Obamacare and rate increases - report your results here

[JohnRoberts]

The goal all along was to crash the system forcing single payer.

I don't think there is any evidence of this.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating.

I try not to argue about things that are difficult to know (motives and intentions). Gruber the administration's consultant made some damning admissions about deception, and ignorance of the public.

I was on record here years ago arguing that the funding for this did not work on paper.

The goal was to prohibit insurance companies picking and choosing who they allow on insurance plans - to maximize their profit, regardless of how it left working Americans. Preexisting conditions, dropping someone when they get sick,  genetic testing, etc... etc.. the health insurance companies were doing more and more of this, and people were becoming locked in their jobs, locked out of health insurance, and more and more financially destroyed. Many personal bankruptcies due to medical bills .
Once the rules of the ACA were outlined (insurers cannot pick and choose, other than based on age / sex/ smoking status) there had to be a way to make the system work without everyone avoiding insurance until they got sick, then signing up. The ACA tried this by a mandate - and no, it is not perfect -

Not perfect is an understatement. 

No one disputes the merit of ACA's goal, but the side of the isle that understands business and markets was frozen out of the legislative process. The only other explanation for crashing this is ignorance. At this point it doesn't really matter, that ship has run aground. 

unfortunately we have a political climate of absolute opposition right now that makes any potential for improvement unlikely.  Addressing the high cost of health care is important and necessary, but difficult.

That depends on how you define improvement. The two competing proposals these days are Bernie's single payer system that as I've shared before, his own home state of Vermont declined to implement, when they saw that the math didn't work, and it would hurt their state economy more than it helped the citizens. There are several discussions on the right trying to get the customer back into the middle of their own personal healthcare transactions, but at this point I don't see a single comprehensive plan, just a bunch of good ideas.

Government is terrible making personal decisions for us, and when the healthcare customer is not seeing (and feeling) price pressure before they consume healthcare, they are not discriminating buyers. Without price discovery and market forces cheaper alternatives are not encouraged. 

The insurance companies to reduce their bleeding have already applied some market forces through higher deductibles, that is getting the consumers more engaged in their cost decisions, but the mandated coverage cause even healthy people to buy more insurance than they want or need.

I don't expect ACA to be voided outright, but it will require major re-writing to get something workable, sustainable, and supportive of free market forces.

It will be interesting to see what we can come up with when both sides of the isle participate. But this can't start in ernest for another 14 months or so...

JR

 

[Phrazemaster]

The crux of the matter is that it was never going to work financially. It's not sustainable. And forcing people to buy something is simply against what this country stands for - whether it's a "good idea" or not.

Why not force everyone to pay for the homeless? Or to guarantee everyone has food - they could just garner your wages. It's a good idea, right?

While we're at it, what about just going down the list of problems people have, and forcing everyone to pay for it too?

• blindness challenges
• wheelchair bound
• old/sick
• homeless

Hell after we solve those, let's go down the list of lesser evils too, and we can just make everyone pay for everyone else's wish lists.

It's a terrible slippery slope, and the way this is implemented is not fair, it's not sound and it's done the absolute opposite of it's promise - "affordable" health care it's not, at least for the majority.

But that's government for you. Do we allow this, or do we create something better?

 

[dmp]

The crux of the matter is that it was never going to work financially. It's not sustainable.

Neither was the rising cost of health care before the ACA. And the logistics of health insurance, like I outlined above, was causing significant harm to  individuals and the country. I believe the way health care was locking people into their employment was a drag on the economy, which has been rectified since the ACA outlawed the preexisting conditions discrimination. 

And forcing people to buy something is simply against what this country stands for - whether it's a "good idea" or not.

Not true.

- paying for roads
- paying for a court system
- paying for unemployment insurance
- paying for SS and Medicare
- paying for 1-12 education
- etc etc

You are free to disagree with this, but the so called 'socialist' spending has fundamentally been responsible for the success of developed countries (USA included)  over the past 100 years. A strong social safety net is fundamental to a stable democratic government

 

[JohnRoberts]

The crux of the matter is that it was never going to work financially. It's not sustainable.

Neither was the rising cost of health care before the ACA. And the logistics of health insurance, like I outlined above, was causing significant harm to  individuals and the country. I believe the way health care was locking people into their employment was a drag on the economy, which has been rectified since the ACA outlawed the preexisting conditions discrimination. 

And forcing people to buy something is simply against what this country stands for - whether it's a "good idea" or not.

Not true.

- paying for roads
- paying for a court system
- paying for unemployment insurance
- paying for SS and Medicare
- paying for 1-12 education
- etc etc

You are free to disagree with this, but the so called 'socialist' spending has fundamentally been responsible for the success of developed countries (USA included)  over the past 100 years. A strong social safety net is fundamental to a stable democratic government

Well if socialist spending is responsible for our success we should be in even better shape now than ever.  :

Government spending crowds out the private sector, and is inefficient. I predicted years ago that a result of the government takeover of student lending pumping in too much too easy money has pushed up the cost of college education and I don't think they are getting more for all that extra money (besides being  saddled with significant debt burden). 

It's pretty clear that the college students protesting against the 1st amendment never learned the definition of irony.  ;D

JR   

 

[dmp]

Well if socialist spending is responsible for our success we should be in even better shape now than ever.

It doesn't seem the current Republican sees that there is a balance. Strong 100% anti government sentiment is what I hear, which won't be good for this country.

Whether you borrow money or not - it seems consumers are not very cost savy on health care or college. Or maybe there aren't good options from the free market? People want the best regardless of cost. The problems with these are more than the free market can fix, IMO.  There are an abundance of auto loans too - but we aren't all driving Ferrari's on the way to bankruptcy (although I read auto loans are on the order of student loans)

 

[emrr]

Exactly 21% increase this coming year.  Been about the same each year the last 3. 

Marriage penalty must be done away with. 

Out-of-network must be done away with.  In particular this one makes the entire thing a guessing game if you travel at all. 

Across the board childbearing penalty should be done away with, especially when medical records prove no children will be borne. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

Well if socialist spending is responsible for our success we should be in even better shape now than ever.

It doesn't seem the current Republican sees that there is a balance. Strong 100% anti government sentiment is what I hear, which won't be good for this country.

Again I promise not to tell you what you think, and request like consideration.

Whether you borrow money or not - it seems consumers are not very cost savy on health care or college.

but the operative question is government any smarter or better at making decisions for individuals. It has been well articulated by Hayek and others that individuals better understand their self interest. That said there is a place for some  government force. Seat belts, anti-skid brakes, and the like have saved lives, OTOH the ridiculous fleet economy standards will cost consumers more than they should have to pay, for a dubious reward.

Or maybe there aren't good options from the free market?

Healthcare has not been a free market for decades. It seems I have covered this ground already. Multiple times over recent years. 

The free market when allowed to operate will generally resolve any imbalance in supply and demand. The oil market right now is a lesson right out of an economic text. First the high prices stimulated investment and exploration.  Now too much success has lead to surpluses and lower than economic prices for the marginal oil drillers who made money hand over fist from $100 oil and are now bleeding due to $50 oil. OPEC (monopolistic cartel) is keeping the pedal to the metal pumping excessive oil to keep prices low and drive competitors out of business, hoping to regain control over market prices they lost to new marginal producers. This will mainly scrub off the least profitable companies (the way recessions are supposed to thin out weak companies). Low oil prices over time will stimulate demand to come back in balance eventually.

An interesting data point is that low gas prices encourage people to drive more, and car insurance companies are reporting losses from more accident claims than they budgeted for (a result of the extra miles driven).

People want the best regardless of cost. The problems with these are more than the free market can fix, IMO. 

Individuals generally can't practice deficit spending, so prices and available capital stimulate or depress demand. 

There are an abundance of auto loans too - but we aren't all driving Ferrari's on the way to bankruptcy (although I read auto loans are on the order of student loans)

Yes, easy credit is arguably creating a bubble in car sales. Too easy car loans are not going to cause typical car buyers to buy a Ferrari, just like the housing bubble didn't put everybody into a mansion. They did buy more expensive homes than they needed or could afford. The car market could suffer when interest rates return to typical levels. Unlike the housing bubble, inflation now is low, and cars loose a bunch of value the minute you drive them off the lot, so I am not worried about people flipping typical new cars.

Arguably there are distortions in multiple asset classes, and even business decisions are influenced negatively by the easy money. Theres another bubble in tech firm start up valuations even before they go public. The good news is that the private investors will pay for this bubble and not the public market buyers.

If and when they finally raise interest rates (now predicted for next month), the tide of easy money will start to go out and we will see who is still wearing swim trunks, and who isn't.   

JR

 

[dmp]

Again I promise not to tell you what you think, and request like consideration.

Excuse me?
There isn't a functional difference between painting Republicans in broad strokes as Democrats or Government.  I think you need to examine your strong partisan presence here in the Brewery. Open to diverse opinions is a principle of the forum. Playing these games to suppress opinions you don't like is disappointing.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Again I promise not to tell you what you think, and request like consideration.

Excuse me?
There isn't a functional difference between painting Republicans in broad strokes as Democrats or Government. 

I try not to make it personal in such exchanges. Making broad sweeping claims about one political party or the other is hard to separate from individual criticism.  That kind of posts very quickly deteriorate into ad hominum conflicts, with "you must be stupid if you don't agree with me"...  There used to be too much of that around here years ago, as I recall..

I think you need to examine your strong partisan presence here in the Brewery. Open to diverse opinions is a principle of the forum. Playing these games to suppress opinions you don't like is disappointing.

I generally try to stick to facts or events, not speculation about motives or intent. That is a slippery slope that can't be proved.

If you find my low opinion of government offensive I apologize, and will attempt to not be gratuitous in future criticism, but unless they stop messing up I will remain critical..

I try not to stir up political conflict, and have better things to do with my time than wrestle here. From where I sit the other side gets plenty of defense. I can air my opinions on other social media outlets and do. 

I posted an update to this thread about the ACA because things I argued about, and were dismissed as wrong years ago, are now coming true.  I take no pleasure from being right because it means a lot of work ahead making this into something sustainable. 

For the record I do not abuse my extra authority here while i could easily disappear or even alter other people'c comments I don't like. I don't and wouldn't (unless they break the house rules.  http://groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=6650.msg78051#msg78051  .

If you think my being a moderator gives my posts extra gravitas I will gladly give that up  (please can I?) Being a mod is mostly extra work, deleting spam and answering silly questions.

If the whole group wants to gong me, here's your chance to chime in. I can amuse myself elsewhere.

JR

 

[bruno2000]

If the whole group wants to gong me, here's your chance to chime in. I can amuse myself elsewhere.

JR

Please, no.
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[jasonallenh]

Just had my open enrollment meeting:

Health- Stayed exactly the same. (Second year in a row, actually).
Dental- Up about .70 per paycheck, but also increased the total calendar year max coverage. I've been playing hockey, so I suppose that could come in handy.
Vision- Stayed exactly the same.

Provider for health is FloridaBlue. We we're specifically told that our rates have managed to hold steady due to 1) the number of wellness programs the employer has available, and 2) the % of people who participate in them.

It seems inevitable that there would be a rates 'spike' as the transition into OC begins, but as more people sign up (or fines are collected), and the risk is spread out, it will hopefully all come under control.

 

[emrr]

Dental and vision, I assume this is an employer plan, which would be very different. 

Neither of those make any sense at all as a self-employed person in NC as far as I can tell.  Dental I can find only pays out about as much as the deductible, and it costs more than both, so....exactly who thinks it does anything for you? 

 

[dmp]

I just dropped dental this month (employer plan). The monthly premium is $54 and I get two cleanings a year (~$300).
So I think it makes more sense to self insure (i.e. pay out of my own pocket).

 

[bruno2000]

18% increase for our group plan for next year......
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[sodderboy]

In Sept I got bumped from my "group of 2" coverage because the principles of a corporation do not qualify as employees under the PPCACA regulations.  Like a good little frog in the nice warm water I was planning on paying the increase to $1470 from $1560 but the regs kicked-in and I got kicked-out.  The same policy for an individual is $2K so I went to the exchange and got whatever covered the most docs we see for $1100 plus $4000 yearly deductible.  No choice in hospitals or anything.  Any choice for superior care out of network will be out of pocket.

The economic model is flawed from the beginning.  "Health insurance" is not at all like car insurance.  You don't get into accidents to "get your money's worth" from Allstate or Geico, but paying 12 times as much for "health insurance" you run to the doc with a heecough.  The healthy people do not pay for the un-healthy if their incentive is to get what they pay for.

If truly affordable care were the goal then SCHIP/medicaid would have been expanded by 20% and the regs on everyone else would have been reduced to bring more competition into states like NY.
Mike

 

[jasonallenh]

Dental and vision, I assume this is an employer plan, which would be very different. 

Neither of those make any sense at all as a self-employed person in NC as far as I can tell.  Dental I can find only pays out about as much as the deductible, and it costs more than both, so....exactly who thinks it does anything for you?

Yes, employer plan, but different providers for health/dental/vision.

 

[Brian Roth]

Being a poor kid in Kansas (literally...), the ObamaCare emails have been pouring in.

I qualify for a subsidy, but it looks like it will be cheaper for me to pay the tax penalty since the monthly premiums with a $6000+ deductible is total bull.

IOW...pay in for no benefits unless I get hit my an uninsured bus,

Bri

 

[JohnRoberts]

Being a poor kid in Kansas (literally...), the ObamaCare emails have been pouring in.

I qualify for a subsidy, but it looks like it will be cheaper for me to pay the tax penalty since the monthly premiums with a $6000+ deductible is total bull.

IOW...pay in for no benefits unless I get hit my an uninsured bus,

Bri

But that is the concept of pure insurance***, to only protect against unexpected catastrophic events. Automobile insurance doesn't pay for oil changes, just car crashes. Routine healthcare expenses should be paid out of pocket. I am still waiting for competition to rise up from larger drug store chains to provide inexpensive clinic services to more efficiently service the routine stuff. 

High deductibles actually engage the customer into participating in their own spending decisions (a good thing IMO).

My criticism about the ACA involve other matters. The insurance companies are desperately trying to make profits from a customer pool, many of whom waited to have the car crash, then buy the insurance.


JR

*** Years ago I looked for a catastrophic only health care policy and couldn't find a suitable plan, so went self insured for 10-15 years. Many businesses do (did?) buy a large catastrophic umbrella policy to cover outlier health events, then self-insure the routine day to day expenses for their workers.

Now that I'm an old  fart I participate in medicare.