ACA: Affordable Care Act (better known as OBAMACARE) - Enrollment Starts October 1st - You In?

[bandit country]

Jeffrey Tucker

I can safely say dude changed my life.

 

[andycrazn]

tucker, schiff, rogers

 

[andycrazn]

http://www.europac.net/commentaries/website_fixable_obamacare_isn’t

The Website is Fixable, Obamacare Isn’t
By:
Peter Schiff
Monday, October 28, 2013

Since Obamacare made its debut, discussions have focused on Ted Cruz' efforts to defund the law and the shockingly bad functionality of the Website itself. Fortunately for Obama, polling indicates that Senator Cruz has lost, at least for now, the battle for hearts and minds. The President has not been nearly so lucky on the technological front. If current trends continue, the rollout may go down as the worst major product launch in history. But given the government's enormous resources, it's safe to say that the site itself will ultimately be fixed. But when it is finally up and running, the plan's many deeper, and more intractable, flaws will come into focus. That's when the fun will really begin.

Put simply the program is built on a mountain of false assumptions and is covered by a terrain of unanticipated incentives. Any cleared-eyed observer should conclude that it is perfectly designed to raise the costs of care and wreck the federal budget. However, like just about every other complicated problem that bedevils the nation, the public has become far too caught up in the politics and has ignored the horrific details.

Most people agree that the plan can only remain solvent if enough young and healthy people ("the invincibles") agree to sign up. They are the ones who are likely to pay more into the system than they take out. But now that insurance coverage is guaranteed to anyone at any time (at the same price -- even after they have gotten sick or injured), the only incentive for the invincibles to sign up will be to avoid the penalty (I think we can dismiss "civic duty" as an effective motivator). But as I detailed in a column last year, Justice John Roberts declared the law to be constitutional only because the penalties are far too low to actually compel behavior. Once young healthy people understand that they can save money by dropping insurance, they will. No amount of slick, cheerful TV ads will change that.

The good news for Obama is that the plan will get a large percentage of young people covered. The bad news is that many of those that do sign up will not help the bottom line. The youngest and healthiest of the group are under 26 and will now be able to stay on their parents' plans. This group will add nothing to the pool of premiums (but will use services). Among those older than 26, the ones who qualify for the largest subsidies will be more inclined to sign up. The way the plan is structured, individuals and families earning between 1.38 and 4 times the Federal poverty level will qualify for a subsidy. The government subsidy covers almost the entire premium for those near the bottom of that spectrum. These individuals will definitely sign up. But just like those under 26, they will be a net drain on the system.

From my estimations, private premium contributions don't surpass the government contributions until an individual or a family makes about 2.5 times the poverty level (which equates to about $28,000 for an individual and $55,000 for a family of 4). Since a very large percentage of young people earn less than that, many will sign up to get the benefit. But these people will likely be net drains to the system as well. Their total premiums paid may be more than the services they receive, but that may not be true when you look only at what they actually pay in.

Young women, who plan on using maternity care, may also be motivated. But they can cost more than they bring in. The real cash cows are the young men, not covered by parents, who make more than 4 times the poverty level. But their only incentive to sign up is to avoid the penalty. But at just one percent of income, the penalty just won't be a deciding factor. Most young men will save money by dropping insurance, paying the tax and incidental doctor visits out of pocket, and then only adding the insurance if and when something really bad happens.

The subsidies in Obamacare kick in and kick out very abruptly. People finding themselves on the wrong side of a dividing line will face difficult choices that hurt the plan's finances. The San Francisco Chronicle recently profiled a California couple in their early 60s making about $64,000 per year who would be able to qualify for a $14,000 annual subsidy by reducing their income by $2,000 dollars per year. It's easy to imagine such individuals reducing their hours or their pay to qualify. Of course this type of behavior modification has not been anticipated by preparing premium and budget projections. It is no accident that the government has offered no serious projections about how much in healthcare subsidies it should expect to pay out over the coming years

In truth, the premium levels themselves are based on nothing but assumptions. It is true that those lucky enough to actually get through the website's technological maze have seen (unsubsidized) premiums that are lower than similarly constituted plans in the private market. But those low prices are only possible because no one knows what the new pool of insurance holders will look like. They assume it will look like the pools that already exist. But they won't.

Of course, the incentives for the young and healthy to drop out, and for the sick, old and the heavily subsidized to drop in will mean that the post-Obamacare pool will have very different actuarial arithmetic than the current pools. But all of that is as yet unknown. The numbers we see now were put there just to make us feel good. But once the economics kicks in, look for them to rise quickly.

It is also ironic that high-deductible, catastrophic plans are precisely what young people should be buying in the first place. They are inexpensive because they provide coverage for unlikely, but expensive, events. Routine care is best paid for out-of-pocket by value conscious consumers. But Obamacare outlaws these plans, in favor of what amounts to prepaid medical treatment that shifts the cost of services to taxpayers. In such a system, patients have no incentive to contain costs. Since the biggest factor driving health care costs higher in the first place has been the over use of insurance that results from government-provided tax incentives, and the lack of cost accountability that results from a third-party payer system, Obamacare will bend the cost curve even higher. The fact that Obamacare does nothing to rein in costs while providing an open-ended insurance subsidy may be good news for hospitals and insurance companies, but it's bad news for taxpayers, on whom this increased burden will ultimately fall.

The real shock of Obamacare is not the unbelievable ineptitude in which it was launched, but the naiveté in which it was designed. The only thing worse than the product launch may be the product itself. But unlike other major entitlements, like Social Security and Medicare, that took years to produce red ink that was far in excess of original assumptions, the financial shortfalls in Obamacare should show up very quickly. Republicans should not miss that opportunity to destroy this monster that threatens us all.

 

[crcballer55]

 

So if I'm a male, & don't have a kid, why do I need to pay for these services? I even know middle age couples whose kids have moved out that are forced to have these two in their plans. Seriously... when are we going to figure out that this isn't going to do ANYTHING except get us closer to universal healthcare?

The problem with the old system was that we are the most unhealthy nation in the world and the two government programs (Medicare & Medicaid) were only paying Dr's 20 cents on the dollar for services forcing all of us to pay more for our plans. Have we not noticed a trend with government subsidization of services and exponential price increases?

The main problems with the old system were rejection of payment for services rendered and not insuring pre-existing conditions. But instead, we essentially nationalized the whole system and levied a tax on everyone.

Excellent question but wouldn't it be the same for every essential coverage... such as..

I am a healthy individual and never been to an ER my entire life.. why do I need Emergency Care?

I am a healthy young adult and never had mental illness... why do I need mental health coverage?

etc.. etc..

Unlike an ER visit, there is NO chance of me becoming pregnant as a male. Or of a woman over 50 becoming pregnant for that matter so you're paying for something you'll NEVER need. My point being that me, as a consumer, should have the choice of an a la carte plan that covers what I actually want covered. Why pay for the S-Class when all I want is a Camry?

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE  
 

Most laws have good "intentions", but that doesn't make it a good law. Ultimately, it's human behavior laws are trying to fix. If we were really trying to allow uninsurable Americans to become insured, did it really take a War & Peace length bill passed with 48 hrs. notice with another 30,000 pages of regulations to solve that?

And how was Obama and the Democrats going to pass this legislation when we have a Republican base, whom won't ever compromise? Back alley deals with the Medical industry, funding deals to Congressional members, etc... was how they passed it. I mean we're talking about the United States Congress here where corruption runs rampant and members vote based of Party ideology instead of what's best for their constituents.

REGARDLESS though, it's law now so instead of wasting all this time crying, whining, and getting all angry, why not take advantage of what the Govt is providing and make the best out of it. I know I am educating everyone I know.

It's not just whining. The constitutionality of many parts of the bill are still being contested. It's not enough that the administration has independently changed over 20 parts of the bill without congressional oversight.

http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-obamacare-legality-still-doubt-100204027--politics.html

I'm getting educated on the bill as well. Unfortunately, everything I'm hearing is that both premiums and deductibles are only going up. If you're self employed in California, you can expect your deductible to increase from ~$500/mo. to $1400. For the elderly? Most of their premiums are $10-15,000. If you're on Social Security, that's your entire take home pay for the year!

 

[superb]

Don't belive this crap...

 

[Brownstone]

What is the fine for opting out of health care? I am just wondering, I've spoken to people on the business side, and the care side of healthcare and nobody can tell me anything concrete. Aside from the personal fine-which is what I am most interested in. I know that small businesses hate it, but seem like they are more willing to pay the fine that provide healthcare, which makes it necessary in the first place. Healthcare costs are ridiculously inflated. People think Obama care will inflate costs, I disagree. I also think it was necessary, but hey that's just me.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/16/business/la-fi-lazarus-20110816

 

[superb]

First year $95 after that it goes up.

 In 2014, the penalty will be no more than $285 per family, or 1% of income, whichever is greater. In 2015, the cap rises to $975, or 2% of income. And by 2016, it reaches $2,085 per family, or 2.5% of income, whichever is greater.

The dollar amounts for a single adult would be $95, $325 and $695 during the same period

 

[utvol23]

Medicare for all lol

I was going to entertain entering this discussion till I read that

 

[fac3 tak30v312]

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_...ns-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite

Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health insurance

Larry Downing / Reuters
President Barack Obama walks out to deliver remarks about the Affordable Care Act in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington on Oct. 1, 2013.

By Lisa Myers and Hannah Rappleye, NBC News
President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.


Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC News that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”
None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.
Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”
That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.
Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”
“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms. Laszewski estimates that 80 percent of those in the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today.
The White House does not dispute that many in the individual market will lose their current coverage, but argues they will be offered better coverage in its place, and that many will get tax subsidies that would offset any increased costs.
“One of the main goals of the law is to ensure that people have insurance they can rely on – that doesn’t discriminate or charge more based on pre-existing conditions. The consumers who are getting notices are in plans that do not provide all these protections – but in the vast majority of cases, those same insurers will automatically shift their enrollees to a plan that provides new consumer protections and, for nearly half of individual market enrollees, discounts through premium tax credits,” said White House spokesperson Jessica Santillo.
“Nothing in the Affordable Care Act forces people out of their health plans: The law allows plans that covered people at the time the law was enacted to continue to offer that same coverage to the same enrollees – nothing has changed and that coverage can continue into 2014,” she said.
Video preview photo
Obamacare may raise cost of individual insurance policies

The Affordable Care Act will not affect most traditional employer-based plans, but many of those who purchased insurance policies on their own will see higher premiums. This is in part due to the 10 essential health benefits insurance providers are now required to include. NBC's Peter Alexander reports.
Individual insurance plans with low premiums often lack basic benefits, such as prescription drug coverage, or carry high deductibles and out-of-pocket costs. The Affordable Care Act requires all companies to offer more benefits, such as mental health care, and also bars companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions.
Today, White House spokesman Jay Carney was asked about the president’s promise that consumers would be able to keep their health care. “What the president said and what everybody said all along is that there are going to be changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act to create minimum standards of coverage, minimum services that every insurance plan has to provide,” Carney said. “So it's true that there are existing healthcare plans on the individual market that don't meet those minimum standards and therefore do not qualify for the Affordable Care Act.”
Other experts said that most consumers in the individual market will not be able to keep their policies. Nancy Thompson, senior vice president of CBIZ Benefits, which helps companies manage their employee benefits, says numbers in this market are hard to pin down, but that data from states and carriers suggests “anywhere from 50 to 75 percent” of individual policy holders will get cancellation letters. Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger, who chairs the health committee of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, says that estimate is “probably about right.” She added that a few states are asking insurance companies to cancel and replace policies, rather than just amend them, to avoid confusion.
A spokesman for America's Health Plans says there are no precise numbers on how many will receive cancellations letters or get notices that their current policies don’t meet ACA standards. In both cases, consumers will not be able to keep their current coverage.
Those getting the cancellation letters are often shocked and unhappy.
George Schwab, 62, of North Carolina, said he was "perfectly happy" with his plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield, which also insured his wife for a $228 monthly premium. But this past September, he was surprised to receive a letter saying his policy was no longer available. The "comparable" plan the insurance company offered him carried a $1,208 monthly premium and a $5,500 deductible.
And the best option he’s found on the exchange so far offered a 415 percent jump in premium, to $948 a month.
"The deductible is less," he said, "But the plan doesn't meet my needs. Its unaffordable."
"I'm sitting here looking at this, thinking we ought to just pay the fine and just get insurance when we're sick," Schwab added. "Everybody's worried about whether the website works or not, but that's fixable. That's just the tip of the iceberg. This stuff isn't fixable."

Heather Goldwater, 38, of South Carolina, is raising a new baby while running her own PR firm. She said she received a letter last July from Cigna, her insurance company, that said the company would no longer offer her individual plan, and promised to send a letter by October offering a comparable option. So far, she hasn't received anything.

"I'm completely overwhelmed with a six-month-old and a business,” said Goldwater. “The last thing I can do is spend hours poring over a website that isn't working, trying to wrap my head around this entire health care overhaul."
Goldwater said she supports the new law and is grateful for provisions helping folks like her with pre-existing conditions, but she worries she won’t be able to afford the new insurance, which is expected to cost more because it has more benefits. "I'm jealous of people who have really good health insurance," she said. "It's people like me who are stuck in the middle who are going to get screwed."

Richard Helgren, a Lansing, Mich., retiree, said he was “irate” when he received a letter informing him that his wife Amy's $559 a month health plan was being changed because of the law. The plan the insurer offered raised his deductible from $0 to $2,500, and the company gave him 17 days to decide.
The higher costs spooked him and his wife, who have painstakingly planned for their retirement years. "Every dollar we didn't plan for erodes our standard of living," Helgren said.
Ulltimately, though Helgren opted not to shop through the ACA exchanges, he was able to apply for a good plan with a slightly lower premium through an insurance agent.
He said he never believed President Obama’s promise that people would be able to keep their current plans.
"I heard him only about a thousand times," he said. "I didn't believe him when he said it though because there was just no way that was going to happen. They wrote the regulations so strictly that none of the old polices can grandfather."
For months, Laszewski has warned that some consumers will face sticker shock. He recently got his own notice that he and his wife cannot keep their current policy, which he described as one of the best, so-called "Cadillac" plans offered for 2013. Now, he said, the best comparable plan he found for 2014 has a smaller doctor network, larger out-of-pocket costs, and a 66 percent premium increase.
“Mr. President, I like the coverage I have," Laszweski said. "It is the best health insurance policy you can buy."

An yet another lie...

Who wrote that part of the bill? These restrictions and cost hikes read like the work of a healthcare lobbyist. If journalists like Larry Downing actually cared about the grandfather provisions, they would find out who constructed the language of the restrictions. To me it seems oddly similar to the language I've read about cell phone and cable/satellite plans when it comes to getting grandfathered in after a new provision or regulation has been introduced that will cut into these companies profit margins.

Cory Alexander, UnitedHealth Group. Thanks to experience as Rep. Steny Hoyer’s (D-Md.) chief of staff, Alexander has the connections to centrist Democrats that United will need as the insurance industry targets pieces of the healthcare law

Fred Graefe, Law Offices of Frederick H. Graefe. Graefe is a legend among Democratic healthcare lobbyists and remains in the prime of his caree

Chris Jennings, Jennings Policy Strategies. A veteran of Washington’s healthcare reform battles, Jennings is a respected authority on President Obama’s healthcare law.

Tracy Spicer, Avenue Solutions. Spicer’s stable of healthcare clients benefit from her experience as an aide to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).

Linda Tarplin, Tarplin, Downs & Young. Healthcare lobbying is a hyper-competitive field, but Tarplin, a veteran of two GOP administrations, has always stood out.

Karen Ignagni, America’s Health Insurance Plans. One of the most polished and widely respected healthcare lobbyists in town, Ignangni is helping insurers keep up the pressure for changes to the reform law while setting the stage for big changes in Medicaid and the healthcare delivery system.

 

[ninjahood]

You do know that Canadian medical schools are pumping out less doctors and those already practicing have left for countries where there is an incentive for them to practice? Been going on for a few years now.

isnt the incentive to help people?

@ da thought of all that schooling just to feel

Warm & gushy inside...

We should have a single payer with incentive pay

For doctors who are masters in their craft (ability to

Pay extra to forgo a waiting list)

 

[ninjahood]

First year $95 after that it goes up.

 In 2014, the penalty will be no more than $285 per family, or 1% of income, whichever is greater. In 2015, the cap rises to $975, or 2% of income. And by 2016, it reaches $2,085 per family, or 2.5% of income, whichever is greater.

The dollar amounts for a single adult would be $95, $325 and $695 during the same period

I just heard unless you work your taxes so that you

Get a refund at da end of a year da IRS has no way to

Enforce that fine.

 

[wsdesigner14]

Unlike an ER visit, there is NO chance of me becoming pregnant as a male. Or of a woman over 50 becoming pregnant for that matter so you're paying for something you'll NEVER need. My point being that me, as a consumer, should have the choice of an a la carte plan that covers what I actually want covered. Why pay for the S-Class when all I want is a Camry?

 
It's not just whining. The constitutionality of many parts of the bill are still being contested. It's not enough that the administration has independently changed over 20 parts of the bill without congressional oversight.

http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-obamacare-legality-still-doubt-100204027--politics.html

I'm getting educated on the bill as well. Unfortunately, everything I'm hearing is that both premiums and deductibles are only going up. If you're self employed in California, you can expect your deductible to increase from ~$500/mo. to $1400. For the elderly? Most of their premiums are $10-15,000. If you're on Social Security, that's your entire take home pay for the year!

Why should parents who can't have kids pay for public school funding? Why should I pay for things that don't directly affect me, or are of use to me through taxes?

The point is that if we want to improve the health of our society, and make sure that everyone has access to affordable health care (which should undoubtedly include things like preventative care, mental health, and maternity) we all have to chip in. That is how a modern society operates. You can't have an a la carte menu for health care that only includes the things you need because others who might need things like mental health coverage or maternity will not be able to afford the care due to the high costs. This whole mentality of "I should only pay for what I need, when I need it" only hurts the rest of us. Those who don't have insurance currently and think that they are healthy and won't need coverage until something happens to them don't realize that when that emergency does happen, and they realize they can't afford the service/treatment, those costs are then passed on to the rest of us who do have insurance.

The debate should really come down to what is the appropriate level of coverage that an individual should be offered and required to have. Meaning, should we include things like maternity and prenatal care as ESSENTIAL services that all citizens who pay for health insurance have access to? I believe things like mental health, preventative care, and prenatal care are essential services because these have the potential to impact our society as a whole.

I'd rather pay more for my policy if it means that individuals who require mental health-related treatments have affordable access to them, rather than find themselves with no help and potentially end up harming others.

 

[rell826]

I'd rather pay more for my policy if it means that individuals who require mental health-related treatments have affordable access to them, rather than find themselves with no help and potentially end up harming others.

Can you afford to? This is the dilemma that you chose to ignore in typing up your  response. Those on a fixed income such as those on Social Security cannot when their premiums double. $360 to $600+ a month is a noticeable difference in your bank account. Requiring that people who don't have children or aren't women to buy plans with those provisions in it is a huge flaw in itself and a costly one. There would be less debate if the law allowed people to pick and choose what they wanted in their coverage. If they really wanted to drive the prices down, they would have opened the exchanges up across state lines.

 

[sundoobie]

Unlike an ER visit, there is NO chance of me becoming pregnant as a male. Or of a woman over 50 becoming pregnant for that matter so you're paying for something you'll NEVER need. My point being that me, as a consumer, should have the choice of an a la carte plan that covers what I actually want covered. Why pay for the S-Class when all I want is a Camry?

 
It's not just whining. The constitutionality of many parts of the bill are still being contested. It's not enough that the administration has independently changed over 20 parts of the bill without congressional oversight.

http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-obamacare-legality-still-doubt-100204027--politics.html

I'm getting educated on the bill as well. Unfortunately, everything I'm hearing is that both premiums and deductibles are only going up. If you're self employed in California, you can expect your deductible to increase from ~$500/mo. to $1400. For the elderly? Most of their premiums are $10-15,000. If you're on Social Security, that's your entire take home pay for the year!

A la carte? I can't even subscribe only sports channels on cable, but you expect insurance companies to provide a la carte insurance coverage? Think about that a second!

Everything you're hearing isn't FACT! $500 to $1400 per month? That's absurd. You do realize a TON of factors are involved on why or if their premiums have gone up. But hey keep on 'hearing' the negatives if that makes you feel better. Me, I am going with the positives of this law and adapting to the change because that's what responsible people do. I am not going to waste time dwelling on how, why, what, if, should, could, would, oh no it's the end of America... Contested? What a waste of freaking time!


Edit:

per your yahoo article

For example, there is still a continuing campaign to overturn at least parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, nearly a half century after its enactment.

Like I said.. .WASTE OF TIME!

 

[ninjahood]

 

Unlike an ER visit, there is NO chance of me becoming pregnant as a male. Or of a woman over 50 becoming pregnant for that matter so you're paying for something you'll NEVER need. My point being that me, as a consumer, should have the choice of an a la carte plan that covers what I actually want covered. Why pay for the S-Class when all I want is a Camry?

 
It's not just whining. The constitutionality of many parts of the bill are still being contested. It's not enough that the administration has independently changed over 20 parts of the bill without congressional oversight.

http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-obamacare-legality-still-doubt-100204027--politics.html

I'm getting educated on the bill as well. Unfortunately, everything I'm hearing is that both premiums and deductibles are only going up. If you're self employed in California, you can expect your deductible to increase from ~$500/mo. to $1400. For the elderly? Most of their premiums are $10-15,000. If you're on Social Security, that's your entire take home pay for the year!
 

A la carte?

I can't even subscribe only sports channels on cable, but you expect insurance companies to provide a la carte insurance coverage? Think about that a second!
 

you will soon...canada is already passing legislation to change da way cable is done...

 

[ninjahood]

 

I'd rather pay more for my policy if it means that individuals who require mental health-related treatments have affordable access to them, rather than find themselves with no help and potentially end up harming others.

Can you afford to?

liberal ideology...

if charity is da goal then it shouldn't be mandated.

with that said im fine with single payer... rather just get randomly taxed for every and everything tiny amounts along with everyone else to put it in a giant

slush fund to pay off doctors..

 

[wsdesigner14]

Can you afford to? This is the dilemma that you chose to ignore in typing up your  response. Those on a fixed income such as those on Social Security cannot when their premiums double. $360 to $600+ a month is a noticeable difference in your bank account. Requiring that people who don't have children or aren't women to buy plans with those provisions in it is a huge flaw in itself and a costly one. There would be less debate if the law allowed people to pick and choose what they wanted in their coverage. If they really wanted to drive the prices down, they would have opened the exchanges up across state lines.

Are you talking about those who are on SS that are not yet able to enroll for Medicare? If you're retired and pulling SS, you are most likely eligible for Medicare. Secondly, if your premiums double and you aren't able to afford them you can find a more affordable plan on the exchanges, and depending on your income (I believe the limit is $46,000 for an individual) you can receive a subsidy. Or, if your place of employment offers a plan whose premiums constitute more than 9.5% of your salary, you can qualify for a subsidy.

Private insurance costs already include fees for things that others may need/use that you yourself may never use.

 

[sundoobie]

This is a good article in regards to the insurance plans that are being dropped thanks to ACA's mandatory minimums and IMO good riddance.

SMH @ these insurance companies raking in millions if not billions selling these junk insurance plans!

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/03/junk-health-insurance/index.htm

“I was aware that it wasn’t a great plan, but I wasn’t concerned because I wasn’t sick,” she says. But in July 2011 she was diagnosed with breast cancer, at which point the policy’s annual limits of $1,000 a year for outpatient treatment and $2,000 for hospitalization became a huge problem. Facing a $30,000 hospital bill, she delayed treatment.

Largest mini-med sellers

Fifty health insurance companies have federal waivers to offer “mini-med” policies until 2014. We asked the four companies with the highest enrollment why they provide those plans.

Cigna Starbridge 265,000 enrollees. “Policies are offered to … workers who typically are not eligible for any other employer sponsored-group health coverage.”

Aetna SRC 209,423 enrollees. “It’s still some coverage for people who may not have any other options.”

BCS Insurance 115,000 enrollees, including McDonald’s hourly employees. “It’s a matter of affordability. These are largely part-time and hourly workers.”

American Heritage Life Insurance Co. (Allstate) 69,945 enrollees. “Employers … wanted to provide a more affordable voluntary benefit option to their … lower-wage employees.”

 

[ninjahood]

problem your opinion is it wasn't what obama problem promised...and now everyone that got dumped has to pay for MORE expensive

plans "if you like your plan you can keep it" wasn't true, and he's getting HEAVY backlash today for it.

 

[wsdesigner14]

problem your opinion is it wasn't what obama problem promised...and now everyone that got dumped has to pay for MORE expensive

plans "if you like your plan you can keep it" wasn't true, and he's getting HEAVY backlash today for it.

Yes, that was a stupid thing for Obama to say knowing that thousands of plans won't be continued due to not meeting the minimum requirements. Does this mean that thousands of others won't be able to keep their plan? No. What it means is, that any government policy is much messier than a single politician can explain in a campaign speech. This is not limited to Democrats or Republicans but rather is a consequence of how the American public interacts with politics (through soundbites, slogans, and campaign ads). On the whole, the ACA will likely provide many Americans with access to affordable health care (perhaps for the first time), not have any affect on some, and drive up the prices for individual plans that were not meeting the standards of coverage. I'm much more interested in the long term consequences of the law, including whether it will curb health care costs' trajectory.

Look at how many people are still in the dark about what exactly happened during 2008 economic crisis and its long term effects on this country, or why we went into Iraq and what we actually accomplished there. Unless a policy or law effects someone personally, mostly negatively, they won't spend the time to understanding its nuances. Politics is messy, especially when you have two opposing parties that would rather close the government than compromise.

 

[deuce king]

 
if charity is da goal then it shouldn't be mandated.

In theory I agree with this statement from you, however I think you can agree that the healthcare system has glaring holes in it.  Hopefully the ACA can help plug those holes and help those that need it most.

 

[rico x hood]

The ACA wasn't created to plug glaring holes in our current healthcare system. It was put in place to help more people get it by forcing people like me (young and healthy) to foot the bill for the sick and feeble. That is not right. Obama is trying to right a wrong...with a wrong.

 

[sundoobie]

problem your opinion is it wasn't what obama problem promised...and now everyone that got dumped has to pay for MORE expensive

plans "if you like your plan you can keep it" wasn't true, and he's getting HEAVY backlash today for it.

And I agree he should receive major criticism and I hope the comedians roast him too! All the sugar coating things he said were untrue and not factual. Like the website not having proper security protocols... what type of elementary school bull crap is that?

It was put in place to help more people get it by forcing people like me (young and healthy) to foot the bill for the sick and feeble.

You can't possibly be this simple minded!? Sorry ... but I gotta

 

[rico x hood]

Not sure what you're laughing at but feel free to point out which part of my post was incorrect.

 

[rillo561]

People still don't get how insurance works it seems. People losing their plans because they aren't compatible with the law. Sounds like adapt or die, really.

Just one step closer to single payer.