• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obamacare: Is a $2,000 deductible 'affordable?'

cpwill said:
he's being rational, given guaranteed issuance.
Click to expand...

No, because that ER bill isn't going to be covered by the insurance policy you signed up for after the fact.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yeah, like they were doing before reform. Shocking, just shocking. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

If they are using similar methods to pool the individual market, then Obamacare could have a drastic effect on small business premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. In mass, they saw drastic rises in all three as companies dealt with the extra burden pf being pooled with the individual market that was full of high risk plans
 
jmotivator said:
So, to put it in perspective, an average healthy person who sees the doctor twice a year will pay.... $1,500 per visit. Bargain!

Or just shell out the penalty and pocket the difference.
Click to expand...

I wonder what the 27-year-old gangbanger who never worked a day in his/her life and was shot 6 times and only managed to survive via $500,000 surgery will pay??? Oh yeah, he/she won't but you will....
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
If they are using similar methods to pool the individual market, then Obamacare could have a drastic effect on small business premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. In mass, they saw drastic rises in all three as companies dealt with the extra burden pf being pooled with the individual market that was full of high risk plans
Click to expand...

Not sure what that has to do with what I said, but there is really little reason it should. At the end of the day, the only issue are the finds and s Hirt term fees. Preventing passing those on, numbers I've seen, would still be less of an increase than we saw I've or six years ago.

Now the public option would have been more affordable. And UHC better still. But what we see is more likely insurance companies taking advantage of the situation, politicians and talking heads doing more spreading if disinformation instead of trying to work through these issues.
 
The first thing I'm going to say on this issue is "state's rights".

Second, "the free market system".

Third (and it's a shame I even have to state the obvious) ObamaCare DOES NOT set the insurance rates nor deductables. That's totally up to the private insurance company.

NEXT!
 
Objective Voice said:
The first thing I'm going to say on this issue is "state's rights".

Second, "the free market system".

Third (and it's a shame I even have to state the obvious) ObamaCare DOES NOT set the insurance rates nor deductables. That's totally up to the private insurance company.

NEXT!
Click to expand...

Ok. I'll bite.

States haven't dealt with it.

The market doesn't really handle this issue. It will always cater to the wealthy and largely crap on the poor. As it is more a public health issue than a widget, or even a service (think fire department or police), it falls into a different category.

On the last one, I quite agree.
 
cpwill said:
he's being rational, given guaranteed issuance.
Click to expand...

Again, this guaranteed insurance ting is BS. Yes, you can't be denied, but the idea that you will be able to get insurance before some catastrophic surgery is needed is ridiculous. I outline in another thread that one of my friends just had an aneurism and was rushed to the hospital by ambulance for an emergency surgery followed by 14 days in the hospital, most of it in the ICU. His bill is right at 300,000 dollars and he hasn't even received all of them. If anyone thinks that just holding out on insurance because it's "guaranteed" is a smart option, then they are a ****ing moron, at best. It's never guaranteed, especially when you are passed out on the operating table.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Again, this guaranteed insurance ting is BS. Yes, you can't be denied, but the idea that you will be able to get insurance before some catastrophic surgery is needed is ridiculous. I outline in another thread that one of my friends just had an aneurism and was rushed to the hospital by ambulance for an emergency surgery followed by 14 days in the hospital, most of it in the ICU. His bill is right at 300,000 dollars and he hasn't even received all of them. If anyone thinks that just holding out on insurance because it's "guaranteed" is a smart option, then they are a ****ing moron, at best. It's never guaranteed, especially when you are passed out on the operating table.
Click to expand...

There are many high cost scenarios where one wouldn't be rushed to the emergency room, though. Any cancer treatment or long term chronic illness, just for starters
 
Boo Radley said:
Ok. I'll bite.

States haven't dealt with it.

The market doesn't really handle this issue. It will always cater to the wealthy and largely crap on the poor. As it is more a public health issue than a widget, or even a service (think fire department or police), it falls into a different category.

On the last one, I quite agree.
Click to expand...

Ah! But states will have to deal with it eventually as in this case with CA since the Silver Plan this thread is based on apparently is via their state-sponsored HIE. As such, states do have the option to opt-out of ObamaCare and run their exchanges as they see fit OR let the fed handle it. Seems to me Cali has decided to comply with the law which was their choice. Hence, state's rights.

You could say that ObamaCare interferes w/the health insurance market in one respect - via the individual mandate which forces everyone who can afford health insurance to buy it - but all that does is put more customers into the private health insurance market. Thus, you are correct when you state that Silver Plans will cater to a wealthier class of people as it's intended to do. This in no way, however, dictates which insurance company said customers should obtain their insurance from. That choice is still left up to the individual; the competition still rests with the number of health insurance providers who participate in the state-sponsored exchange.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Again, this guaranteed insurance ting is BS. Yes, you can't be denied, but the idea that you will be able to get insurance before some catastrophic surgery is needed is ridiculous. I outline in another thread that one of my friends just had an aneurism and was rushed to the hospital by ambulance for an emergency surgery followed by 14 days in the hospital, most of it in the ICU. His bill is right at 300,000 dollars and he hasn't even received all of them. If anyone thinks that just holding out on insurance because it's "guaranteed" is a smart option, then they are a ****ing moron, at best. It's never guaranteed, especially when you are passed out on the operating table.
Click to expand...

First, I'll try to speak to the alleged "guarantee" I believe you're referring to as in "a guarantee of coverage by the Sec, HHS" w/health insurance credits where ObamaCare is concerned. Per the law, only low-income families/individuals far below the federal poverty level are "guaranteed" coverage. But a similar income matrix is used for other social programs, i.e., TANF, WIC, Medicaid, SSI, HUD and so many others. I see no difference here w/ObamaCare.

Second, those individuals who are either dropped from their employer's insurance plan OR are denied coverage by their employer can migrate to the federal HIE. But there's no guarantee that the fed would help off-set the cost since the individual is still employed and, thus, is likely financially able to still pay for health insurance coverage out of his/her own pocket.

Third, there are caveats to applying for insurance waivers mostly from non-profit organizations and associations. However, the law does illustrate some cases where the individual can apply for a waiver as well.

I mention the last part merely to illustrate the point that although the law does try to get as many participants as possible insured, not everyone will want to participate whether they can afford to or not, whether they are "mandated" or not. There is no guarantee either way, but you do have the right and opportunity to submit your request to the Sec, HHS and say either "I don't want to participate and here's why" or "HELP! I need health insurance and can't afford it."
 
Deuce said:
Anyone who thinks Obamacare threatens the insurance industry should keep in mind that the insurance industry wrote the bill.
Click to expand...

Sorry to say Deuce, but that is just simply untrue....Although, you may have a slight semantic argument in that people that were in the insurance industry, that were 'far left' in their politics, may have helped craft the language of the original bill, you must remember that this monstrosity went through in all the rewrites, and special deals to gain its passage, the final product had little to do with insurance companies desires, or the American peoples for that matter....


The president of a George Soros-funded “progressive” think tank has boasted about helping to write President Obama’s signature healthcare legislation.

Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, or CAP, appeared Friday night on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” when she was asked by another guest, James Poulos of the Huffington Post, whether she read the text of Obamacare. “Yes,” she replied. “I helped write the bill. So yes, I read the bill. I read all 2,200 pages of the bill.”

Tanden assumed her CAP position in November 2011 after serving as a senior advisor for the U.S. Health and Human Services. She also worked on Obama’s health-reform team in the White House to help pass the Affordable Care Act. Tanden argued in a February 2012 CAP report that individual mandates within Obamacare “will be instrumental in achieving near-universal coverage.”

snip

The CAP is funded by billionaire George Soros. Its board includes Van Jones, Obama’s former “green jobs” czar, who resigned in September 2009 after it was exposed he founded a communist revolutionary organization.

Another primary CAP funder is the Tides Foundation. Tides is also a primary funder to radical groups such as MoveOn.org, Media Matters for America and the now defunct Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.

- See more at: SOROS-FUNDED ACTIVIST: ‘I HELPED WRITE OBAMACARE.’ Argued individual mandates will achieve ‘near-universal coverage’ « Klein Online
Click to expand...

So much like what the intent of such a piece of crap as this supposed "ACA" is ultimately designed to do, you liberal/progressives seem to think that American's are stupid, and don't pick up on what is said or something....

The bill was always meant to fail, in order to usher in the top down, centralized universal system...Even as American's overwhelmingly said that isn't what they wanted....And the groups that had the largest hand in crafting the lie, are the same radicals that have been lying to us all along....Van Jones, Soros, ACORN, etc....Communist, and radicals, and I can assure you that when this truth is fully revealed, hopefully it won't be too late to make sure that the scourge of progressivism, is driven back under the rock from which they slithered in 2008.
 
jmotivator said:
For the poor the cost of the doctor's visits simply isn't a concern since the old adage remains that you can't squeeze blood from a turnip.
Click to expand...
So any study which shows that people put off going to the Dr because of the cost is bull**** on its face?

jmotivator said:
At the higher income levels the the savings for not buying insurance are greater than the out of pocket expenses for a doctors visit.
Click to expand...
I would be surprised if there were not some edge and corner cases whose calculations came out that way. But, I suspect that non-insignificant number people in those brackets already have a plan in place, like insurance, to handle their needs.
jmotivator said:
Let's look at someone making $80,000.
Click to expand...
Someone who currently has no established system, like a company insurance package, of meeting their needs and who makes $80k. I am sure that they are out there.
But aren't they really corner cases?
Are there really enough of these people for whom the best option is to forgo any sort of insurance, like company plans, in favor of penalties that they will crash the health care industry?

jmotivator said:
Without a change to the cost of the penalty I give them three years.
Click to expand...
Jan 2018?
 
Objective Voice said:
Ah! But states will have to deal with it eventually as in this case with CA since the Silver Plan this thread is based on apparently is via their state-sponsored HIE. As such, states do have the option to opt-out of ObamaCare and run their exchanges as they see fit OR let the fed handle it. Seems to me Cali has decided to comply with the law which was their choice. Hence, state's rights.

You could say that ObamaCare interferes w/the health insurance market in one respect - via the individual mandate which forces everyone who can afford health insurance to buy it - but all that does is put more customers into the private health insurance market. Thus, you are correct when you state that Silver Plans will cater to a wealthier class of people as it's intended to do. This in no way, however, dictates which insurance company said customers should obtain their insurance from. That choice is still left up to the individual; the competition still rests with the number of health insurance providers who participate in the state-sponsored exchange.
Click to expand...

Apparently CA needs more help, not less. They seem to be doing a poor job.

The mandate may interfere, but not for worse. One, logically I should make sure there us no need for a rate increase. It makes sure more are covered, and that should stop medical costs from going up if not bring them down (if the market functioned honestly).

Competition has positives overall, but few in medicine. The dynamics are very different. The advantage is all on he side of providers. Only the wealthy can really afford adequate care.
 
Boo Radley said:
Apparently CA needs more help, not less. They seem to be doing a poor job.

The mandate may interfere, but not for worse. One, logically I should make sure there us no need for a rate increase. It makes sure more are covered, and that should stop medical costs from going up if not bring them down (if the market functioned honestly).
Click to expand...

Explain what you mean, how making sure people are covered (access) brings medical costs down.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Explain what you mean, how making sure people are covered (access) brings medical costs down.
Click to expand...

Because there is no need to charge extra to others for those thy treat who can't pay. That $16 bandaid should not exist if everyone is covered.
 
Boo Radley said:
Apparently CA needs more help, not less. They seem to be doing a poor job.

The mandate may interfere, but not for worse. One, logically I should make sure there us no need for a rate increase. It makes sure more are covered, and that should stop medical costs from going up if not bring them down (if the market functioned honestly).

Competition has positives overall, but few in medicine. The dynamics are very different. The advantage is all on he side of providers. Only the wealthy can really afford adequate care.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between "adequate care" and "affordable treatment". My family health insurance plan through BC/BS of Alabama, for example, provides adequate care for my family's basic health care needs and likely would absorb the cost of most urgent or emergency medical treatment I might need due to serious injury or illness. But if I should suddenly be diagnosed with lung cancer or heart disease and require "affordable treatment" to include physical therapy, I might be in some serious financial trouble. But alas, BC/BS of 'Bama is a monopoly down here. So...:shrug:.
 
Objective Voice said:
There's a difference between "adequate care" and "affordable treatment". My family health insurance plan through BC/BS of Alabama, for example, provides adequate care for my family's basic health care needs and likely would absorb the cost of most urgent or emergency medical treatment I might need due to serious injury or illness. But if I should suddenly be diagnosed with lung cancer or heart disease and require "affordable treatment" to include physical therapy, I might be in some serious financial trouble. But alas, BC/BS of 'Bama is a monopoly down here. So...:shrug:.
Click to expand...

You could have a million different companies, but you'd still have serious financial difficulty. The market would not change that. There is no cut rate treatment for serious illness that would do the job, nor would there ever have been or ever will be. The question is how do we get the most people access for the least amount of cost. I see it as a public health issue and not a market commodity.
 
Boo Radley said:
You could have a million different companies, but you'd still have serious financial difficulty. The market would not change that. There is no cut rate treatment for serious illness that would do the job, nor would there ever have been or ever will be. The question is how do we get the most people access for the least amount of cost. I see it as a public health issue and not a market commodity.
Click to expand...

You might be right. It's why I've repeatedly stated that the only alternative to UHC is for Congress to return to the CLASS Act where everyone pays into the system similar to Medicare only you get to use the health benefits long before you reach retirement age. Of course, with the federal HIE's, the barriers to purchasing health insurance across stateliness will be broken. It's interesting that few people realize this. Thus, in that respect, there's your UHC assuming employers drop their employees from their employer-sponsored policies and don't give them their "full" share of monthly insurance premiums and not just that portion that's deducted from their check. Otherwise, the only way people begin to flock to the federal HIE is if their state either doesn't have an HIE of its own or policies found in the federal HIE are far cheaper than policies on state-sponsored exchanges. That's the only way ObamaCare even comes close to ushering in UHC. Employers either have to find it more cost-effective not to provide insurance OR employee salaries can't keep pace with rising healthcare costs.
 
If I as a Canadian could buy insurance with a 2K deductible then I wouldn't have nearly the qualms I have about travelling in the US. As it is, it's just too risky and the insurance I can buy in Canada is priced way too high due to experience. Cuba and Mexico are much more affordable.

For Americans, most likely the overpriced cost of hospitals and doctors is going to make it near impossible to do much better for the people. The obvious goal is to bring that capitalist abuse under control first. Or just go with universal health care for all as should have been done right from the beginning of Obama's initiative. Being weak has only allowed the rabid right to make a mess of it.

But you're right Boo Radley, healtlh care is not a 'for profit game' that should be played on the ordinary American citizen.
luv from Canada.
 
Boo Radley said:
One, logically I should make sure there us no need for a rate increase. It makes sure more are covered, and that should stop medical costs from going up if not bring them down (if the market functioned honestly).
Click to expand...

I'm really not sure what your assumptions are based on here.
 
Boo Radley said:
Because there is no need to charge extra to others for those thy treat who can't pay. That $16 bandaid should not exist if everyone is covered.
Click to expand...

actually you're overlooking the fact that you're going to have to balance new members with people that are going to use more than they pay into the system. And one of the big issues with this bill is that it took no steps to widen access to primary care, or deal with the issue of doctors unwilling to take medicaid patients. This is likely to stear more individuals into ER's now that they have coverage
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I'm really not sure what your assumptions are based on here.
Click to expand...

Logic and math. What makes insurance affordable is having large numbers of people. The more people on insurance, the less it should cost. That's how it works. And with more people covered, less are using services they can't pay for, so that decreases the need to hike costs. So if insurance companies are hiking costs and care provides are still hiking costs, they're doing so oly to make larger profits and not due to reform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom