Obamacare ? Anyone?

[Amskeptic]

Whether Obama plays fast and free with the truth might make a subject for another thread but relative to his selling Obamacare to the public his statements sound to me more like someone with limited experience negotiating their way through health insurance. i.e. "You can keep your plan" ignores the fact that insurance plans are dropped every year typically pushing customers into either higher priced or a higher deductible plans, many times both. Woefully out of touch politicians lacking that awareness doesn't strike me as particularly surprising. The only difference I see between the past and this year's excuse is the ACA, which the insurance companies are gleefully using as their reason for cutting staff, sales commissions and less profitable plans.

These insurance companies were invited to the White House early on (unbeknownst to us), and they *agreed* to support the ACA because of what was to be a vast surge of enrollees. That was the foundation upon which Obama made his promise that you could keep your plan. Obama could not know that the insurance company executives would turn around and play hardball with their customers. See? The government is not "controlling" your healthcare! These insurance executives are.

I do not see bad faith in Obama. I see Bad Faith in these insurance companies who are knowingly screwing their customers. Obama did not send out inaccurate letters with incomplete information the better which to trick people into more expensive plans.

I do think Obama's reassurances were unfortunate given their inaccuracy but I'll back away from outright duplicity. Why did he feel compelled to make repeating simplified statements that turned out being not wholly accurate? I don't know. Maybe he should have said something to the effect of notwithstanding prevailing market conditions, other influences and the determination of your insurer and provider under the ACA you will be able to keep your current plan and doctor. Then we could just slam him for being vague and showing weakness.

He was blindsided.
Colin

[RussellK]

These insurance companies were invited to the White House early on (unbeknownst to us), and they *agreed* to support the ACA because of what was to be a vast surge of enrollees. That was the foundation upon which Obama made his promise that you could keep your plan. Obama could not know that the insurance company executives would turn around and play hardball with their customers. See? The government is not "controlling" your healthcare! These insurance executives are.

I do not see bad faith in Obama. I see Bad Faith in these insurance companies who are knowingly screwing their customers. Obama did not send out inaccurate letters with incomplete information the better which to trick people into more expensive plans.

He was blindsided.
Colin

If there are no regulations forbidding the cancellation of policies that isn't the insurance company's fault and if the policies are non-compliant the insurers are obliged under the law to cancel them. Insurance companies don't exist as a public service they exist to sell a product and bring value back to shareholders. That they take the gift of the ACA and use its conditions as much to their advantage as possible should come as no surprise to anyone. President Obama must have been incredibly naïve if he thought the insurers were just going to play nice. Apparently he never read the lesson of the Saint and the Scorpion. We don't like the insurers behavior? Then we go back and write the regulations that restrict the offending behavior. Which is why we have government. But to blame the insurer for following it's mandate is too easy. Everyone on the sideline that was paying attention saw this one coming.

[satchmo]

These insurance companies were invited to the White House early on (unbeknownst to us), and they *agreed* to support the ACA because of what was to be a vast surge of enrollees. That was the foundation upon which Obama made his promise that you could keep your plan. Obama could not know that the insurance company executives would turn around and play hardball with their customers. See? The government is not "controlling" your healthcare! These insurance executives are.

I do not see bad faith in Obama. I see Bad Faith in these insurance companies who are knowingly screwing their customers. Obama did not send out inaccurate letters with incomplete information the better which to trick people into more expensive plans.

He was blindsided.
Colin

If there are no regulations forbidding the cancellation of policies that isn't the insurance company's fault and if the policies are non-compliant the insurers are obliged under the law to cancel them. Insurance companies don't exist as a public service they exist to sell a product and bring value back to shareholders. That they take the gift of the ACA and use its conditions as much to their advantage as possible should come as no surprise to anyone. President Obama must have been incredibly naïve if he thought the insurers were just going to play nice. Apparently he never read the lesson of the Saint and the Scorpion. We don't like the insurers behavior? Then we go back and write the regulations that restrict the offending behavior. Which is why we have government. But to blame the insurer for following it's mandate is too easy. Everyone on the sideline that was paying attention saw this one coming.

I'd put it down to unintended and, quite probably, unanticipated consequences. The great majority of insured individuals in this country have either employer sponsored plans or government plans (mostly Medicare). Some healthy folks who qualified for neither of those (ie, self-employed) were able to obtain health insurance at a reasonable cost on the open, individual insurance market. The insurance plans many of them had apparently don't meet the minimum requirements for plans outlined in the ACA, and that is probably why they were 'affordable' in the first place.

Obama's remarks regarding keeping one's current health insurance obviously were not targeted at this group holding individual plans. Instead, I think he was trying to calm the hysteria that the government, through the ACA, was going to take over everyone's health care. Naive or not, we all (including Obama) got sold a bill of goods with this cobbled-together, Frankenstein approach to expanding health care coverage by emphasizing the need (the requirement, actually) for private, for-profit health insurance. The need for maximizing profit/ROI always finds the loopholes and creates many unintended consequences. My preference would have been a simple, Medicare-for-everyone style approach (a single payer system). But that is considered, in some circles, so socialist that even Marx would have found it repulsive, despite the fact that millions of Americans over age 65, find it pretty nifty. Even rich Americans.

Tim

[yondermtn]

Looks like some relief for the 2014 elections.

"Officials were adamant that they have no plans to extend the ultimate deadline of March 31, 2014, the date when people without insurance must enroll in a plan or face a tax penalty.

But with the first enrollment period barely off the ground, the Obama administration also has decided to delay enrollment for the second year of the program to give insurance companies more time to calculate rates, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.

The delay will mean consumers will start shopping for insurance for Year Two of Obamacare on November 15, 2014 - more than a week after voters go to the polls for midterm elections, when congressional Democrats are expected to face tough questions about the policy they supported.

"That means that if premiums go through the roof in the first year of Obamacare, no one will know about it until after the election," said Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa.

But Carney rejected any assertion that politics was behind the extension.

"The fact is, we're doing it because it make sense for insurers to have as clear a sense of the pool of consumers they gain in the market this year, before setting rates for next year," Carney said."

[Bleyseng]

The party of No slams everything but offers little in the way of solutions. They are just noise and in the way of progress.

[yondermtn]

The party of No slams everything but offers little in the way of solutions. They are just noise and in the way of progress.

Oh, I agree we need some solutions on the table.
Do you believe Jay Carney? I sure don't.

Additionally, this seems like another handout to the insurance companies. The little people continue to be last on the list of priorities here.

[Amskeptic]

The party of No slams everything but offers little in the way of solutions. They are just noise and in the way of progress.

Oh, I agree we need some solutions on the table.
Do you believe Jay Carney? I sure don't.

Additionally, this seems like another handout to the insurance companies. The little people continue to be last on the list of priorities here.

The whole conversation this Nation is having is beneath us. All around, charges, counter-charges, claims of malfeasance by those who were elected on a platform to overhaul healthcare, actual malfeasance by those seeking to profit at any cost.

Who thinks Obama was acting in bad faith? Who thinks Carney is trying to "bamboozle"? Who thinks it is "bad" to cover our fellow Americans? It is CHEAPER FOR ALL OF US to get as many people out of emergency rooms as possible!

Yet, red state governors seem to gleefully tell their poorest citizens "Nope! No medicare expansion for you! It will be more expensive for us, sure, but we can't have the President dictating to us!"

It is insane. Carney/White House whatever, is trying to adjust to the information coming in! Insurance companies have some good points, they can't tell how many people are going to be in the pool! OK! I get that!

But how the hell are we to figure out the necessary adjustments with these small-minded nitwits spewing such idiocy, such ill-informed idiocy! They should shut the hell up and go read up about the launch of Social Security, Medicare, mandatory auto insurance, and a host of other programs that we now take for granted so they can see that the launch always takes time and tinkering.

The bottom line, as President George Bush so eloquently stated, "yer either for us or agin us." ACA is the Law of Land duly voted upon, now get with it or shut the hell up, Ted Cruz.

Never has this country been so dragged down by such distastefully small critics with no plans of their own.

What do you think Jay Carney is up to, yondermtn? Is he just being vague for wiggle-room in this hothouse of mental illness, or does he have . . . nefarious motives?
Colin

[hambone]

I've talked to 2 different people recently:
"Very disappointed with the new ACA rates - we still can't afford insurance, hundreds of dollars a month"
Banks, GM, etc. bailed out, insurance companies with record profits. What a world.

[Amskeptic]

I've talked to 2 different people recently:
"Very disappointed with the new ACA rates - we still can't afford insurance, hundreds of dollars a month"
Banks, GM, etc. bailed out, insurance companies with record profits. What a world.

The above is true, but if we get more people invested in the community project, rate pressures will decline.

As of today, healthcare costs have leveled off for the first time since 1965! Yes, the rates are too high. Those two different people, could they speak knowledgeably about the true coverage they had under them? We have to analyze this cost/benefit ratio carefully, like magnesium vs aluminum... did they have caps? Sudden cancellation risk? Network limitations?
ColinStillHopefulButGuardedly

[hippiewannabe]

...Yes there are some problems but why wouldn't there be as the GOP cut funding so the whole website was built on a small budget.

Pray tell, what was the name of the bill that cut Obamacare funding and passed the Democrat controlled Senate with the two thirds majority necessary to override Obama's veto?

[Bleyseng]

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/11/the-m ... -care-act/

[hippiewannabe]

http://thedailybanter.com/2013/11/the-m ... -care-act/

I wish you were joking with that website, but sadly, I don't think you are. Obamacare is the law of the land, rammed down the throats of the opposition. Attempts to alter or de-fund it were defeated. There is one thing they could have done to garner some GOP votes, one thing that actually would have reduced costs: tort reform, to reduce the billions wasted with unnecessary defensive procedures and payoffs to ambulance chasing lawyers. But no, the trial lawyers are the biggest contributors to Obama and the Democrats, and they love the current system. The law stands as written by Obama, with no alterations by Republicans.

According to Congressional testimony by the Obama administration, $319 Million has been spent on the website, of $677M allocated.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... rice-hike/

But that really isn't the issue. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they were naive about the scope of the project. It's not just a website, it's trying to integrate multiple government databases, and connect them to multiple external entities. A hard task, and the government is notoriously bad at big, complex projects.

No, what pisses me off is the deliberate lies and deception. "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan". He knew damn well that wasn't possible. A major pillar of Obamacare is getting healthy people who have no or minimal coverage to pay in to subsidize the heavy users.

The concept of "insurance" is pooling people together to each pay a small amount to prevent a catastrophic loss caused by a rare but expensive event. If you force the insurer to take on customers with a preexisting condition, it's like letting someone buy in to homeowners insurance after their house has burned down. Providing health care to everyone is the right thing to do, just don't call it insurance. Making the healthy and well-off pay to take care of the sick and poor is the right thing to do. Just call it by it's true name: Socialized Medicine.

[Amskeptic]

Obamacare is the law of the land, rammed down the throats of the opposition.

There is one thing they could have done to garner some GOP votes, one thing that actually would have reduced costs: tort reform, to reduce the billions wasted with unnecessary defensive procedures and payoffs to ambulance chasing lawyers. But no, the trial lawyers are the biggest contributors to Obama and the Democrats,

Hippiewannabe?
The tort reform argument is a usual re-tread red herring, it does not hold water.
From the NYT interview with Tom Baker, a professor of law and health sciences at the
University of Pennsylvania School of Law and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth,” :

Tort reform doesn’t accomplish the goal of bringing down costs.

As the cost of health care goes up, the medical liability component of it has stayed fairly constant. That means it’s part of the medical price inflation system, but it’s not driving it. The number of claims is small relative to actual cases of medical malpractice.

Critics of the current system say that 10 to 15 percent of medical costs are due to medical malpractice. That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.

We have approximately the same number of claims today as in the late 1980s. Think about that. The cost of health care has doubled since then. The number of medical encounters between doctors and patients has gone up — and research shows a more or less constant rate of errors per hospitalizations. That means we have a declining rate of lawsuits relative to numbers of injuries.

No, what pisses me off is the deliberate lies and deception. "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan". He knew damn well that wasn't possible. A major pillar of Obamacare is getting healthy people who have no or minimal coverage to pay in to subsidize the heavy users.

Easy there . . . I take exception to your characterization of Obama as deliberately lying (like Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld's efforts to make a lot of money killing Iraqis?).
He was, after all, promised a few things by those big insurance companies way back when the outline of the ACA was being debated.

Remember, when we elected Obama most of his supporters were expecting a single-payer option (still the most efficient delivery vehicle, by the way). 18 months of deliberations with plenty of Republican involvement is NOT being "rammed down throats". Note that the efficient sensible method employed by most of the world not to mention our own VA and Medicare, was mangled into this bloated pile of junk by Republican congressmen kowtowing to corporate insurance executives. That is an unfortunate fact that they all like to run and hide from NOW. It was the methodology of the final vote that pissed off the Republicans) Obama was not involved with the structuring of the ACA because he wanted all parties to be invested in it. Oh well, sucker.

The concept of "insurance" is pooling people together to each pay a small amount to prevent a catastrophic loss caused by a rare but expensive event. If you force the insurer to take on customers with a preexisting condition, it's like letting someone buy in to homeowners insurance after their house has burned down. Providing health care to everyone is the right thing to do, just don't call it insurance. Making the healthy and well-off pay to take care of the sick and poor is the right thing to do. Just call it by it's true name: Socialized Medicine.

Socialized Medicine! I'll drink to that.

Now can we please get to work?
Colin

[yondermtn]

Any updates from those who have signed up or tried to?

Wife and I are taking advantage of the 1 year extension that BCBS is giving us on our old plans as they fit our needs better than what we found in the exchanges.

My wife has tried to sign up her employee in the exchange both thru the healthcare.gov site and then on the phone and has been unsuccessful. As I understand there is a problem with the communication between government agencies.(this is for a naturalized citizen, btw)

I worry about all the changes that are being made on the fly. Even though I'm not fully on board with Obamacare, I thought it best to let this thing roll out in the form the law was passed. See what's in it, so to speak.
What are others' thoughts on the changes being made?

Here is the latest change that I'm seeing. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns- ... 6658.story

[RSorak 71Westy]

Obama was only able to get half of his plan thru congress. For the reform to really work it needs the single payer option and we need to get private health insurances companies out of the system. Then the gov't can negotiate volume discounts and try to get health care costs under control.