Did you hear that you can't keep your policy even if you liked it?

[LyraM45 0]

turtlespeed

******This must be unpossible.
I've never heard such a thing!
My coverage has changed in no way whatsoever.

I'll give you an update after next week's company meeting giving us the scoop on the next round of coverage.

Other than the typical up-tick of the costs, I don't expect any noticeable changes.

Ditto here. I actually don't know one person yet who is part of this "my rates went up 60% and/or they took my policy away, I lost my insurance because of Obamacare, etc." I'm not saying they aren't out there, because I'm sure there are people impacted in different ways. But not having seen one of these incidences personally makes me wonder if it's as widespread, sky is falling, catastrophic that some of the news and right leaning media make it out to be.

What would you like to know?

Do you need paper backup? What proof do you need?


What do you mean what proof do I need? I already said that I'm sure there are cases out there where people are being impacted. My question was if it was as widespread as some media outlets are reporting it to be. What percentage of people is this happening to?

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[LyraM45 0]

okalb

*** I actually don't know one person yet who is part of this "my rates went up 60% and/or they took my policy away,

Here is my story: I got a letter a week or so ago saying that my policy was being terminated as of Dec 31 because it is not compliant with the ACA. I went to find a new policy here is my result. My new policy is $200 less per month than what I have been paying. My deductible is substantially lower, my max out of pocket is substantially lower, my co-insurance is lower and my lifetime max is gone. I couldn't be happier with the change. So yes, I am one of those who had his policy cancelled. It was cancelled because it was a crappy policy that was a complete rip off that's why it wasn't ACA compliant. The only reason I had that policy is because it was all I could get in the past. The reason that I am able to get a much better policy for substantially less money is because of the ACA not allowing them to penalize me for my pre-existing conditions. This is a real life example of MY story, not something I heard from someone who knows someone who went to high school with a guy who lost his policy.

Thank you for sharing that. I've also heard from a couple other people personally, and it seems that a few others have your exact story. One of them is saying they are completely screwed and are not happy. I'm still on the fence with exactly what is going on with everything, but it seems like changes may be good for some, but not for all. I think that is to be expected when it comes to any kind of change with something, let alone a huge one in the health care system like this.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[LyraM45 0]

rushmc

******That's how insurance works. Alternatives are to have her simply die quickly, or have the government (which is also us) pay for her expenses, or have her be rich in the first place -- because for her to become employable and pay for future expenses, she'll have to have some rehab and help.

Edit to add: What do you see as alternatives? One can't go back in time.

My car insurance pays for the guy who got drunk and wiped out an entire family. Sucks, because I don't drive drunk, but that's how it is. I'm not in the high-risk pool, so I don't keep paying for him, but we don't treat cars like healthcare. I've said before that Obamacare isn't the best model -- but it's better than what we had, in part because it thinks about more parts of our healthcare complex, and in part because it will require change, which might just hone in on a more sustainable model.

Wendy P.

Better for how many?

Looks like 168M or over 50% of the country will be hurt worse with the ACA than without it.

this
and there will still be 30M uninsured
So what exatcly does the ACA fix?


This is exactly what I'm talking about-- where did you guys get these numbers? Or at least, where are they being forecasted since it technically hasn't happened yet? How about instead of "the sky is falling or is going to fall," can we please see current/factual numbers brought into the discussion?

Just a quick look and I found this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/12/the-obamacare-exchange-scorecard-around-100000-enrollees-and-five-million-cancellations/

Seems like a small percentage of Americans impacted, but the way some people here are talking about it, you'd think it was the majority of citizens.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[rushmc 23]

The CBO reported the un-insured number

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skypuppy 1]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

Get rid of EMTALA would have been a great start.

According to a former student of mine who is now an EMT, it is not uncommon for patients to be transported to the hospital without their wallet/purse/proof of insurance or bank account. When a patient is having a heart attack or has been in a serious wreck, seconds count (ever hear of the "golden hour"?). EMTs don't waste time looking for the purse or wallet that flew out the car window in the wreck, or searching the house for proof of insurance before transporting the patient. When that patient gets to the hospital, medical staff evaluate the patient and begin treatment as soon as is necessary to have a shot at saving their life. Police or family will bring in the ID/insurance info when they can.

Do you really want a system where people are left to die because their purse flew out the window in the wreck, or because the EMTs don't know where to look for an unconscious heart attack victims wallet? Where people who have paid for insurance are denied care just when they most need it because of a circumstance beyond their control.

Lawrocket, I've asked you this before when you brought up the "get rid of EMTALA" line, and you never answer. Perhaps you are thinking solely of the person who walks into the emergency clinic and demands care they have no intention or ability to pay for, but there are lots of ways for an unresponsive patient to arrive at the hospital without ID. If you advocate getting rid of EMTALA, how do you think hospitals should deal with such patients?

Don

Maybe the answer would be to implant a chip with insurance info into a person's body. Put it in their torso so if they lose an arm in the accident, or a leg, the chip doesn't get left behind at the scene.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[turtlespeed 226]

okalb

I just helped another friend get a new policy yesterday. She was paying $550/month with a $3000 deductible and a max out of pocket of $5K. Her new policy is $470/month with a $0 deductible and $2000 max out of pocket. She had 2 surgeries last year (shoulder/knee) and would not have been able to switch policies without the ACA because they would have been considered pre-existing conditions in the past. She could have paid $370 if she wanted to keep the deductible the same as she had, but decided to pay the $470 since it was less than she has been paying for the past few years and had a zero deductible.

Sounds like she should learn how to shop for medical insurance.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[okalb 104]

turtlespeed

***I just helped another friend get a new policy yesterday. She was paying $550/month with a $3000 deductible and a max out of pocket of $5K. Her new policy is $470/month with a $0 deductible and $2000 max out of pocket. She had 2 surgeries last year (shoulder/knee) and would not have been able to switch policies without the ACA because they would have been considered pre-existing conditions in the past. She could have paid $370 if she wanted to keep the deductible the same as she had, but decided to pay the $470 since it was less than she has been paying for the past few years and had a zero deductible.

Sounds like she should learn how to shop for medical insurance.
Sounds like as usual, you have no clue what you are talking about, but thanks for the feedback.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Can we agree as a society that people have intrinsic worth, and should not be left to die or suffer unnecessarily because of a circumstance of the size of their bank balance? Or should we choose to embrace a vision in which people are commodities to be exploited for labor or profit, but are otherwise disposable (our own immediate families excepted, of course)?

Let's be honest here. Some people have no worth. Some are actually detriments to society, not just financially either.

If we're ever going to hope to get medical costs under control, we have to stop pretending otherwise.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[LyraM45 0]

rushmc

The CBO reported the un-insured number

Thanks. Just checked and found this article that breaks it down nicely:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/08/obamacare-by-the-numbers/


Again, I'm missing the part where the majority is down the shitter as bad as all you guys are saying when it comes to Obamacare?

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[turtlespeed 226]

LyraM45

***The CBO reported the un-insured number

Thanks. Just checked and found this article that breaks it down nicely:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/08/obamacare-by-the-numbers/


Again, I'm missing the part where the majority is down the shitter as bad as all you guys are saying when it comes to Obamacare?

It has to do with the employer mandate that has been pushed off.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]She had 2 surgeries last year (shoulder/knee) and would not have been able to switch policies without the ACA because they would have been considered pre-existing conditions in the past.

[ChrisD 0]

I read this whole thing and I wished I haden't....for a number of reasons.

The biggest reason is tha lack of truth here as well as other places...


You don't get to keep your current health care plan and have the fed fund it if it doesn't meet the minimum standards.

In other words if you have an existing policy that is shit because your insurance company is ripping you off. And there a more than a few out there, the fed isn't going to pay for existing corruption.

So on this point, and this point alone, the OP is a fuckin idiot for starting this conversation by not having the slightest clue what they are speaking about.

Cause if the funding for these limited scams was included you all would be saying the exact opposite of what your flaming about now in that the fed is funding scam policies!

So make up your ignorant minds and at least try to get some of your facts straight!!!

C

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[ChrisD 0]

lawrocket

[Reply] What crime did a person who is born with sickle cell anemia commit, that would justify lifetime disqualification from medical insurance?

A couple of things:

(1) So long as that person has remained insured, that person cannot be denied coverage. That's been the law for about 30 years now.

(2) This is the same argument I make about mental illness and, well, just about any right that people want to take away from people who are usually born with it.

(3) The ACA penalizes smoking tobacco, and only use of tobacco. So penalizing behavior isn't off the table. A line has been drawn.

We are in the business of drawing lines. Want proof? Why isn't there legislation that precludes life insurance companies from turning down people with preexisting conditions? Because a line has been drawn. Where the line falls is the debate, not the presence of a line.

O'h donut boy speaks,....

So basically what your saying is that the insurance companies have the right to only insure those that are never going to get sick? To change the law so that they can use statistics to ensure their profitability and then whilst at the same time mandate that insurance be a mandated commodity that every one must pay for as required by law to ensure their continued global domination???


And by the way insurance companies drop coverage in record numbers. Just because the national
enquirer doesn't report this doesn't mean that the vast majority of Americans are being fucked up tha ass so far they can taste the corporate dick.

Millions are denied coverage and millions loose their coverage as soon as they hit the hospital steps.


AND WHO FUNDS ALL OF THIS, AND WHO MAKES THIS SCAM OF EPIC PROPORTIONS POSSIBLE????????

Why your friendly local lawyer of course.....
C

You all think the movie Elisium is out of the blue,....???

Well it's here folks and has been for quite some time.....

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[lawrocket 3]

LyraM45

****** I actually don't know one person yet who is part of this "my rates went up 60% and/or they took my policy away,

Here is my story: I got a letter a week or so ago saying that my policy was being terminated as of Dec 31 because it is not compliant with the ACA. I went to find a new policy here is my result. My new policy is $200 less per month than what I have been paying. My deductible is substantially lower, my max out of pocket is substantially lower, my co-insurance is lower and my lifetime max is gone. I couldn't be happier with the change. So yes, I am one of those who had his policy cancelled. It was cancelled because it was a crappy policy that was a complete rip off that's why it wasn't ACA compliant. The only reason I had that policy is because it was all I could get in the past. The reason that I am able to get a much better policy for substantially less money is because of the ACA not allowing them to penalize me for my pre-existing conditions. This is a real life example of MY story, not something I heard from someone who knows someone who went to high school with a guy who lost his policy.

Thank you for sharing that. I've also heard from a couple other people personally, and it seems that a few others have your exact story. One of them is saying they are completely screwed and are not happy. I'm still on the fence with exactly what is going on with everything, but it seems like changes may be good for some, but not for all. I think that is to be expected when it comes to any kind of change with something, let alone a huge one in the health care system like this.

Right. The ACA is designed to be a Godsend for some (the uninsured poor and/or chronically ill) and be a screwing for others.

How do you think okalb's policy is $200 per month cheaper than it was? How is it that the friend could have preexisting conditions, recent operations, and end up paying significantly less than Andy's friend who doesn't have the same conditions but makes a middle-class/upper middle class income?

Because Andy's friend is eating the cost to pay for your friend's coverage. In order for your friend to pay less, somebody has to pay more. And the ones who pay more are: (1) the healthy; (2) the young; (3) the self-employed; and (4) those making a higher income. Plus the subsidies that go on to make sure that the "price" does not reflect the "cost."

The ACA picked the sick and poor to benefit. (Ironically, many end up paying more, too - because they were uninsured to begin with). The young, healthy and middle-class are pissed because they are getting soaked.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

ChrisD

I read this whole thing and I wished I haden't....for a number of reasons.

The biggest reason is tha lack of truth here as well as other places...


You don't get to keep your current health care plan and have the fed fund it if it doesn't meet the minimum standards. (So if the feds don't like it you can't keep it. Right. Exactly what the President promised would not happen.)

In other words if you have an existing policy that you like and has worked just great for you because it suits exactly what your needs are but that the President and especially I think is shit because your insurance company is ripping you off by giving you exactly what you are happy and content with and have been for the last few years, but since I say they are ripping you off then by definition you shouldn't like it because everybody must agree with me because I am the self-anointed arbiter of truth and what is likeable or not and you have no idea what is good for you but I do and the President does, you dumb ass peasants. And there a more than a few out there, the fed isn't going to pay for existing corruption and the feds are paying for this to grease the insurance companies with subsidies. Because we have to grease the insurance companies to make sure they aren't corrupt.

So on this point, and this point alone, the OP is a fuckin idiot for starting this conversation by not having the slightest clue what they are speaking about because again I am the top authority and if anyone asks me, I would certainly confirm to that person my intellectual and moral supremacy

Cause if the funding for these limited scams was included you all would be saying the exact opposite of what your flaming about now in that the fed is funding scam policies and rewarding the same insurance companies by forcing you to buy insurance from them. That'll teach them and teach you not to try to keep something you like


So make up your ignorant minds and at least try to get some of your facts straight!!!

C

I just thought I'd insert some missing context in your posts. I agree with you, though. You are the chosen one whose intellectual firepower leaves the rest of us cowering in its intensity.

Now, since I don't know what's good for me, tell me what the best thing I should be eating for lunch. I mean, I know what I like and all, but I just don't trust myself as much as I trust you with matters both large and small. I think I like purple grape juice, but I really need you to tell me whether I should like it or should not.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

ChrisD

***[Reply] What crime did a person who is born with sickle cell anemia commit, that would justify lifetime disqualification from medical insurance?

A couple of things:

(1) So long as that person has remained insured, that person cannot be denied coverage. That's been the law for about 30 years now.

(2) This is the same argument I make about mental illness and, well, just about any right that people want to take away from people who are usually born with it.

(3) The ACA penalizes smoking tobacco, and only use of tobacco. So penalizing behavior isn't off the table. A line has been drawn.

We are in the business of drawing lines. Want proof? Why isn't there legislation that precludes life insurance companies from turning down people with preexisting conditions? Because a line has been drawn. Where the line falls is the debate, not the presence of a line.

[kallend 2,106]

lawrocket

[Reply] What crime did a person who is born with sickle cell anemia commit, that would justify lifetime disqualification from medical insurance?

A couple of things:

(1) So long as that person has remained insured, that person cannot be denied coverage. That's been the law for about 30 years now.

[ChrisD 0]

kallend

***[Reply] What crime did a person who is born with sickle cell anemia commit, that would justify lifetime disqualification from medical insurance?

A couple of things:

(1) So long as that person has remained insured, that person cannot be denied coverage. That's been the law for about 30 years now.



Kindly explain how that applies to a newborn.


Ditto.

But what kills me is this same logic would /wouldn't be applied if he was robbed at knifepoint on the street. ?

The fed took steps to end subsidized corruption, a type of white collar crime, by not funding rip-off scam policies. The very existence of only due the paid diligence of corrupt lawyers doing what they do. They, us, our government are acting as police trying to protect everyone. And the most insidious thing is that they are only going after the most blatantly corrupt policies out there. And this gets twisted into a free choice argument?

And by corruption I mean the moral choices most rational human beings make. Lawyers like to justify their actions based upon the caveat that they are required to do everything that their clients demand of them. Kind of exactly in the same way Josef Mengele justified his actions. There are limits and this rational has led to the ruination of our fine country.

So why does he ignore the facts in favor of his free choice argument?

I want and need the very few times our Government steps in to protect those that can not protect themselves. Seat belts save lives. Getting rid of corrupt and scam insurance policies should be a job for Government when individuals cannot do this for themselves. But alas it's no longer about government for the people and it's associated checks and balances:

It's about those who have power, how they got it, and how they keep it. Morality has taken a back seat to the law, a legal system that is bought and paid for! The law has nothing to do with people anymore. It is a commodity for the fattest wallets and nothing else. Law is something that corporations dictate to ensure next years profitability.

C



"Damaged Care" is a nice movie that has much illustrative value to what and how insurance litigation works in this day and age.

Did yo know that the rate of legitimate claims that are not being paid has recently undergone an exponential increase? This is because in most of our fifty states the liability for intentionally denying a claim has been drastically reduced or is in many cases non-existent. It is much more cost effective to blame the victim and force unfunded litigation than to merely pay out the claim. Of course the war cry from the legal team is always we have the right to not pay frivioulus claims or we have the right to protect ourselves against fraud.

I do agree with him on one thing though:

Get rid of the fucking paid whores on a national level this would then force the insurance companies and the health care industry to be more responsive to the communities they serve. Government would then be responsive to the supposed checks and balances the peoples whims would demand. I bet he wont go for that though????

Real capitalism scares the shit out of our corporations. That's why they hire lawyers..... to make sure our Government doesn't work.....

Ya know I'm going to go back to Amish Country to watch the next barn rasin and make the suggfestion that I should get some cash before I help my neighbors in need.....

Quote

“When HMO’s came on the scene, we were told that they would eliminate only the “inappropriate care” and they would reduce costs so everyone could have insurance. Exactly the opposite has happened. They deny and delay needed care with sophisticated techniques, consume enormous resources for overhead costs and profits, and health care costs are rising dramatically.”

“Our health care funding system is sick,” says Dr. Don McCanne, a retired family physician and President of Physicians for a National Health Program. “If people only understood that we are already paying enough to provide comprehensive coverage for everyone – including heart transplants – if we only cut out the insurance middlemen ...”

The whole concept of insurance has been perverted beyond recognition,...to the point Mine Kamph noodle low mein makes sense

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."

[turtlespeed 226]

lawrocket

******[Reply] What crime did a person who is born with sickle cell anemia commit, that would justify lifetime disqualification from medical insurance?

A couple of things:

(1) So long as that person has remained insured, that person cannot be denied coverage. That's been the law for about 30 years now.

(2) This is the same argument I make about mental illness and, well, just about any right that people want to take away from people who are usually born with it.

(3) The ACA penalizes smoking tobacco, and only use of tobacco. So penalizing behavior isn't off the table. A line has been drawn.

We are in the business of drawing lines. Want proof? Why isn't there legislation that precludes life insurance companies from turning down people with preexisting conditions? Because a line has been drawn. Where the line falls is the debate, not the presence of a line.

O'h donut boy speaks,....

So basically what your saying is that the insurance companies have the right to only insure those that are never going to get sick? To change the law so that they can use statistics to ensure their profitability and then whilst at the same time mandate that insurance be a mandated commodity that every one must pay for as required by law to ensure their continued global domination???



No. I'm saying that if a person is told, "if you like it you can keep it" then it means "if you like it you can keep it" and not, "you dumb fucks aren't smart enough to know what's good for you."

Question: if you don't like insurance commpanies, why do yoy support a law that mandates that you buy from them?

And no, insurance is not for those who will never get sick. That's nonsensical. Insurance is for "peace of mind" so that if an event does happen you've got coverage.

[Reply]And by the way insurance companies drop coverage in record numbers. Just because the national
enquirer doesn't report this doesn't mean that the vast majority of Americans are being fucked up tha ass so far they can taste the corporate dick.

Yes. They do. Quite often, in fact. But in "record numbers?" Hmmm. That's weird. Insurance companies cannot just arbitrarily drop a person. If it does, there are state and federal problems, as well as things like bad faith litigation that costs big.

Subjective perception and objective reality are different things. I think you should study up on the differences.

[Reply]Millions are denied coverage and millions loose their coverage as soon as they hit the hospital steps.

Millions per day? Month? Year? Decade? In history?

[Reply]AND WHO FUNDS ALL OF THIS, AND WHO MAKES THIS SCAM OF EPIC PROPORTIONS POSSIBLE????????

The government.

I have to give it to you. I couldn't decipher all that drivel.
If he posts with any more anger, the internet might implode.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kelpdiver 2]

turtlespeed

I have to give it to you. I couldn't decipher all that drivel.
If he posts with any more anger, the internet might implode.

indeed, is that style of prose driven by madness, good drugs, or a misdirected creative writing mind? If the point was to clearly communicate a viewpoint, it's a total fucking failure. But if it was to blow off some elitist steam, it's brilliant stuff, in the eye of the beholder.

Reminds me vaguely of one of our past ranters, but not a match on the style.

[normiss 851]

I was able to keep mine.

Very few changes, minor increase in cost although the "out of pocket" expenses have changed to allow coverage of more expenses, so the cost is a wash it seems.

Best change was the domestic partner is no longer a tax hit.
My domestic partner is now considered my spouse.

[davjohns 1]

Just a note: the term 'health insurance' is no longer applicable. Insurance guards against future, unrealized problems. Since pre-existing conditions are no longer a disqualifier, it is kind of like buying car insurance after a wreck. It's really just a tool to difuse costs over a population. We need a new term.

And for the sake of intellectual honesty, the insurance companies are now just an additional layer of administration / expense. We may as well move over to a full 'one-payer' system. That's what it is.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rushmc 23]

And now greedy big education is dropping their health care plans to the very people who voted in the highest numbers for Obama

Because of money for christ sake, colleges are dropping plans for students becuase it is too expensive

WTH???

Cut the teachers pay. Big education pays them way too damned much anyway. Use that money to cover the children


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/18/students-suffer-sticker-shock-from-obamacare/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ChrisD 0]

rushmc

And now greedy big education is dropping their health care plans to the very people who voted in the highest numbers for Obama

Because of money for christ sake, colleges are dropping plans for students becuase it is too expensive

WTH???

Cut the teachers pay. Big education pays them way too damned much anyway. Use that money to cover the children


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/18/students-suffer-sticker-shock-from-obamacare/

The college thing is worth speaking about cause my take is that many colleges have a way too friendly association with their insurance carriers. I also understand that many colleges/ universities are mandating students purchase "their" plan and these same insurance lawyers have written in very restrictive specifications that makes getting a comparable policy, i.e. via your parents as an example, very difficult. I am sure there are exceptions to this but there seems to be a movement to screw students because the perception is that they have deep pockets. Mostly funded by the false perception of cheep student loans which has in fact created this vicious circle....

Youll remember cheep loans and the whole student loan system was massively restructured based upon legal and lobbing and has taken a really bad turn for the worse considering the negative effects this has had all in the name of free enterprise, which is what the industry wanted when they achieved government collaboration. All in the name of Government downsizing.

C

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."