<p>As far as MA goes, how do you compare a plan for a state that was designed purely to help the small number of uninsured, to one that is designed to affect everybody?</p>
<p>My previous two employers had tiered insurance costs based on meeting certain criteria. They started out with “just do a health questionnaire” but every year it became more restrictive until, if you had any of the following conditions, you had to pay more for your premium:
- smoking
- BMI over 30
- Blood pressure over 130/80
- A1C over 7 (diabetes)
- drinking more than 2 alcohol drinks per day (which is the only one you could do based solely on patient report)</p>
<p>This stuff has already been going on for years.</p>
<p>Busdriver, unless I’m more uninformed than I thought, the ACA doesn’t affect people who already are covered under Medicare, medicaid, and has very little effect on those who are covered under their employers’ policies. (Stuff like requiring insurers to keep our kids on to age 26, eliminating lifetime caps, etc.) Those categories include the majority of people in the country already. What’s left are the relatively small number of (currently) uninsured and self-insured. That seems pretty comparable to Romneycare to me. What are the differences you see?</p>
<p>TatinG’s post a few pages back: “Other types of insurance penalize irresponsible behavior and deliberate misbehavior.”</p>
<p>This is what I really just don’t get. If I drive drunk, habitually speed and get tickets, or have multiple accidents, I can reasonably expect to pay a significantly higher premium and be in a high-risk pool.</p>
<p>If I choose to live in a rural area far from fire stations, have a trampoline, have a wood stove or a “vicious” breed dog, I can expect to pay significantly more for homeowner’s.</p>
<p>Be morbidly obese, smoke 2 packs a day (in the correct states), drink like a fish and don’t take my BP medication? Hey, you all can subsidize me and I’ll pay the same as everyone else. I completely and utterly fail to see the logic in this.</p>
<p>kluge, you reminded me to ask, “How many people are we talking about anyway?” Maybe this question was asked and answered earlier in the thread, but it’s worth mentioning again, how many people currently purchase their own healthcare (like me, NOT getting healthcare through an employer, NOT on Medicaid, NOT on Medicare) and how many additional are expected to sign up due to the combination of it now being required and subsidies being available? It is a relatively small number isn’t it?</p>
<p>You really have to appreciate the blame shifting at the end</p>
<p>
[More</a> HealthCare.gov woes: Website loses connectivity - U.S. News](<a href=“U.S. News: Latest Breaking Stories, Video, and Photos on American Politics, Economy, and Society | NBC News”>U.S. News: Latest Breaking Stories, Video, and Photos on American Politics, Economy, and Society | NBC News)</p>
<p>“That seems pretty comparable to Romneycare to me. What are the differences you see?”</p>
<p>Just based upon this thread alone, there seem to be many people affected. Those who pay for their own policies, those who own small businesses. Those who are losing jobs or hours, those whose companies are slashing their health care benefits or taking away their insurance (often, in my opinion, using the ACA as an excuse, but it is cause and effect). Those whose employers will dump their Cadillac insurance, those whose taxes are and will be raised to pay for this. Those people on medicare who lost their medicare advantage plans, doctors…in a multitude of different ways. If we just look at this forum alone, is there a single person who hasn’t been affected, whether positive or negative? Insurance, and how it is being paid and who will pay for it is in the process of being completely transformed, right or wrong. That is a far greater swath of people affected in so many ways more than romneycare.</p>
<p>I personally will be affected in an overall positive way, it appears so far. But I am in a lucky class of collectively bargained employees. The rest of the employees in my company that are non-union are not so lucky.</p>
<p>I’ve been hearing 7-million are needed to make the model work and they cannot all be old and sick.</p>
<p>But that would still leave 30-million or so uninsured thus not solving much.</p>
<p>Also, I cannot believe that all of this chaos and cost is being master-minded unless the ultimate goal is to make everyone mean everyone. Like, are they hoping to ultimately cause employers to phase out coverage with taxes. I think too much. Sorry.</p>
<p>19 million people have individual health insurance.</p>
<p>But aren’t the uninsured part of this as well? So that would be a bunch more.
A big bunch.</p>
<p>The uninsured are an additional 47 million or so. Eventually 30 million of this group will have insurance. Millions of illegal immigrants and those that dont qualify are not eligilble. So the number to reach is probably closer to 37 to 40 million.</p>
<p>Out of the uninsured, if my memory isnt failing me, about 12 million of the 47 million are eligible for medicaid.</p>
<p>It’s hard to predict but I think people with employer-provided insurance will be affected by ACA, just not right away. </p>
<p>In the small business market, I believe more and more employers will have their employees go to the exchanges for insurance because of the increasing expense of complying with ACA and the fact that some of their employees will be eligible for subsidies.</p>
<p>With the large employer groups, these companies will be looking for ways to save money and they will force their workers into these narrow network plans. Employees are not allowed to pay more than 9.5% of their salary for the cost of their insurance, so employers could see huge premium increases, forcing them to purchase plans very similar to the ones we are seeing on the exchanges. Then there is the whole issue of how the law will affect hiring and part-time employment, which is another issue that could have huge repercussions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And this is different from pre-ACA how?</p>
<p>In 2012, there were 266.9 million non-elderly people living in the US. Of those, 47 million (17.7%) were uninsured. Of those, 38 million were American citizens. </p>
<p>An additional 15 million people (5.8%) bought insurance on the private market.</p>
<p><a href=“http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2013/10/7451-09-the-uninsured-a-primer-e28093-key-facts-about-health-insurance1.pdf[/url]”>http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2013/10/7451-09-the-uninsured-a-primer-e28093-key-facts-about-health-insurance1.pdf</a></p>
<p>Also, many employers may stop offering spousal coverage because of the unusual quirks with the law with respect to this coverage.</p>
<p>Yes, that’s true. That’s why I’m in this miserable group. LOL</p>
<p>CF? What? You didnt like my numbers? :)</p>
<p>I am having trouble following these numbers, but didn’t CBO (non-partisan entity) say there would be 30 million uninsured after full implementation of the law.</p>
<p>CF, these very narrow network plans (except for HMOs) are a new phenomenon that are a direct consequence of ACA.</p>
<p>The CBO said that the ACA is expected to insure roughly an additional 30 million by 2022 out of the roughly 45 million currently without insurance.</p>