Affordable care act policies not so affordable according to US

[Savannahmann]

In previous posts I pointed out how the President can't really give the order that he gave, the continuation of the canceled policies. There simply isn't enough time to get them renewed, too many hurdles in place. But not to worry, because we're apparently throwing in the towel on any positive talking point we had.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507489/Obamacare-plans-cost-cases-WITH-government-subsidies-Obama-administration-admits-time.html?ICO=most_read_module

The Obama administration has directly conceded for the first time that 'in many cases,' health insurance plans offered through government exchanges are more expensive than plans consumers bought before the Affordable Care Act became law – even when government subsidies are figured in.

In a letter to state insurance commissioners, Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight director Gary Cohen wrote on Thursday that one reason for the new Obamacare measures the president announced Thursday is that millions of consumers receiving cancellation letters from their insurers are learning the Affordable Care Act options are in fact less affordable.

'Although affected individuals and small businesses may access quality health insurance coverage through the new Health Insurance Marketplaces,' Cohen wrote, 'in many cases with federal subsidies, some of them are finding that such coverage would be more expensive than their current coverage, and thus they may [be] dissuaded from immediately transitioning to such coverage.'

Oh in case you were wondering where they got those talking points, the answer is from US, the Democratic Administration.



Well, we helped Chris Christie get elected in New Jersey, now apparently we're determined to do everything we can to get the fucking Republicans elected across the board in 2014.

[frazzled]

1. Um, yes ... because their new coverage actually, um, COVERS things

I don't know how to explain it to you more clearly.

We have minimum standards for automobile insurance--you have to carry certain amounts of liability, for example. And that is more expensive than insurance that doesn't cover anything. In fact, such insurance doesn't exist anymore, because it is illegal.

[Savannahmann]

2. Interesting analogy.

To take that and run with it, allow me to do so. For automobile insurance, a vast majority of the states require only that you have liability. If you are making payments on the car, you are often required to have full coverage, but that is a condition of the loan, not a state law. So we'll stay with the state law for now. The state law requires you to have liability. If you cause an accident, if you are liable for it, then the insurance covers the other guys car or cars that are involved.

However, the state does not mandate that you buy full coverage including protections that you are not even slightly going to use. That aside, let's focus on the problem.

The problem is not that the people may or may not have better coverage. That is debatable, and starting to be debated here. For example, the covered medical procedures for women's health. It's kind of tough to get those procedures done if you can't get in to see an OB/GYN. So exactly how are the people better off if they can't get an appointment with a doctor with the awesome insurance that they are mandated to have? To continue with your analogy, it would be as if we demanded that all the people in New York City, a vast majority of whom own no car, were required to have full coverage automobile insurance. They don't even have a drivers license, but we will make sure they're insured. They can't use it, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that they are protected.

I don't know how many times I have to keep explaining it. We have done a noble thing, we have increased access to the preventative medical establishment for more people. Good, cool, awesome. But we have not increased supply with the increase in demand. Do you think those people who are signing up are going to be happy as clams that they have insurance but can't get an appointment with a doctor because the doctors aren't taking new patients?

My GP might be taking a few new patients. My wifes GP isn't taking any new patients. He hasn't taken new patients in almost five years, and there is a waiting list for those who would like to get in to see him. The partners in the practice are all fully booked six months out. So your appointments for continuing care are set, six months out. For new patients, forget it.

The OB/GYN I mentioned above. The wife needed one. We started by calling those recommended. Then we started calling those with good reputations, and ended up calling every one in the covered provider book until we found one. ONE out of more than thirty that were accepting patients who were not pregnant. The only reason? He was new to the area, and had just joined the practice, a month later, he was booked solid and you couldn't get any new patients in who were NOT PREGNANT.

So what good is the coverage if the covered can't make an appointment? What use is this awesome, and according to the news story, more expensive coverage that actually covers things, according to you, if you can't use it? It is as useless as a New York City Guy who has no car or drivers license having automobile insurance. It would be as useless as a blind man having insurance to cover him as an airplane pilot.

So keep telling people that they have great insurance, and all the procedures it will cover, if they ever find a doctor. I'm sure they'll appreciate that. Because the way this is going, in six more months, we're going to sound like the fucking Republicans when they were proposing federally backed catastrophic insurance policies. Because we're going to be left trumpeting those poor souls who were in auto accidents with horrific injuries and weren't bankrupted because of us.

Think, don't just parrot the talking points, especially the ones that are already dropped by the administration. Think it through, and see that this damned thing is just as likely to be a millstone around our neck as a balloon to lift us.

[frazzled]

3. You can simply buy catastrophic coverage on ACA

That is, if you are young.

Otherwise, as liberals we believe in the "we're all in this together" form of government policy, not the "what's in it for me and screw you" kind of policy favored by libertarians and republicans.

So I'm tired of having this discussion. Men get women pregnant. Pregnancy is a normal medical condition. Children benefit our society (they will change your Depends when you grow old in the nursing home). Stop already.

[Savannahmann]

6. My problem is that I deal in the reality as perceived by the people.

Those people who vote. How do they see things? I'm telling you what I honestly believe is going to be the next few steps, the next six months of this stuff. The position we'll be in going into the 14 elections seriously concerns me. Where we are headed, half hearted attempts to assuage the public, with no long term plan, is tantamount to suicide.

What we should have done is what we must do NOW. Not next year, but now. The President must announce that he is calling on Congress to give enticements for students to choose medical school. We need more doctors, that is painfully obvious, and is going to be even more obvious in the very near future as people start to call around to make an appointment and break in their new "Obamacare" (I still don't like that name, it's the ACA for fucks sake) card and find that there are no appointments available.

Care to guess what the news stories will be then, or would you rather be surprised and furious at the fucking Republicans for doing that to us too?

[frazzled]

8. Stop worrying about Republicans

and just advocate for what is right.

[lancer78]

10. The problem with that

is that medical schools restrict the number of students.

[geek tragedy]

13. So now it's Obama's fault that it's hard to get into medical school? nt

[geek tragedy]

11. We let cars die because their owners can't afford to repair them.

Do you suggest we do that with people who decide to buy junk healthcare policies?

If the answer is "no" then economically we in society are much better off if people get preventive care, and they will get preventive care in many cases only if it's covered by insurance.

You are spouting libertarian talking points on this.

[Sheri]

15. +1 nt

[leftstreet]

4. Time to launch Operation Fix It Later n/t

[Savannahmann]

9. That has been part of the point I've been making for months here.

But all we do is cheerlead the awesomeness of the intent, and the eventual outcome. An outcome that is frankly, even more obviously impossible than I thought.

[woo me with science]

12. +1

Like the Patriot Act.

Like Dodd-Frank (which is already being dismantled rather than "fixed.&quot

Like the NDAA (signed "reluctantly&quot

Like the austerity deals.

What a scam.

[Doctor_J]

14. There won't be time

I fear the party is going to take such an ass-kicking over this a year from now that it will take years to recover. How is it possible that even after waiting 3 years to roll it out, it still has so many problems? So discouraging.

[woo me with science]

5. The real problem, of bloodsucking corporate middlemen and spiraling costs, was not addressed

and was never meant to be addressed. The mandate and a captive consumer base were the goals all along.

ACA manipulates the public by offering the illusion that people pay less.

The reality is that costs and profits continue to skyrocket. The subsidies help certain individuals pay the obscene costs (and built-in, obscene profit margins), but they also guarantee that the overall predatory system, with skyrocketing costs and obscene profits for middlemen who contribute nothing to healthcare, is strengthened and entrenched.

We pay for the subsidies with our tax dollars. The INSURANCE companies, not the people, receive these subsidies.

Every single dollar that is funneled into the pockets of health insurance vultures is not going into education, infrastructure, or social services.

We are farm animals, ATM's for these predators.

[MineralMan]

7. See my thread at the link for a different look at it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024038223

This is just one policy with one state exchange, but...