Yes, it was all a lie about Obamacare

[Mac1958]

.

According to the premiums I've seen, my family's monthly premiums will be going from about $570 to $720, an increase of $150 a month, approximately 26.3%.

I guess if you add that up it will be the savings of $2500 per year I was promised.

Maybe I'm not very good at math.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

.

According to the premiums I've seen, my family's monthly premiums will be going from about $570 to $720, an increase of $150 a month, approximately 26.3%.

I guess if you add that up it will be the savings of $2500 per year I was promised.

Maybe I'm not very good at math.

.

Yes but they would have been even higher without Ocare, right? In fact, Obamacare has saved the lives of 100M Americans who would have died if they hadn't passed it. See, you can make claims that can't be proven and make anything look good.

 

[Greenbeard]

.The medical software industry (billing, coding, etc.) is currently in a fucking panic because Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning™ have not yet gotten around to issuing final rules, regulations and expectations on what needs to be included in the software. That one's a long story in itself, but then he said that Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning™ have also warned them to expect new, new regs that will essentially quadruple the amount of codes that will be required. In short, one big mess is on the way.

You can tell your friend that the U.S. committed in 2008 to adopting the ICD-10 code set. A code set that has been around since 1992.

You can further tell him that the implementation date set by the Bush administration was pushed back not once (from fall of 2011 to fall of 2013) but twice (from fall of 2013 to fall of 2014) by the Obama administration to give the industry more time to adapt.

Although if he's one of the brighter bulbs in the industry, perhaps they'll need a few more years. A 20-year-old code set that's nearing its fifth year of implementation and they're confused as to what to expect--oy!

In California's exchange, the statewide average for the cheapest bronze coverage available--the coverage this thread and that claim are ostensibly about--to a family of four is $657/month or $7,884 annually (see page 17). That's before any subsidy they get. More generous silver plans can be bought by the same family for less than $10,000/year--again, before any subsidies are applied.

The $20,000 number was always a myth. One that appears to persist in some quarters, even though actual prices are now available.

Have you ever seen the cost estimates from the government ever be higher then what actually occurs?

These aren't price estimates from the government, they're the price tags insurers are requesting to put on their products. They go on sale in three months and these are the premiums insurers want to charge.

You neglect to mention that it is more expensive than plans they can get now. And that they will be forced to buy expensive plans.
But never mind.

The exchanges are going to be full of formerly uninsured people who don't have plans now. And of the 5% of the population currently buying in the individual market, a substantial portion are going to see their payments fall as the affordability tax credits kick in.

So if you want to go the "what do people actually pay" route, the picture gets even better for those shoppers. I've been focusing only on the fact that the price of a standard set of benefits is falling, not on other factors that will defray even those costs for many folks.

 

[The Rabbi]

Given that the people who do not have plans now do so by their own choice that is hardly encouraging.

 

[asaratis]

I deleted my previous post. My mistake. NYC admitted in post #85 of this thread that the 46 million number was used by Obama. I should have read farther into the thread before popping off. I will pos rep his sorry ass as a sign of contrition.

 

[Mac1958]

.The medical software industry (billing, coding, etc.) is currently in a fucking panic because Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning™ have not yet gotten around to issuing final rules, regulations and expectations on what needs to be included in the software. That one's a long story in itself, but then he said that Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning™ have also warned them to expect new, new regs that will essentially quadruple the amount of codes that will be required. In short, one big mess is on the way.

You can tell your friend that the U.S. committed in 2008 to adopting the ICD-10 code set. A code set that has been around since 1992.

You can further tell him that the implementation date set by the Bush administration was pushed back not once (from fall of 2011 to fall of 2013) but twice (from fall of 2013 to fall of 2014) by the Obama administration to give the industry more time to adapt.

Although if he's one of the brighter bulbs in the industry, perhaps they'll need a few more years. A 20-year-old code set that's nearing its fifth year of implementation and they're confused as to what to expect--oy!

As I recall, he said that a newer and bigger regulation (ICD-11 I think, but I could be wrong) is causing most of the problems because the feds haven't provided the final requirements updated for the ACA. So the companies are just sitting there and waiting while the clock is ticking. He also said that his company has been alerted about the even newer regulations that are being put together that will quadruple the amount of codes, covering treatments down the molecular level, evidently.

I realize there is a lot of animosity towards corporations, but if/when the shit hits the fan it probably won't be their fault, at least in this case. They'll get the blame, of course.

.

 

[Greenbeard]

As I recall, he said that a newer and bigger regulation (ICD-11 I think, but I could be wrong) is causing most of the problems because the feds haven't provided the final requirements updated for the ACA. So the companies are just sitting there and waiting while the clock is ticking. He also said that his company has been alerted about the even newer regulations that are being put together that will quadruple the amount of codes, covering treatments down the molecular level, evidently.

The U.S. currently uses ICD-9 (and has since the '90s), which was developed in the '70s. That is, our billing systems are set up to capture medicine as it was delivered forty years ago. We're finally switching to ICD-10, which was completed in the early '90s. That changeover has to be completed by October 2014.

The WHO is developing ICD-11 now, and should be done in the middle of this decade. If history is any guide, the U.S. will move on to it sometime in the 2030s.

Anyway, the health sector has twice been given extra time to make the change to ICD-10, so it's heartening to hear they're putting it to good use by "sitting there and waiting"! I can't imagine where any animosity would come from.

 

[lynn63]

for a family of 5.

that's $4k a year per person.

$333 a month for one person. That's not horrible.

That's $20 for FOUR people.
Who the hell has $333 per month per person...For Christ's sake that is three weeks worth of groceries for each of the four people in the home each month.
And that $20 is for the most basic coverage. Which is essentially nothing care..

In California's exchange, the statewide average for the cheapest bronze coverage available--the coverage this thread and that claim are ostensibly about--to a family of four is $657/month or $7,884 annually (see page 17). That's before any subsidy they get. More generous silver plans can be bought by the same family for less than $10,000/year--again, before any subsidies are applied.

The $20,000 number was always a myth. One that appears to persist in some quarters, even though actual prices are now available.

The cost for family coverage in California is 16,000 annually and every other state is between 10,000 to 16,000 for family coverage and this is before the mandate.

 

[Mac1958]

Anyway, the health sector has twice been given extra time to make the change to ICD-10, so it's heartening to hear they're putting it to good use by "sitting there and waiting"!

Perhaps you didn't see where I (twice) pointed out that the software companies cannot proceed with required changes because the feds have not yet provided them with the final regulations.

I can't imagine where any animosity would come from.

Animosity towards corporations is easy to find, perhaps you could check any left wing website, most "news" TV networks (definitely start with MSNBC, though), or a pretty healthy percentage of left wing politicians. Perhaps you've missed that, too.

One of the many things I like about my friend is that, in addition to being the single most intelligent person I know and a big fan of microbrew, he's not prone to viewing things through a partisan lens. One of our similarities. So I think I'll go ahead and trust his word on this.

.

 

[Antares]

Anyway, the health sector has twice been given extra time to make the change to ICD-10, so it's heartening to hear they're putting it to good use by "sitting there and waiting"!

Perhaps you didn't see where I (twice) pointed out that the software companies cannot proceed with required changes because the feds have not yet provided them with the final regulations.

I can't imagine where any animosity would come from.

Animosity towards corporations is easy to find, perhaps you could check any left wing website, most "news" TV networks (definitely start with MSNBC, though), or a pretty healthy percentage of left wing politicians. Perhaps you've missed that, too.

One of the many things I like about my friend is that, in addition to being the single most intelligent person I know and a big fan of microbrew, he's not prone to viewing things through a partisan lens. One of our similarities. So I think I'll go ahead and trust his word on this.

.

No..no...greenie is the ABSOLUTE final word in ALL things ACA....just ask him.

 

[Greenbeard]

In California's exchange, the statewide average for the cheapest bronze coverage available--the coverage this thread and that claim are ostensibly about--to a family of four is $657/month or $7,884 annually (see page 17). That's before any subsidy they get. More generous silver plans can be bought by the same family for less than $10,000/year--again, before any subsidies are applied.

The $20,000 number was always a myth. One that appears to persist in some quarters, even though actual prices are now available.

The cost for family coverage in California is 16,000 annually and every other state is between 10,000 to 16,000 for family coverage and this is before the mandate.

...the reason I linked to the actual prices in that post is so folks could stop simply making up numbers off the top of their heads. So far, no luck.

Perhaps you didn't see where I (twice) pointed out that the software companies cannot proceed with required changes because the feds have not yet provided them with the final regulations.

The final regulations came out in January 2009.

No..no...greenie is the ABSOLUTE final word in ALL things ACA....just ask him.

The switch to ICD-10 doesn't have anything to do with the ACA (HIPAA would be the legislation you're looking for here). This particular requirement was put in place by the previous administration.

 

[thereisnospoon]

In California's exchange, the statewide average for the cheapest bronze coverage available--the coverage this thread and that claim are ostensibly about--to a family of four is $657/month or $7,884 annually (see page 17). That's before any subsidy they get. More generous silver plans can be bought by the same family for less than $10,000/year--again, before any subsidies are applied.

The $20,000 number was always a myth. One that appears to persist in some quarters, even though actual prices are now available.

The cost for family coverage in California is 16,000 annually and every other state is between 10,000 to 16,000 for family coverage and this is before the mandate.

...the reason I linked to the actual prices in that post is so folks could stop simply making up numbers off the top of their heads. So far, no luck.

Perhaps you didn't see where I (twice) pointed out that the software companies cannot proceed with required changes because the feds have not yet provided them with the final regulations.

The final regulations came out in January 2009.

No..no...greenie is the ABSOLUTE final word in ALL things ACA....just ask him.

The switch to ICD-10 doesn't have anything to do with the ACA (HIPAA would be the legislation you're looking for here). This particular requirement was put in place by the previous administration.

Link? What link?
Here's a LINK....Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146% - Forbes
Ohio Dept. Of Insurance: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Health Premiums By 88 Percent - Forbes
Ohio Dept. Of Insurance: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Health Premiums By 88 Percent - Forbes
Now you will post some counter numbers with no link or from some blog and then claim Forbes is a publication by of and for rich white guys.

 

[Flopper]

The cost for family coverage in California is 16,000 annually and every other state is between 10,000 to 16,000 for family coverage and this is before the mandate.

...the reason I linked to the actual prices in that post is so folks could stop simply making up numbers off the top of their heads. So far, no luck.



The final regulations came out in January 2009.

No..no...greenie is the ABSOLUTE final word in ALL things ACA....just ask him.

The switch to ICD-10 doesn't have anything to do with the ACA (HIPAA would be the legislation you're looking for here). This particular requirement was put in place by the previous administration.

Link? What link?
Here's a LINK....Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146% - Forbes
Ohio Dept. Of Insurance: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Health Premiums By 88 Percent - Forbes
Ohio Dept. Of Insurance: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Health Premiums By 88 Percent - Forbes
Now you will post some counter numbers with no link or from some blog and then claim Forbes is a publication by of and for rich white guys.

You can calculate premiums with the following calculator. The Ohio numbers exclude substitutes which in many cases will cover most of the premium.

Subsidy Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

BTW, the administration never said ACA would reduce healthcare premiums. They said the cost of healthcare would come down. There's a big difference.

80% of Americans will continue to get their insurance through their employer's group plans or the government and thus the prices on the exchanges will not effect them. Also the prices on the exchanges are subject to change because the exchanges are a market place. In states where competition is strong, premiums will be lower than states with less competition. Thus some areas will see increases for some types of policies while other areas will see decreases. In my opinion, most people will not see much difference in the premium for non-group polices once subsidies are included.

 

[Greenbeard]

Link? What link?

This one: http://www.coveredca.com/news/PDFs/CC_Health_Plans_Booklet.pdf

There are no "counter numbers," these are the prices in California's marketplace.

 

[Antares]

Link? What link?

This one: http://www.coveredca.com/news/PDFs/CC_Health_Plans_Booklet.pdf

There are no "counter numbers," these are the prices in California's marketplace.

I have read somewhere that the numbers are bogus....individual compared to small group?

 

[Greenbeard]

Link? What link?

This one: http://www.coveredca.com/news/PDFs/CC_Health_Plans_Booklet.pdf

There are no "counter numbers," these are the prices in California's marketplace.

I have read somewhere that the numbers are bogus....individual compared to small group?

I don't know what you're saying--that the prices insurers have requested for their products are somehow false?

 

[thereisnospoon]

...the reason I linked to the actual prices in that post is so folks could stop simply making up numbers off the top of their heads. So far, no luck.



The final regulations came out in January 2009.



The switch to ICD-10 doesn't have anything to do with the ACA (HIPAA would be the legislation you're looking for here). This particular requirement was put in place by the previous administration.

Link? What link?
Here's a LINK....Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146% - Forbes
Ohio Dept. Of Insurance: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Health Premiums By 88 Percent - Forbes
Ohio Dept. Of Insurance: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Health Premiums By 88 Percent - Forbes
Now you will post some counter numbers with no link or from some blog and then claim Forbes is a publication by of and for rich white guys.

You can calculate premiums with the following calculator. The Ohio numbers exclude substitutes which in many cases will cover most of the premium.

Subsidy Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

BTW, the administration never said ACA would reduce healthcare premiums. They said the cost of healthcare would come down. There's a big difference.

80% of Americans will continue to get their insurance through their employer's group plans or the government and thus the prices on the exchanges will not effect them. Also the prices on the exchanges are subject to change because the exchanges are a market place. In states where competition is strong, premiums will be lower than states with less competition. Thus some areas will see increases for some types of policies while other areas will see decreases. In my opinion, most people will not see much difference in the premium for non-group polices once subsidies are included.

Subsidies. Yes, let's attempt to make the cost of ACA look lower by moving the chess pieces around the board.
Peeling back the layers of the onion reveals that the higher costs will be borne by those with the ability to pay. Subsidies mean nothing because those who's income rises above the subsidy threshold will pay their share as well as those receiving the subsidies.
From that standpoint, is a fallacy to claim ACA will 'save' anyone a dime...

 

[thereisnospoon]

Link? What link?

This one: http://www.coveredca.com/news/PDFs/CC_Health_Plans_Booklet.pdf

There are no "counter numbers," these are the prices in California's marketplace.

There aren't?....No chance you looked at the link provided in the Forbes article.
Heck, I even posted a link from the White House website. Yet you throw out some other link that counters the government's own information.
We're done.

 

[thereisnospoon]

...the reason I linked to the actual prices in that post is so folks could stop simply making up numbers off the top of their heads. So far, no luck.



The final regulations came out in January 2009.



The switch to ICD-10 doesn't have anything to do with the ACA (HIPAA would be the legislation you're looking for here). This particular requirement was put in place by the previous administration.

Link? What link?
Here's a LINK....Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146% - Forbes
Ohio Dept. Of Insurance: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Health Premiums By 88 Percent - Forbes
Ohio Dept. Of Insurance: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Health Premiums By 88 Percent - Forbes
Now you will post some counter numbers with no link or from some blog and then claim Forbes is a publication by of and for rich white guys.

You can calculate premiums with the following calculator. The Ohio numbers exclude substitutes which in many cases will cover most of the premium.

Subsidy Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

BTW, the administration never said ACA would reduce healthcare premiums. They said the cost of healthcare would come down. There's a big difference.

80% of Americans will continue to get their insurance through their employer's group plans or the government and thus the prices on the exchanges will not effect them. Also the prices on the exchanges are subject to change because the exchanges are a market place. In states where competition is strong, premiums will be lower than states with less competition. Thus some areas will see increases for some types of policies while other areas will see decreases. In my opinion, most people will not see much difference in the premium for non-group polices once subsidies are included.

"BTW, the administration never said ACA would reduce healthcare premiums. They said the cost of healthcare would come down. There's a big difference."
Really? Difference with no distinction.
The cost of health care IS the cost of the premium....
Look, ACA is nonsense. The Obama admin sold this thing as a way to control 'costs'...That's impossible.
What ACA will attempt to do is control 'price'...
With that in mind, ACA simply takes control of the medical care marketplace with the goal of manipulating the marketplace. This will be done by slashing reimbursements to medical professionals, placing new taxes on pharmaceutical firms and those companies that manufacture and market medical equipment and machinery.
All of which is 100% unnecessary. ACA creates an illusion that healthcare will be free to those voters the democrat party is most heavily invested. Those would be voters on public assistance those with an entitlement mentality.

 

[Antares]

This one: http://www.coveredca.com/news/PDFs/CC_Health_Plans_Booklet.pdf

There are no "counter numbers," these are the prices in California's marketplace.

I have read somewhere that the numbers are bogus....individual compared to small group?

I don't know what you're saying--that the prices insurers have requested for their products are somehow false?

But this good news is not as good as it might sound, because it’s based on a misleading comparison: next year’s individual market rates with this year’s small-employer plans. A more useful comparison would be with this year’s individual-market premiums. And what that comparison reveals is that rate shock is real, and that the hikes are far larger than the comparison with small-group rates would suggest.

California Regulators Hide Obamacare Rate Shock With Misleading Comparison - Hit & Run : Reason.com