Why have people come to believe health care is a "right" when it actually isn't?

[Flopper]

Not until ACA came along. Prior to that, all our transactions with insurance companies were voluntary. If we didn't like the way they shared risk, or who they shared it with, we didn't have to do business with them. Congress took away our right to make that choice. And the Court let them.

It sounds like you believe there was a free market for healthcare insurance before the ACA where we could really choose a plan that best met our needs. The fact is 85% percent of the people were covered by either:

• The plan(s) their employer chose for them
• Medicare if they were seniors
• Medicaid if they were poor
• VA if they were Vets.

The rest of us had to deal with the individual healthcare market which in most places only had a few plans available with crappy coverage, sky high premiums, and pre-existing condition limitations.

We have never had an open free market for healthcare insurance.

So, you've taken a system that you didn't approve of and have made the situation much worse. Between having to pay for coverage that isn't needed except in the minds of some government drones and the incredibly high deductibles, the ACA is setting us ALL up for bankruptcy.

Thanks for that.

Prior to the law's passage, we saw a race to the bottom among insurance companies, with insurers cutting benefits to lower premiums. The essential health benefits listed below set a standard for insurance. Anything below that is not true health insurance. In some states such as Ohio and Florida, the insurance commission allowed companies to market bare bones plans which appeared to offer comprehensive coverage but in fact offered little except a low premium. The existence of these plans prior to the ACA are the primary reasons we are seeing large increases in premiums in some states.

The inclusion of the essential benefits in all insurance plans makes possible a logical comparison of plans. The buyer need only consider premium, deductible, co-pays or co-insurance, healthcare providers in the plan, and customer service. Prior to the ACA it was virtually impossible to compare plans because of the variation of covered services and the amount of that coverage within each plan. The insurance companies created plans that could not be compared to other plans. People bought plans based on premium and deductible and only hoped that benefits would meet their needs.

Ambulatory patient services
Emergency services
Hospitalization
Maternity and newborn care
Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment
Prescription drugs
Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices
Laboratory services
Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management
Pediatric services, including oral and vision care

 

[RKMBrown]

It sounds like you believe there was a free market for healthcare insurance before the ACA where we could really choose a plan that best met our needs. The fact is 85% percent of the people were covered by either:

• The plan(s) their employer chose for them
• Medicare if they were seniors
• Medicaid if they were poor
• VA if they were Vets.

The rest of us had to deal with the individual healthcare market which in most places only had a few plans available with crappy coverage, sky high premiums, and pre-existing condition limitations.

We have never had an open free market for healthcare insurance.

So, you've taken a system that you didn't approve of and have made the situation much worse. Between having to pay for coverage that isn't needed except in the minds of some government drones and the incredibly high deductibles, the ACA is setting us ALL up for bankruptcy.

Thanks for that.

Prior to the law's passage, we saw a race to the bottom among insurance companies, with insurers cutting benefits to lower premiums. The essential health benefits listed below set a standard for insurance. Anything below that is not true health insurance. In some states such as Ohio and Florida, the insurance commission allowed companies to market bare bones plans which appeared to offer comprehensive coverage but in fact offered little except a low premium. The existence of these plans prior to the ACA are the primary reasons we are seeing large increases in premiums in some states.

The inclusion of the essential benefits in all insurance plans makes possible a logical comparison of plans. The buyer need only consider premium, deductible, co-pays or co-insurance, healthcare providers in the plan, and customer service. Prior to the ACA it was virtually impossible to compare plans because of the variation of covered services and the amount of that coverage within each plan. The insurance companies created plans that could not be compared to other plans. People bought plans based on premium and deductible and only hoped that benefits would meet their needs.

Ambulatory patient services
Emergency services
Hospitalization
Maternity and newborn care
Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment
Prescription drugs
Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices
Laboratory services
Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management
Pediatric services, including oral and vision care

Complete BULLSHIT.

 

[RKMBrown]

First off the majority of people in the country are going to carry insurance not because the law requires it but rather because they need the protection for themselves and their family.

I think there will be very few people who drop insurance and sign up when they have expensive health care needs. Here's why. The insurance exchanges will be open only a little over a month a year and if you don't sign up, you'll have to wait up to a year. Also once you sign up for insurance there's a waiting period for the policy to take effect. You might be able to delay treatment for nagging knee problem, but you can't delay treatment for a suspected heart problem. The penalty for not carrying insurance is low in 2014 but increases yearly. For most people who might consider not carrying insurance, it will be about 2,000/yr in a few years. This is quite a bit of money to give the federal government for the privileged of going without healthcare coverage.

Your expectation that the cost of insurance will double and triple and the industry will collapse is certainly not shared by the insurance companies. There stocks have out performed the market over the last 12 months. and there CEO's are looking for substantial growth in earnings over the next 5 years.

2k a year is nothing compared to the 20k a year for insurance premiums this beast is gonna be at in two years. Further, you don't have to pay the 2k fine, if you don't have a rebate coming back to you. Why on earth would anyone pay 1500-2k a month for something they don't use?

As to the CEOs.... most could give a shit. They were already wrong because the rates have already doubled and trippled for individual plans. My point is, they will not only double and triple they will continue to increase exponentially. They will take their Obama provided windfall cash rewards from the taxpayers and run for the hills when the companies belly up.

What you have to calculate is what is the most expensive customer. Yeah that person is the only one that will be left, everyone else is gonna leave. Shared pain does not work when people have the option of opting out.

Where in the world do you come up with this crap. Go to the healthcare exchange, https://www.healthcare.gov/ Select "See plans in your area". When asked to enter who the plan is for. Entered yourself and spouse. When asked to enter a state. I entered Tennessee. When asked for a county, I entered Cheatam county. The lowest priced plan was $384/mo or $4608/yr. The highest priced plan was $794/mo or $9528/yr. This is less than half your claim of $20,000/yr and it doesn't even include rebates.

I have a Family of five. My plan coverage pre OCA was 350/m for a family of five. Policy cancelled. On your 20k accusation, what part of "gonna be at in 2years" confused you? Are liberals incapable of thinking ahead?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Well, according to the law and the Supreme Court, government does have the right to demand you purchase health insurance. You do not have to buy what is listed on the exchanges. You can buy from anyone you want. The plans must meet the minimum requirement of the ACA. However, health insurance has always had to meet government requirements, state and federal.

Even in regard to food, government dictates what you can buy. Twenty-one states ban the sale of raw milk. Banned products include Absinthe, Ackee, Mangosteen, Sassafras Oil, Puffer Fish. Redfish, Wild Beluga Caviar, Chilean Sea Bass, Horse Meat, etc... In addition government dictates to food processor how food can be prepared, how it is stored, and under what conditions it can be sold.

Whatever. You aren't forced to buy a particular food to make it less expensive for others, which is the analogy drawn.

I think you know it's wrong and you're rationalizing it - maybe even to yourself - with equivocation and sophistry. It's wrong to force others to cater to your preferences merely for your convenience, and THAT's what's happening here.

In other words the government is forcing you to do some that you don't consider to be in your best interest or the country. When the government drafted millions of men to serve their country, enacted the income tax, or forced workers to pay into social security, there were certainly many people that felt just as you do now.

The purpose of the healthcare law is to improve healthcare and reduce cost in America over the long term. It will take years, not months and there will be many bumps in road, some real and some created by the opposition. Like Medicare, Social Security, and a number of other laws, it's going have to be amended to fix what doesn't work but we're going to have to wait until the law is fully implemented in order to determine what exactly needs to be change and how it should be changed.

Uninformed people offer quotes like this:
"The purpose of the healthcare law is to improve healthcare and reduce cost in America over the long term. It will take years, not months and there will be many bumps in road"..
Now, do you really believe that?
If you do, it's sad.
PPACA is politics. Plain and simple. Passing of this law got certain people reelected to office.
There are so many things wrong with Obamacare on so many levels, it is incomprehensible.
This thing was rammed through Congress with few if any of those who voted 'aye' having ever read so much as a section.
The idea was to get it in place so the law would become entrenched.
Just today, there was another sub committee hearing on the website and the myriad of problems with it.
To date just 106,000 people have been able to merely set up profiles and add Obamacare to the shopping cart on the site. It gets better. Only 27,000 did this through the federal exchange. The remainder were able to get around healthcare.gov by using their State website.
The White House has refused to give the precise number of actual Obamacare customers. Those who have made their first premium payment. For it is those and ONLY those who are actual participants.

 

[Flopper]

Whatever. You aren't forced to buy a particular food to make it less expensive for others, which is the analogy drawn.

I think you know it's wrong and you're rationalizing it - maybe even to yourself - with equivocation and sophistry. It's wrong to force others to cater to your preferences merely for your convenience, and THAT's what's happening here.

In other words the government is forcing you to do some that you don't consider to be in your best interest or the country. When the government drafted millions of men to serve their country, enacted the income tax, or forced workers to pay into social security, there were certainly many people that felt just as you do now.

The purpose of the healthcare law is to improve healthcare and reduce cost in America over the long term. It will take years, not months and there will be many bumps in road, some real and some created by the opposition. Like Medicare, Social Security, and a number of other laws, it's going have to be amended to fix what doesn't work but we're going to have to wait until the law is fully implemented in order to determine what exactly needs to be change and how it should be changed.

dblack is right. You are rationalizing because you just don't want to admit what a colossal failure this is. What economic mechanism can you point to in the health care law that would have the economic effect of bringing down cost? You can say what it's purpose is until you are blue in the face. That doesn't mean the mechanisms Obama has put in place will actually accomplish that and upon examination, there is simply no evidence to suggest it will happen. Look at a supply and demand curve sometime.

Increased demand in the form of the individual mandate doesn't cause price to go down. It causes it to go up.

Adding 'value' to a product in the form of all the mandated coverages Obama says insurers must provide doesn't cause it's price to go down. It causes it to go up.

Adding taxes to providers in the form of medical device taxes doesn't cause the cost of their services to go down, it cause them to go up.

A mandate on how insurance companies must formulate community ratings and the inability to deny pre-existing conditions, does not cause the price of premiums to go down. It causes them to go up.

Even the administraton admits that the effect they are seeking from all these young healthy people entering the market is not to drive the costs of premium down. It an attempt to offset the new massive outlays on insurance companies for actually having to cover sick people. And we are seeing those enrollment numbers fall woefully short of the administrations projections.

What you lefties need to do is muster a modicum of objectivity here. Most of us want the same thing; for health care to cost less. You just need to get out of the Obama circle jerk long enough to see this was about the worst means a person could come up with for accomplishing that.

Increasing demand puts and upward pressure on price but that does not mean price will rise. Government interference in the health insurance market makes it more difficult for the companies to raise premiums based solely on demand. By law the companies must now spend at least 80% of their revenue on benefits. Reduction in regulations in state insurance commission and reduction in marketing and administration costs by using the exchanges will encourage more competition on exchanges. However the major factor in determining premiums won't be the demand for insurance but rather the percent of premium paid in benefits.

 

[Flopper]

2k a year is nothing compared to the 20k a year for insurance premiums this beast is gonna be at in two years. Further, you don't have to pay the 2k fine, if you don't have a rebate coming back to you. Why on earth would anyone pay 1500-2k a month for something they don't use?

As to the CEOs.... most could give a shit. They were already wrong because the rates have already doubled and trippled for individual plans. My point is, they will not only double and triple they will continue to increase exponentially. They will take their Obama provided windfall cash rewards from the taxpayers and run for the hills when the companies belly up.

What you have to calculate is what is the most expensive customer. Yeah that person is the only one that will be left, everyone else is gonna leave. Shared pain does not work when people have the option of opting out.

Where in the world do you come up with this crap. Go to the healthcare exchange, https://www.healthcare.gov/ Select "See plans in your area". When asked to enter who the plan is for. Entered yourself and spouse. When asked to enter a state. I entered Tennessee. When asked for a county, I entered Cheatam county. The lowest priced plan was $384/mo or $4608/yr. The highest priced plan was $794/mo or $9528/yr. This is less than half your claim of $20,000/yr and it doesn't even include rebates.

I have a Family of five. My plan coverage pre OCA was 350/m for a family of five. Policy cancelled. On your 20k accusation, what part of "gonna be at in 2years" confused you? Are liberals incapable of thinking ahead?

Not having your crystal ball, I have to base my statements on facts.

 

[Bern80]

In other words the government is forcing you to do some that you don't consider to be in your best interest or the country. When the government drafted millions of men to serve their country, enacted the income tax, or forced workers to pay into social security, there were certainly many people that felt just as you do now.

The purpose of the healthcare law is to improve healthcare and reduce cost in America over the long term. It will take years, not months and there will be many bumps in road, some real and some created by the opposition. Like Medicare, Social Security, and a number of other laws, it's going have to be amended to fix what doesn't work but we're going to have to wait until the law is fully implemented in order to determine what exactly needs to be change and how it should be changed.

dblack is right. You are rationalizing because you just don't want to admit what a colossal failure this is. What economic mechanism can you point to in the health care law that would have the economic effect of bringing down cost? You can say what it's purpose is until you are blue in the face. That doesn't mean the mechanisms Obama has put in place will actually accomplish that and upon examination, there is simply no evidence to suggest it will happen. Look at a supply and demand curve sometime.

Increased demand in the form of the individual mandate doesn't cause price to go down. It causes it to go up.

Adding 'value' to a product in the form of all the mandated coverages Obama says insurers must provide doesn't cause it's price to go down. It causes it to go up.

Adding taxes to providers in the form of medical device taxes doesn't cause the cost of their services to go down, it cause them to go up.

A mandate on how insurance companies must formulate community ratings and the inability to deny pre-existing conditions, does not cause the price of premiums to go down. It causes them to go up.

Even the administraton admits that the effect they are seeking from all these young healthy people entering the market is not to drive the costs of premium down. It an attempt to offset the new massive outlays on insurance companies for actually having to cover sick people. And we are seeing those enrollment numbers fall woefully short of the administrations projections.

What you lefties need to do is muster a modicum of objectivity here. Most of us want the same thing; for health care to cost less. You just need to get out of the Obama circle jerk long enough to see this was about the worst means a person could come up with for accomplishing that.

Increasing demand puts and upward pressure on price but that does not mean price will rise. Government interference in the health insurance market makes it more difficult for the companies to raise premiums based solely on demand. By law the companies must now spend at least 80% of their revenue on benefits. Reduction in regulations in state insurance commission and reduction in marketing and administration costs by using the exchanges will encourage more competition on exchanges. However the major factor in determining premiums won't be the demand for insurance but rather the percent of premium paid in benefits.

Which is going to sky rocket because, for better or worse, insurance companies now have to pay out beneifits for more sick people....which would drive premiums up, not down. You are also wrong about the effect of the 80/20 rule. That is also going to drive premiums up, not down. Let's say right now they're at maybe 60/40. Do you think they're all just going to agree to a pay cut on top of having to shell out more in benefits? You're truly naive if you think so. They're at least going to try to maintain the actual dollar figure that 40% represents by raising premiums. Maybe that wouldn't be so bad if that were the only thing they had to compensate for revenue wise, but Obamacare, again for better or worse, also makes them take a hit in the form of more money going out of the business in the form of benefits. Again, I don't see much choice but to raise premiums significantly just to get back to where they were revenue wise prior to Obamacare.

 

[RKMBrown]

dblack is right. You are rationalizing because you just don't want to admit what a colossal failure this is. What economic mechanism can you point to in the health care law that would have the economic effect of bringing down cost? You can say what it's purpose is until you are blue in the face. That doesn't mean the mechanisms Obama has put in place will actually accomplish that and upon examination, there is simply no evidence to suggest it will happen. Look at a supply and demand curve sometime.

Increased demand in the form of the individual mandate doesn't cause price to go down. It causes it to go up.

Adding 'value' to a product in the form of all the mandated coverages Obama says insurers must provide doesn't cause it's price to go down. It causes it to go up.

Adding taxes to providers in the form of medical device taxes doesn't cause the cost of their services to go down, it cause them to go up.

A mandate on how insurance companies must formulate community ratings and the inability to deny pre-existing conditions, does not cause the price of premiums to go down. It causes them to go up.

Even the administraton admits that the effect they are seeking from all these young healthy people entering the market is not to drive the costs of premium down. It an attempt to offset the new massive outlays on insurance companies for actually having to cover sick people. And we are seeing those enrollment numbers fall woefully short of the administrations projections.

What you lefties need to do is muster a modicum of objectivity here. Most of us want the same thing; for health care to cost less. You just need to get out of the Obama circle jerk long enough to see this was about the worst means a person could come up with for accomplishing that.

Increasing demand puts and upward pressure on price but that does not mean price will rise. Government interference in the health insurance market makes it more difficult for the companies to raise premiums based solely on demand. By law the companies must now spend at least 80% of their revenue on benefits. Reduction in regulations in state insurance commission and reduction in marketing and administration costs by using the exchanges will encourage more competition on exchanges. However the major factor in determining premiums won't be the demand for insurance but rather the percent of premium paid in benefits.

Which is going to sky rocket because, for better or worse, insurance companies now have to pay out beneifits for more sick people....which would drive premiums up, not down.

Not to mention the new hidden taxes the government will be saddling Insurance companies and health care providers with. We will see higher premium rates and just assume it's the health care and insurance provider's fault. But oh no its:

Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes | Congressman Jeff Duncan

 

[jon_berzerk]

Increasing demand puts and upward pressure on price but that does not mean price will rise. Government interference in the health insurance market makes it more difficult for the companies to raise premiums based solely on demand. By law the companies must now spend at least 80% of their revenue on benefits. Reduction in regulations in state insurance commission and reduction in marketing and administration costs by using the exchanges will encourage more competition on exchanges. However the major factor in determining premiums won't be the demand for insurance but rather the percent of premium paid in benefits.

Which is going to sky rocket because, for better or worse, insurance companies now have to pay out beneifits for more sick people....which would drive premiums up, not down.

Not to mention the new hidden taxes the government will be saddling Insurance companies and health care providers with. We will see higher premium rates and just assume it's the health care and insurance provider's fault. But oh no its:

Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes | Congressman Jeff Duncan

yeah isnt that just wonderful

another thing that will shoot premiums sky high

will be if the only ones who show up

for obamacare are the sick and needy

this will cause a new base to figure out

the 2015 premiums

sticker shock now wait a year or so

 

[RKMBrown]

Wholly shit batman! Did you guys see the new capital gains tax rates to pay for Obuma Care? OMFG 43% on dividends? WTF? Another 8.5% on capital gains? WTF? Turning medicare taxes into a progressive tax? WTF? A hidden tax that increases costs of health care plans from insurance companies by 4%? WTF?

Gotta hand it to the Democrats, when they decide to fleece the people they do it right.

 

[RKMBrown]

Which is going to sky rocket because, for better or worse, insurance companies now have to pay out beneifits for more sick people....which would drive premiums up, not down.

Not to mention the new hidden taxes the government will be saddling Insurance companies and health care providers with. We will see higher premium rates and just assume it's the health care and insurance provider's fault. But oh no its:

Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes | Congressman Jeff Duncan

yeah isnt that just wonderful

another thing that will shoot premiums sky high

will be if the only ones who show up

for obamacare are the sick and needy

this will cause a new base to figure out

the 2015 premiums

sticker shock now wait a year or so

Funny how the libtard was saying I was imagining things when I said the costs are gonna continue to go through the roof. Hell even if everyone in the country buys into this the costs are gonna go to the moon...

 

[Flopper]

dblack is right. You are rationalizing because you just don't want to admit what a colossal failure this is. What economic mechanism can you point to in the health care law that would have the economic effect of bringing down cost? You can say what it's purpose is until you are blue in the face. That doesn't mean the mechanisms Obama has put in place will actually accomplish that and upon examination, there is simply no evidence to suggest it will happen. Look at a supply and demand curve sometime.

Increased demand in the form of the individual mandate doesn't cause price to go down. It causes it to go up.

Adding 'value' to a product in the form of all the mandated coverages Obama says insurers must provide doesn't cause it's price to go down. It causes it to go up.

Adding taxes to providers in the form of medical device taxes doesn't cause the cost of their services to go down, it cause them to go up.

A mandate on how insurance companies must formulate community ratings and the inability to deny pre-existing conditions, does not cause the price of premiums to go down. It causes them to go up.

Even the administraton admits that the effect they are seeking from all these young healthy people entering the market is not to drive the costs of premium down. It an attempt to offset the new massive outlays on insurance companies for actually having to cover sick people. And we are seeing those enrollment numbers fall woefully short of the administrations projections.

What you lefties need to do is muster a modicum of objectivity here. Most of us want the same thing; for health care to cost less. You just need to get out of the Obama circle jerk long enough to see this was about the worst means a person could come up with for accomplishing that.

Increasing demand puts and upward pressure on price but that does not mean price will rise. Government interference in the health insurance market makes it more difficult for the companies to raise premiums based solely on demand. By law the companies must now spend at least 80% of their revenue on benefits. Reduction in regulations in state insurance commission and reduction in marketing and administration costs by using the exchanges will encourage more competition on exchanges. However the major factor in determining premiums won't be the demand for insurance but rather the percent of premium paid in benefits.

Which is going to sky rocket because, for better or worse, insurance companies now have to pay out beneifits for more sick people....which would drive premiums up, not down. You are also wrong about the effect of the 80/20 rule. That is also going to drive premiums up, not down. Let's say right now they're at maybe 60/40. Do you think they're all just going to agree to a pay cut on top of having to shell out more in benefits? You're truly naive if you think so. They're at least going to try to maintain the actual dollar figure that 40% represents by raising premiums. Maybe that wouldn't be so bad if that were the only thing they had to compensate for revenue wise, but Obamacare, again for better or worse, also makes them take a hit in the form of more money going out of the business in the form of benefits. Again, I don't see much choice but to raise premiums significantly just to get back to where they were revenue wise prior to Obamacare.

Your argument that premiums will increase is based on the assumption that there will be a significant increase in benefit costs per subscriber and that the insurance company premiums will not be limited by the 80/20 rule.

In some states there will be some increase in the cost of individual insurance benefits paid per subscriber, however the individual insurance market is only 15% of the of the health insurance market. Most of use get our insurance through our employer, and most of these plans meet or exceed the requirements of the law in almost all categories so there is no reason to expect a significant increase in benefit costs per subscriber. For example maternity coverage in employee sponsored plans is required in many states as part a of part anti-discrimination legislation. Mental health coverage is required in 49 states. According to a survey of over 16,000 employee sponsored healthcare plans, the average "maximum out of pocket expense" is $3621 for individual and $8,043 for a family. This is significantly better than the ACA requirement. 75% of the insurance plans in 2013 have eliminated life time maximums. In fact the average employee sponsored plan already meets or exceeds 90% of the requirements of the ACA. There is no reason to assume that benefits per subscriber will rise significantly in employer sponsored plans which is where most of us get our insurance.

According to a study by CMS, one fourth of the health insurance companies will not meet the 80/20 rule in 2013 and will either have to rebate funds to subscribers or reduce premiums in 2014.

2013 Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Survey - Out-of-Pocket Expenses Are Up

 

[RKMBrown]

Increasing demand puts and upward pressure on price but that does not mean price will rise. Government interference in the health insurance market makes it more difficult for the companies to raise premiums based solely on demand. By law the companies must now spend at least 80% of their revenue on benefits. Reduction in regulations in state insurance commission and reduction in marketing and administration costs by using the exchanges will encourage more competition on exchanges. However the major factor in determining premiums won't be the demand for insurance but rather the percent of premium paid in benefits.

Which is going to sky rocket because, for better or worse, insurance companies now have to pay out beneifits for more sick people....which would drive premiums up, not down. You are also wrong about the effect of the 80/20 rule. That is also going to drive premiums up, not down. Let's say right now they're at maybe 60/40. Do you think they're all just going to agree to a pay cut on top of having to shell out more in benefits? You're truly naive if you think so. They're at least going to try to maintain the actual dollar figure that 40% represents by raising premiums. Maybe that wouldn't be so bad if that were the only thing they had to compensate for revenue wise, but Obamacare, again for better or worse, also makes them take a hit in the form of more money going out of the business in the form of benefits. Again, I don't see much choice but to raise premiums significantly just to get back to where they were revenue wise prior to Obamacare.

Your argument that premiums will increase is based on the assumption that there will be a significant increase in benefit costs per subscriber and that the insurance company premiums will not be limited by the 80/20 rule.

In some states there will be some increase in the cost of individual insurance benefits paid per subscriber, however the individual insurance market is only 15% of the of the health insurance market. Most of use get our insurance through our employer, and most of these plans meet or exceed the requirements of the law in almost all categories so there is no reason to expect a significant increase in benefit costs per subscriber. For example maternity coverage in employee sponsored plans is required in many states as part a of part anti-discrimination legislation. Mental health coverage is required in 49 states. According to a survey of over 16,000 employee sponsored healthcare plans, the average "maximum out of pocket expense" is $3621 for individual and $8,043 for a family. This is significantly better than the ACA requirement. 75% of the insurance plans in 2013 have eliminated life time maximums. In fact the average employee sponsored plan already meets or exceeds 90% of the requirements of the ACA. There is no reason to assume that benefits per subscriber will rise significantly in employer sponsored plans which is where most of us get our insurance.

According to a study by CMS, one fourth of the health insurance companies will not meet the 80/20 rule in 2013 and will either have to rebate funds to subscribers or reduce premiums in 2014.

2013 Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Survey - Out-of-Pocket Expenses Are Up

ROFL that's right cause low premium high deductible plans don't exist. Significantly better... ROFL you are a liar and an idiot. Put down the koolaid.

 

[Jeniffer]

Appreciate your effort of sharing knowledge and for providing us helpful information, It will help me improve my knowledge. Thanks for Sharing.

 

[billyerock1991]

We the people decide what will or will not be a right when we decide what kind of society, or country, we're going to be.

Rights aren't created by the people nor by government. If they were created by the people or government, they could likewise be destroyed by the people or government.

Our rights belong to us as a Divine Gift embedded in Natural law. We the people have the responsibility to protect those rights, but we cannot create them.

For rights to be a 'divine gift' they would have to proclaimed to us by a real divinity. Since no such creature has revealed itself, rights are nothing more than the ideas and fabrications of men.

its Idiots like you and the right that believe it isn't ... we the people who care about the lives of others where its clearly you and the right don't feel it is a right you on the right feel its base on how much you can pay to save your own personal life ... so much for the right to lifers HUH!!!!

 

[Meister]

Rights aren't created by the people nor by government. If they were created by the people or government, they could likewise be destroyed by the people or government.

Our rights belong to us as a Divine Gift embedded in Natural law. We the people have the responsibility to protect those rights, but we cannot create them.

For rights to be a 'divine gift' they would have to proclaimed to us by a real divinity. Since no such creature has revealed itself, rights are nothing more than the ideas and fabrications of men.

its Idiots like you and the right that believe it isn't ... we the people who care about the lives of others where its clearly you and the right don't feel it is a right you on the right feel its base on how much you can pay to save your own personal life ... so much for the right to lifers HUH!!!!

Get a job and don't worry about how others are going to pay for your needs.

 

[Flopper]

Rights aren't created by the people nor by government. If they were created by the people or government, they could likewise be destroyed by the people or government.

Our rights belong to us as a Divine Gift embedded in Natural law. We the people have the responsibility to protect those rights, but we cannot create them.

For rights to be a 'divine gift' they would have to proclaimed to us by a real divinity. Since no such creature has revealed itself, rights are nothing more than the ideas and fabrications of men.

its Idiots like you and the right that believe it isn't ... we the people who care about the lives of others where its clearly you and the right don't feel it is a right you on the right feel its base on how much you can pay to save your own personal life ... so much for the right to lifers HUH!!!!

A right can have different meaning. I think most people that see healthcare as a right are defining a right in this case as that which is morally correct, just, or honorable, not a constitutional right. There is nothing in the Constitution about a right to a fair trial, a jury of your peers, or even the right to vote. Yet we accept these as constitutional rights because they are specified in state constitutions, or they are felt to be a right by interpretation of the constitution.

 

[Indeependent]

Reagan thought it was a right.

 

[dblack]

Reagan thought it was a right.

So what?

 

[Flopper]

Reagan thought it was a right.

So what?

Defining what you mean by a right is necessary for an intelligent discussion.