PDA

View Full Version : Obamacare working in CA?


TonyR
05-24-2013, 11:28 AM
I don't pretend to fully understand all of the implications of Obamacare, nor do I know what the "right answer" is on healthcare. Regardless, this is at least an interesting read on the subject.

Predictions of an Obamacare apocalypse seem a little less credible today, thanks to California.

On Thursday, officials in that state offered the first detailed glimpse of what consumers buying health benefits on their own can expect to pay next year. And from the looks of things, these consumers will be getting a pretty good deal.

Based on the premiums that insurers have submitted for final regulatory approval, the majority of Californians buying coverage on the state's new insurance exchange will be paying less—in many cases, far less—than they would pay for equivalent coverage today. And while a minority will still end up writing bigger premium checks than they do now, even they won't be paying outrageous amounts. Meanwhile, all of these consumers will have access to the kind of comprehensive benefits that are frequently unavaiable today, at any price, because of the way insurers try to avoid the old and the sick. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113289/obamacare-california-no-sticker-shock-here#

The Lone Bolt
05-24-2013, 03:19 PM
Excellent read. Thanks!

It would be a shame if republicans denied quality, affordable healthcare in their states for political reasons.

cutthemdown
05-24-2013, 04:08 PM
California one of the only states with an exchange even close to being ready. The govt is overwhelmed with all the states that don't want to administer the exchanges.

Also once companies in the private sector send all the part time workers there it could overwhelm the subsidies and prices go up.

But yeah you can get some decent insurance for 300 a month. That is try right now. Call up blue shield or kaiser and have at it. So really Obamacare just forcing people to buy insurance? Its really not reform unless all the subsidies can really be paid for. Otherwise its hey loser go buy insurance.

cutthemdown
05-24-2013, 04:09 PM
But I am open minded lets see how it goes. I just don't think that article told us much other then the exchanges will be charging about what Kaiser would charge a 40 yr old single male. We shall see. Whats the timeline for the complete system to be up and running. To where we will actually be discussing going to the doctor with your new obamacard. I heard it will have his face on it. :)

Requiem
05-24-2013, 04:24 PM
I don't pay anything for my insurance and last time I went to visit my kidney specialist, it only cost me my co-pay. Thanks Obamacare! Lolol.

TonyR
05-24-2013, 07:33 PM
Health insurers will charge 25-year-olds between $142 and $190 per month for a bare-bones health plan in Los Angeles. A 40-year-old in San Francisco who wants a top-of-the-line plan would receive a bill between $451 and $525. Downgrade to a less robust option, and premiums fall as low as $221. These premium rates, released Thursday, help answer one of the biggest questions about Obamacare: How much health insurance will cost. They do so in California, the state with 7.1 million uninsured residents, more than any other place in the country. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/23/california-obamacare-premiums-no-rate-shock-here/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

cutthemdown
05-31-2013, 12:22 AM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/?partner=yahootix


Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare to Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums by 64-146%



This guy obviously has a different take on the PR spin Calif just put out on Obamacare.

pricejj
05-31-2013, 06:36 AM
...


Cheapest California health insurance plan 2013 (25 year old): $92/month
Cheapest California "bronze" plan 2014 (25 year old): $184/month


The price increases to $261/month for 40 year olds. Prices for health insurance have effectively doubled.

pricejj
05-31-2013, 06:42 AM
“To put it simply: Covered California is trying to make consumers think they’re getting more for less when, in fact, they’re just getting the same while paying more.

Yet there are many plans on the individual market in California today that offer a structure and benefits that are almost identical to those that will be available on the state’s health insurance exchange next year. So, let’s make an actual apples-to-apples comparison for the hypothetical 25-year-old male living in San Francisco and making more than $46,000 a year. Today, he can buy a PPO plan from a major insurer with a $5,000 deductible, 30 percent coinsurance, a $10 co-pay for generic prescription drugs, and a $7,000 out-of-pocket maximum for $177 a month.

According to Covered California, a “Bronze” plan from the exchange with nearly the same benefits, including a slightly lower out-of-pocket maximum of $6,350, will cost him between $245 and $270 a month. That’s anywhere from 38 percent to 53 percent more than he’ll have to pay this year for comparable coverage!"

BroncoBeavis
05-31-2013, 07:22 AM
“To put it simply: Covered California is trying to make consumers think they’re getting more for less when, in fact, they’re just getting the same while paying more.

Yet there are many plans on the individual market in California today that offer a structure and benefits that are almost identical to those that will be available on the state’s health insurance exchange next year. So, let’s make an actual apples-to-apples comparison for the hypothetical 25-year-old male living in San Francisco and making more than $46,000 a year. Today, he can buy a PPO plan from a major insurer with a $5,000 deductible, 30 percent coinsurance, a $10 co-pay for generic prescription drugs, and a $7,000 out-of-pocket maximum for $177 a month.

According to Covered California, a “Bronze” plan from the exchange with nearly the same benefits, including a slightly lower out-of-pocket maximum of $6,350, will cost him between $245 and $270 a month. That’s anywhere from 38 percent to 53 percent more than he’ll have to pay this year for comparable coverage!"

Pretty laughable that they took $5000 deductible policies and tried to compare it to the average employer-provided plan, which would be much much more expensive on the individual market. Desperate, really.

The fact is, currently when individuals go shopping for health insurance on their own dime, they're extremely cost conscious. Now the government is taking that flexibility away, forcing you to make up the difference and saying "you're welcome"

Obamacare might've worked if they'd focused on a barebones catastrophic coverage mandate and made that as affordable as possible. But they had too many industry friends that needed paid off, so they went much further.

gunns
05-31-2013, 08:39 AM
California one of the only states with an exchange even close to being ready. The govt is overwhelmed with all the states that don't want to administer the exchanges.

Also once companies in the private sector send all the part time workers there it could overwhelm the subsidies and prices go up.

But yeah you can get some decent insurance for 300 a month. That is try right now. Call up blue shield or kaiser and have at it. So really Obamacare just forcing people to buy insurance? Its really not reform unless all the subsidies can really be paid for. Otherwise its hey loser go buy insurance.

Here is some information on this. We have been working on this full time since December and as much as my state hates the feds, have found them willing to work with what we want in our state based exchanges.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/23/news/economy/obamacare-subsidies/index.html

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

Personally I find this great. People having to be responsible for their choices. What I hope most from this is that Dr's will no longer cater to hypocondriacs/lazy MF's desire for them to back up the delusion that they cannot work to keep them coming back.

broncocalijohn
05-31-2013, 09:20 AM
My wife is a teacher and we pay over $1k for dental, eye care and doctor (not everyone works for LAUSD!) so I will see what comes of this. How many workers have had their hours cut to 28 so the company has more part time workers to fit under the new umbrella of what a part time worker hours are currently? This is where people are going to be pissed. Do they save money but have less income?
Are we also going to have the same doctors and will a procedure like an MRI take 6 months instead of getting it done in 3 weeks?

The Lone Bolt
05-31-2013, 11:04 AM
Cheapest California health insurance plan 2013 (25 year old): $92/month
Cheapest California "bronze" plan 2014 (25 year old): $184/month


The price increases to $261/month for 40 year olds. Prices for health insurance have effectively doubled.

For the exact same coverage?

The Lone Bolt
05-31-2013, 11:17 AM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/?partner=yahootix


Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare to Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums by 64-146%



This guy obviously has a different take on the PR spin Calif just put out on Obamacare.


You should read some of the comments that follow this article.

pricejj
06-01-2013, 01:32 AM
For the exact same coverage?

Well, I do get all the "free" birth control I can stomach now....for double the premium. Not by choice, of course.

As it turns out, synthetic estrogen makes a man incredibly irate, and extremely demanding. Who knew?

gunns
06-01-2013, 06:17 AM
Cheapest California health insurance plan 2013 (25 year old): $92/month
Cheapest California "bronze" plan 2014 (25 year old): $184/month


The price increases to $261/month for 40 year olds. Prices for health insurance have effectively doubled.

You might want to read this. You are once again reaching for the paranoia factor. This is from the article I linked in my previous post. I guess it's a matter of what you want to believe or bitch about.

"Here's how the subsidies will work:

Starting in October, those looking to buy individual health insurance can enroll in plans offered through state-based exchanges, with coverage beginning in January. Consumers buying individual plans will be able to choose between four levels of coverage: platinum, gold, silver and bronze. The plans will differ in their premiums and out-of-pocket expense burdens.

People who are not in a government health insurance program, such as Medicaid or Medicare, and do not have access to an affordable plan at work may be eligible for help paying their premiums. The assistance is available to those with incomes of up to four times the federal poverty level -- this year, that's $45,960 for an individual or $94,200 for a family of four -- and will be scaled to ensure that folks don't pay more than a designated percentage (the exact target varies by income level) of their earnings toward the premium. The subsidy will be paid directly to the insurance company."

pricejj
06-04-2013, 09:27 AM
Further evidence of Obamacare's increased prices on health insurance:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323469804578523623272958456.html?m od=hp_opinion

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324063304578522893554786084.html?m od=hp_opinion

pricejj
06-04-2013, 09:30 AM
...

Still trying to defend this garbage? LOL Who pays for the subsidies on health insurance that is double the cost?

The Lone Bolt
06-04-2013, 11:54 AM
Still trying to defend this garbage? LOL Who pays for the subsidies on health insurance that is double the cost?


If you read the comments following Avik Roy's column, some are arguing that he is also making an apples-to-oranges comparison, by comparing Covered California rates to individual plans with much less coverage that are almost impossible to get.

For more, read http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/06/01/the-dull-knives-come-out-as-anti-obamacare-forces-falsely-attack-california-healthcare-exchange-prices/

After further consideration, I am personally tempering my judgement until a more thoughtful and independent analysis of California's plan is available.

BroncoBeavis
06-04-2013, 12:49 PM
The logic of this 'plan' is epic. The currently uninsured people who today choose not to purchase any coverage at all (at current rates) are suddenly going to all start signing up under the ACA at much higher rates that were designed to subsidize the old and sick.

These rates are just the ground floor of the death spiral coming.

pricejj
06-04-2013, 05:27 PM
After further consideration, I am personally tempering my judgement until a more thoughtful and independent analysis of California's plan is available.

Of course, we'll have to wait and see. I can guarantee you that overall average healthcare costs (and health insurance costs) are going up. Which is what all opponents of the bill have been saying for several years.

The only thing that proponents of Obamacare can hang their hat on is the so-called subsidy (which someone has to pay for). Too bad programs already exist that take care of the working poor or unemployed (CICP (in Colorado), Medicaid, and Medicare).

Anyone, anywhere in the U.S. could go to the hospital and get necessary medical care prior to Obamacare's passage...so the bill does nothing except increase costs.

The Lone Bolt
06-04-2013, 08:20 PM
Of course, we'll have to wait and see. I can guarantee you that overall average healthcare costs (and health insurance costs) are going up. Which is what all opponents of the bill have been saying for several years.

The only thing that proponents of Obamacare can hang their hat on is the so-called subsidy (which someone has to pay for). Too bad programs already exist that take care of the working poor or unemployed (CICP (in Colorado), Medicaid, and Medicare).

Anyone, anywhere in the U.S. could go to the hospital and get necessary medical care prior to Obamacare's passage...so the bill does nothing except increase costs.

And prevent consumers from getting screwed over with lifetime limits, cancellation of polices when they get sick, denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions, lack of preventive care coverage, etc.

And when those hypothetical folks you say could go to the hospital and get the necessary medical care had no insurance, who do you think got stuck with the bill? How do you suppose that affects costs?

cutthemdown
06-04-2013, 09:42 PM
Obama will give waivers to tons of industries and businesses until he is really close to leaving office. Then when the **** hits the fan so to speak he will be off building his presidential library in Chicago. AL CAPONE STYLE baby!

B-Large
06-05-2013, 08:06 AM
I don't much creedence to articles that refer to the legislation as Obamacare... its not called Obamacare, if the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act....

In 2014 I can buy personal health coverage and leave this ****ing job.... thank you, Mr. Obama.

B-Large
06-05-2013, 08:15 AM
Of course, we'll have to wait and see. I can guarantee you that overall average healthcare costs (and health insurance costs) are going up. Which is what all opponents of the bill have been saying for several years.

The only thing that proponents of Obamacare can hang their hat on is the so-called subsidy (which someone has to pay for). Too bad programs already exist that take care of the working poor or unemployed (CICP (in Colorado), Medicaid, and Medicare).

Anyone, anywhere in the U.S. could go to the hospital and get necessary medical care prior to Obamacare's passage...so the bill does nothing except increase costs.

Cost were going up either way. You can't have more novel therapies to offer and people living longer and costs to go down, it doesn't make any sense. Cost go down by either price controls and by lots of people forgoing therapies... we don't want either of those options in this country....

BroncoBeavis
06-05-2013, 08:31 AM
I don't much creedence to articles that refer to the legislation as Obamacare... its not called Obamacare, if the Patient Protection and Afforable Care Act....

In 2014 I can buy personal health coverage and leave this ****ing job.... thank you, Mr. Obama.

I heard this argument once. Then I figured out that many liberal columnists were calling it the same thing.

Off the top of my head, both Krugman and Klein are no longer to be trusted on the "ACA" by the "said Obamacare" standard. LOL

BroncoBeavis
06-05-2013, 08:34 AM
And when those hypothetical folks you say could go to the hospital and get the necessary medical care had no insurance, who do you think got stuck with the bill? How do you suppose that affects costs?

How are they going to affect my cost when they still don't have insurance and they still show up at the hospital?

Please tell me Obamacare means they'll suddenly be turned away. LOL

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100783056

This clusterfark of a bill solved nothing.

B-Large
06-05-2013, 08:57 AM
How are they going to affect my cost when they still don't have insurance and they still show up at the hospital?

Please tell me Obamacare means they'll suddenly be turned away. LOL

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100783056

This clusterfark of a bill solved nothing.


that's why people are charged a penalty for failing to obtain coverage, to build a "uninsured/negligent/deadbeat" pool so to speak. Prior to the ACA many people who were treated in the ED had their charges written off to bad debt, and we just made up the difference charging you more the next fiscal year- it all gets paid for somewhere, perhaps rejoice in the fact that the intent is for you not to continue floating the bill for those who are not willing to pay their own way.

B-Large
06-05-2013, 09:00 AM
I heard this argument once. Then I figured out that many liberal columnists were calling it the same thing.

Off the top of my head, both Krugman and Klein are no longer to be trusted on the "ACA" by the "said Obamacare" standard. LOL


Krugman and Klein discuss is to sell themselves, they are entertainers as much as economists and journalists- when you hear a true policy expert discuss the Law, they don't make themselves looks like dicks by calling it by the politicized name...

peacepipe
06-05-2013, 09:07 AM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/?partner=yahootix


Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare to Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums by 64-146%



This guy obviously has a different take on the PR spin Calif just put out on Obamacare.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/obamacare-a-war-on-bros.html


Avik Roy, former health-care-policy adviser for Mitt Romney, found a different way to frame the news: “Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146%.”

Roy’s piece, which gained widespread, wide-eyed circulation in the conservative media, was quickly and ruthlessly torn to shreds by Ezra Klein, Rick Ungar, and Jonathan Cohn, in a spectacle that resembled a pack of lions tearing every scrap of flesh off a dead warthog. I’d really urge you to read every one of those pieces and relish the carnage in every gory particular. But the gist of it is that Roy compared California’s plans to the teaser rates available on ehealthsurance.com. Those teaser rates turn out to bear little resemblance to actually available health-insurance rates — they exclude swaths of potential consumers for even minute health problems.

BroncoBeavis
06-05-2013, 09:15 AM
Krugman and Klein discuss is to sell themselves, they are entertainers as much as economists and journalists- when you hear a true policy expert discuss the Law, they don't make themselves looks like ***** by calling it by the politicized name...

LOL

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/29/is-obamacare-too-complicated-to-succeed/fighting-obamacare-but-just-to-fight-obama

Health Experts use it. (even ones friendly to Obamacare) Major news agencies headline with it. Just realize you set an impossible double-standard and move on.

Besides, no title could be more politicized than the "Affordable Care Act" :)

The Lone Bolt
06-05-2013, 11:13 AM
How are they going to affect my cost when they still don't have insurance and they still show up at the hospital?

Please tell me Obamacare means they'll suddenly be turned away. LOL

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100783056

This clusterfark of a bill solved nothing.


They won't be turned away and they WILL have insurance. That's the point of the law. How is it possible you are missing it?

Before ACA: uninsured get mandated treatment at hospitals, skip out on the bill, costs get passed on to the rest of us.

After ACA: everybody insured, hospitals get paid, costs don't get passed on.

Get it Zeke? :mullet1:

BroncoBeavis
06-05-2013, 12:16 PM
They won't be turned away and they WILL have insurance. That's the point of the law. How is it possible you are missing it?

Before ACA: uninsured get mandated treatment at hospitals, skip out on the bill, costs get passed on to the rest of us.

After ACA: everybody insured, hospitals get paid, costs don't get passed on.

Get it Zeke? :mullet1:

I'll take that bet. Even CBO estimates at least 30 million Americans will remain uninsured under Obamacare, compared to 40-50 million before it was enacted.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/09/20/cbo-11-million-uninsured-americans-will-be-subject-to-obamacares-individual-mandate-penalty-tax/

pricejj
06-05-2013, 02:07 PM
that's why people are charged a penalty for failing to obtain coverage

Only people who make over a certain middle-class income threshold (and don't have insurance coverage) are penalized.

Everyone else under that income threshold doesn't need to carry health insurance. Like I said before, everyone who can't afford health care, is already covered on either CICP, Medicaid, or Medicare. Obamacare does nothing except raise costs and shift them onto the middle-class.

pricejj
06-05-2013, 02:13 PM
Not only that, Obamacare is creating a MASSIVE shift in the way many corporations (especially retail) allocate hours. Good luck getting over 30 hours a week if you work in a grocery store. Thanks Obamacare!

Those people who used to have health insurance, and we're making enough money to make ends meet are now either laid-off or cut to below 30 hours and don't qualify for employer sponsored insurance...an even bigger burden on the taxpayer.

Requiem
06-05-2013, 02:21 PM
Because those employers are cheap and would rather get more money than give employees insurance options.

BroncoBeavis
06-05-2013, 03:29 PM
Because those employers are cheap and would rather get more money than give employees insurance options.

This is a pretty retahded argument. What qualifies your average business owner to know more about your health care needs than you do?

Should your employer also provide your family with three squares a day and housing, lest they be "cheap"

Employer-provided health care isn't a solution, it's mostly a problem in and of itself. Born of Depression Era wage controls bolstered by expectations evolving to entitlement.

The Lone Bolt
06-05-2013, 04:35 PM
I'll take that bet. Even CBO estimates at least 30 million Americans will remain uninsured under Obamacare, compared to 40-50 million before it was enacted.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/09/20/cbo-11-million-uninsured-americans-will-be-subject-to-obamacares-individual-mandate-penalty-tax/

We shall see. Even if that's the case it can be addressed through reform.

peacepipe
06-05-2013, 04:39 PM
Based on the word of this clown again? ROFL!

What other choice does he have?

The Lone Bolt
06-05-2013, 05:16 PM
What other choice does he have?

Mea culpa: CBO does make that estimate. However it's clear that Avik Roy is a repub shill and has been putting a relentless negative spin on the ACA.

pricejj
06-05-2013, 05:19 PM
Because those employers are cheap and would rather get more money than give employees insurance options.

Well yeah, especially when prices have continued to skyrocket, there is a mandate, and a monster subsidy is created. Why not shove the burden onto taxpayers?

broncocalijohn
06-05-2013, 05:34 PM
Because those employers are cheap and would rather get more money than give employees insurance options.

LOL! You mean like school districts? They have cut too (not on teachers or salary wages but those that earn by the hour).

Requiem
06-05-2013, 08:05 PM
Them too.