Actual Obamacare stats and rate increases on horizon

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatordowneast, May 15, 2014.

  1. reformedgator
    Offline

    reformedgator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,839
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +191
    Sorry to deflate your winner, but with our plan we couldn't have been dropped BEFORE ACA. Now we did keep our plan, but the rates have increased 40% after only increasing under 10% prior, copays have more than doubled, deductibles went up 300% & co insurance increased from 0 to 10-20%. And if something happens to us out of state, our rates are greatly increased. All thanks to your precious Obamacare.
    If that's your idea of a winner, I like to know what a loser looks like
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. dirigo
    Offline

    dirigo Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +23
    I'm not sure what you're getting at with your question. Insurers have been marketing plans with high deductibles for quite some time. In fact they became quite popular in the past 8-10 years as a way to reduce spiral in increases in annual premiums (on the flip side and a far greater risk were those policies that capped annual, not just lifetime benefits, sometimes as low as $10K). I can't recall the last time my family had an in-panel per person deductible less than $3750. Sports injuries incurred by one of my sons blew through that in about 24 hours but we paid our share. Did I wonder if everyone else similarly situated was doing the same thing? Sure. My brother was the CEO of a teaching hospital out west so I knew that was a problem. However he complained far louder and longer about those without any coverage, the worst being those who were brought to his ER room after crashing their - (fill in the blank; Porsche, Vette, Mercedes, Caddy, Harley, etc) without any coverage. I've never asked him but I'm pretty sure he'd much rather have the problem of chasing down $6-12,000 of a $100,000 stay than the entire $100,000. Collecting co-pays from individuals has been a problem forever and there's no reason to think that it won't continue but it I suspect that it will be pale when compared to the payments the providers will receive from those that previously did all that they could to freeload off the rest of us. As to your last point - your sources may be better than mine but I've never heard of a clinic or hospital requiring a patient to pre-pay or otherwise prove it can pay the deductible before care/services are provided.
  3. dirigo
    Offline

    dirigo Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +23
    No comment on your pre-ACA policy but that closing sentence makes me wonder if you were ever the straight man in a comedy duo. I come from a family with 3 brothers and if I gave any of them an opening like that they would skewer me in a New York minute. All in good fun, Reformed.
  4. surfn1080
    Offline

    surfn1080 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,134
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +178
    Wait wait do you not really see the past 2 year gap increase more then before even though it was supposed to go down??? Are you that freaking blind of this? Your excuse is really well it has always gone up???
  5. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,564
    Likes Received:
    198
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +586
    Actually, the increase looks rather linear to me. And if the increase was more after 2010, it would be insurance companies using Obamacare as an excuse to raise prices since the law didn't take effect until recently.
  6. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,622
    Likes Received:
    218
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,083
    The people who were paying for high-deductible plans before Obamacare could presumably afford the deductible. They were middle class people with middle class incomes. (Their problem is typically that their premiums have gone through the roof, AND their deductibles have gone up under ACA.) The goal of Obamacare was to help poor people get access to medical care by helping them get insurance. What good is insurance to poor people if they can't afford the deductible? What if they can't afford the first doctor's visit? What if the doctor doesn't let them schedule an appointment for the second doctor's visit until they pay for the first one? (How many free doctor's visits can a doctor afford to give the average patient he has?) Is that the whole goal of Obamacare--to give poor people one free doctor's visit? Let them live the middle class life for a few hours, and then send them back to their life of poverty? Is the country getting their money's worth from Obamacare, if all the poor people get out of it is one free doctor's visit? Couldn't we have handed out a coupon for a free doctor's visit for a lot less money?

    You sound very out-of-touch with the nature of the problem. Like you have trouble understanding how Obamacare affects poor people. All you seem to be able to understand is how wealthy people can afford to pay deductibles and premiums. Do you not know any poor people?
  7. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,535
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +587
    Again, poor people (ie. those under the poverty line) will largely be covered by Medicaid. Those in the lower middle classes will largely be given premium subsidies, allowing them to purchase lower deductible plans for a lower amount of money.
  8. QGator2414
    Online

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,681
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +531
    Bankruptcy and charitable medicine is not a driving factor in the cost of medicine (Does it affect costs? Sure). I use to use a 2009 cnn article that shows most of the well under 1% do people in this country who file for bankruptcy due to medical reasons had insurance (78% if I remember right). Then one of our obamacare supporters found an updated one that showed less 1 million people our of the over 300 million people in this country file for bankruptcy do to medical reasons (600,000 and change if memory serves me correct).

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148
  9. surfn1080
    Offline

    surfn1080 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,134
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +178
    Lol wow ignoring your own graph?

    So you force insurance companies to insure more people and risky ones at that but you didn't expect them to increase cost to offset that? Are libs really that naive?
  10. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,622
    Likes Received:
    218
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,083
    Let me get this straight. Obamacare does nothing for people in poverty, because they are already covered by Medicaid. Obamacare does almost nothing for regular middle class people, who previously had insurance, had it cancelled by Obama, and were forced to buy insurance that they didn't want at a price they didn't like. This legislation was for a subset of the middle class, known as the lower middle class. These are the people being helped. They are getting subsidized insurance with "lower" deductibles. Is that about right?

    Now, how much deductible can lower middle class people afford? And how much deductible do they have under Obamacare? Are those two numbers even in the same zip code? Do you know that 74% of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck? What is it about that statement that makes you think that the subset known as lower middle class is going to be in the minority of people who actually have some money saved for a rainy day and could afford a deductible of several thousand dollars? What percent of lower middle class people can afford the deductible? 1%? 0.1%? Less? I think it is much more likely that 95% of the people in the lower middle class could not afford any deductible. They would struggle paying 20% of their medical expenses, if they saw a doctor routinely or had to have any medical tests at all.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. vangator1
    Offline

    vangator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,309
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +163
    Obozocare is a classic example of the govt creating a problem and when it becomes a crisis the mindless masses beg the govt for a solution. I'm betting the legislation to have the govt to completely take over the health care system is already written. How many times do you chumps have to be bitch-slapped before you think about ducking?

    Last edited: May 17, 2014
  12. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,535
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +587
    You realize Medicaid was expanded, right?

    Here is a slideshow describing how insurance would be provided to the uninsured:

    http://kff.org/slideshow/medicaid-expansion-under-the-affordable-care-act-jama-march-27-2013/

    So we previously had 47.9 million uninsured. Of those, 51% would be eligible for Medicaid under the new rules from the ACA, which expanded eligibility for Medicaid. These are people that are earning less than 139% of the Federal Poverty Level. 40% of the uninsured were eligible for subsidies, which again, allow for a person to purchase a lower deductible plan for a lower premium payment. This would allow the person access to affordable healthcare.

    So lets take an example to illustrate what I am discussing:

    Let's say we have a family of 4 (2 adults at 40 years old and 2 children) making 35K per year, putting the person above the Medicaid limit but still in the lower middle class and still likely having some financial struggle (this would place them at about 35% on the income distribution, meaning 35% makes less and 65% make more). Using the US average, this family would pay $1,373 a year for a Silver plan, which would cover 94% of all healthcare expenses on average and has an out of pocket maximum of $4,500. So if a catastrophe happens to this family, they will be charged $5,873 for the year. That number would be far lower in years without an actual catastrophe. Preventative services would be covered for this family without cost sharing.

    http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-...s[1][tobacco]=0&child-count=2&child-tobacco=0

    Now you are right that many of the lower and middle classes are living paycheck to paycheck. What you fail to realize is that a lack of healthcare is one of the primary reasons for that. So with access to an affordable plan with relatively limited out of pocket expenses in the event of catastrophe, this will allow for better financial planning on both sides of the healthcare equation, from the provider side and from the customer side.
  13. dirigo
    Offline

    dirigo Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +23
    MD did a good job explaining the structure of the ACA, though I'm not sure he knows enough poor people to be trusted on that topic. Chem, yours are important questions that need to be asked. They are no less important than whether the ACA could survive its horrendous roll-out, bring in enough young & healthy, and have the enrollees pay their premiums. Even though the professionals (some of whom botched the roll-out) have assured us that each of these questions and more have been considered and reflected in the design of the ACA, we can only wait and see.

    Cost is a bit more predictable. Value (to our nation) is far more subjective. It has to be considered in the context of the previous system (many question whether it really was a system) and what the the long term costs under each would be. As a businessman I believe the ACA was the right decision and that at some point the conservatives (a number of republicans are reluctantly accepting it as a reality) will finally get over the butt-hurt of seeing it passed and implemented and we'll turn our energies to improving it. Warren Buffett said it best,"don't bet against America".
  14. reformedgator
    Offline

    reformedgator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,839
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +191
    Your dysfunctional family aside, the ACA is certainly worthwhile to some, but for myself & a lot of other people it's been
    a headache & a drain on our pocketbook.;)
  15. dirigo
    Offline

    dirigo Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +23
    I'm pleased that you seem comfortable acknowledging that the ACA is worthwhile for some of our neighbors. Like you I'm not among those that will receive a direct benefit and my pocketbook will be lighter but I have confidence that in the years to come you'll join me in the knowledge that our sacrifices are reasonable for the benefits it provides this great nation of ours. JFK used to quote the gospel of Luke, "to those whom much is given, much is expected".

    My dysfunctional family and I extend our sympathies with regard to your headache. Normally I'd suggest 2 generic ibuprofen but I suspect you're not battling that sort of headache.
  16. gatorman_07732
    Offline

    gatorman_07732 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    30,888
    Likes Received:
    2,208
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    The Irish Riviera
    Ratings Received:
    +4,062
    I'm still trying to figure out who other than the people that are getting a pro bono policy. I'm still without a policy after mine got cancelled.
  17. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985

    So if we put 25 M more Americans on Medicaid, with no net increase in new doctors, who is going to treat them? Or are we outsourcing this to Indian call centers using Skype or Facetime?
  18. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,747
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    And this supposedly will reduce all of our costs or bend the cost curve down?
  19. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,535
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +587
    Well the only reason, from an economic perspective, that we wouldn't have a net increase in new doctors is due to the licensing procedures, as demand remains high for medical school. That is why many free market economists advocate an end to doctor licensing. Not saying I agree (I tend to think that the information asymmetry is an issue in getting rid of licensing) but just pointing it out.

    In all likelihood, we will expand medical providers by creating more PAs and Nurse Practitioners.

    Of course, this beats the implicit alternative of just not treating people for medical problems because they are poor.

    Placing people on Medicaid will result in lower collection costs for hospitals, which should lower costs (although pricing is very difficult in an environment in which most hospital ownership is locally either a monopoly or an oligopoly (about 80% of all local areas are characterized as having highly concentrated hospital ownership) and in which there is no real outside option (ie. I am very unlikely to tell the doctor not to provide life-saving healthcare due to expense if I am rational)).

Share This Page