<p>Flossy, my point had only been that if what is defined as legal “health insurance” costs an employer “x” amount to provide, or costs a pool like BCBS mi x amount to provide, and an individual had a policy that cost 33% of x, are we really talking apples to apples? Is it likely that an individual can get the same thing provided to a group for a third of what employers have been paying?</p>
<p>So when someone tells me their premiums tripled, I think to myself “thank God, you now have health insurance. Glad you didn’t have to find out what you had before.” :)</p>
<p>And by premiums, no, the research does not count, nor should it count, subsidies. I was referring to the real full actual premiums unrelated to subsidies. The exchange shows and quotes full premiums until you’ve entered data, at which time if your eligible for subsidy, it then shows cost minus subsidy. So folks should be clear about the cost.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, that doesn’t mean in any way that I think healthcare costs that spawn the premiums are anywhere near reasonable. But that’s a completely different issue that can’t and likely won’t be fully attacked by this legislation. </p>
<p>There are aspects to the legislation, however, that will make healthcare costs more transparent and that will raise consumer consciousness. There are elements that to a degree control admin costs and practices which could in turn lead to more efficiencies, plus the market thrust of negotiating rates with the consumer actually seeing the outcomes.</p>
<p>Those aspects are important, and could not happen without an equalization by definition of what the product is and how the product is delivered or accessed. </p>
<p>Kmcmom - I completely understand that was your point and as the above confusion makes quite clear the point is a little muddy. I am not saying there weren’t any lousy plans on the individual market. Of course, there were. But, there were also very good plans cancelled and people who now are facing much higher costs. Actually. I’m surprised this is news to anyone. Subsidies don’t come out of thin air, either. There are costs involved there and while they may be buried in the economy the middle class will be paying somehow.</p>
<p>Mini-med plans are basically the opposite of cat plans and they had a place for the young and healthy who like to go to the doctor for small stuff. I was never one of those people. I only go for big stuff and I’m not defending or bashing them or anything else. Most people who have them are transient workers. They are not meant to be insurance for a lifetime. Simply, they are better than nothing for now. And, as I have stated more times on here than I can count I do realize that there are people who benefit from ACA… There are also people who will be hurt financially. There is a reason this legislation is so unpopular. The latest polls show even the uninsured don’t like it. </p>
<p>Given the ridiculous level of incompetence involved in the execution I will admit to being less than optimistic. My apologies.</p>
<p>Flossy, the polls show that the public doesn’t like the ACA. However, they also show that virtually every element of the ACA IS popular, and some elements are wildly popular. The polls even show that “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” is something like 15 points more popular than “Obamacare.” (They are, of course, one and the same.)</p>
<p>At this point, people have very little personal experience to go on. Once they figure out that they can get medical care without the specter of financial ruin, I bet they’ll start liking it a little better.</p>
<p>Well, the specter of financial ruin is not really a factor for a whole lot of people. If you are living paycheck to paycheck as is the case for nearly half the country there’s not much to ruin is there? I wonder just how many of the uninsured are uninsured by choice? </p>
<p>Sure, they can but hospitals also routinely write off most of these charges. In any case, for a healthy person in this situation these catastrophic what if’s are probably not priorities. Most of these folks will be fine which is why insurance as a concept works in the first place.</p>
<p>Actingmt, are you say that if an uninsured person with a low-paying job goes to an emergency room (and let’s say the person had a condition that we’d all agree was an emergency) that the hospital is not going to bill them and go after them with collection agencies, but will just say, oh, never mind? That is not my understanding of the system.</p>
<p>I have been fighting hospital bills that are completely bogus for YEARS. I’ve talked about them on CC several times- one bill is supposedly from June of 2010… a time I wasn’t even in the country. I fight it, it goes away, comes back a few months later from another collection agency.
Yes, the hospitals get rid of them by passing them on to the collection agency after a while. However, they don’t stop following the person. </p>
<p>Pretty close. My sister works in hospital administration. This is a population of people from whom they know they will not be collecting anything. This is not to say they won’t try but the results will be the same. First, these people move a lot so the chances of them getting their mail are slim. Responding slimmer And, many are already bankrupt so that’s not a huge issue. Of course, not everyone. Many also handle this by paying 50-dollars a month basically forever. </p>
<p>Wait, is someone saying if you are already in a financially precarious position…it’s not as far to fall as some wealthier guy? The boo-boo isn’t as bad? </p>
<p>Some hospitals have an easier process than others. But like many of the details on this thread, it distracts to go off hunting down real facts to rebut some side comments. </p>
<p>Many predicate their stands on insufficient info. </p>
<p>I was saying whether they want to pay anything to insure themselves against an unexpected risk is still up in the air. Basically, do they buy a data plan or health insurance? Some will choose the data plan. I’m not sure why that’s at all surprising.</p>
<p>The data plan notion is still offensive, just sayin’.<br>
What I think some find hard to grasp is that there are possible day to day insurance needs and major threats and a whole lot in between. There was no standard for an “adequate” plan- there were conventions, common offerings and some points that were legislated (like how fast a mom could be discharged after giving birth.) But no definition of “essential benefits” or regulations on caps, etc. Now we have some standards. </p>
<p>There was insurance out there that offered “false security.” It doesn’t matter if one says, “but it’s what I wanted” or but I don’t use much or it came through my employer. What matters more is that, when we consider costs of hospital visits, certain not-far-fetched procedures, possible on-going needs, etc, those insurance policies were insufficient, across the board, based on stats and probabilities. </p>
<p>And, yes, if you “liked” what you had before, the new shift is a pain. A piece of me says, “that’s life.” We’re not pioneers out there living alone on the plains, doing our own doctoring. And this really isn’t about “you,” what you would impose on all based on what “you” like and want. </p>
<p>Well, I’m sorry you find it offensive. That was not my intent. These are real choices that real people do actually make out here in the real world. They may be bad choices but people make a lot of bad choices. That’s life, too. I don’t understand the you imposing stuff in your comment. since I’m not imposing anything I’m just trying to explain why some people may not like the government imposing. That’s all. </p>
<p>The link goes to the summary, acting. Need to go to the meatier part.
“More of those without coverage say the law has made the uninsured as a group worse off (39 percent) than better off (26 percent). Despite these views, large shares of the uninsured see health insurance as “very important” and say they need it, while four in ten say they’ve tried to get coverage in the past 6 months, and half expect to get it this year.”</p>
<p>It also goes on to show how many are under-informed: Provide financial help to low and moderate income Americans who don’t get insurance through their jobs to help them purchase coverage." Total public: 63% yes, 39% no/don’t know. Uninsured, under 65: 54% yes, 46% no/don’t know. And yet “we” know the correct answer is “yes.”</p>
<p>These surveys are not about the nightly news 60 second digests. They offer many pods of info to serve many detail seekers. My take-away is that the negative views include too many who are under-informed, pointing to the need to better inform, get the word out there. Not that some revolution is brewing.</p>
<p>Acting, I personally preferred the example of someone needing two new tires. Makes it sound less frivolous. And the “you” was intentionally in quotes. It may refer to a poster or neighbor or columnist or some guy in an anecdote. </p>
<p>Okay, tires are less frivolous than a data plan. Of course, you don’t buy new tires unless you have a car and many people have phones but not cars however…this is getting silly, now. imho. </p>
<p>Now we’re talking about data plans when the issue was public opinion. Apologies for my complaint, won’t comment on why it irked, so we can get back on track: do you see how survey results can mislead when only one aspect is mentioned? Or, considering context, misrepresented? Again, this is the sort of vetting I referred to.</p>
<p>The telling thing is that the unpopular parts of ACA are the higher costs (for many middle class people), higher costs for younger people and the narrow networks. It’s a high price for a not so good product. The only popular aspect is it’s better than nothing, for those who had no employer provided insurance and who couldn’t get insurance due to a pre-existing condition. I have yet to see why it’s better than the state high risk pools which helped this small population of the uninsured without disrupting everyone else. </p>
<p>Yes LF, anything can be spun to make any point that anyone on any side of this wants to make. We agree completely</p>
<p>Let’s just say I have some experience with irresponsible people and bad choice making and was simply trying to explain this mentality to some who seem not to grasp it or want to acknowledge the possibility that it exists. It does. </p>
<p>Happy to agree, acting. True for both sides. At it’s best, spin is an art form. At its worst…</p>
<p>Still curious about the 5 mil figure. Came across reports the info was an old projection, that it didn’t account for those auto-moved to acceptable new plans, those who simply chose an appropriate cost-ok alternate plan, and so on. “5 mil” is a big number to throw around, makes that subconscious impact.</p>