Naive, bulldozed by Obamacare

[Darrell KSR]

Going to have to review my packet of BC/BS insurance information very carefully to see if it really says what I think it says.

Starting January 1, my health insurance premiums QUADRUPLE. Seriously.

$372 per month to almost $1600 per month. More than 4x.

By the way, the $372 per month is for a high deductible, $6,500 annual deductible. So we eat the first $6500 in out-of-pocket medical costs, but we're protected against a) very high medical costs, and b) non-insurance rates. Lot easier to pay BC/BS rates for doctor bills, prescriptions, etc.

I expected it was going to double. But I did not expect this. This is crazy. I am hopeful, when I have a chance to dig through it, that it is the gold plan, where I can reduce the cost by absorbing the high deductible like I've always done.

Sheesh. Forget going to sleep anytime soon. Too mad.

[Catonahottinroof]

Jaw dropping.....

[CitizenBBN]

It's going to be very ugly.

Saw a brief thing on CNN tonight from a GOP House member who laid out, between the lines, an interesting theory on the reason the GOP has made this big stand on Obamacare. They feel it will be a disaster but their polling indicated, get this, that a lot of voters didn't see the GOP as anti-Obamacare and the Democrats as pro-Obamacare. They didn't associate it with the congressional races. So this wasn't really to stop it but to define it as a campaign issue in 2014. They're betting it is a disaster and when it is they want Americans to see the GOP as having fought so hard to stop it and the Dems fighting to keep it.

That's an aside from your problem, and that of millions of other Americans who were promised they could "keep their current insurance", b/c what they didn't mention is that many if not most policies out there won't meet the legal requirements, so you'll end up being forced to have a new policy.

Hang in there. Maybe if it's an unmitigated disaster it will force some real change and improvement. About the only silver lining I can even try to come up with at this point.

[Catonahottinroof]

Hang in there. Maybe if it's an unmitigated disaster it will force some real change and improvement. About the only silver lining I can even try to come up with at this point.

They quickest way to fix it is to remove exemptions.....from EVERYONE, including law makers. It would be fixed in short order.

[Doc]

This can't be correct. I'm calling BS as insurance costs are to go down by $2500/yr, or at least that was a selling point.

One of the biggest pbms of this law is that the govt has a cookie cutter one-size-fits-all mentality that hurts people who plan well. You are legally bound to carry a policy with a low deduct able and therefore forced to have a higher premium because the govt has decided that a high deduct able isn't a adequate approach.

[Doc]

It's going to be very ugly.

Saw a brief thing on CNN tonight from a GOP House member who laid out, between the lines, an interesting theory on the reason the GOP has made this big stand on Obamacare. They feel it will be a disaster but their polling indicated, get this, that a lot of voters didn't see the GOP as anti-Obamacare and the Democrats as pro-Obamacare. They didn't associate it with the congressional races. So this wasn't really to stop it but to define it as a campaign issue in 2014. They're betting it is a disaster and when it is they want Americans to see the GOP as having fought so hard to stop it and the Dems fighting to keep it.

That's an aside from your problem, and that of millions of other Americans who were promised they could "keep their current insurance", b/c what they didn't mention is that many if not most policies out there won't meet the legal requirements, so you'll end up being forced to have a new policy.

Hang in there. Maybe if it's an unmitigated disaster it will force some real change and improvement. About the only silver lining I can even try to come up with at this point.

Its a good theory however when the cave, and they will, it will again be seen as the spineless party who repeated gives up their principles but be painted as the obstructionist. Funny that it has gone from refund to delay while the democrats have not adjusted (aka negotiate) their position even the slightest yet its the radical tea party and gop that is unreasonable. The democrats refuse because "its the law". Well slavery was the law at one point. Racial discrimination was the law at one point. Prohibition was the law at one point. Women not having the right to vote was the law at one point. See, just because something is the law doesn't make it right. All laws are amendable or revolkable. So the gop should not quit fight but rather do a better job of getting out the message

[UKHistory]

I hope that is not right. What a staggering increase.

Doc's point about exisitng laws that were repealed. I am of the belief that if Obamacare is that catastrophic to the citizens (hurting the middle class terribly as Darrell's information suggests) that the law will be repealed.

Based on the system glitches we have seen, I think the GOP was best served to letting the law go into effect and based on the problems rally the people to repeal the law.

Sequestration, government shutdown and default threats are not the way to govern.

Obama can communicate effectively with people one on one it seems but the manner in which the Tea Party has gone about its efforts is poorly designed and is even worse in its execution.

What we have is a complete abdication of leadership on all fronts. We are one step closer to a dictatorship in the country. With the Patriot Act, the Obama Administration's use of the Espionage Act, the Tea Party Antics and the like we are step closer to a dictatorship and the death of America's democracy and the middle class quality of life.

[DanISSELisdaman]

The main problem that we have is the media. They no longer report the truth but are willing to back up the Administration in whatever they do. When it don't work out (which seems to always be the case with this Administration) they transfer the blame. It was Bush's fault for the first 4 years, now it's the Republican party's or Tea Party's fault. There's no such thing as admitting that they were wrong or accepting responsibility for anything. Until the media starts holding everyone responsible for their deeds, there will be4 no hope for things to get better. Lies abound and are upheld as being the truth and the real truth is swept out the door. I'm sick of what our country has become.

[CitizenBBN]

Doesn't do you a lick of good, but you are far from alone:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...sticker-shock/

[Catonahottinroof]

When the NSA has every text, every call a media member (or congress member for that matter)has, it's hard for them to do their job and keep that precious access media folks crave.

The main problem that we have is the media. They no longer report the truth but are willing to back up the Administration in whatever they do. When it don't work out (which seems to always be the case with this Administration) they transfer the blame. It was Bush's fault for the first 4 years, now it's the Republican party's or Tea Party's fault. There's no such thing as admitting that they were wrong or accepting responsibility for anything. Until the media starts holding everyone responsible for their deeds, there will be4 no hope for things to get better. Lies abound and are upheld as being the truth and the real truth is swept out the door. I'm sick of what our country has become.

[KeithKSR]

One of the biggest pbms of this law is that the govt has a cookie cutter one-size-fits-all mentality that hurts people who plan well. You are legally bound to carry a policy with a low deduct able and therefore forced to have a higher premium because the govt has decided that a high deduct able isn't a adequate approach.

Deductibles, like premiums, are spiking dramatically. I saw on the news minutes ago a piece on Obamacare in Illinois that indicated that deductibles for all but the highest insurance rate were $8,000.

The average family is going to pay a small fortune to have insurance that they cannot use under Obamacare.

[jazyd]

One of my doctors told me this morning that in 5 years we will not recognize our health care industry, that is will be a total disaster. One of the procedures he does for older patients takes him 45 to 60 min on a particular machine, but under Obamacare his re-imbursement has been cut so much that he is actually paying the patient to have the procedure done and he probably will cut out most of his patients on this as he can't afford all his overhead and still do that procedure. He said not only will he not be reimburse for what it costs, but he could be seeing other patients that he could at least make so money on.

[KeithKSR]

One of my doctors told me this morning that in 5 years we will not recognize our health care industry, that is will be a total disaster. One of the procedures he does for older patients takes him 45 to 60 min on a particular machine, but under Obamacare his re-imbursement has been cut so much that he is actually paying the patient to have the procedure done and he probably will cut out most of his patients on this as he can't afford all his overhead and still do that procedure. He said not only will he not be reimburse for what it costs, but he could be seeing other patients that he could at least make so money on.

Many doctors are discussing not accepting any insurance and taking only payments from patients.

[CitizenBBN]

Many doctors are discussing not accepting any insurance and taking only payments from patients.

I've run across more than one already doing it.

here's a novel idea: charge a reasonable amount based on return and cost and I'll pay you and we'll cut out all the overhead.

Give me dictator powers for a year and we can fix health care. We'll have to make some tough choices people don't want to hear, but we'll have very good care, customer service levels will be higher, and we wont' bankrupt the nation to do it.


Darrell any word on whether that number is correct/written in stone?

[Darrell KSR]

Yeah. That's the right number for the recommended plan. I wasn't kidding. I "slightly" exaggerated--it's $1559 a month, but it is quadruple.

I have not had a chance to look at what other options they have--NONE on what they sent me, but there's a link I can go to "switch" the policy to something else. I can't believe it's my same high deductible plan, but it acts like it is apples to apples.

My daughter plays volleyball with a girl whose father is similarly self-employed, and also has BC/BS insurance. His more than doubled, to $1100+ per month. I am not sure why mine went to $1559--mine was less than his before the change, and now is a lot more.

Alabama is the worst state in the country for health insurance choices, I understand. So my options may be limited.

[UKHistory]

Darrell,

That is horrible. Why is Alabama so bad? I find the insurance companies to be the greediest and worst in corporate America (oil companies and banks second and 3rd respectively).

It seems to me that more people being insured would increase revenue for the insurance companies and should lower--or certainly maintain prices--for the rest of us.

My best doctors in DC don't take insurance. It is not worth the hassle. So my urologist I pay up front and get virtually nothing back when I see him.

I left my primary doctor because he no longer took insurance.

Yeah. That's the right number for the recommended plan. I wasn't kidding. I "slightly" exaggerated--it's $1559 a month, but it is quadruple.

I have not had a chance to look at what other options they have--NONE on what they sent me, but there's a link I can go to "switch" the policy to something else. I can't believe it's my same high deductible plan, but it acts like it is apples to apples.

My daughter plays volleyball with a girl whose father is similarly self-employed, and also has BC/BS insurance. His more than doubled, to $1100+ per month. I am not sure why mine went to $1559--mine was less than his before the change, and now is a lot more.

Alabama is the worst state in the country for health insurance choices, I understand. So my options may be limited.

[Catonahottinroof]

Figure an actuary table with the folks that are not insured and cap the premiums on the payers that exist and you'll find that it's not the insurance company being greedy, it's simply math of a 9.5% premium dollar cap against a larger group of insureds. The average John Q Public who voted for this administration thinking things were going to be free are sadly low info, misinformed people.

It's a noble cause, but the math of the situation didin't add up and it never did.

Darrell,

That is horrible. Why is Alabama so bad? I find the insurance companies to be the greediest and worst in corporate America (oil companies and banks second and 3rd respectively).

It seems to me that more people being insured would increase revenue for the insurance companies and should lower--or certainly maintain prices--for the rest of us.

My best doctors in DC don't take insurance. It is not worth the hassle. So my urologist I pay up front and get virtually nothing back when I see him.

I left my primary doctor because he no longer took insurance.

[UKHistory]

With that being the case, then in short order there should be enough Americans who can then elect a Congress who can repeal the law.

Will the insurance companies lower the prices at that point?

It takes time but that seems a way to go. Once more Americans are confronted this reality, we cal work to repeal it.

Figure an actuary table with the folks that are not insured and cap the premiums on the payers that exist and you'll find that it's not the insurance company being greedy, it's simply math of a 9.5% premium dollar cap against a larger group of insureds. The average John Q Public who voted for this administration thinking things were going to be free are sadly low info, misinformed people.

It's a noble cause, but the math of the situation didin't add up and it never did.

[Catonahottinroof]

I'm not sure if that will ever happen. Too many party only voters on both sides of the aisle.
Not many found any humor in Romney's comment about 46% not paying into the federal tax system. Unfortunately now, it is being proven with those who are employed and paying premiums are on the hook for the 46% who aren't paying taxes, or into the system that all but those exempt are forced to use.

Some aspects of Obamacare are right on reform. Forcing insurance companies to cross state lines to compete and allowing your children up to 26 to be on a parents policy.
The 20 something's of the nation are rarely catastrophically ill. Some choose to be self insured because they can afford to be.
Other aspects are nothing more than control of the populace and the IRS will be the enforcement arm to do it.

With that being the case, then in short order there should be enough Americans who can then elect a Congress who can repeal the law.

Will the insurance companies lower the prices at that point?

It takes time but that seems a way to go. Once more Americans are confronted this reality, we cal work to repeal it.

[Doc]

I'm not sure if that will ever happen. Too many party only voters on both sides of the aisle.
Not many found any humor in Romney's comment about 46% not paying into the federal tax system. Unfortunately now, it is being proven with those who are employed and paying premiums are on the hook for the 46% who aren't paying taxes, or into the system that all but those exempt are forced to use.

Some aspects of Obamacare are right on reform. Forcing insurance companies to cross state lines to compete and allowing your children up to 26 to be on a parents policy.
The 20 something's of the nation are rarely catastrophically ill. Some choose to be self insured because they can afford to be.
Other aspects are nothing more than control of the populace and the IRS will be the enforcement arm to do it.

Many folks wanted removal of restrictions by states to allow sale of insurance across state lines. I'm fairly sure that was a state issue. As for children, I was on my parent's policy until I graduated college regardless, age didn't matter. The policy I had prior to the implementation of ACA covered my children in a similar manner. Carriers who did that were out there prior to any health insurance reform and people who wanted them could buy them. Difference is that now folks who don't want it or need it have to pay for it. Much of the bloated costs are due to the requirements mandate by the gov't. My policy now provides birth control. Were I or my wife to purchase it, its covered. Of course we have no need for it (because she has been "fixed") but our policy still provides it. Likewise, a childless couple will still have a policy that covers children til age 26 even though they don't have children. Many folks were comfortable with high deductible policies that had lower premiums. Those no longer are an option because Uncle Sam has decided what is an acceptable deductible. Many had policies with higher co-pays so their premiums were lower. Gov't decided that wasn't an "acceptable" thing because it does not work for the poor. Rather than allow folks to decide what they want and need, the gov't has set minimum and you have no choice but to pay for those services you might not want or don't need.

[Catonahottinroof]

Doc, I'm not aware of any state restriction that was keeping insurance companies from crossing state lines other than increasing premium dollars where the health of the populace is lower than the standard of their current underwriting.
I work for an insurance company. Our HR benefit folks find the best deals for me i do believe. I did however find it silly that my anthem policy in Kentucky was $200 more per month than the same policy was for a coworker who lives in Indiana.
Anthem allows my kids on policy till 21 regardless of school, and 23 if a full time student. I have been in a Humana policy in the past that didn't allow kids on the policy after 18 unless they lived in my home.
Nothing was blanket about what insurers offer.

As I understand from my HR folks, in 2015 if a spouse works full time job that spouse will be forced to use their own employer's coverage and cannot be under their spouses family policy. If the employer pays the fine, that employee will need to go to the exchanges even though a spouse and children are on a family policy.

The entire situation is effed to the Nth degree.

[CitizenBBN]

Darrell,

That is horrible. Why is Alabama so bad? I find the insurance companies to be the greediest and worst in corporate America (oil companies and banks second and 3rd respectively).

.

What do they all have in common? Massive government regulation that protects them from competition.

[Catonahottinroof]

Chuck, insurers have the threat of the single payer system that cuts them out of the loop, and at the end of the day that is where health care is going.

[CitizenBBN]

I agree, but that's just government replacing them, pure socialized medicine, not competition.

How many people are screaming that smart phones aren't fast, cheap and good enough? No one. Why? the market for technology isn't controlled from one end to the other by government, so you have entry and exit into the market, strong competition to encourage innovation and no regulation to prevent new ideas and ways of doing things.

Health care is almost totally devoid of market forces thanks to 50 years of government intervention. Thus the disaster we see today.

[KeithKSR]

I'm not sure if that will ever happen. Too many party only voters on both sides of the aisle.
Not many found any humor in Romney's comment about 46% not paying into the federal tax system. Unfortunately now, it is being proven with those who are employed and paying premiums are on the hook for the 46% who aren't paying taxes, or into the system that all but those exempt are forced to use.

Some aspects of Obamacare are right on reform. Forcing insurance companies to cross state lines to compete and allowing your children up to 26 to be on a parents policy.
The 20 something's of the nation are rarely catastrophically ill. Some choose to be self insured because they can afford to be.
Other aspects are nothing more than control of the populace and the IRS will be the enforcement arm to do it.

Insurance companies do not compete across state lines, it is currently legislated against. That is a GOP idea to help lower rates, as some states currently have few insurance companies to compete within their state, and competition will help lower rates.

The current Tea Party leaders in the House were swept in to office by Obamacare, and were it not for the IRS/Obama campaign against endorsers of the Tea Party we may have seen even larger gains in 2012, and perhaps Obama would also have been defeated.

The DNC attempts to demonize the Tea Party because they are a more accurate reflection of the average American than either the RINOs or Dems. Polls indicate that Americans recognize the dangers of our mounting debt and need to get control of the spending by the government. The Tea Party is closer to Libertarian than Republican, but outside of urban America Libertarian ideals are more highly favored than people who favor those ideals realize. In other words people don't even realize they are Libertarians at heart. As the more Libertarian-Fiscal Conservatives become a larger segment of Congress the more likely to bid adieu to Obamacare.

[CitizenBBN]

The Economist did a survey many years ago that concluded as much as 60% of Americans are more accurately called Libertarian than any other political group, and I'd say that's not far off. Maybe 50%, but it's sizable. Out of my bedroom and out of my wallet.

The Tea Party is a broad group of largely Libertarian subgroups who are basically just fed up and feel they have no voice. they have no voice b/c neither of the 2 political parties are anything close to Libertarian. Both are holding hands and happily agreeing on the need for the NSA to accumulate our personal data and spy on every American for purposes of "national security", both are happy to spend like drunken sailors and both are all for more government regulation just differing on which group it should favor.

Hopefully the Tea party can pull off the GOP coup and at least one major party will again be committed to liberty and limited government. I think it will happen in the end but right now both parties pretty much equally want them to be crushed and go away and stop putting wrenches in the tax and spend world of Washington.

[UKHistory]

I would say that people were better off in the land line world with Ma Bell before the break up of the monopoly.

I don't have a smart phone yet. I got cell phones for emergencies. Guess what? They are totally worthless in a real crisis.

911? Didn't work. Earthquake in DC? Didn't work? Hurricanes? Fair. I know that is not the focus of your argument but had to comment.

There are a lot of issues with the way the health care act has been created.

Health care has become a racket for a lot of reasons. Government is a part of it. The drug companies play a role, the rash of foreign doctors to the States.

My wife had surgery a few years ago. While recovering I don't how many doctors came into check on her, billed the insurance and bumped up the price we paid.

Those were not her doctors. It is almost like they say, "we've got a patient unconscious go check on her and bill $1,000. It was unreal how the costs went up. Or just the damn cost of a tylenol in the hospital.

INSANE.

I agree, but that's just government replacing them, pure socialized medicine, not competition.

How many people are screaming that smart phones aren't fast, cheap and good enough? No one. Why? the market for technology isn't controlled from one end to the other by government, so you have entry and exit into the market, strong competition to encourage innovation and no regulation to prevent new ideas and ways of doing things.

Health care is almost totally devoid of market forces thanks to 50 years of government intervention. Thus the disaster we see today.

[jazyd]

You have to remember that now insurance companies have to give coverage to anyone that has a pre existing condition. So Darrell who has not had any insurance and doesn't want it, suddenly has major heart problems and goes to BCBS for insurance and they have to ggive him coverage. So his bills run $100,000 and he has paid in zero in premiums over the years, guess who pays for that, History does because his payment has to go up to cover all these future medical expenses that the company has not brought in a dime for.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like insurance companies but this new law puts a huge burden on them that they cannot forecast so everyone pays to take care of all those huge medical bills that will come in at a later date. Think how many premiums it would take them at their net profit of around probably 5 % to take care of one $100,000 claim.

[bigsky]

Montana's laws about insurance are so bizarre no other state insurance law qualifies. And we only have a million people. If we allowed people to choose any plan they wanted, (oh, the humanity) from larger pools, our costs would go way down.

[Darrell KSR]

The Economist did a survey many years ago that concluded as much as 60% of Americans are more accurately called Libertarian than any other political group, and I'd say that's not far off. Maybe 50%, but it's sizable. Out of my bedroom and out of my wallet.

.

I believe it. Most people I speak with have a lot of the attributes, but few label themselves that, me included.

Sent using Forum Runner