Obamacare basics

[FIRE'd@51]

Indeed and hopefully all companies that would otherwise pass-along more cost to employees than they'd have to pay for comparable insurance through ACA will end their own coverage. No one benefits from a situation where both employers and employees are paying more for health insurance.

Yes, but as Ziggy pointed out in a post above, it seems more likely that the cost of insurance purchased in the exchanges will be higher, since they will likely have risk pools of less healthy people. Unfortunately, rather than eliminating adverse selection, Obamacare seems to perpetuate it.

IMO, until everyone is in the same risk pool, schemes like Obamacare are really not much more than "re-arranging the deck chairs".

 

[bUU]

keeping good employees is also important

This cannot be overstated, at least in the form, either attracting and keeping excellent employees is important, or employees are going to be treated like dirt regardless. Increasingly, the latter is the de facto reality, generally unrelated to health care.

 

[anethum]

Yes, but as Ziggy pointed out in a post above, it seems more likely that the cost of insurance purchased in the exchanges will be higher, since they will likely have risk pools of less healthy people. Unfortunately, rather than eliminate adverse selection, Obamacare seems to perpetuate it.

IMO, until everyone is in the same risk pool, schemes like Obamacare are really not much more than "re-arranging the deck chairs".

You're forgetting that the risk pools will also now include many healthy people who either presently choose not to be insured or who cannot afford to be insured. As I have said previously on other threads, I was covered by Blue Cross of Massachusetts when "Romneycare" went into effect. The total premium dropped, as well as my share of the premium. That would indicate that enlarging the pool to include virtually everyone actually lowered the average cost.

 

[travelover]

So much for "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."- Obama Aug 11, 2009 in New Hampshire

PolitiFact | Barack Obama promises you can keep your health insurance, but there's no guarantee

As I've said many times, only time will tell how the ACA will eventually play out.

Bummer. In all fairness, the statement that you'd be able to keep your current insurance was to counter claims that were being made that Obamacare would force everyone into some new government insurance plan against their will. Kind of like the "Obamacare will kill your grandmother" hysteria that was circulated for awhile.

 

[Texas Proud]

You're forgetting that the risk pools will also now include many healthy people who either presently choose not to be insured or who cannot afford to be insured. As I have said previously on other threads, I was covered by Blue Cross of Massachusetts when "Romneycare" went into effect. The total premium dropped, as well as my share of the premium. That would indicate that enlarging the pool to include virtually everyone actually lowered the average cost.

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...

 

[anethum]

I believe (although I'm certainly biased) that my clients genuinely care for their employees and don't want to cancel coverage, but as the mandates of ACA continue to drive up the premiums (which is what the carriers are saying), they may be forced to drop coverage. It's not greed on their part (especially since they want to increase the pay rates to reallocate the "savings" from not paying health premiums) - it's economics.

One of the most important mandates of the PPACA was the lifting of the lifetime cap on benefits. That has already gone into effect. Driving sick people into bankruptcy was detrimental for the individuals, their health care providers, and society at large.

 

[Texas Proud]

I have a question that maybe should be moved to another thread... but will ask here and see what people think...

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.

 

[anethum]

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...

It is way too soon to draw any conclusions. The major elements of the law haven't even gone into effect yet.

 

[bUU]

ACA is a first step toward reducing overall cost of health care. Not a magic incantation that makes all problems go away instantaneously. And not something that will make each individual's own personal costs go down. When you compute the costs of health care, it is essential that you include the cost of providing indigent care in ERs. There is no question that shifting those services out of ERs and into more cost-efficient provider venues will lower costs. Also, don't forget to include the costs, including some amount associated with untimely death, associated with lack of coverage for preexisting conditions, or exceeding of lifetime caps, or the more general inability to afford health care due to lack of health insurance.

 

[Alan]

I have a question that maybe should be moved to another thread... but will ask here and see what people think...

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.

My retiree HI does not cover dental check ups and cleanings, or the cosmetic stuff, but it does cover the more serious side of dental care such as gum disease and root canals which, if untreated, will lead to much more serious health problems.

 

[youbet]

ACA is a first step toward reducing overall cost of health care.

That's not necessarily true. We'll know the answer some years down the road but we don't know now.

 

[travelover]

..........
Obamacare was touted as a plan to lower the total cost... so far it does not seem to be doing that...

It has only been in full effect since 2014.

 

[Mulligan]

One of the most important mandates of the PPACA was the lifting of the lifetime cap on benefits. That has already gone into effect. Driving sick people into bankruptcy was detrimental for the individuals, their health care providers, and society at large.

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.I haven't given it a thought as I would think you would truly have to be a one in a million plus, to bump up near that total. Maybe I am taking my health for granted, but I am more in the concern for dental costs as another person mentioned, than health costs. I am very much in support of uninsurable people having the right to acquire insurance, but I would bet for the typical person, not having disability insurance was more of a financial strain long term, than the medical debts that an insured person acquired. Maybe I am wrong. I have known several fund raising activities for families who have had medical problems, and they actually had good insurance. It was the bills piling up from not working that was causing financial hardship for the families.

 

[bUU]

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?

It was clearly a big enough issue for insurers to impose lifetime caps in the first place, and definitely a big issue for those who exceeded the caps.

I am very much in support of uninsurable people having the right to acquire insurance, but I would bet for the typical person, not having disability insurance was more of a financial strain long term, than the medical debts that an insured person acquired.

Fixing one problem doesn't preclude also fixing another problem.

 

[MichaelB]

I'm one whose health insurance is "going away" under ObamaCare. For 30 years I've purchased HI from the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association). Received notice that as of 12/31/13, AVMA will no longer be able to sell HI to veterinarians. Under the new law, they would be required to sell their HI to anyone who wanted to buy it, and they're not equipped to do that.

Interesting, thanks for the info. It appears the underwriter is withdrawing all of its policies because, even though they are offered in all 50 states, they are only registered in one (Illinois) and the new legislation requires them to register and comply with all 50 states. So, a loophole in the "keep your coverage" consideration.

 

[MichaelB]

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.

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".

It is way too soon to draw any conclusions. The major elements of the law haven't even gone into effect yet.

+1

 

[anethum]

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.

 

[Mulligan]

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.

 

[samclem]

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 . . ."

 

[MichaelB]

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


no problemo - YouTube

 

[teejayevans]

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.

 

[bUU]

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.

 

[Texas Proud]

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”"

 

[youbet]

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

 

[gerrym51]

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