**UPDATE** New Obamacare Reality Setting in: 8M in exchanges, 35% are < 35 yrs old

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
lol Studies - because experts need to lie too.

I have a close friend, 62 years of age, who has had an individual policy with Assurant Health for the past 30 years. Each year he gets a rate increase. He just received his renewal notice for June: His yearly premium is $19,900 for a $6000 deductible plan that pays 90% after that. I checked the cost of Platinum ACA plans in Virginia, and the cost of a BC/BS PPO plan with 0 deductible, a $2000 yearly maximum out of pocket, and which pays 90% of the cost of claims is $13,200 a year; silver plans are MUCH cheaper than that (about $6000 a year). Of course my friend was a fool for not converting this year, but that's a hell of a lot of money he can save for a hell of a lot better plan.
I have a close friend of about the same age whose individual BCBS policy costs her maybe 8 grand a year IIRC. She's diabetic and on several medications, but her income is low enough to qualify for a decent subsidy and high enough to cover the subsidy. Her Obamacare policy after subsidy will either be about 60% of that or about the same but with much better coverage. So far she hasn't jumped because she hates Obama (bad reason) and wants to make sure her medications are actually covered (good reason.) Hopefully next year.

As with any huge government program there are winners and losers. If you happen to be one of the winners, for G_d's sake go for it. Spend your own tax money on you without it being recycled through government and maybe getting back to you. Refusing to get on board does not help the losers a bit. And rest assured, you'll be one of the losers soon enough to make it all balance out.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
lol Studies - because experts need to lie too.


I have a close friend of about the same age whose individual BCBS policy costs her maybe 8 grand a year IIRC. She's diabetic and on several medications, but her income is low enough to qualify for a decent subsidy and high enough to cover the subsidy. Her Obamacare policy after subsidy will either be about 60% of that or about the same but with much better coverage. So far she hasn't jumped because she hates Obama (bad reason) and wants to make sure her medications are actually covered (good reason.) Hopefully next year.

As with any huge government program there are winners and losers. If you happen to be one of the winners, for G_d's sake go for it. Spend your own tax money on you without it being recycled through government and maybe getting back to you. Refusing to get on board does not help the losers a bit. And rest assured, you'll be one of the losers soon enough to make it all balance out.

Ouch, again. She's paying $3K more per year for a much worse coverage?
Hating Obama is an expensive hobby indeed.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Ouch, again. She's paying $3K more per year for a much worse coverage?
Hating Obama is an expensive hobby indeed.
To be fair, it's not all hating Obama. She knows some people who jumped to Obamacare and then found out that their particular medications are not actually covered. Yes, your disease is covered; no more pre-existing exclusions. However, treatment for your disease is not covered. Instead, you must go on the inexpensive treatment your doctor first tried that didn't work well for you. So it makes sense to be extra careful before jumping on a plan that looks good. And it might not be quite $3k more - although it might also be more. I can't recall the numbers, but it was a significant amount. She's in the sweet zone, she has a good individual policy with enough income to cover subsidies but not so much to disqualify her from them.

On our company health insurance, we still have had no official notification from BCBS so I have no idea what we'll have after June. I'm hoping BCBS will continue our existing policies, but I can certainly understand the additional expenses in running two completely different systems side by side. But I'm getting more certain that BCBS intends to offer us something, else surely they would have notified us by now as tomorrow's the 60 day mark to expiration.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Not excluding the possibility that individual plan could be better than exchange plan, and rational reasons to pick the individual plan. But people who bought into the anti-Obamacare propaganda are not making a rational informed decision, which can be a very expensive proposition, as is often the case when one is driven by emotions and not hard numbers.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Not excluding the possibility that individual plan could be better than exchange plan, and rational reasons to pick the individual plan. But people who bought into the anti-Obamacare propaganda are not making a rational informed decision, which can be a very expensive proposition, as is often the case when one is driven by emotions and not hard numbers.

What we recently discovered when we signed up is that Kaiser plans are basically the same deal on the exchange or direct from them once your income precludes subsidy. Their site-

https://healthy.kaiserpermanente.org/html/kaiser/index.shtml

lets people rough it in to get ballpark numbers, anyway. If nothing else, it lets all the people who have employer sponsored coverage understand what it would cost them if that coverage went away. If the spouse with the coverage gets laid off or retires. If they really want to start a business, if they're unexpectedly pregnant, whatever.

It's reality. People should check it out.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Obamacare well on it's way to being called ACA by Republicans. Can't give POTUS too much credit when it's finally clear it helps most people.

Maybe now we'll get more states to expand Medicaid and close the gap for those 1M or so who have fallen through. But for Repubs, of course, positive ACA changes can only come after the 2014 mid-terms.
qf5245b769.jpg
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
8 million out of 300 million in population? That is about 2% or maybe as high as 8% of the families, assuming everyone is paying for their insurance. So what about all those millions of people who get their insurance from their employer? If Obama Care is so great, why did they delay its implementation?

No one has payed the Obama Care Tax yet! Oh yeah, you must pay the tax.

What about the cadilac plan tax also?
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
If Obama Care is so great, why did they delay its implementation?

Because of the elections. It's one thing to try and get Democrats back in control of the house when you lied to 10 million insured people, it's quite another when it's more like 100 million.
 

cyclohexane

Platinum Member
Feb 12, 2005
2,837
19
81
Because of the elections. It's one thing to try and get Democrats back in control of the house when you lied to 10 million insured people, it's quite another when it's more like 100 million.

Lol. I thought the world was supposed to end after Obamacare passed? What happened?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Obamacare well on it's way to being called ACA by Republicans. Can't give POTUS too much credit when it's finally clear it helps most people.

Maybe now we'll get more states to expand Medicaid and close the gap for those 1M or so who have fallen through. But for Repubs, of course, positive ACA changes can only come after the 2014 mid-terms.
qf5245b769.jpg
Helps most people? Nah, not even close. Helps some people at an acceptable cost for most people? Looks like it, from my view.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
I thought we could keep our insurance/doctor/hospital. I thought premiums were going to go down by $2500 on average. What happened?
what alternative reality did you come from............who ever said premiums go down on average $2500....now that's funny!!
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
what alternative reality did you come from............who ever said premiums go down on average $2500....now that's funny!!
When altering history to suit, you might want to realize that history is now recorded, bucko.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,163
136
Ok stop here...
What obamacare simply was and is, is the same old system but now with insurance pools all consisting of the same PRIVATE insurers working outside the typical employer based box.
Typically in the past, most people were offered insurance from the employer where private insurers worked directly with employers to provide such coverage to employees.

Obamacare simply went outside the box of employer based and allowed the very same private insurers to work in pools going directly to customer regardless of employment.
So nothing really changed other that the employer was taken out of the picture.
Then, to provide and ensure quality, new rules and requirements were established like removal of cap limits and eliminate the pre exisiting clause.
That's it. That's obamacare.
No gubernment takeover. No universal insurance. Just the same-o same-o, but now private insurance and the customer can work directly together. Emoyment requirements need not apply.
The government did provide a buffer or link between the customer and pool insurance providers, that ACA website, which proved unable to handle the volume.
These same customers could have and many actually did just work directly with a states pool provider and bypass the ACA site.
The ACA site was just a redirecting link between the customer and their state pool provider insurance companies taking part.

Anywho... So it's no big mystery this reform has been proven so popular and successful.
All people are doing is getting the same damn insurance as before, but now without the employer pinned in the middle.

The thing here is for everyone is to take note of exactly how anti healthcare groups like house republicans and the Koch clan tried and tried to fool the potential customer into thinking obamacare was some massive gubernment insurance takeover and a commie plot.
Remember how they lie. And their evil of deception.
They WILL try it again another day, another issue.
But next time you'll be a little bit wiser to their shit.
Hopefully....
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,255
136
Helps most people? Nah, not even close. Helps some people at an acceptable cost for most people? Looks like it, from my view.

I think there are a lot of things in ACA that help most people. People just don't really give it credit. I know a lot of people that like that they can leave their kids on their insurance until 26. No pre-existing conditions helps out A LOT of people. ACA mandates that jaw joint issues be covered, which has never been true on any of my previous coverage.

No life time max helps a lot of people too. I know people that had to change jobs because they had a premmie and hit the life time max before the kid was 6 months.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66bgpRRSDD4

There is more times on there than I can count.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...are-health-insurance-premiums-havent-gone-do/

Under Obamacare, health insurance premiums haven't gone down, they've gone up, Ron Johnson says

When it comes to statistics, chart-loving U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson seems like the guy who tries to get his comb-over just-so before he goes out for the evening.

Meticulous.

But the Wisconsin Republican wasn&#8217;t pointing to any charts (that we could see) on Dec. 5, 2013 when he did a Fox News Radio interview about one of the federal laws he most likes to skewer:

The Affordable Care Act.

"It&#8217;s not affordable," Johnson stated on "Kilmeade and Friends" before making this claim about health insurance premiums.

"An average (annual) plan for a family didn't go down by $2,500, it's gone up about $2,500."

So, Johnson is saying that premiums are $2,500 more in 2013 than when Obamacare became law in 2010, and linkin the law to the increase.

Let&#8217;s give the senator&#8217;s claim a fine-tooth examination.

Down $2,500

When Johnson said premiums didn&#8217;t go down, he was referring to a promise made by candidate Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. Obama pledged to sign a health care bill into law that would "cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."

PolitiFact National rated that a Promise Broken.

Now let's see what happened to premiums.

Up $2,500

In saying the annual premium has gone up $2,500, Johnson&#8217;s office cited figures from the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health policy research group.

More specifically, we&#8217;re looking at the size of the premium for an employer-sponsored family plan -- that is, the total premium paid by the employer and the employee.

About 60 percent of Americans under the age of 65 get their health insurance from their employer.

Here are the national averages from Kaiser for the past 10 years.


Year

Annual family health insurance premium

Percentage increase


2004

$9,950

--


2005

$10,880

9.34


2006

$11,480

5.51


2007

$12,106

5.45


2008

$12,680

4.74


2009

$13,375

5.48


2010

$13,770

2.95


2011

$15,073

9.46


2012

$15,745

4.46


2013

$16,351

3.85



(Note: Kaiser says that based on the way its survey of employers is done, it rounds when referring to percentages. For example, Kaiser would say the increase from 2004 to 2005 was 9 percent.)

So, as Johnson indicated, the average annual premium was $2,581 higher in 2013 than when the Affordable Care Act was adopted in 2010.

But premiums rose each year before Obamacare, too.

Why up $2,500?

Johnson policy advisor Patrick McIlheran told us the senator was merely observing in the radio interview that premiums had risen in spite of Obama's promise.

But implicit in Johnsons' claim is that Obamacare, to some extent, is responsible.

The Kaiser figures show a premium increase of 9 percent in 2011, about a year after the health reform law was adopted. But one could argue that the longer the law has been in effect, the lower the premium increases have been (under 5 percent in 2012 and under 4 percent in 2013).

Experts say, however, that a number of factors -- including the recession and the sluggish economic recovery -- affect premiums. Moreover, there is no consensus that enough time has passed to determine what effect the Affordable Care Act -- much of which doesn&#8217;t even take effect until 2014 -- has had on premiums, particularly for employer-sponsored plans.

The president&#8217;s Council on Economic Advisers, in a November 2013 report, argues there is a connection between the law and a slowdown in health care costs overall. But the report also notes "the causes of the slowdown are not yet fully understood."

Health economist Gail Wilensky, the former head of Medicare and Medicaid under President George H.W. Bush, told us increases in premiums have slowed, "but I&#8217;m one of those people who thinks that has nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act."

And when The Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post, did a factcheck in September 2013 about Obamacare and premiums, he said the law&#8217;s impact "is just now being calculated, adding: "Trust us -- no one really knows yet."

So, whether Obamacare has helped raise, or kept a lid, on premiums remains largely unknown.

Our rating

Johnson said that under Obama&#8217;s health-care law, the premium for "an average plan for a family didn't go down by $2,500 per year, it's gone up about $2,500 per year."

Johnson is correct that by 2013, three years after the Affordable Care Act became law, the total average premium for employer-provided family insurance had risen by $2,500 per year. But experts say there is little or no evidence that Obamacare is responsible.

We rate Johnson&#8217;s statement Half True
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
*yawn*...you till won`t see a Republican president for many, many years...get over it...

You have a strange way of admitting you were wrong. And now you are psychic. Just remember, the voters threw the baby out with the bathwater in 2008 by blaming all republicans for Bush's ills. Maybe 2016 will be different. I certainly wouldn't bet money on an election one way or another.