.) Did you actually read and evaluate the X,XXX pages of the bill? And do the same for the other health insurance bills so you could determine which one you would support? Does anyone have time to do that? I doubt the congressmen read it all and they voted for/against it. It's not trusting in "a blind manner" to listen to what someone says and then hold them accountable (good or bad) when the actual results are in.


I know the President promised "average" family savings of $2.5k, not a savings of that amount for every family. I happy for you that you're one of the families that has had no increase. Perhaps if you had experienced the premium increases, you'd feel differently.
__________________
jarts98 is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 05:28 AM   #72
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarts98 View Post
It seems to me you're saying we should ignore what any politician actually says (but instead we should just evaluate their plans).
It should be obvious that people should make decisions on something more than just listening to sound bites. Always dig deeper into what is being said and evaluate the underpinnings of the proposals being made.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarts98 View Post
Why shouldn't we hold them accountable for what they promise?
Define what you mean by "hold them accountable"? If you just are looking for justification for being disappointed or unhappy, recognize that you don't need any foundation for that... your feelings are your own and you don't need to defend them to anyone.

If, instead, you're looking for a means of assessing performance, then you have to normalize your assessment for your assessment to have validity. If someone promises to reduce defense spending 50%, and then the continental US is attacked on the day that person takes office, are you really going to assess their performance in a myopic manner, looking only at the numbers? And reality is always thousands of times more complex that that simplistic example.

If, instead, you're looking for foundation for a claim of failure, then you have to remember that what we're talking about is a choice that was made, between (ostensibly) two options. Failure, in that context, is not against a myopic yardstick, but rather against the likely outcome of the alternative.

Making the comparison to the alternative is critical. I think it is obvious that we can go back 50 years and find radical variances between the promises made by every elected President and the reality that was achieved. Given that, if you're continually disappointed then "holding them accountable" with prejudice (i.e., flip-flopping from one to the next, essentially failing each one and using that appraisal to justify skipping from frying pan to fire to frying pan to fire) just fosters a death spiral down to ever-increasing variances between promises and achievement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarts98 View Post
Did you actually read and evaluate the X,XXX pages of the bill?
Personally, no. Rather, I have developed over decades a manner of understanding the relative merits of various experts in the matters that matter to me, and relied on those experts who I trust, who did read and evaluate the alternative proposals. If I didn't learn to trust others, in that manner, I'd continually be limited to making decisions based on simplistic knee-jerk reactions. Without such a cooperative method of evaluating the challenges of being an active member of our society, I'd be limited to vacuously making choices based on sound bites, surface presumption, the influence of attractive propaganda, and other spurious information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarts98 View Post
And do the same for the other health insurance bills so you could determine which one you would support?
Remind us, please, what alternative bills were put forward as an alternative to this one. Were any of them pre-tested in a state prior to being put forward as a national initiative?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarts98 View Post
I know the President promised "average" family savings of $2.5k, not a savings of that amount for every family.
Thanks for acknowledging that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarts98 View Post
I happy for you that you're one of the families that has had no increase. Perhaps if you had experienced the premium increases, you'd feel differently.
Doubtful, because money isn't everything in life. It is just one of several critical aspects to this issue.
__________________
bUU is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 06:22 AM   #73
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarts98 View Post

I know the President promised "average" family savings of $2.5k, not a savings of that amount for every family. I happy for you that you're one of the families that has had no increase. Perhaps if you had experienced the premium increases, you'd feel differently.
I've looked but cannot find any reference to support this, or any other promise to reduce insurance premiums as part of the PPACA. It would be very helpful if you could provide a link.
__________________
MichaelB is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 06:53 AM   #74
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,905
Good point. The President's promise was actually even more equivocal than jarts98 implied it was:
Quote:
At a rally in Virginia in June 2008, Obama said: “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.”
Here's a link to an analysis of the promise, an analysis that concluded that it was "overly-optimistic". My analysis of that analysis is that the efforts proposed were therefore worthy, even though they would likely not be achieved in such a short time-frame:
FactCheck.org : Obama’s Inflated Health “Savings”
In the end, as I mentioned before, it comes down to an evaluation of the alternatives, i.e., which alternative is likely to be better than the other, rather than strictly which one satisfies one specific metric in the absence of consideration of the other aspects. I don't recall any analyses from factcheck.org that indicated that the alternatives to Obama's plan, presented by McCain, in that case, were superior in all aspects of the objectives that Obama put forward, i.e., would save more money, would ensure coverage despite preexisting conditions, would ban lifetime caps, would assert humane minimum expectations, etc. This wasn't a matter of which plan among several would achieve those objectives better - it was a matter of whether you valued working toward those objectives: Many people did; many people didn't.

There is no question, though, that not working toward those objectives (which was effectively the alternative to Obama's plan put forward) would somehow better achieve those objectives. That's another reason why the narrow focus of critics in the media is without merit: Generally, the most vocal critics in the media weren't actually in favor of the objectives, and are hiding their criticism of the objectives behind opportunistic focus on short-term and narrow fixation on anecdotal measures of achievement of those objectives. The reason why they wouldn't just honestly express their antipathy for the objectives, themselves, is because they realize that most Americans value those objectives, even if they're unhappy with how aspects of the efforts to work toward achievement of those objectives are impacting them, personally.
__________________
bUU is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 07:14 AM   #75
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 50
MichaelB....here's a newstory that references a couple of instances of the President making such promises:

Health Premiums Up $3,065; Obama Vowed $2,500 Cut - Yahoo! Finance

BUU - My point is that at some point in time, unless you personally read and analyze a bill, you have to rely on someone (especially for a bill this complex) to draw your personal conclusions. The politicians promises - a think tank or two - media analysis - etc. I did so in regards to the ACA. I didn't read the bill (again, who has time?) but I did read many studies of it. Part of what goes into the hopper (for me at least) is also what is promised. Not blind faith (one way or the other) - just one of many things to include when deciding whether to support a measure or not. Further (again, for me), it speaks to the integrity of our leaders. Can I trust his/her assurance on a future issue based on their judgment/promises on past issues? If I can't, I "hold them accountable" at re-election time - either in a primary or general election.

Regarding other bills, I may have used the wrong word (although I'd assume bills were introduced at the committee level - I don't recall specifically) - but there were other proposals (ex. tort reform, buying across state lines, etc.) made but not advanced. And I don't think that pre-testing is required - although, of course, it'd be nice. I assume you're referring to Romney-care in MA. I don't live there, but from what I've read average premiums have grown greatly since it's passage so I guess we shouldn't be surprised when it happens on a national level, too.

And I agree - money isn't the only thing in life and that's not what I was saying. Hopefully you didn't mean your comment as self-righteous as it appears. My point was PERHAPS if your experiences with the law had been different you would feel differently about it. Maybe not....I don't know. For many people, cost is a factor (not the only factor) and it may be enough of an issue to swing someone from supporting a law/bill to opposing it. A great idea may not be so great if you can't afford it.
__________________
jarts98 is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 07:22 AM   #76
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarts98 View Post
MichaelB....here's a newstory that references a couple of instances of the President making such promises:

Health Premiums Up $3,065; Obama Vowed $2,500 Cut - Yahoo! Finance
Got it. Thanks. This was said during an election debate. Not really related to the PPACA.
__________________
MichaelB is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 07:29 AM   #77
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsmeow View Post
While there may be exceptions, for most people:

1. Lack of dental care won't kill you.
2. The expense of dental care won't bankrupt you.
3. The cost of dental care is much less than the cost of medical care.
And in reality, dental "insurance" is the exact opposite of what insurance should be. It covers relatively small expenses, almost with the first dollar, up to a low limit at which time the insured owes 100% of "catastrophic" costs above the plan's maximum benefit. Actual insurance works the opposite way.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 07:31 AM   #78
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
FIRE'd@51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,315
I think it depends upon how you define "premium".

If you define premium as what the average family will pay in 2014 buying insurance in an exchange and include the subsidies, it could well be that the average family's "premium" will drop by $2,500 per year. I don't see how the premium without subsidy can drop by $2,500 per year when you take into account the extra required preventive care coverage, no lifetime caps, guaranteed-issue, etc
__________________
I'd rather be governed by the first one hundred names in the telephone book than the Harvard faculty - William F. Buckley
FIRE'd@51 is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 07:39 AM   #79
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
And in reality, dental "insurance" is the exact opposite of what insurance should be. It covers relatively small expenses, almost with the first dollar, up to a low limit at which time the insured owes 100% of "catastrophic" costs above the plan's maximum benefit. Actual insurance works the opposite way.
Exactly.
__________________
MichaelB is offline  
Old 02-21-2013, 08:01 AM   #80
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
bUU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarts98 View Post
If I can't, I "hold them accountable" at re-election time - either in a primary or general election.
Then you get yourself into that death spiral I referred to earlier, because none of the Presidents in the past 50 years has significantly satisfied any promises they made to reduce the cost of health care. Again, you can choose not to value the objectives - that's another matter entirely, and if you do choose to devalue the objectives, a matter for which you'll find you're at odds with most Americans - but given these objectives, which recent President do you feel more significantly achieved their professed metrics toward those objectives?

And just to be clear, if you think that people should suffer inadequate health care as the consequence of preexisting conditions, lifetime caps, or the general impact of poverty, then just say that. It makes the situation clear, without having to dig through the misdirection of touting the inadequate progress being made toward those objectives for which you don't care about seeing progress made.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarts98 View Post
Regarding other bills, I may have used the wrong word (although I'd assume bills were introduced at the committee level - I don't recall specifically) - but there were other proposals (ex. tort reform, buying across state lines, etc.) made but not advanced.
Let's take tort reform off the table because no major party's nominated candidate for President seriously proposed it. The idea was paid lip service, for its sound bite value, nothing more. Only candidates who never had any significant chance of being elected focused on it. Personally, I'm all for it, but short of another civil war I recognize that there simply will be far too much opposition to it for it to get off the ground.

Buying insurance across state lines would trade off one objective at the expense of the others. You may personally prefer that trade-off, but that isn't what I asked you for: A proposal that adhered to the objectives that Obama outlined that Americans resonated with, which analysis indicated would have achieved those objectives (all of them, on average) better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarts98 View Post
And I don't think that pre-testing is required - although, of course, it'd be nice. I assume you're referring to Romney-care in MA. I don't live there, but from what I've read average premiums have grown greatly since it's passage so I guess we shouldn't be surprised when it happens on a national level, too.
I do live here. Your information about the impact of Romenycare on our Commonweath is faulty. Health care premiums in Massachusetts were almost always the highest in the nation. Strange how certain evaluations of Massachusetts health care costs versus the rest of the nation seem to conveniently forget that. Quoting a friend of mine: "The benefits (i.e., what's covered and member cost sharing) offered by Massachusetts employers are significantly richer than the coverage offered by employers in the rest of the country. While there has been a shift to plans with upfront deductibles over the past few years, Massachusetts employers still offer health insurance to their employees that provides richer coverage (i.e., less member cost sharing) than employers in the rest of the country. I'm certainly not saying we don't have a health care cost problem, but premiums alone tell only part of the story."

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarts98 View Post
And I agree - money isn't the only thing in life and that's not what I was saying.
Then it is incumbent on you to assess things using money as only one metric.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarts98 View Post
Hopefully you didn't mean your comment as self-righteous as it appears.
Not at all. Rather the intention was to make clear that any evaluation that assesses only the money side of the issue is incomplete.
__________________

__________________
bUU 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 02:32 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.