If the cost difference isn't worth it to them then they have to live with 20-25% fewer doctors to choose from.
the cost difference is 20-60+% more than what they were paying. instead it has to go to some insurance policy that gives them worse coverage and is more expensive.
plus they lose the doctors that they had in most cases and have to search for other ones.
this doesn't deal with anything that was said.
This not getting less as you pay less thing seems to be a point of confusion for you, when its normal capitalism at work.
They are not paying less they get less and pay more unless they qualify for medicaid then they get less and even more less.
It would frankly lean a bit socialist to expect people paying more to get equal coverage to those paying nothing.
actually they are getting about the same amount.
if you would have read the articles doctors across the nation along with hospitals are rejecting and not taking obamacare exchange plans.
PS Patriot Act was much worse, and that's just looking at the past 15 years. Citizens United was as well.. Again in the past few years.
no because that did nothing to screw with people's healthcare ACA does screw with peoples healthcare and so far there is little positive being reporting.
But what they have under the new system will be WORSE then what they had before.
The ACA act was supposedly about improving health care
you are wasting your time. he has defended this piece of trash bill for 2 years now. he can't back out of it or admit that he was wrong.
even though all the evidence is there exactly how people said it would turn out.
PS: Looks like they missed the deadline for having a 80% functional web site. I wonder what they bill is up to with all the experts and overtime?
it will cost another billion or so dollars more. that will get funneled to obama's friends that own the tech company that is suppose to be fixing it.
lol 3 guys in CA made it work in a few days.
Just quoting this whole trainwreck just to make sure more people read the foolishness...
To cover a few specific points:
"3 Guys in CA made it work in a few days", except "HealthSherpa" doesn't actually do anything, it's a cost estimator. It's ONE part of hundreds of parts involved in the ACA website.
It's like saying Ford rips people off, I saw my neighbor build a fan belt all by himself... when we all know a fan belt is a fraction of the whole when it comes to a Ford automobile. [PS - Ford does rip people off]
"Losing doctors" - 60% of doctor's take Medicaid, 80% take normal insurances - that means that 75% of the people that are using regular insurance and fall onto Medicaid will already be with a doctor that accepts it. Some people will lose their doctors, not all - not even most. That's just basic math. And even switching from BC/BS to Aetna or some other standard insurance switch involves some doctors falling out of your coverage - it's normal insurance issues that has nothing to do with Medicaid, the ACA or anything else - just insurance 101.
"20-60% more costly for worse coverage" - Funny, I've seen dozens of citations from harsh critics and the worst I've yet to see ended up being a massive 17% more, with improved benefits once you scratch beyond the surface on the policy. I have yet to see a single policy costing more than 20% more than previously much less one nearly 60% more. [Note: Not talking about employee contribution to a group plan, that's a different topic that involves a third party that really has no real rules to how it must operate if it doesn't care about tax benefits from providing the plan]
"Patriot Act wasn't worse it didn't mess with healthcare" - warrantless wiretaps and drones and TSA annoyances and the like clearly aren't worse than having to spend a couple hours redoing your insurance policy as an option. You spend a few hours picking out your new policy, you spend a few hours researching new doctors (if you even have to - as demonstrated with math above, most won't...) and then bam it has no real effect on your life other than cost changes, which are minimal overall - probably no real savings but the cost increases are minor. [And of course the bill got rid of the 5x rate that some people would pay for insurance previously or their refusal - just because they were born with an issue of some sort - you seem to cry for random people getting charged 20-60% more (although the figure is BS but I'll let it stand for the moment), yet apparently it's not a great improvement that people like myself that literally once one doctor explicitly diagnosed my condition I'd had since birth (and my mother who shares it has had low medical costs her entire life - as did myself overall - paid in $5k/yr across 1990-2005 at Wegman's and never even took a sick day or doctor's visit until the last year), yet the minute it was officialized (even though all the characteristics have been in my file for life) my rate was increased by 500% overnight and that was perfectly fine (Note: Since getting things on track as I have recently - $600 in doctor reimbursement for the entire year to date - another $550 coming though for my endoscopy in December - $1200/yr in reimbursement costs apparently warrants a $2k/mo premium for basic coverage, right? Seriously?).
Without the ACA removing PEC, if I return to my career without a wage hit (unlikely with no seniority anymore - likely $50-55) at $65k, after paying for my insurance rate assuming it stayed put from 2007 (likely it went up even more) - I'd be clearing $35k or so a year for fulltime with a Master's Degree, $13k more than my Disability payments - really encouraging to throw all that time at so little gain, eh? But PEC made complete sense right?]
"Refusing Obamacare Exchange plans" - Completely incorrect, the only way to refuse an "Exchange Plan" is to refuse all plans from a given provider and all providers are required by law to provide an exchange plan, so if that was true - those providers are either: a) lying/misinformed or b) refusing literally ALL insurance besides Medicare/VA (since those aren't tied to exchanges in any of their forms).
There is no LEGAL MEANS to refuse specific insurances within a provider under the healthcare discrimination laws that have existed since at least 1985. If they take "BC/BS Excellus" they must take "BC/BS Exchange Policy01" as well - there's no legal way to distinguish between. [And likely won't be on the cards as well, since there's no real reason to distinguish them - but we won't know that till January or so]
Well in regards to normal insurance, its accepted 75-80% as often. Considering its 'free' to those that use it, that degree seems appropriate to me personally.
Could be better, but people shouldn't expect filet mignon in a soup kitchen.
Medicaid isn't Federally provided... Its individual policy companies that take Federal funding...
And on VA sucking - doesn't fixing the worst first make the most sense? VA and HMOs are huge offenders in comparison.
Fixing all 3 categories would be great, but generally you start with those that are worst first. As stated earlier, Medicaid deviates from 'normal' insurance by 15%, Medicare EXCEDES them by 5% because so many people seem to forget about networks, and how many policies don't allow or have very limited out of network coverage.
Then you might want to critique the VA before Medicaid. Travelling HUNDREDS of miles when you're VA covered isn't rare.
And in most rural states, the Medicaid plans generally have at least one option that includes a shuttle to a single central entity. Jai being one in the NE regions, but they've got similar versions in most statesif not all.
60% isn't massive... That's calling up and saying 'Oh sorry, you don't takeit? Got a suggestion who might?' and going there instead.
I used Medicaid myself briefly, remember (18 mos or so). The one time I had a 'not taking' issue, I asked for where to go instead and I was set with their suggestion right away.
If it slips to the 25% range or lower I'd agree, 60% isn't remotely scary its not even half yet - and 2/3 isn't really far off from normal insurance w/o network limitations at 3/4. And the average HMO is closer to 15%-20%...
And of course EVERY HOSPITAL in their state takes it, so if you are truly dire and don't have searching time, you're still set.
Plenty of things run much worse numbers I'm sure you'd declare healthy...
I didn't say they're not accepting them less, just trying to point out its not drastic. PreMedicare, with BCBS, I couldn't see around a third of the doctors around here myself either from them being 'full' entirely or not accepting BCBS.
You try to make it sound like 'OMG 60% won't take them its awful' when its slightly below average. (75%)
Hell, you say the same about the less taking Medicare memes, when Medicare is STILL the most accepted insurance in the US. 85% vs 82% for the next best with the worst private insurer being 70% (Non-HMO, that is HMOs would be close to 10-15%) no insurance in the US has 100% coverage, which your assertions keep implying.
Its sub par for its network size, but its quite manageable to find a Medicaid doctor if you need one.
57% - 3% lower than I quoted, and that's for accepting NEW Medicaid patients, which is changing the goalposts. I was talking about those that accept period, not discluding those that do "but have enough already".
And again, it's only about 15-20% lower than major standard medical plans because of networks.
Hell, only 85% of doctor's are accepting new patients PERIOD on a national level.
Worst states I'm seeing on accepting Medicaid 'only' have a 60% acceptance rate for Medicaid. And usually from the data I see its very weighted against specialists, which aren't going to be a common need for kids.
(Note: Normal insurance acceptance rates are around 75% and Medicare at 85% - its not drastically worse... Although less specialist weighted on both)
And on losing loans if a dependant - read the ACA, they don't have to be dependant to qualify if they're in the appropriate age bracket and attending school. (If they're NOT attending they do need to be though - apparently even just 1 semester is enough to qualify annually FYI) So assuming loans would unqualify if they were a dependant, which I doubt - I'd imagine the loan would just get larger as the financial assistance grant shrinks - but its not something I've dealt with from the side of the user.
Loans of most sorts rarely cancel because of a change to the principal they just get more costly or longer.
Colleges offer insurance now? Weird, never had that offered to me back in the day.
Regardless with ANY kid up to 25 being covered, its moot in most cases - only the rare "Going to college with deadbeat parents" case that's not that common, and likely can get Medicaid, would even need it anymore.
They're dropping ALL of some insurances, ACA or not.
Just quoting this whole trainwreck just to make sure more people read the foolishness...
To cover a few specific points:
"3 Guys in CA made it work in a few days", except "HealthSherpa" doesn't actually do anything, it's a cost estimator. It's ONE part of hundreds of parts involved in the ACA website.
It's like saying Ford rips people off, I saw my neighbor build a fan belt all by himself... when we all know a fan belt is a fraction of the whole when it comes to a Ford automobile. [PS - Ford does rip people off]
"Losing doctors" - 60% of doctor's take Medicaid, 80% take normal insurances - that means that 75% of the people that are using regular insurance and fall onto Medicaid will already be with a doctor that accepts it. Some people will lose their doctors, not all - not even most. That's just basic math. And even switching from BC/BS to Aetna or some other standard insurance switch involves some doctors falling out of your coverage - it's normal insurance issues that has nothing to do with Medicaid, the ACA or anything else - just insurance 101.
"20-60% more costly for worse coverage" - Funny, I've seen dozens of citations from harsh critics and the worst I've yet to see ended up being a massive 17% more, with improved benefits once you scratch beyond the surface on the policy. I have yet to see a single policy costing more than 20% more than previously much less one nearly 60% more. [Note: Not talking about employee contribution to a group plan, that's a different topic that involves a third party that really has no real rules to how it must operate if it doesn't care about tax benefits from providing the plan]
"Patriot Act wasn't worse it didn't mess with healthcare" - warrantless wiretaps and drones and TSA annoyances and the like clearly aren't worse than having to spend a couple hours redoing your insurance policy as an option. You spend a few hours picking out your new policy, you spend a few hours researching new doctors (if you even have to - as demonstrated with math above, most won't...) and then bam it has no real effect on your life other than cost changes, which are minimal overall - probably no real savings but the cost increases are minor. [And of course the bill got rid of the 5x rate that some people would pay for insurance previously or their refusal - just because they were born with an issue of some sort - you seem to cry for random people getting charged 20-60% more (although the figure is BS but I'll let it stand for the moment), yet apparently it's not a great improvement that people like myself that literally once one doctor explicitly diagnosed my condition I'd had since birth (and my mother who shares it has had low medical costs her entire life - as did myself overall - paid in $5k/yr across 1990-2005 at Wegman's and never even took a sick day or doctor's visit until the last year), yet the minute it was officialized (even though all the characteristics have been in my file for life) my rate was increased by 500% overnight and that was perfectly fine (Note: Since getting things on track as I have recently - $600 in doctor reimbursement for the entire year to date - another $550 coming though for my endoscopy in December - $1200/yr in reimbursement costs apparently warrants a $2k/mo premium for basic coverage, right? Seriously?).
Without the ACA removing PEC, if I return to my career without a wage hit (unlikely with no seniority anymore - likely $50-55) at $65k, after paying for my insurance rate assuming it stayed put from 2007 (likely it went up even more) - I'd be clearing $35k or so a year for fulltime with a Master's Degree, $13k more than my Disability payments - really encouraging to throw all that time at so little gain, eh? But PEC made complete sense right?]
"Refusing Obamacare Exchange plans" - Completely incorrect, the only way to refuse an "Exchange Plan" is to refuse all plans from a given provider and all providers are required by law to provide an exchange plan, so if that was true - those providers are either: a) lying/misinformed or b) refusing literally ALL insurance besides Medicare/VA (since those aren't tied to exchanges in any of their forms).
There is no LEGAL MEANS to refuse specific insurances within a provider under the healthcare discrimination laws that have existed since at least 1985. If they take "BC/BS Excellus" they must take "BC/BS Exchange Policy01" as well - there's no legal way to distinguish between. [And likely won't be on the cards as well, since there's no real reason to distinguish them - but we won't know that till January or so]
This not getting less as you pay less thing seems to be a point of confusion for you, when its normal capitalism at work.
It would frankly lean a bit socialist to expect people paying more to get equal coverage to those paying nothing.
PS Patriot Act was much worse, and that's just looking at the past 15 years. Citizens United was as well.. Again in the past few years.
Or take Medicaid for no cost (or low cost if on the edge in expansion states).
The 'no choice' meme is terribly misleading.
Could be better, but people shouldn't expect filet mignon in a soup kitchen.
And on VA sucking - doesn't fixing the worst first make the most sense? VA and HMOs are huge offenders in comparison.
Fixing all 3 categories would be great, but generally you start with those that are worst first. As stated earlier, Medicaid deviates from 'normal' insurance by 15%, Medicare EXCEDES them by 5% because so many people seem to forget about networks, and how many policies don't allow or have very limited out of network coverage.
And in most rural states, the Medicaid plans generally have at least one option that includes a shuttle to a single central entity. Jai being one in the NE regions, but they've got similar versions in most statesif not all.
Not talking about 60% refusal rate... The context should've been quite clear.
I used Medicaid myself briefly, remember (18 mos or so). The one time I had a 'not taking' issue, I asked for where to go instead and I was set with their suggestion right away.
If it slips to the 25% range or lower I'd agree, 60% isn't remotely scary its not even half yet - and 2/3 isn't really far off from normal insurance w/o network limitations at 3/4. And the average HMO is closer to 15%-20%...
And of course EVERY HOSPITAL in their state takes it, so if you are truly dire and don't have searching time, you're still set.
Plenty of things run much worse numbers I'm sure you'd declare healthy...
You try to make it sound like 'OMG 60% won't take them its awful' when its slightly below average. (75%)
Hell, you say the same about the less taking Medicare memes, when Medicare is STILL the most accepted insurance in the US. 85% vs 82% for the next best with the worst private insurer being 70% (Non-HMO, that is HMOs would be close to 10-15%) no insurance in the US has 100% coverage, which your assertions keep implying.
Its sub par for its network size, but its quite manageable to find a Medicaid doctor if you need one.
And again, it's only about 15-20% lower than major standard medical plans because of networks.
Hell, only 85% of doctor's are accepting new patients PERIOD on a national level.
(Note: Normal insurance acceptance rates are around 75% and Medicare at 85% - its not drastically worse... Although less specialist weighted on both)
And on losing loans if a dependant - read the ACA, they don't have to be dependant to qualify if they're in the appropriate age bracket and attending school. (If they're NOT attending they do need to be though - apparently even just 1 semester is enough to qualify annually FYI) So assuming loans would unqualify if they were a dependant, which I doubt - I'd imagine the loan would just get larger as the financial assistance grant shrinks - but its not something I've dealt with from the side of the user.
Loans of most sorts rarely cancel because of a change to the principal they just get more costly or longer.
Regardless with ANY kid up to 25 being covered, its moot in most cases - only the rare "Going to college with deadbeat parents" case that's not that common, and likely can get Medicaid, would even need it anymore.