-
Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.
The unofficial Obamacare thread...
- Thread starter Maximus
- Start date
WellYouNeednt
Needles and Pins
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2010
- Messages
- 3,544
- Reaction score
- 3,585
- Points
- 113
Pathetic.
This is what it reminded me of:
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/GHLelReSWdY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 20,027
- Reaction score
- 49,800
- Points
- 148
Fucking kidding me???? :chuckles:
No security ever built into Obamacare site
Published: Monday, 25 Nov 2013 | 9:54 AM ET
By: Matthew J. Belvedere | Producer, CNBC's "Squawk Box"
Monday, 25 Nov 2013 | 7:14 AM ET
Dissecting the critical security problems with the website Healthcare.gov, with TrustedSec CEO David Kennedy. "It will take a long time to address some of the critical and high exposures on the website itself," he says.
It could take a year to secure the risk of "high exposures" of personal information on the federal Obamacare online exchange, a cybersecurity expert told CNBC on Monday.
"When you develop a website, you develop it with security in mind. And it doesn't appear to have happened this time," said David Kennedy, a so-called "white hat" hacker who tests online security by breaching websites. He testified on Capitol Hill about the flaws of HealthCare.gov last week.
"It's really hard to go back and fix the security around it because security wasn't built into it," said Kennedy, chief executive of TrustedSec. "We're talking multiple months to over a year to at least address some of the critical-to-high exposures on the website itself."
According to the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversaw the implementation of the website, the components used to build the site are compliant with standards set by Federal security authorities.
"The privacy and security of consumers' personal information are a top priority for us. Security testing happens on an ongoing basis using industry best practices to appropriately safeguard consumers' personal information," said the spokesperson.
Another online security expert—who spoke at last week's House hearing and then on CNBC—said the federal Obamacare website needs to be shut down and rebuilt from scratch. Morgan Wright, CEO of Crowd Sourced Investigations said: "There's not a plan to fix this that meets the sniff test of being reasonable."
Last month, a Sept. 27 government memorandum surfaced in which two HHS officials said the security of the site had not been properly tested before it opened, creating "a high risk."
HHS had explained then that steps were taken to ease security concerns after the memo was written, and that consumer information was secure. Technicians fixed a security bug in the password reset function in late October, the agency said.
But on CNBC, Kennedy disputed those claims, saying vulnerabilities remain on "everything from hacking someone's computer so when you visit the website it actually tries to hack your computer back, all the way to being able to extract email addresses, users names—first name, last name—[and] locations."
Government officials and contractors have been working around the clock for weeks, releasing fixes on HealthCare.gov nightly with the goal of meeting the Obama administration's self-imposed deadline of the end of the month to have the site working smoothly.
"When you look at the site itself, it could be really good. It could do really well. They're just not building the security into the site itself," said Kennedy. "Putting your information on there is definitely a risk."
The federal portal serves 36 states not operating their own health insurance exchanges. Fourteen other states and the District of Columbia run their own marketplaces. All of them launched on Oct. 1 as part of the Obamacare provision mandating most Americans have health-care coverage for next year or face tax penalties.
Kennedy said those state-operated exchanges also face security risks. "These are going to be a large area for attack." He pointed to a problem on the Vermont website on Friday. Officials overseeing the Vermont Health Connect website confirmed a security breach on the system last month.
When it comes to securing personal information online, Kennedy cited Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter as models for the industry. He even said the IRS website does regular testing to help "ensure that when the websites come out they're protected."
No security ever built into Obamacare site
Published: Monday, 25 Nov 2013 | 9:54 AM ET
By: Matthew J. Belvedere | Producer, CNBC's "Squawk Box"
Monday, 25 Nov 2013 | 7:14 AM ET
Dissecting the critical security problems with the website Healthcare.gov, with TrustedSec CEO David Kennedy. "It will take a long time to address some of the critical and high exposures on the website itself," he says.
It could take a year to secure the risk of "high exposures" of personal information on the federal Obamacare online exchange, a cybersecurity expert told CNBC on Monday.
"When you develop a website, you develop it with security in mind. And it doesn't appear to have happened this time," said David Kennedy, a so-called "white hat" hacker who tests online security by breaching websites. He testified on Capitol Hill about the flaws of HealthCare.gov last week.
"It's really hard to go back and fix the security around it because security wasn't built into it," said Kennedy, chief executive of TrustedSec. "We're talking multiple months to over a year to at least address some of the critical-to-high exposures on the website itself."
According to the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversaw the implementation of the website, the components used to build the site are compliant with standards set by Federal security authorities.
"The privacy and security of consumers' personal information are a top priority for us. Security testing happens on an ongoing basis using industry best practices to appropriately safeguard consumers' personal information," said the spokesperson.
Another online security expert—who spoke at last week's House hearing and then on CNBC—said the federal Obamacare website needs to be shut down and rebuilt from scratch. Morgan Wright, CEO of Crowd Sourced Investigations said: "There's not a plan to fix this that meets the sniff test of being reasonable."
Last month, a Sept. 27 government memorandum surfaced in which two HHS officials said the security of the site had not been properly tested before it opened, creating "a high risk."
HHS had explained then that steps were taken to ease security concerns after the memo was written, and that consumer information was secure. Technicians fixed a security bug in the password reset function in late October, the agency said.
But on CNBC, Kennedy disputed those claims, saying vulnerabilities remain on "everything from hacking someone's computer so when you visit the website it actually tries to hack your computer back, all the way to being able to extract email addresses, users names—first name, last name—[and] locations."
Government officials and contractors have been working around the clock for weeks, releasing fixes on HealthCare.gov nightly with the goal of meeting the Obama administration's self-imposed deadline of the end of the month to have the site working smoothly.
"When you look at the site itself, it could be really good. It could do really well. They're just not building the security into the site itself," said Kennedy. "Putting your information on there is definitely a risk."
The federal portal serves 36 states not operating their own health insurance exchanges. Fourteen other states and the District of Columbia run their own marketplaces. All of them launched on Oct. 1 as part of the Obamacare provision mandating most Americans have health-care coverage for next year or face tax penalties.
Kennedy said those state-operated exchanges also face security risks. "These are going to be a large area for attack." He pointed to a problem on the Vermont website on Friday. Officials overseeing the Vermont Health Connect website confirmed a security breach on the system last month.
When it comes to securing personal information online, Kennedy cited Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter as models for the industry. He even said the IRS website does regular testing to help "ensure that when the websites come out they're protected."
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 6,240
- Reaction score
- 5,160
- Points
- 113
I was not sure where to put this, but this is something that has been bothering me lately. All the reports of Walmart workers, and fast food workers wanting more money. '
If there is this much demand for a Walmart job, why would they need to pay more?
http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/06/news/economy/november-jobs-report/index.html?iid=lead2
If there is this much demand for a Walmart job, why would they need to pay more?
http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/06/news/economy/november-jobs-report/index.html?iid=lead2
Soda
Listen To The Kids!
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2008
- Messages
- 15,069
- Reaction score
- 13,226
- Points
- 123
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 20,027
- Reaction score
- 49,800
- Points
- 148
ObamaCare created a Medicaid time bomb
By Michael D. Tanner
December 7, 2013 | 9:15pm
The good news, if you want to call it that, is that roughly 1.6 million Americans have enrolled in ObamaCare so far.
The not-so-good news is that 1.46 million of them actually signed up for Medicaid. If that trend continues, it could bankrupt both federal and state governments.
Medicaid is already America’s third-largest government program, trailing only Social Security and Medicare, as a proportion of the federal budget. Almost 8 cents out of every dollar that the federal government spends goes to Medicaid. That’s more than $265 billion per year.
Indeed, already Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid account for 48% of federal spending. Within the next few years, those three programs will eat up more than half of federal expenditures.
And it’s going to get worse. Congress has shown no ability to reform Social Security or Medicare. With ObamaCare adding to Medicare spending, we are picking up speed on the road to insolvency.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that, in part because of ObamaCare, Medicaid spending will more than double over the next 10 years, topping $554 billion by 2023.
And that is just federal spending.
State governments pay another $160 billion for Medicaid today. For most states, Medicaid is the single-largest cost of government, crowding out education, transportation and everything else.
New York spent more than $15 billion on Medicaid last year, roughly 30% of all state expenditures. The Kaiser Foundation projects that over the next 10 years, New York taxpayers will shell out some $433 billion for the program.
But none of these projections foresaw that so many of ObamaCare’s enrollees would be Medicaid eligible.
To be sure, the health-care law’s designers saw the expansion of Medicaid as an important feature of their plan to expand coverage for the uninsured. Still, they expected most of those enrolling in ObamaCare to qualify for private (albeit subsidized) insurance.
It’s beginning to look like that was just another miscalculation, one that could have very serious consequences for the program’s costs.
Moreover, any projection of Medicaid’s future cost to New York taxpayers assumes that the federal government keeps its promise to pay 100% of the cost for Medicaid’s expansion over the next three years and 90% thereafter. But given the growing burden that Medicare will put on a federal budget already facing high debt levels, how likely is it that changes in the federal share of Medicaid will stay off the table?
In fact, as part if last December’s fiscal-cliff negotiations, the Obama administration briefly considered changing to a “blended” reimbursement rate, somewhere between the current and promised rates. The administration quickly backed away from the offer, but it’s likely to come back in the future. If it does, it would cost New York tens of millions of dollars.
Every bit as bad as the cost is the fact that for all this money, recipients are going to get pretty lousy health care.
Of course, one might say that even bad health care is better than no health care. But, unfortunately, for Medicaid, that’s not true.
The Oregon Health Insurance Exchange study, the first randomized controlled study of Medicaid outcomes, recently concluded that, while Medicaid increased medical spending increased from $3,300 to $4,400 per person, “Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical-health outcomes.”
Other studies show that, in some cases, Medicaid patients actually wait longer and receive worse care than the uninsured.
While Medicaid costs taxpayers a lot of money, it pays doctors very little. On average, Medicaid only reimburses doctors 72 cents out of each dollar of costs. ObamaCare does attempt to address this by temporarily increasing Medicaid reimbursements for primary-care doctors, but that increase expires at the end of next year.
Because of the low reimbursement, and the red tape that accompanies any government program, many doctors limit the number of Medicaid patients they serve, or even refuse to take Medicaid patients at all. An analysis published in Health Affairs found that only 69% of physicians accept Medicaid patients. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that individuals posing as mothers of children with serious medical conditions were denied an appointment 66% of the time if they said that their child was on Medicaid (or the related CHIP), compared with 11% for private insurance — a ratio of 6 to 1.
Even when doctors do still treat Medicaid patients, they often have a harder time getting appointments and face longer wait times. One study found that among clinics that accepted both privately insured children and those enrolled in Medicaid, the average wait time for an appointment was 42 days for Medicaid compared to just 20 days for the privately insured. One study found that among clinics that accepted both privately insured children and those enrolled in Medicaid, the average wait time for an appointment was 42 days for Medicaid compared to just 20 days for the privately insured.
That’s one reason why so many Medicaid patients show up at the emergency room for treatment. They can’t find a doctor to treat them otherwise.
This not only increases the strain on already overburdened emergency room doctors, but increases the wait for those who arrive with real emergencies.
As bad as this is now, ObamaCare will make it worse by increasing the number of people on Medicaid without doing anything to increase the number of doctors treating them.
We don’t know yet whether the rush to Medicaid will continue. It may be that the troubles with the ObamaCare website might have skewed the early signups. But if ObamaCare really does lead to a massive expansion of this costly and inefficient program, that’s bad news for taxpayers, providers and patients.
Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
By Michael D. Tanner
December 7, 2013 | 9:15pm
The good news, if you want to call it that, is that roughly 1.6 million Americans have enrolled in ObamaCare so far.
The not-so-good news is that 1.46 million of them actually signed up for Medicaid. If that trend continues, it could bankrupt both federal and state governments.
Medicaid is already America’s third-largest government program, trailing only Social Security and Medicare, as a proportion of the federal budget. Almost 8 cents out of every dollar that the federal government spends goes to Medicaid. That’s more than $265 billion per year.
Indeed, already Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid account for 48% of federal spending. Within the next few years, those three programs will eat up more than half of federal expenditures.
And it’s going to get worse. Congress has shown no ability to reform Social Security or Medicare. With ObamaCare adding to Medicare spending, we are picking up speed on the road to insolvency.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that, in part because of ObamaCare, Medicaid spending will more than double over the next 10 years, topping $554 billion by 2023.
And that is just federal spending.
State governments pay another $160 billion for Medicaid today. For most states, Medicaid is the single-largest cost of government, crowding out education, transportation and everything else.
New York spent more than $15 billion on Medicaid last year, roughly 30% of all state expenditures. The Kaiser Foundation projects that over the next 10 years, New York taxpayers will shell out some $433 billion for the program.
But none of these projections foresaw that so many of ObamaCare’s enrollees would be Medicaid eligible.
To be sure, the health-care law’s designers saw the expansion of Medicaid as an important feature of their plan to expand coverage for the uninsured. Still, they expected most of those enrolling in ObamaCare to qualify for private (albeit subsidized) insurance.
It’s beginning to look like that was just another miscalculation, one that could have very serious consequences for the program’s costs.
Moreover, any projection of Medicaid’s future cost to New York taxpayers assumes that the federal government keeps its promise to pay 100% of the cost for Medicaid’s expansion over the next three years and 90% thereafter. But given the growing burden that Medicare will put on a federal budget already facing high debt levels, how likely is it that changes in the federal share of Medicaid will stay off the table?
In fact, as part if last December’s fiscal-cliff negotiations, the Obama administration briefly considered changing to a “blended” reimbursement rate, somewhere between the current and promised rates. The administration quickly backed away from the offer, but it’s likely to come back in the future. If it does, it would cost New York tens of millions of dollars.
Every bit as bad as the cost is the fact that for all this money, recipients are going to get pretty lousy health care.
Of course, one might say that even bad health care is better than no health care. But, unfortunately, for Medicaid, that’s not true.
The Oregon Health Insurance Exchange study, the first randomized controlled study of Medicaid outcomes, recently concluded that, while Medicaid increased medical spending increased from $3,300 to $4,400 per person, “Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical-health outcomes.”
Other studies show that, in some cases, Medicaid patients actually wait longer and receive worse care than the uninsured.
While Medicaid costs taxpayers a lot of money, it pays doctors very little. On average, Medicaid only reimburses doctors 72 cents out of each dollar of costs. ObamaCare does attempt to address this by temporarily increasing Medicaid reimbursements for primary-care doctors, but that increase expires at the end of next year.
Because of the low reimbursement, and the red tape that accompanies any government program, many doctors limit the number of Medicaid patients they serve, or even refuse to take Medicaid patients at all. An analysis published in Health Affairs found that only 69% of physicians accept Medicaid patients. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that individuals posing as mothers of children with serious medical conditions were denied an appointment 66% of the time if they said that their child was on Medicaid (or the related CHIP), compared with 11% for private insurance — a ratio of 6 to 1.
Even when doctors do still treat Medicaid patients, they often have a harder time getting appointments and face longer wait times. One study found that among clinics that accepted both privately insured children and those enrolled in Medicaid, the average wait time for an appointment was 42 days for Medicaid compared to just 20 days for the privately insured. One study found that among clinics that accepted both privately insured children and those enrolled in Medicaid, the average wait time for an appointment was 42 days for Medicaid compared to just 20 days for the privately insured.
That’s one reason why so many Medicaid patients show up at the emergency room for treatment. They can’t find a doctor to treat them otherwise.
This not only increases the strain on already overburdened emergency room doctors, but increases the wait for those who arrive with real emergencies.
As bad as this is now, ObamaCare will make it worse by increasing the number of people on Medicaid without doing anything to increase the number of doctors treating them.
We don’t know yet whether the rush to Medicaid will continue. It may be that the troubles with the ObamaCare website might have skewed the early signups. But if ObamaCare really does lead to a massive expansion of this costly and inefficient program, that’s bad news for taxpayers, providers and patients.
Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 20,027
- Reaction score
- 49,800
- Points
- 148
70% Of Calfornia's Doctors Expected To Boycott Obamacare
“We need some recognition that we’re doing a service to the community. But we can’t do it for free. And we can’t do it at a loss. No other business would do that,” exclaims the president of the California Medical Association, as The Washington Examiner reports, independent insurance brokers estimate 70% of California's 104,000 licensed doctors are boycotting the exchange. “The Covered California board says we have plenty of doctors, and they allege they have 85 percent of doctors participating, but they’ve shown no numbers," and if a large number of doctors either balk at participating in the exchange or retire, the state’s medical system could be overwhelmed. “Enrollment doesn’t mean access, because there aren’t enough doctors to take the low rates of Medicaid,” warns one health director. “There aren’t enough primary care physicians, period.”
“We need some recognition that we’re doing a service to the community. But we can’t do it for free. And we can’t do it at a loss. No other business would do that,” exclaims the president of the California Medical Association, as The Washington Examiner reports, independent insurance brokers estimate 70% of California's 104,000 licensed doctors are boycotting the exchange. “The Covered California board says we have plenty of doctors, and they allege they have 85 percent of doctors participating, but they’ve shown no numbers," and if a large number of doctors either balk at participating in the exchange or retire, the state’s medical system could be overwhelmed. “Enrollment doesn’t mean access, because there aren’t enough doctors to take the low rates of Medicaid,” warns one health director. “There aren’t enough primary care physicians, period.”
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 20,027
- Reaction score
- 49,800
- Points
- 148
:chuckles:
Now it's if you want to keep your doctor, you can pay more for your doctor. Unfrickingbelieveable...
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/CHIfKnDjLxQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Now it's if you want to keep your doctor, you can pay more for your doctor. Unfrickingbelieveable...
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/CHIfKnDjLxQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
KI4MVP
formerly LJ4MVP
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2005
- Messages
- 31,326
- Reaction score
- 41,544
- Points
- 148
The web site is working much better now. I am now deciding between two plans, each of which has better coverage and lower premiums vs my current coverage. Both plans include all of the doctors I use now, including those at the Cleveland clinic.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 20,027
- Reaction score
- 49,800
- Points
- 148
CAN YOU EVEN KEEP OR AFFORD YOUR MEDICINE UNDER OBAMACARE?
Dec. 9, 2013 4:04pm
First some consumers found they couldn’t keep their existing health insurance plans. Then others learned they couldn’t keep their doctors. Now it’s possible that under Obamacare, some people won’t be able to keep their medications, or at least not afford them, under the complex formulary structure of the plans on the health exchanges and because of the rising costs.
“If you like your medicines, you may not be able to keep them under Obamacare,” health policy analyst Scott Gottlieb wrote in a Forbes column. “Health plans are cheapening their drug formularies – just like they cheapened their networks of doctors. That’s how their paying for the benefits that President Obama promised, everything from free contraception to a leveling of premiums between older (and typically costlier) beneficiaries, and younger consumers.”
The affordability of prescriptions could hinge on whether a consumer is enrolled in a platinum, gold, silver or bronze plan.
Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, those earning up to 250 percent of the poverty level will qualify for cost-sharing reductions on prescriptions. That applies to those earning less than $60,000 for a family of four and $30,000 for an individual. That’s only if they are enrolled in the silver plan on the exchange.
In some cases, to be covered at all, the drug will have to be included in the plan – similar to how doctors must be part of a network covered by insurance, he wrote.
“The out of pocket caps on consumer spending only apply to costs incurred on drugs that are included on a plan’s drug formulary,” Gottlieb wrote. “This is the list of medicines that the health plans have agreed to provide some coverage for.”
“If the drug isn’t on this formulary list, then the patient could be responsible for its full cost (with little or no co-insurance to help offset that cost),” he continued. “Moreover, the money they spend won’t count against their deductibles or out of pocket limits ($12,700 for a family, $6,350 for an individual).”
Gottlieb used the drug Copaxone for multiple sclerosis as an example, saying someone with a bronze plan would be responsible for paying 40 percent of the drugs out-of-pocket costs, or about $1,980 per month. Under the platinum plan, the out-of-pocket cost would be $792 per month.
If a drug isn’t covered, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have said there is an appeals process to seek the coverage.
“But this appeals process can take months. And there is no sure chance of winning,” Gottlieb said. “If a drug costs tens of thousands of dollars a year, how many patients will be able to foot that bill out of pocket until they win an appeal, or take the chance that they could lose the appeal, and be stuck with the full cost of the drug?”
A January 2012 study of 22 carriers in six states by Avalere Health found the number of available drugs per carrier ranged from 480 to 1,110. The study found that 90 percent of the lowest-cost bronze plans require patients to pay 40 percent out of pocket for the most expensive prescription “tiers.” Currently the average prescription co-pay is about 29 percent for insurance policies.
“Even if your drug makes it onto the Obamacare plan’s formulary, getting access to a medicine can still be a costly affair for patients,” Gottlieb wrote.
Dec. 9, 2013 4:04pm
First some consumers found they couldn’t keep their existing health insurance plans. Then others learned they couldn’t keep their doctors. Now it’s possible that under Obamacare, some people won’t be able to keep their medications, or at least not afford them, under the complex formulary structure of the plans on the health exchanges and because of the rising costs.
“If you like your medicines, you may not be able to keep them under Obamacare,” health policy analyst Scott Gottlieb wrote in a Forbes column. “Health plans are cheapening their drug formularies – just like they cheapened their networks of doctors. That’s how their paying for the benefits that President Obama promised, everything from free contraception to a leveling of premiums between older (and typically costlier) beneficiaries, and younger consumers.”
The affordability of prescriptions could hinge on whether a consumer is enrolled in a platinum, gold, silver or bronze plan.
Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, those earning up to 250 percent of the poverty level will qualify for cost-sharing reductions on prescriptions. That applies to those earning less than $60,000 for a family of four and $30,000 for an individual. That’s only if they are enrolled in the silver plan on the exchange.
In some cases, to be covered at all, the drug will have to be included in the plan – similar to how doctors must be part of a network covered by insurance, he wrote.
“The out of pocket caps on consumer spending only apply to costs incurred on drugs that are included on a plan’s drug formulary,” Gottlieb wrote. “This is the list of medicines that the health plans have agreed to provide some coverage for.”
“If the drug isn’t on this formulary list, then the patient could be responsible for its full cost (with little or no co-insurance to help offset that cost),” he continued. “Moreover, the money they spend won’t count against their deductibles or out of pocket limits ($12,700 for a family, $6,350 for an individual).”
Gottlieb used the drug Copaxone for multiple sclerosis as an example, saying someone with a bronze plan would be responsible for paying 40 percent of the drugs out-of-pocket costs, or about $1,980 per month. Under the platinum plan, the out-of-pocket cost would be $792 per month.
If a drug isn’t covered, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have said there is an appeals process to seek the coverage.
“But this appeals process can take months. And there is no sure chance of winning,” Gottlieb said. “If a drug costs tens of thousands of dollars a year, how many patients will be able to foot that bill out of pocket until they win an appeal, or take the chance that they could lose the appeal, and be stuck with the full cost of the drug?”
A January 2012 study of 22 carriers in six states by Avalere Health found the number of available drugs per carrier ranged from 480 to 1,110. The study found that 90 percent of the lowest-cost bronze plans require patients to pay 40 percent out of pocket for the most expensive prescription “tiers.” Currently the average prescription co-pay is about 29 percent for insurance policies.
“Even if your drug makes it onto the Obamacare plan’s formulary, getting access to a medicine can still be a costly affair for patients,” Gottlieb wrote.
The Oi
Ahhhh chachachacha
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 50,900
- Reaction score
- 77,155
- Points
- 148
I filled out the application on the exchange to at least educate myself on what's being offered. For the record, the exchange was working just fine when I went on.
All options were more costly than the group plan I'm on right now, which is neither a shocker nor a problem. But they were significantly better than what I was getting offered when I was looking into individual health plans after I moved from FL to PA and was forced to get on a different plan. Reason being...literally everyone turned me down and my only option became guaranteed acceptance which was running close to $1,000 a month with what I recall being a horrible deductible.
All options were more costly than the group plan I'm on right now, which is neither a shocker nor a problem. But they were significantly better than what I was getting offered when I was looking into individual health plans after I moved from FL to PA and was forced to get on a different plan. Reason being...literally everyone turned me down and my only option became guaranteed acceptance which was running close to $1,000 a month with what I recall being a horrible deductible.
gourimoko
Fighting the good fight!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2008
- Messages
- 39,845
- Reaction score
- 53,645
- Points
- 148
I've noticed this a lot.. The plans that were getting cancelled or were originally planned to become extinct, offered basically non-insurance. You're paying for nothing, because if you get sick, you're fucked as you have next to no coverage.
From a practical standpoint, I'm really not seeing the argument against Obamacare. It's working in the states that have their own exchanges.
The Oi
Ahhhh chachachacha
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 50,900
- Reaction score
- 77,155
- Points
- 148
This is true for one of the guys I know. He basically never goes to the doctor and has yet to experience a health problem, so I'm sure whatever plan he has reflects his "needs" as far as he knows them to be. I don't know what the deductible is and frankly, I don't think it's very wise to have minimal coverage just because you haven't gotten sick yet. I hadn't gotten sick at all before I had my first seizure when I was 13 and I've had six more since then and been hospitalized after three of them. Plus there's diagnostics, medications and two appointments per year. Had I not been on my parents insurance through college, then on a group plan after college, then an individual one until I got on with another group one...at some point in there, I'd have had at least a year with tens of thousands of dollars of costs.
So I will agree that IF people are going to be required to have healthcare and insurance companies are going to be required to give it to them...then it makes sense that they be offered comprehensive plans. And I also understand the logic in that if they're going to offer you a more comprehensive plan, then the insurance company is going to have to cancel your current one...and they're going to have to notify you that they're doing it...and they're going to raise your premium to account for the new costs they're taking on...and they're going to write a letter that blames it on the government rather than themselves...and people are going to get in a tizzy because the insurance company intentionally hasn't made it clear that they're (hopefully) going to offer them significantly better coverage once Obamacare does go into effect. But as is, these letters are telling people (A) You're losing your insurance and (B) You're going to pay more when you get some again.
You know the arguments from a practical standpoint as they've been made in here ad nauseam. The issue is that the arguments against it from a practical standpoint are based on a combination of observing what's happened in other countries and people's natural resistance to being forced by the government to do something.
My take on this all along is that one way or the other, people who have health problems beyond their control should absolutely be offered affordable healthcare. I'm just not intelligent enough to know what the best way to do it is. And given the shitty policy-making and lies surrounding the implementation of Obamacare, I'm doubtful that it's going to work. Doesn't mean it won't. Just means I don't trust it.
Last edited:
KI4MVP
formerly LJ4MVP
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2005
- Messages
- 31,326
- Reaction score
- 41,544
- Points
- 148
hasn't this always been true? And there are other deductible options. The plan I'm looking at has out of pocket maximum of $2k for individual, $4k for family, and has this formulary list
https://www.medmutual.com/~/media/F...Basic Formulary PRMTMMOAB14 130904 R1213.ashx
My wife has been through breast cancer, a stroke (which triggered type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and other medical issues). My son has type 1 diabetes, there are other medical issues in our family. I've checked just about every medicine we take, it's all on the formulary list. As is the Copaxone used in the article. If someone has MS, it's likely a great idea to get a low out of pocket limit gold plan instead of a high out of pocket limit bronze plan.