<p>If you knew you’d have high medical costs, would you sign up for cat? I suggest that most people signing up for cat would be healthy people trying to protect against, well, catastrophes.</p>
<p>“If you knew you’d have high medical costs, would you sign up for cat?”
Just the opposite I should think. </p>
<p>Your total cost is premium + out of pocket.</p>
<p>“I suggest that most people signing up for cat would be healthy people”</p>
<p>I agree. Meaning that they arent a burden on the health care or insurance systems. Where is the adverse selection?</p>
<p>Has anyone here talked to their doctors or any doctors for that matter about what they think of the law?</p>
<p>I have heard from a couple that it could hasten the retirement of a number of them because of the low reimbursements and paperwork requirements. In order to sustain their income, it may be necessary to see far more patients to make up for the low reimbursements.</p>
<p>The adverse selection is taking those healthy people out of the non-catastrophic policies, leaving less healthy people in the non-catastrophic plans, driving up premiums for the non-catastrophic plans, leading people of medium healthiness to leave the non-catastrophic plans, driving up premiums even more. That’s what adverse selection is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t comment on reimbursements, but I don’t see why the ACA would cause higher paperwork requirements. Doctors already handle Medicare and private insurance, and they handle Medicaid if they take Medicaid. Now, under ACA, they will be handling Medicare, private insurance, and Medicaid if they take it. So what’s the difference?</p>
<p>Cardinal Fang, have you talked to any doctors regarding the law?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wait, how is that any different than the situation last month? </p>
<p>Its seems like we have long history of cat and low deductible policies existing with creating a disrupted market.</p>
<p>It’s not different from the situation last month, but the situation last month is the problem the ACA is trying to fix. The situation last month was that people with pre-existing conditions were priced out of the market. The ACA doesn’t want people with pre-existing conditions to be priced out of the market. So now we have community rating: everybody pays the same. </p>
<p>Your suggestion is that healthy people would get a special cheap premium, that was only cheap for healthy people, and non-healthy people would get a special expensive premium because they’d be relegated to the expensive premium policy. Nope.</p>
<p>
Well, actually, if it means improved prenatal care plus more young women fully insured for pregnancy & delivery… there probably will be some new people created. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It will create some new people in the way calmom says, but I hope the contraception mandate will also prevent some unwanted people.</p>
<p>I was also told that because it will be more difficult for doctors to make a good living, it is expected that the loss of doctor-owned practices will accelerate.</p>
<p>It would nice if we had some doctors who would be willing to post and tell us their thoughts regarding the ramifications of the law on the healthcare system.</p>
<p>More and more ACA supporters seem to be backing delay. Is delay just delay or is it a bigger problem for the whole package?</p>
<p>
There actually have been multiple tweaks over the years, usually attached as a rider to another bill. For example, the Three Percent Withholding Repeal and Job Creation Act (Public Law 112-56), passed in November 2011 modified the calculation of household income by adding in untaxed social security benefits. So fixes can and have be pushed through piecemeal.</p>
<p>
Actually, ACA may make the administrative end of things a little easier, because there is more consistency in what procedures are covered under the law, with the essential benefits requirements. I think one problem for doctors is they don’t always know what will be covered under a policy, and that in turn means that they don’t know how to code things for billing. They submit a claim, its rejected, but then it maybe it turns out that it would have been allowed if had been coded in a different way.</p>
<p>Half a million Californians lose their health care under Obamacare:</p>
<p>[Half</a> a milllion Californians could lose their health care under Obamacare next year - Debra J. Saunders](<a href=“SFGATE: San Francisco Bay Area News, Sports, Culture, Travel, Food and Drink - SFGATE”>SFGATE: San Francisco Bay Area News, Sports, Culture, Travel, Food and Drink - SFGATE)</p>
<p>"But for the people kicked off their individual California plans, Johnston said, it may well be that ”if you’re outside that subsidy range, you’re on your own.”</p>
<p>Ah, don’t worry, Goldenpooch. I’m sure someone will come on and explain to us why that is a good thing.</p>
<p>Apparently whoever wrote the headline to that article (Half a million Californians lose their health care) didn’t read the article.</p>
<p>The text of the article says that half a million people in California had their policies cancelled. That is not the same as half a million people losing their health care. Most of those people are going to go out and buy new policies.</p>
<p>Several Californians in this thread have gotten notices from their carriers that their insurance policies have been terminated for next year. Notice that no one in this thread has lost their health care, because everyone in this thread is going to roll over to the policy that their insurer will move them to by default, or buy a new policy.</p>
<p>You could lose your health care if your policy gets cancelled and you can’t buy a new one because insurers will no longer insure you. But that is not happening under the ACA.</p>
<p>Goldenpooch, you yourself are someone who has had their policy cancelled, so you must understand the situation. I can’t imagine why you repeated the false headline uncritically.</p>
<p>By that logic everyone except pre-existing conditions always had health care, not insurance since they were getting treated.</p>
<p>Yeah, the headline is deceptive, but their policies which they like are being terminated.</p>
<p>I also wonder how many of these half a million people are going to pay more for their insurance and if they will get to keep their doctor.</p>
<p>Busdriver11, you did not read the article.</p>