Obamacare and rate increases - report your results here

[scott_humphrey]

Rates for my family of 4 are going from $567/month to $890/month for a comparable plan.

"Not-for-profit" hospitals aren't what they seem, and I believe that they are a big part of the problem here. For anyone wanting to understand how the healthcare system in the USA really works, please read my article:

http://www.orthopreneurpub.com/component/content/article/259-how-to-get-rich-and-not-pay-taxes-in-todays-healthcare-environment-a-satire-in-12-steps

 

[lassoharp]

Rates for my family of 4 are going from $567/month to $890/month for a comparable plan.

Have you checked the details yet?  I came across an article that highlighted some of the evasive techniques insurance companies are using.  Apparently the ACA plan that is quoted higher is often a better more comprehensive plan than the one they are offering comparison to.  They also don't mention options for subsidies and options for tier plans under ACA.  I guess the worst of it would be that some are being forced into paying for the better plan, even though it is better and at a better rate than the older plan. 

 

[scott_humphrey]

I won't qualify for vote-buying, government kickbacks (aka subsidies). The coverage I had before was fine.

Regarding your response, lassoharp, with all due respect, you're just repeating the Democratic sound byte of the day…."some are being forced into paying for the better plan, even though it is better and at a better rate than the older plan." That is political doublespeak at its worst. I know what I had. I'm not uninformed. The new one is not "better." More on this here:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304073204579167743216156238?mod=wsj_review_&_outlook

I'm not a die-hard Republican, by the way. I voted for Obama the first time around.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Calling something a talking point does not automatically mean it isn't true, and it is not constructive to a free exchange of ideas to couch everything as a political strategy.

Yes, that has been a popular talking point, and like any good one it is partly true. Many truly inferior insurance plans were regulated out of existence (or profitability), while conversely the minimum "essential" plan coverage details have so far escaped my purview. I have heard anecdotes about these "good" insurance plans including coverage for mental health, birth control and maternity for people past child bearing years, coverage for drug rehabilitation for people not at risk, among other things. 

While we can debate about what makes a good plan (I am not yet, not enough data), forcing coverage on people that do not need it seems consistent with padding the revenue stream to pay for populations that will consume more actual healthcare than they pay for. Besides the top line rates, I have heard anecdotes about increased deductibles, but to be fair we need more facts.

I am still curious to see how this next year plays out. If the legislation is good for the vast majority, the democrats should gain seats in the 2014 midterm election. If the legislation is not considered good by the vast majority of voters, that too will be revealed. If what the administration thinks is a good plan does not agree with what the voters experience and feel. this will get really interesting.

We are past arguing about how this "will" be, and what each other political group thinks. Time for the voters to experience this personally for better or worse and provide feedback to their government in November a year from now, the old fashioned way. 

JR

PS: Scott I found your satire amusing but don't forget the "group think" phenomenon.  What may be amusing to other like minded people can be insulting or unpleasant to people invested in an alternate political world views. As a group we don't even agree about grounding XLR pin 1 so we are not going to be of one mind regarding political suasion. It is more productive to talk about things and facts, and less about motives or who said what. 

PPS: I am not completely innocent of conjecture, while I try.

 

[lassoharp]

I won't qualify for vote-buying, government kickbacks (aka subsidies). The coverage I had before was fine.

Regarding your response, lassoharp, with all due respect, you're just repeating the Democratic sound byte of the day…."some are being forced into paying for the better plan, even though it is better and at a better rate than the older plan." That is political doublespeak at its worst. I know what I had. I'm not uninformed. The new one is not "better." More on this here:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304073204579167743216156238?mod=wsj_review_&_outlook

I'm not a die-hard Republican, by the way. I voted for Obama the first time around.

I just read your article.  I take it from the tone of your statement " For those who want to really understand how the HC in US works . . . " that your satire is intended as being fully accurate?

I loudly applaud the article and will be sharing on FB as soon as I finish posting this response.

If I may ask, how far do you plan to go with this?    A satire is great but a large portion of the general public will likely not be seriously swayed by it, It will disturb them beyond a threshold they are willing to accept and they will say "Oh, He's just kidding - he's not serious"

Write a book?  Run for local office?  This is great stuff.  Why stop?

If the patient doesn’t pay, put a lien on her house!

god forbid.  I have seen thousands and thousands in ER bills and they haven't gotten paid nor will they ever.  I don't own a house but have heard the local rumors flying re said action that started when Novant took over the county hospital.  I took them as scare tactics but nothing surprises me when the highest levels of corporate maneuvering is involved. 

 

[scott_humphrey]

Hi lassoharp,

First, let me apologize for the "sound byte" remark. I shouldn't have been so dismissive of your comment, and it was not my intent to attack you personally. I'm not making excuses, but I hope that you can appreciate that I'm just miffed at the "if you like it you can keep your current plan, period" comment that was repeated so many times. It turns out that I cannot, and it is not because my plan was substandard. I'll be paying a lot more for the same thing. In any case, I hope that there are no hard feelings.

Thank you for reading the article. It is an accurate picture of what is happening in my area and across much of the USA. I'm a practicing surgeon, and as such I can only rock the boat so much because the local hospitals are very powerful, and they certainly have the ability to make life hard for me. A satire is a nice way to point out what is happening without having to directly accuse anyone--I'll leave that to the real journalists.

Re putting a lien on someone's house for unpaid medical bills: that is not a scare tactic. It really happens.

In my opinion, as a country we should try to provide basic coverage for everyone. I don't think that the ACA is going to accomplish that goal, but I hope that I'm wrong. One of the Australian members [EDIT: it was Sammas] posted earlier that state-owned hospitals may provide savings, and I think that there is probably merit to that versus the "not-for-profit" hospitals.

-Scott

 

[emrr]

Nice satire there!

 

[JohnRoberts]

Satire is a well known form of political commentary, some classic political satire was "Animal farm" by George Orwell, "Gulliver's travels" by Jonathan Swift, and the like. Back where and when being critical of powerful leaders could get you kicked out of the country or imprisoned, or worse, writing political criticism masquerading as a children's story was appreciated by both audiences.
===
Regarding losing a home to medical bills it varies from state to state but significant equity in a primary residence can be exempt from  bankruptcy claims. They may put a lien on your house but that doesn't mean they get it if you are bankrupt.

You can't get blood from a stone and we don't have debtor's prisons these days.

JR

 

[lassoharp]

Hi lassoharp,

First, let me apologize for the "sound byte" remark. I shouldn't have been so dismissive of your comment, and it was not my intent to attack you personally. I'm not making excuses, but I hope that you can appreciate that I'm just miffed at the "if you like it you can keep your current plan, period" comment that was repeated so many times. It turns out that I cannot, and it is not because my plan was substandard. I'll be paying a lot more for the same thing. In any case, I hope that there are no hard feelings.

Thank you for reading the article. It is an accurate picture of what is happening in my area and across much of the USA. I'm a practicing surgeon, and as such I can only rock the boat so much because the local hospitals are very powerful, and they certainly have the ability to make life hard for me. A satire is a nice way to point out what is happening without having to directly accuse anyone--I'll leave that to the real journalists.

Re putting a lien on someone's house for unpaid medical bills: that is not a scare tactic. It really happens.

In my opinion, as a country we should try to provide basic coverage for everyone. I don't think that the ACA is going to accomplish that goal, but I hope that I'm wrong. One of the Australian members [EDIT: it was Sammas] posted earlier that state-owned hospitals may provide savings, and I think that there is probably merit to that versus the "not-for-profit" hospitals.

-Scott

Hi Scott,

No worries and no offense taken.  I understand the partisan bylines do get tiring.

I had suspected that possible job security may have been a reason for staying within satire.  It's still a big step IMO and I would tend to favor the first hand experience of a medical professional over a journalist in terms of it resonating more the message of what's wrong with the system.  I have a couple of physician acquaintances who have expressed similar feelings and opinions but neither had been able to go as in depth as the satire went and I suspect they may not have been aware of what all was going on.  Please keep us posted on how this unfolds.  Maybe a local politician will pick up the ball and try and do something.


On the Satire:  Yes, in literature there is a saying - "Only the village idiot is free to tell the truth".  Of course he/she was far from being an idiot.  The guise of being a clown kept the authorities from coming down on them.  Chris Rock is good example of the modern day version.  Alfred E Neuman was one of my favorites growing up.  I certainly learned more political sophistication from MAD magazine than I ever did in elementary school. 

*well, being the comedian didn't always allow full freedom of truth telling - Ed Sullivan said no to Dylan when he wanted to perform "Talkin' John Birch Society Blues" 

 

[Spiritworks]

Well, after jacking my rates by almost 20%, Anthem BCBS just sent me a letter telling me that my policy will be dropped as of 11/30/13 and that I will have to shop for another policy
The problem is, will the Health Care Providers that I have been using for years accept any new policy that I end up with? 

 

[emrr]

I have a cardiologist friend who works short term contracts at various hospitals, and several years back he was declaring there would be no one in private practice within a few years.  I recall he said the pay rate for a private physician in a rural area showing up at someone's house in the middle of the night was around $50, after dealing with all the paperwork. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

Hi Scott,

No worries and no offense taken.  I understand the partisan bylines do get tiring.

On the Satire:  Yes, in literature there is a saying - "Only the village idiot is free to tell the truth".  Of course he/she was far from being an idiot.  The guise of being a clown kept the authorities from coming down on them.

Another old saying, "only drunks and children tell the truth"... More precisely, only drunks and children don't edit themselves.

  Chris Rock is good example of the modern day version.

I never saw CR as much of a political spokesman... more like the typical blue comedian.

Dick Gregory was politically involved, going back a little further The Smother's Brothers and further yet Lenny Bruce. Even George Carlin had a very famous routine about "the seven words you can not say on television". Comedians often tested the limits of free speech and the Smother's brothers were pretty aggressively political.

  Alfred E Neuman was one of my favorites growing up. 

Not a real person, but the writers/editors at mad magazine enjoyed poking fun at pretty much everything.

I certainly learned more political sophistication from MAD magazine than I ever did in elementary school. 

I fear education is worse today than ever. The lack of understanding about how government is supposed to work, and what it is supposed to do is remarkable. I will resist suggesting that this is by plan.

*well, being the comedian didn't always allow full freedom of truth telling - Ed Sullivan said no to Dylan when he wanted to perform "Talkin' John Birch Society Blues"

Dylan was more of a poet than singer... He probably got on the show because of one of his more popular songs.. I recall my older brother bringing that first dylan album home from college, it was an interesting time for popular music and Dylan was a huge influence on other musicians.

=====
I think it is the nature of comedians that A) they are smarter than average, and B) they draw their material from day to day interactions so they are inclined to be more insightful about the world around them. While political issues are not always funny, it takes skill to ring that bell and get a laugh.

======
Truth... There is more than one truth, and it worries me how many today get their world news from comedic fake news shows. While Colbert and Stewart cover topical event in their comedy sketches they often present a stylized, opinionated version of the truth. I find the shows well written and funny, but it isn't the news. That said network news is not that solid.

Sorry about the rant....

JR

 

[lassoharp]

Not a real person, but the writers/editors at mad magazine enjoyed poking fun at pretty much everything.

Of course not, he was the personae that was assumed to be the source of all the ravings in the magazine.  Authors throw up hands - "We didn't say this stuff - it was that guy!" 

I never saw CR as much of a political spokesman... more like the typical blue comedian.

agreed, he was never in the lanes of Lenny Bruce and he covered a wide variety of topics.  I recall him going off about Pharm-X companies and George Bush in one monologue and it was so outrageous that no one would accuse him of dispersing serious opinions but he found some kernels and managed to make some good points.

I will resist suggesting that this is by plan.

I feel almost like a paranoid person entertaining the thought sometimes but I sure have suspected it more and more over the years, especially in the wake of the current carnage in NC.  Two years ago they were proposing reducing the number of high schools in my county from 5 to 1 . .. . . this amounted to cutting nearly 200 teaching positions!  It never passed but the cuts are still coming in slowly as are continued salary reductions.

Truth... There is more than one truth, and it worries me how many today get their world news from comedic fake news shows. While Colbert and Stewart cover topical event in their comedy sketches they often present a stylized, opinionated version of the truth. I find the shows well written and funny, but it isn't the news. That said network news is not that solid.

 

Most of the time if feels like a total clusterF*#! trying to find news sources that are free from some kind of bias or sensationalism.  (throwing hands up in air).  Maybe NPR but some would accuse them of leaning more to the left on some topics.  I think the media and public have become prisoners to their own tastes and cravings - I wonder how many stories that would be considered thoughtful, objective, unbiased, etc have been tossed aside by the execs on grounds that it's either too boring or not in the flow of current trends.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Most of the time if feels like a total clusterF*#! trying to find news sources that are free from some kind of bias or sensationalism.  (throwing hands up in air).  Maybe NPR but some would accuse them of leaning more to the left on some topics.  I think the media and public have become prisoners to their own tastes and cravings - I wonder how many stories that would be considered thoughtful, objective, unbiased, etc have been tossed aside by the execs on grounds that it's either too boring or not in the flow of current trends.

The only way to get reasonably objective information is to triangulate. Every news organization has bias. At a minimum trying to please their target audience. Listen to different versions of any important truth.

It makes me crazy when they present an important speech on TV and immediately afterwards a cluster of talking heads assemble trying to tell us what to think. I heard the actual speech and understand english, I do not need opinion leaders to translate english for me.

arghhhh  ???

JR

 

[bruno2000]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDSMMfcwaj8

Best,
Bruno2000

 

[fazer]

Very funny Bruno 2000. 

I linked one of these 2year ago about the AVID upgrade when going from 7.4 to 10 was 2500 bucks all of a sudden. 
This thing could have what ever your bitch is woven into it.  Unless you speak German and then it not so funny.

 

[JohnRoberts]

A small but annoying gift for big pharma in the ACA. Drug companies invest billions of dollars in buying down prescription co-pays to reduce the negative feedback on consumers forced to pay co-pays out of pocket to select premium name brand drugs over generic drugs that don't require a co-pay.  The drug companies do not spend billions of dollars out of charity, they make a lot more money than they spend from selling their higher cost name brand drugs.

FWIW, buying down co-pays is illegal in medicare/medicaid programs, but was specifically allowed in the ACA exchanges. Kind of the worst of both worlds, government involvement while giving their big drug cronies a free pass, to thwart big insurance's attempt to reduce costs.  A win-lose-lose with insurance and consumers the losers as this makes insurance costs go up. I have little sympathy for big insurance, but this will ultimately consume more of the limited wealth we have to pay for healthcare. The ACA legislates a percentage of payout for insurance companies, so every dollar wasted on premium name brand drugs, is a dollar diverted from other healthcare benefits or lower plan cost.

arghhh

JR

 

[Spiritworks]

So what does anyone think of yesterday's speech from Obama? I think it was good of him to man-up and admit the situation is a snafu, but that's not going to help anyone. Insurance Companies are basically telling us we're screwed, as if we didn't know already.
Oh, and my insurance agent kindly offered up some new plans to replace the one that my Carrier, AnthemBCBS, told me they were getting rid of. Gues what? Lowest tier ( Bronze, worst coverage ) almost twice the cost with twice the deductible.
That's just great.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I saw the speech but couldn't bear to sit through the whole thing. If anything I was more angry about him trying to soft sell relaxing sanctions on Iran in return for them merely pausing their enrichment program? WTF. Odd that France has to be the hard nose and shoot that offer down. I won't veer off but the sanctions are getting harder to enforce. Allies get wavers as long as they reduce Iranian oil purchases, and they are pushing back against further reductions, so he appears to looking for an easy way out, maybe push this down the road for the next administration.

====
I dislike analysts telling us what a speech means, the words should stand on their own, but I will share my opinion.

The new improved version of "you can keep your coverage if you like it" rings hollow and he is mostly looking for political cover(IMO). Many democrats are worried about the upcoming midterms as they should be. 

I expect some kind of delay to penalties will get adopted but the bottom line is they need to move the majority onto these kitchen sink plans to generate the revenue to pay for this massive entitlement program. The money has to come from somewhere. Richy Rich doesn't have enough money to just take it from him.

The president's instruction to insurance companies to ignore the ACA for now, is another example of selective enforcement, not constitutional, and not even practical for the insurance companies that tried to follow the law and cancelled cheaper policies. We are now only weeks away from deadlines. This last minute change could raise costs higher for others if they try to make up the difference on other policies.

I expect to see new legislation to patch this, the same type legislation that Obama promised to veto only weeks ago. I guess the political winds are shifting as the reality sinks in and more democrats are onboard with tweaking this..

I expect them to get the website working sooner or later. Raising enough revenue will continue to be the difficult part without young healthy people embracing paying more for coverage they generally don't use. 

JR

 

[sodderboy]

No chance of major medical in NYS. PPACA is designed to kill MM on a national level like they did in NYS in the 90's.
That truly reveals that the goal is NOT affordable care.
Mike