Republicans know they're in trouble once the website problems are solved

[schmuckley]

ohh..the fail..still doesn't change the fact that you have to buy maternity coverage if you're a 28-yo single male.

Yeah..mathfail is mathfail..lol

 

[EagleKeeper]

Not true.

It actually strengthens your coverage wrt emergency room visits-



https://www.healthcare.gov/how-does-the-health-care-law-protect-me/#part=6

For less urgent matters away from home, nothing changes. A simple call to your carrier will result in a selection of network providers in the area. That doesn't mean there will be one in the middle of nowhere, ND, but it never did.

Using the CO exchange website, clicking on the details of the three providers listed to cover Aurora, all specified Tier 1 and [b[NO out of network[/b]. Kaiser, Humana and Rocky Mountain.

I used to have Cigna before cancellation last month, however, they are not listed as a choice.

I am going to call the CO exchange # next week to find out if I am screwed.

 

[shortylickens]

introducing it cost 360 million, running it is gonna cost a shitload more. In fact for what it cost they should have just given the money away with instructions to purchase insurance.

 

[Jhhnn]

ohh..the fail..still doesn't change the fact that you have to buy maternity coverage if you're a 28-yo single male.

Yeah..mathfail is mathfail..lol

Yeh, it's part of that equality thing between the sexes & the fact that everybody has a mother. If we want healthier children in this country, then we want healthier mothers & skillful delivery of infants. As Americans, we all need to share the cost of that for the good of the country. At least imho.

Hell, I could probably frame a right to life argument around that, huh?

Lack of pre-natal care denies the rights of the unborn. I kinda like it.

Puts a different perspective on selfish privileged male whining.

 

[sactoking]

Not true.

It actually strengthens your coverage wrt emergency room visits-



https://www.healthcare.gov/how-does-the-health-care-law-protect-me/#part=6

For less urgent matters away from home, nothing changes. A simple call to your carrier will result in a selection of network providers in the area. That doesn't mean there will be one in the middle of nowhere, ND, but it never did.

You're misreading that. While the law stipulates that the copay/coinsurance must be paid at the same rate at an OON ER as an in-network ER there's nothing in the law that prevents balance billing by an OON provider. Balance billing is a much larger financial problem than the cost share amount, meaning that the ER protection is only of marginal value.

 

[Jhhnn]

Using the CO exchange website, clicking on the details of the three providers listed to cover Aurora, all specified Tier 1 and [b[NO out of network[/b]. Kaiser, Humana and Rocky Mountain.

I used to have Cigna before cancellation last month, however, they are not listed as a choice.

I am going to call the CO exchange # next week to find out if I am screwed.

You're not quite getting it. Kaiser, for example, has an extensive network a phone call away & has never paid for unauthorized services. Wrong emergency room? Hard to tell them when you're unconscious? Does it matter when your heart isn't beating? You pay.

I've been with Kaiser for 30 years. I know the rules. Lots of people find out the hard way.

Not anymore. They pay. If you're out in the middle of nowhere, you'll be dead anyway, regardless of "network" providers.

What do you want from providers other than emergency service when traveling, anyway?

 

[Jhhnn]

You're misreading that. While the law stipulates that the copay/coinsurance must be paid at the same rate at an OON ER as an in-network ER there's nothing in the law that prevents balance billing by an OON provider. Balance billing is a much larger financial problem than the cost share amount, meaning that the ER protection is only of marginal value.

Thank you for pointing that out. I misunderstood. It still represents an improvement for many policy holders. As a Kaiser member, I'd formerly eat the whole thing, but under the ACA they pay at least part.

If it's a bug, then Congress can fix it, right?

Well, maybe if half of Congress weren't more interested in tearing down govt than running it...

 

[EagleKeeper]

You're not quite getting it. Kaiser, for example, has an extensive network a phone call away & has never paid for unauthorized services. Wrong emergency room? Hard to tell them when you're unconscious? Does it matter when your heart isn't beating? You pay.

I've been with Kaiser for 30 years. I know the rules. Lots of people find out the hard way.

Not anymore. They pay. If you're out in the middle of nowhere, you'll be dead anyway, regardless of "network" providers.

What do you want from providers other than emergency service when traveling, anyway?

When travelling on business, all I need is payment for Urgent Care ($100-200) clinics, Hospital access, ambulatory and meds.

At home, MD visits can come out of my pocket.

Given that there is always a Walgreens nearby, prescription refills can be transferred within there system.

If I can get someone to document that they cover the first three in any state, I will be satisfied.

And it is possible that the web page being displayed is incorrect.

 

[Jhhnn]

When travelling on business, all I need is payment for Urgent Care ($100-200) clinics, Hospital access, ambulatory and meds.

At home, MD visits can come out of my pocket.

Given that there is always a Walgreens nearby, prescription refills can be transferred within there system.

If I can get someone to document that they cover the first three in any state, I will be satisfied.

And it is possible that the web page being displayed is incorrect.

So, uhh, you think you provider should pay for urgent care visits when you're away, but not at home? Wut?

What is your coverage now wrt ambulance service, anyway?

 

[boomerang]

DIANNY RANTS: Democrats Join US Gymnastics Team

The pretzels Democrats are twisting themselves into in order to justify Obama’s blatant lie about “if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan” and the overall failure of the Healthcare.gov site is pretty impressive.

They either have a future with Cirque du Soleil or they can replace Gabby Douglas on the US Gymnastics Team.

 

[michal1980]

So, uhh, you think you provider should pay for urgent care visits when you're away, but not at home? Wut?

What is your coverage now wrt ambulance service, anyway?

Logically that makes sense. When your at home you should be able to make an appointment with a regular DR instead of urgent care.

You wouldn't have a regular DR in a city you don't live in.

 

[EagleKeeper]

When travelling on business, all I need is payment for Urgent Care ($100-200) clinics, Hospital access, ambulatory and meds.

At home, MD visits can come out of my pocket.

Given that there is always a Walgreens nearby, prescription refills can be transferred within there system.

If I can get someone to document that they cover the first three in any state, I will be satisfied.

And it is possible that the web page being displayed is incorrect.

So, uhh, you think you provider should pay for urgent care visits when you're away, but not at home? Wut?

What is your coverage now wrt ambulance service, anyway?

I separate urgent care from a MD visit/treatment. Essentially, I treat it as an doctor in an emergency on the road; where I do not need an ER; but I need help that can not wait until I get back to my local MD.

I bring up the ambulance because a few years ago I had a policy that I found out after the fact, that ambulatory services were not covered. It was more a "discount program and keep you healthy" than insurance but the cost of the bronze plans on the exchange. the discount was no more than I would get by telling the provider that I had no insurance and would be paying for it out of my pocket.

Presently, I am completely exposed until I can get something starting in Jan 2014; Cigna (who I previously had) dropped me as of 1 Nov.

 

[sactoking]

I bring up the ambulance because a few years ago I had a policy that I found out after the fact, that ambulatory services were not covered.

Point of order: while "ambulance" and "ambulatory" have the same root word (ambulate), they don't refer to the same thing. An ambulatory service is essentially an outpatient service, one in which you can ambulate to and from in the same day without assistance.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I bring up the ambulance because a few years ago I had a policy that I found out after the fact, that ambulatory services were not covered.

Point of order: while "ambulance" and "ambulatory" have the same root word (ambulate), they don't refer to the same thing. An ambulatory service is essentially an outpatient service, one in which you can ambulate to and from in the same day without assistance.

When I called the "insurance" help line after having the bill from the ambulance service rejected; I was told that the policy did not cover ambulatory services (air/land).

Apparently; then, the CSR did not know the correct words. No surprise there.

 

[Jhhnn]

I separate urgent care from a MD visit/treatment. Essentially, I treat it as an doctor in an emergency on the road; where I do not need an ER; but I need help that can not wait until I get back to my local MD.

I bring up the ambulance because a few years ago I had a policy that I found out after the fact, that ambulatory services were not covered. It was more a "discount program and keep you healthy" than insurance but the cost of the bronze plans on the exchange. the discount was no more than I would get by telling the provider that I had no insurance and would be paying for it out of my pocket.

Presently, I am completely exposed until I can get something starting in Jan 2014; Cigna (who I previously had) dropped me as of 1 Nov.

So, uhh, your gave the impression that your previous plan covered ambulance service, when it didn't at all, but you complain about the fact that the ACA provides partial payment at worst?

Your complaints about urgent care make no sense, either. If you're willing to pay for urgent care from your regular provider, what's the rationale for thinking insurance should cover it when you're away?

And if Cigna dropped you Nov 1, that's on them, not the ACA. They don't have to make any changes until Jan 1.

 

[compuwiz1]

Please watch this...... I don't care which side of the fence you are on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxWMbqxgMDo

 

[dank69]

Please watch this...... I don't care which side of the fence you are on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxWMbqxgMDo

I'll watch it later but it's telling that the uploader has written "People are figuring out just how much 'free' health care costs" right in the description. ACA was never sold as free healthcare, so that is a straw man. Maybe you can tell us all how that affects the veracity of the video, you know, as an exercise in critical thinking.

 

[TerryMathews]

I'll watch it later but it's telling that the uploader has written "People are figuring out just how much 'free' health care costs" right in the description. ACA was never sold as free healthcare, so that is a straw man. Maybe you can tell us all how that affects the veracity of the video, you know, as an exercise in critical thinking.

The video is obviously partisan, but everything is factually correct, cites sources, and uses sound bites to good effect.

To borrow the only word Dominion knows, this video obviously wasn't produced by Conservatards.

AFAI remember, the video never used that bit of hyperbole (not free...). Uploader just used a bit of creative license there.

Honestly though, its no worse than "war on women", unless you believe that somewhere the Republican party has a unit training to attack women on land, at sea, and in the air...

 

[sactoking]

And if Cigna dropped you Nov 1, that's on them, not the ACA. They don't have to make any changes until Jan 1.

That's only a partial truth. Assuming his renewal date was 11/1/13 then, yes, the ACA does allow that plan to be renewed for one more year. In that sense it was Cigna's discretion.

Working against that is the fact that any plan renewed in such a manner is separate from the overall risk pool, meaning that the administrative load has to be apportioned directly to the plan members and not borne by the entire risk pool. It is a fact that the per-member admin load is larger on a plan with low enrollment than one with high enrollment; the costs aren't linear. If there were a small number of people expected to renew that particular plan, the admin load might have made it untenable. At that point it's better to just cancel. Whose "fault" is that? Is it still Cigna's fault for making the decision even if the legal parameters made it the only viable option?

There's a third factor involved as well: state-based regulation. Some states, especially the "blue" states, have taken the stance that any policy that extends into the 2014 calendar cannot be renewed in 2013 so as not to "deprive" consumers of the wonderful 2014 benefits. There exists the possibility that the plan in question was issued in one such state. If that's the case, whose "fault" is that? Cigna, by law, cannot renew the plan. The state is at fault for making the policy decision, but it's a policy that CCIIO has been pushing heavily.

 

[werepossum]

That's pretty much how it was with the states as well.

We sent an employee to CCIIO in Maryland earlier this year for a training or conference or something and their evaluation of the agency was "You can tell the agency's new, hardly anybody that works there is older than their 20s or 30s and it seems like none of them actually have any insurance experience." That seems to fit with how much of this went down; decisions were made based on theory that had little or no practical value.

Typical with the federal government, instant experts on everything.

Weak, seriously weak. Here: http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/single-people-us

E.g., in 2010 there were 53,000,000 single men in the USA. So, that's not "many of us"? Why the hell do single men need to pay for maternity insurance, a product that they can never use? (And the 53 million number is on the low side because it doesn't include couples who are past child bearing years.)
SNIP

Fern

I suspect a lot of this will equalize out. Assuming that a large number of men and post-menopausal women don't turn up pregnant, Obamacare's 80% limit will tend to knock down some of the massive sudden cost increase. (Assuming that hasn't already been factored in, in which case we're all screwed.) I'd like to say that will also be the case with the mental health requirements, but the number of people voting Obama tends to argue against that.

About your math skills:

It's OK. You're only off by a factor of about one million.

LOL Yeah, those mad math skills made me want to ask if he'd programmed any big web sites lately. "Here's your dollar, now shut the hell up about the high cost of health insurance."

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

sactoking...once the web site issues are resolved...how do you see this playing out in future years as far as policy cancellations, pricing, mandate impact, healthcare quality impact, uninsured impact, emergency room usage, medical resources impact, etc.?

 

[IGBT]

so now the web site doesn't work with mac's?? muwhahah.

 

[schmuckley]

Site seems to be working;as far as I'm willing to go into it.It's still a terrible idea.
Actually the core idea wasn't so bad,just all the added unnecessary stipulations.It would've been better to prosecute the politicians who have been taking bribes every year for 20 years from insurance companies to vote for rate hikes.O wait..that's the whole house and senate;most likely.

 

[conehead433]

The website may actually be working. The people responsible for the follow-up regarding identity verification are not. I uploaded a photocopy of my DL 3 times now in an attempt to get my identity verified and still no response. I give up. Looks like the fed is paying a bunch of people a whole lot of money to do nothing.

 

[IGBT]

try a win 98 box and see if it's any better.