OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[CrimsonWeltall]

Please though, explain the pregnancy care requirement.

 

It's a basic healthcare need?

[NorthSideSox72]

Please though, explain the pregnancy care requirement.

Oh come on, you aren't serious with this one, are you? What happens when your wife/common law gets pregnant, and she is on your insurance? Or your girlfriend gets pregnant, you get married, and THEN add her to your insurance? This doesn't even get into the fact that, regardless of ObamaCare, insurance plans are generalized policies to spread out differentiated risk over a pool, and that you can't economically tailor health plans to each individual's exact needs.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

It's a basic healthcare need?

 

For a single man?

[Jenksismyhero]

Oh come on, you aren't serious with this one, are you? What happens when your wife/common law gets pregnant, and she is on your insurance? Or your girlfriend gets pregnant, you get married, and THEN add her to your insurance? This doesn't even get into the fact that, regardless of ObamaCare, insurance plans are generalized policies to spread out differentiated risk over a pool, and that you can't economically tailor health plans to each individual's exact needs.

 

I understand that health insurance can't be an ala carte menu. But you should have options. A single kid in college has no need for pregnancy care. He's not married, if he knocked some chick up she's not getting that coverage, so it's an absolute waste of money that he is FORCED to pay. It's akin to forcing people to buy a car insurance policy covering semi repairs when you drive a sedan.

 

Edit: and the bolded isn't totally true. If you develop a health issue you're going to buy a more comprehensive insurance plan as time goes by. If you have a family you're going to buy a more comprehensive insurance plan. If you're a single 25 year old male who will most likely never see a doctor except for once a year, you shouldn't be forced to buy an insurance plan that covers medical care you will never, ever use. You should have the option of buying a catastrophic plan just in case you're involved in an unlikely accident.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[CrimsonWeltall]

For a single man?

 

No, but neither is ovarian cancer. Or testicular cancer for women. People who don't have sex get STD coverage. People who don't have legs get podiatrist coverage.

[TaylorStSox]

I'm glad we live in a time where males in their 20's are invincible.

Edited November 13, 2013 by TaylorStSox

[Texsox]

I understand that health insurance can't be an ala carte menu. But you should have options. A single kid in college has no need for pregnancy care. He's not married, if he knocked some chick up she's not getting that coverage, so it's an absolute waste of money that he is FORCED to pay. It's akin to forcing people to buy a car insurance policy covering semi-repairs when you drive a sedan.

 

Edit: and the bolded isn't totally true. If you develop a health issue you're going to buy a more comprehensive insurance plan as time goes by. If you have a family you're going to buy a more comprehensive insurance plan. If you're a single 25 year old male who will most likely never see a doctor except for once a year, you shouldn't be forced to buy an insurance plan that covers medical care you will never, ever use. You should have the option of buying a catastrophic plan just in case you're involved in an unlikely accident.

 

How much of a premium do you believe is for items like you mention versus things like major medical if you get in a car accident (more likely for a young male than an older woman?)

 

How many different items do you want to check off that could or could not happen?

 

And finally, when calculating premiums, do you think that there is a possibility that insurers are thinking that hey, that woman can't get testicular cancer so we'll weigh that risk as very low and are not charging much for it?

[Jenksismyhero]

No, but neither is ovarian cancer. Or testicular cancer for women. People who don't have sex get STD coverage. People who don't have legs get podiatrist coverage.

 

Cancer is a different animal. Most plans that I know of don't break it down by cancer type. Your insurance covers seeing a specialist, labs and treatment options (drugs, chemo, scans, etc). Care related to pregnancy is specific. For example in my wife and I's plan there were certain limits to the number of doctor visits, ultra sounds and scans.

 

If there was a specific cost increase for a woman buying a plan that included prostate exams, I'd have an issue with that as well.

 

 

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

How much of a premium do you believe is for items like you mention versus things like major medical if you get in a car accident (more likely for a young male than an older woman?)

 

How many different items do you want to check off that could or could not happen?

 

And finally, when calculating premiums, do you think that there is a possibility that insurers are thinking that hey, that woman can't get testicular cancer so we'll weigh that risk as very low and are not charging much for it?

 

It's all relatively small i'm sure, but if you're increasing the cost by a dollar it's still too much.

 

At the end of the day you should be able to shop around for a policy that fits your needs. If you want to gamble that you'll never get sick and don't need to pay for that coverage, hey that's your gamble and you'll be stuck with the consequences of it. It's not societies role to ensure that you won't make stupid decisions.

[Texsox]

It's all relatively small i'm sure, but if you're increasing the cost by a dollar it's still too much.

 

At the end of the day you should be able to shop around for a policy that fits your needs. If you want to gamble that you'll never get sick and don't need to pay for that coverage, hey that's your gamble and you'll be stuck with the consequences of it. It's not societies role to ensure that you won't make stupid decisions.

 

Should the consequences be that you do not receive treatment if you are in an automobile accident and can't come up with the cash? How about receiving treatment for cancer? Should hospitals be allowed to turn you away and have you die? That has been the problem. As a society we have been unwilling to allow people to truly feel the consequences of their decision. It's easy to say they should have to pay the consequences, but the consequence is usually you receive treatment and the hospital sends you a bill that you may or may not pay.

[Balta1701]

[DukeNukeEm]

So Obama is gonna let people keep their plans for a year. Those evil tyrannical plans this bill supposedly killed.

 

Its ridiculous how much of a mess this thing is and how desperately hes trying to force us into liking it.

[Texsox]

So Obama is gonna let people keep their plans for a year. Those evil tyrannical plans this bill supposedly killed.

 

Its ridiculous how much of a mess this thing is and how desperately hes trying to force us into liking it.

 

What solution would you have prefered?

 

I like the requirement that the insurer explain why the plan is deficient.

[Balta1701]

What solution would you have prefered?

 

I like the requirement that the insurer explain why the plan is deficient.

This plan could cause severe problems because it forces new, below-market rate policies back onto the market rapidly, when rates for next year have already been set based on previous expectations of demand for them, when the computer systems have been set up with the expectation that those plans would be ending.

 

"This will make figuring out the computer systems tougher" seems like a very high-risk policy.

[DukeNukeEm]

And its following the rapidly developing precedent that Obamacare is actually Obamacare. It was a vote to give the executive unilateral power over the healthcare industry. Which, I mean, sort of defeats the purpose of entire political system when all it takes is one judge and a handful of congressmen to crown someone king.

 

Its bad. I mean the law has always been bad but the standard its setting for governance is terrifying.

[Cknolls]

This was nothing more than an attempt to give himself and fellow Dems political cover. Shocking right. Clueless thy name is Narcissus.

[mr_genius]

 

[Jenksismyhero]

My wife and I signed up for our 2014 plan. Premiums up about 10% (went up 1% from 2012-2013), with no real explanation why. They got rid of the "catastrophic" plan and rebranded it as a health savings account plan. Under that you get routine, basic care covered 100% and for the rest you have a higher deductible. The advantage is that you can contribute tax free money into an account and the employer matches it up to a certain amount annually. The account itself can earn interest and rolls over year to year, so the money just sits there in the account until you use it.

 

This would be an amazing idea if it didn't require you to spend the money on health care. It's basically a 401(k) plan that covers you for major needs, but otherwise provides basic care the majority of people would actually use. In the event you get hurt badly, you should have a decent nest egg saved up in the account to take care of it. If not, and you stay relatively healthy until 65, you could just keep that money for retirement. But it looks like you have to eventually use that money for medical care or potentially lose it.

 

 

[Balta1701]

The states with functioning websites are either right on track for their enrollment goals or actually outpacing them.

 

 

There was no reason this couldn't have worked just fine, right there's the evidence, a dozen governments are doing just fine. Thanks, Secretary Sebelius.

[cabiness42]

The states with functioning websites are either right on track for their enrollment goals or actually outpacing them.

 

 

There was no reason this couldn't have worked just fine, right there's the evidence, a dozen governments are doing just fine. Thanks, Secretary Sebelius.

 

It can't be that hard--Kentucky is making it work.

[StrangeSox]

The states with functioning websites are either right on track for their enrollment goals or actually outpacing them.

 

 

There was no reason this couldn't have worked just fine, right there's the evidence, a dozen governments are doing just fine. Thanks, Secretary Sebelius.

 

They were not prepared for the number of states who were going to let the jack-booted FEDERAL government run their exchanges instead of using federal money to build their own. Having to build a site that interfaces with 30+ different states is more of a challenge than building one that interfaces with one.

 

edit: that's not meant to underplay how badly the ball was dropped on this, or to excuse them for not anticipating the volume of work that would be heading their way. maybe the bill shouldn't have allowed the federal option, or should have set a deadline much earlier so that implementation could have begun in 2012 if not sooner.

Edited November 19, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Jake]

And its following the rapidly developing precedent that Obamacare is actually Obamacare. It was a vote to give the executive unilateral power over the healthcare industry. Which, I mean, sort of defeats the purpose of entire political system when all it takes is one judge and a handful of congressmen to crown someone king.

 

Its bad. I mean the law has always been bad but the standard its setting for governance is terrifying.

 

The executive branch implements the law. This is exactly why we have this branch and why the chief executive is elected and heavily scrutinized. By electing him, that means we have faith that he can make these judgments. He can't do whatever he wants, but he can make these tweaks that will ultimately be relatively insignificant. Since laws of all kinds don't always automatically play out the way they are intended, you need someone to implement them. That's what he is doing.

 

 

My wife and I signed up for our 2014 plan. Premiums up about 10% (went up 1% from 2012-2013), with no real explanation why. They got rid of the "catastrophic" plan and rebranded it as a health savings account plan. Under that you get routine, basic care covered 100% and for the rest you have a higher deductible. The advantage is that you can contribute tax free money into an account and the employer matches it up to a certain amount annually. The account itself can earn interest and rolls over year to year, so the money just sits there in the account until you use it.

 

This would be an amazing idea if it didn't require you to spend the money on health care. It's basically a 401(k) plan that covers you for major needs, but otherwise provides basic care the majority of people would actually use. In the event you get hurt badly, you should have a decent nest egg saved up in the account to take care of it. If not, and you stay relatively healthy until 65, you could just keep that money for retirement. But it looks like you have to eventually use that money for medical care or potentially lose it.

 

It's an interesting idea. There is some effort to keep you from being f***ed if you have a major unforeseen issue and covering basics is paramount with a high deductible, so that you are willing to actually see a doctor and find out if you have any small problems before they become the aforementioned major unforeseen issues.

 

[Cknolls]

The states with functioning websites are either right on track for their enrollment goals or actually outpacing them.

 

 

There was no reason this couldn't have worked just fine, right there's the evidence, a dozen governments are doing just fine. Thanks, Secretary Sebelius.

 

 

How many people have paid for their plan?

 

And what is the number without Medicaid enrolles, which is the majority of the number you cited.

[Balta1701]

which is the majority of the number you cited.

No it isn't. The Medicaid enrolees are much, much larger since they didn't have to pay anything. The numbers in that article in the 10's of thousands for the states that did things well are the numbers who paid for their plan.

 

And just to note...that's them pre-paying. They paid for plans in November that won't start until January.

[DukeNukeEm]

Implement the law as written Jake. The executive does not alter legislation.