Affordable Care Act - catastrophic plans cancelled

[Richard5]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That link is propaganda, a joke. Can you explain why the majority of first-world countries (and several lower-tier countries too) can provide a higher level of health-care, to everyone, at a lower delivered cost?

But you can believe what you wish.

I'm not in the medical field. However, I do listen to those who are. Then there are the varied reports for and against. Yet, as example, the UK's own NHS released a new 'constitution' in 2010 to combat the waiting time spiraling out of control. The results have been mixed. The Royal College of Surgeons pronounced it as "outrageous" with a few hmphhs I'm sure.

Instead of going on about it, I will say not all is as rosy as reported. And with PPACA there is so much uncertainty that even the crystal ball gazers, aka, stakeholders aren't sure.

Well, one more...the much respected Lancet reported for 2010 the mortality rates for heart disease, breast cancer, or colon cancer are significantly higher (40-88%) in the UK than the USA. For treatment of hypertension and high blood pressure and related diseases, the USA ranked 1st among nations which include Germany, Italy, Canada, UK, Sweden, and Spain. (Lancet, 2010)

[jcapo]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

ACA is a step towards levelling access to healthcare insurance, which should bring more competition among insurers, instead of a series of fragmented non-competitive markets. There's tons of unnecessary overhead to trim from the insurers, and the current byzantine multiple-price situation will hopefully start to flatten out.

The Exchange policies are based on the county you live in and not the state. That's more fragmented and limits competition more than the current system of insurance, IMHO.

Allowing insurance to be sold across state lines should increase competition and should lower costs. Insurance companies would not have to create and manage a separate company in each state they want to do business in as they do now. There should be some economy of scale.

Notice I said should not would.

Back to the topic, we have another year to see how things shake out. I have medicare and my wife has a policy with Humana. Its not an ACA compliant policy. It does not cover all the stuff we don't need coverage for. Cost went up 22% this year and there will be another increase on January 1. We don't know what that is yet. She can keep the policy through 2014.

Humana did offer her an ACA compliant policy option at very close to twice the cost with a higher deductible, less copay, and higher coinsurance.

I just don't see the cost control that the ACA is supposed to provide.

[Richard5]

Originally Posted by jcapo

Back to the topic, we have another year to see how things shake out. I have medicare and my wife has a policy with Humana. Its not an ACA compliant policy. It does not cover all the stuff we don't need coverage for.

Is the sentence in bold in error? If not, I don't understand.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

ACA is a step towards levelling access to healthcare insurance, which should bring more competition among insurers, instead of a series of fragmented non-competitive markets. There's tons of unnecessary overhead to trim from the insurers, and the current byzantine multiple-price situation will hopefully start to flatten out.



"the 47%" didn't exactly carry the day, either

Insurance is only a small part of the problem, and therefore only a small part of the solution. I agree with more competition, but the ACA will only have a limited affect on that, ESPECIALLY since it gave pharmaceutical companies a pass, and ensured even higher profits for them.

If you'd like to participate in this debate, please do a little research outside the political propaganda.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Richard5

I'm not in the medical field. However, I do listen to those who are.

Just google "world healthcare rankings". Or any number of similar searches. How about Bloomberg?

Originally Posted by jcapo

I just don't see the cost control that the ACA is supposed to provide.

It should result in a more competitive, less fragmented health insurance market, that more people participate in. If this works out, then the insurers will in turn be pushing on the healthcare providers and suppliers(drugs, etc) for lower costs.

LGS3, I really don't wanna be defending ACA. Universal, single-payer is the grail as far as I'm concerned.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by jcapo

The Exchange policies are based on the county you live in and not the state. That's more fragmented and limits competition more than the current system of insurance, IMHO.

Allowing insurance to be sold across state lines should increase competition and should lower costs. Insurance companies would not have to create and manage a separate company in each state they want to do business in as they do now. There should be some economy of scale.

Notice I said should not would.

Back to the topic, we have another year to see how things shake out. I have medicare and my wife has a policy with Humana. Its not an ACA compliant policy. It does not cover all the stuff we don't need coverage for. Cost went up 22% this year and there will be another increase on January 1. We don't know what that is yet. She can keep the policy through 2014.

Humana did offer her an ACA compliant policy option at very close to twice the cost with a higher deductible, less copay, and higher coinsurance.

I just don't see the cost control that the ACA is supposed to provide.

Excellent points.

[jcapo]

Originally Posted by Richard5

Is the sentence in bold in error? If not, I don't understand.

An ACA compliant policy covers maternity and newborn care for males and prostate cancer screening for females. I can't get pregnant and my wife will not have prostate cancer.

There are a number of other things that an ACA compliant policy must provide coverage for that are best paid for out of pocket rather than every month in an increased premium.

The idea behind this is to spread the out of control medical cost across all of the population. A worthwhile goal but its really going to hurt a lot of us.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by s/v 'Faith'

Doodles,

I appreciate your post, and the discussion. You make an excellent point, folks receiving SSI (although not so much SSDI) and Medicare have paid into a program and are receiving a benefit. Good or bad, these programs are funded by the government taking (withholding) pay. The ACA has no such provision.

Society providing for "widows and orphans among us" is certainly admirable. If this were the focus of the ACA it might be a good thing. This and other programs historically have provided disincentive for people to improve their circumstance.

If someone can make a living off of these entitlement programs, where is their incentive to do more? What example does it set for their children? Generational poverty is a curse and needs to be eradicated.... Giving free phones, creating food stamp programs designed for abuse, and rewarding participation with increased benefits does nothing to lift people from poverty but rather enslaves them.

The additional penalty is borne by those who work to pay taxes... How much more debt do you really believe the US can manage over time? Is is worth it to burden yôur children's children so that (an estimated, but hard to calculate) millions of people will not have to pay for cell phone service?

Letting people who can't manage their own finances, vote to decide how the country's finances are managed. What could go wrong?

[fgd3]

Originally Posted by zeehag

every year every worker earning a paycheck pays into social security via fica. i have paid in over 500,000 usd.

The employee contribution to FICA is 6.2%. To have paid in over $500,000 you would have had to have income subject to FICA tax in excess of $8,064,516. Spread over a 30-year career your annual earnings would come to over $268,817. Even today, income subject to Social Security tax maxes out at $106,800. I don't understand how you could have paid over $500,000 in FICA taxes. Could you explain?

Fabbian

[CatInHand]

Originally Posted by jcapo

An ACA compliant policy covers maternity and newborn care for males and prostate cancer screening for females. I can't get pregnant and my wife will not have prostate cancer.

I'm curious how a policy can cover something that doesn't exist. Could you explain that better?

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by CatInHand

I'm curious how a policy can cover something that doesn't exist. Could you explain that better?

The whole concept of insurance is that some people pay in for services that they're not getting in order for others to get services that they're not paying for.

When you mandate certain coverages that people don't need, and they pay the same rate as someone who needs those coverages, then guess who gets the bigger benefit.

Clearly, the older population is the bigger beneficiary, and eventually care will need to be rationed in some way, but no politician is going to want to discuss this concept frankly, as they don't want to get blamed for advocating "death panels". So prepare yourself for lots of B.S. in the ongoing health care discussion.

[CatInHand]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

The whole concept of insurance is that some people pay in for services that they're not getting in order for others to get services that they're not paying for.

When you mandate certain coverages that people don't need, and they pay the same rate as someone who needs those coverages, then guess who gets the bigger benefit.

Clearly, the older population is the bigger beneficiary, and eventually care will need to be rationed in some way, but no politician is going to want to discuss this concept frankly, as they don't want to get blamed for advocating "death panels". So prepare yourself for lots of B.S. in the ongoing health care discussion.

That doesn't explain why the previous poster specifically feels that CHILDBIRTH for a MAN is covered.

But thanks for clearing up the obvious for me.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by CatInHand

That doesn't explain why the previous poster specifically feels that CHILDBIRTH for a MAN is covered.

But thanks for clearing up the obvious for me.

No problem. Let us know if you need more obvious things explained.

[Boatguy30]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Another myth. Like one-percenters everywhere, very wealthy Canadians can choose to go to private health-care in the US, or Monaco, or Dubai. Usually for elective stuff like plastic surgery or joint replacement.

The vast majority of Canadians, wealthy included, get their care through the same system.

Bonus fact: If there's a significant wait for life-saving treatment, or there's an effective treatment not yet available in Canada, the Canadian system will PAY to send the patient to the US or elsewhere for the treatment.

I guess I know richer Canadians than you do. They tell me everyone should pay cash like they do in the US. I would be somewhat concerned as oil politics corrupts your government more and more and the neuvo super wealthy an powerful influence health care policy.

[Boatguy30]

Originally Posted by fgd3

The employee contribution to FICA is 6.2%. To have paid in over $500,000 you would have had to have income subject to FICA tax in excess of $8,064,516. Spread over a 30-year career your annual earnings would come to over $268,817. Even today, income subject to Social Security tax maxes out at $106,800. I don't understand how you could have paid over $500,000 in FICA taxes. Could you explain?

Fabbian

I believe only the first 150,000 or so is subject as well so that only like 9k a year. More if you're self employed.