PDA

View Full Version : Thanks Obamacare for making it affordable.....



WRL
12-01-2010, 06:19 PM
Ok so supposedly Obamacare is supposed to make health care more affordable for people.....

So now that several things have kicked in.......

I get a letter from my health care provider that my policy is not changing one iota......

Now my health care will be even MORE affordable by going UP 10%!!!

Say what??????

WRL

Julie R.
12-01-2010, 07:33 PM
Yep, ours went from $350 to almost $500 this month. This is a bare-bones policy; we've never had a single claim. High deductible and no frills. Thanks Mr. Prezz & Queen Pelosi.

david gibson
12-01-2010, 07:49 PM
its stealth "spread the wealth" baby!

come yardly, please write at least 200 words explaining how julie and wrl are actually saving money.

depittydawg
12-01-2010, 07:53 PM
Ok so supposedly Obamacare is supposed to make health care more affordable for people.....

So now that several things have kicked in.......

I get a letter from my health care provider that my policy is not changing one iota......

Now my health care will be even MORE affordable by going UP 10%!!!

Say what??????

WRL

I don't recall that the changes in health care were supposed to make it more affordable. I believe those changes that may have done that were all shot down by the GOP and Democratic congressional leadership. What they did end up with was at least some guarantees (supposedly) that your healthcare won't be cancelled and you get tossed aside at the whim of your insurer as is now the case.

YardleyLabs
12-01-2010, 07:55 PM
its stealth "spread the wealth" baby!

come yardly, please write at least 200 words explaining how julie and wrl are actually saving money.
Given that premiums have been increasing by similar amounts for years, why are the increases now the result of a system that hasn't even gone into effect? Last year was the first year in more than a decade that my premiums didn't increase by double digits.All it took to make that happen was a total economic collapse.

david gibson
12-01-2010, 07:57 PM
there you go juli and wrl - and it only took 57 words!

WRL
12-01-2010, 08:06 PM
Given that premiums have been increasing by similar amounts for years, why are the increases now the result of a system that hasn't even gone into effect? Last year was the first year in more than a decade that my premiums didn't increase by double digits.All it took to make that happen was a total economic collapse.

Sorry but this "increase" is not the "normal" yearly increase. Per their letter, this increase is specific to Obamacare.

My "renewals" and any increases take place in May. This is an "additional" increase.

WRL

JDogger
12-01-2010, 11:06 PM
I sometimes wonder if increased costs of products and services are driven by Presidents, parties and politics? Are the smoke and mirrors designed to keep us from looking at the man behind the curtain?

Are not healthcare companys, and insurance companies obliged to produce a profit for their shareholders?

Maybe universal, single-payer, not-for-profit healthcare would be the answer.

Oh, lordy don't go there! That's socialism. Kinda like social security, medicare, medicaid, VA, WIC etc. Eh?

I don't have the answers. No one on this board does, but while we argue Presidents, parties and politics, we might just have our focus misdirected.

We've started to change control of gov. from one party to another. It is likely to continue. Let's give it a couple of years...and in a couple of years...let's re-evaluate.

I bet nothing has changed, cause we don't want to lift that curtain and find out what Pogo said was true,

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."

JD

precisionlabradors
12-01-2010, 11:16 PM
that's private enterprise for ya.....grasping at an opportunity to blame whatever they can (the trendy scapegoat of the day) for raising costs. the past decade the trendy scapegoat has been the president. bush, obama, who's next?
i mean, i'm all for capitalism and private enterprise, but it has its downfall, just as does socialism. capitalism=make shit up to exploit to make more money. socialism=enabling.

Blackstone
12-02-2010, 02:38 PM
My health care insurance has been going up every year for years. Maybe they were getting a head start because they knew Obamacare was coming. I suspect it would have gone up again this year with or without Obamacare. But, with all the bad press about the rising cost of health care, I guess it’s good for the image of the insurance companies if they can point the finger elsewhere for a change.

WRL
12-02-2010, 02:42 PM
My health care insurance has been going up every year for years. Maybe they were getting a head start because they knew Obamacare was coming. I suspect it would have gone up again this year with or without Obamacare. But, with all the bad press about the rising cost of health care, I guess itís good for the image of the insurance companies if they can point the finger elsewhere for a change.

To repeat myself, the "regular" renewal premiums (if its going to go up that's when it does) is in MAY....this is an ADDITIONAL increase.

WRL

Cody Covey
12-02-2010, 03:43 PM
Mines going down to 0 :)

road kill
12-02-2010, 03:44 PM
Mines going down to 0 :)
Are you dieing?


RK

precisionlabradors
12-02-2010, 03:56 PM
To repeat myself, the "regular" renewal premiums (if its going to go up that's when it does) is in MAY....this is an ADDITIONAL increase.

WRL

would you be willing to scan in a copy of the letter? in what way would obamacare make insurance costs rise? what was their specific reasoning in the letter?

WRL
12-02-2010, 04:03 PM
would you be willing to scan in a copy of the letter? in what way would obamacare make insurance costs rise? what was their specific reasoning in the letter?
Here are some of the "CHANGES" (that don't affect me other than to make my premiums go up):

*Extension of dependent child(ren) limiting age to 26.

*Removal of pre-existing condition exclusions for enrollees under the age of 19.

*Information revisions to the appeals process.

*Explanation of how your coverage is safe from non-permissible rescissions.

signgirl
12-02-2010, 06:34 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/254184/little-victims-obamacare-michelle-malkin

precisionlabradors
12-02-2010, 06:57 PM
Here are some of the "CHANGES" (that don't affect me other than to make my premiums go up):

*Extension of dependent child(ren) limiting age to 26.

*Removal of pre-existing condition exclusions for enrollees under the age of 19.

*Information revisions to the appeals process.

*Explanation of how your coverage is safe from non-permissible rescissions.

so, their increases are made based on projection that it will cost their company more, because due to the policies being new, there is no way it has cost the company any money, yet.....? sounds like obamacare didn't make the rates increase, but that the company found a great excuse to raise [remiums and make more money and blame it on the popular scapegoat.

Clint Watts
12-08-2010, 12:46 AM
so, their increases are made based on projection that it will cost their company more, because due to the policies being new, there is no way it has cost the company any money, yet.....? sounds like obamacare didn't make the rates increase, but that the company found a great excuse to raise [remiums and make more money and blame it on the popular scapegoat.

No one can be truly this stupid, sorry I mean't challenged? Please explain how these things will not cost insurance companies more money?

pat addis
12-08-2010, 06:31 AM
Yep, ours went from $350 to almost $500 this month. This is a bare-bones policy; we've never had a single claim. High deductible and no frills. Thanks Mr. Prezz & Queen Pelosi.

we have to sign it to know whats in it boy what a bunch of crap

Gerry Clinchy
12-08-2010, 09:23 AM
I believe that some of the O-care provisions have taken effect ... like the state exchanges and the requirement there not to reject pre-existing conditions. It is unclear to me whether those state exchanges are totally funded by govt $ or whether the insurance is ultimately provided by existing private insurors that are then subsidized by govt $ to some degree. Whatever the case, the fact that is emerging is that the cost of insurance for those entering state exchanges with pre-existing conditions is quite high ... thus the cost is resulting in low participation.

With regard to the increase in health care costs, the U.S. is not unique. From organ transplants to stem cell therapies, why do we find it so hard to acknowledge that these medical advances have a price tag? Whether the cost of health insurance has risen faster than the cost of care, would be a separate issue.

We also fail to acknowledge, for the most part, how much medical care is given at no cost to the patient. Any effort to provide health insurance to everyone will undoubtedly miss the mark ... short of a system like the UK or Canada (etc.) ... which, it is becoming evident, also has some flaws.

But, Pat is correct ... that it appears nobody bothered to read the bill in its finer details (which most of us long suspected). In today's NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/health/policy/08health.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a23



WASHINGTON — In an unintended consequence of the new health care law, drug companies have begun notifying children’s hospitals (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/hospitals/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) around the country that they no longer qualify for large discounts on drugs used to treat rare medical conditions.

As a result, prices are going up for these specialized “orphan drugs,” some of which are also used to treat more common conditions.

Over the last 18 years, Congress has required drug manufacturers to provide discounts to a variety of health care providers, including community health centers, AIDS (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/aids/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier) clinics and hospitals that care for large numbers of low-income people.

Several years ago, Congress broadened the program to include children’s hospitals.
But this year Congress, in revising the drug discount program as part of the new health care law, blocked these hospitals from continuing to receive price cuts on orphan drugs intended for treatment of diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people in the United States.

The reason behind the change is murky, though some drug makers had opposed expansion of the drug discount program. The discounts typically range from 30 percent to 50 percent, and children’s hospitals say the change is costing them hundreds of millions of dollars.

Under the new law, hundreds of rural hospitals became eligible for discounts for the first time, but the discounts are not available on orphan drugs, which account for a surprisingly large share of their outpatient pharmacy costs. At the same time, children’s hospitals lost access to discounts on the drugs.

In a typical letter to a children’s hospital, one company, Genentech (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/genentech_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org), said that, because of the new law, it would not offer discounts on certain cancer (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/cancer/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier) medicines like Avastin (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/avastin_drug/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), Herceptin, Rituxan and Tarceva (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/tarceva_drug/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), or on Activase, which is used to dissolve blood clots in heart attack (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/heart-attack/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier) and stroke (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/stroke/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier) patients.

Another drug maker, Allergan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/allergan_inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org), cited the new law as a reason for denying discounts on Botox (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/botox_drug/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier), which, besides removing wrinkles (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/symptoms/wrinkles/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier) from the face, is used to reduce spasticity (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/symptoms/spasticity/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier) in patients with cerebral palsy (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/cerebral-palsy/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier) and other neurological disorders.

Joshua D. Greenberg, vice president of Children’s Hospital Boston, said that loss of the discounts “jeopardizes our ability to care for some of the sickest children with the most complex health care needs.”




Christina M. Barnes, the pharmacy director at Galion Community Hospital (http://www.galionhospital.org/) in rural Galion, Ohio, said she was excited when her hospital qualified for the discount program earlier his year. But, she said, she was dismayed to learn that many drugs would be excluded.

“We were given an advantage with one hand, and it was taken away with the other hand,” Ms. Barnes said.




In a last-minute change sought by some drug manufacturers, Congress stipulated in the new health care law that rural hospitals, children’s hospitals and certain free-standing cancer centers could not get discounts on orphan drugs through the 340B program. Ms. Barnes, at Galion Hospital in Ohio, said: “The list of orphan drugs is small, but it involves big dollars. Many, perhaps most, of our cancer patients receive at least one orphan drug during their treatment.”


Ah, yes, I seem to remember that pharma companies came on board for O-care during the process.



Drug companies said that the discount program was intended to help hospitals care for the uninsured, and that this need would diminish as millions of the uninsured gained coverage under Mr. Obama’s health care overhaul. [Many might become insured, but I seriously doubt that ALL will be insured. For the "working poor", the cost of health insurance may still be out of reach, as is the case with the state exchanges. And the "penalty" for not having insurance may not be of much help ... you can't get blood out of a rock.]

But Ted Slafsky, the executive director of Safety Net Hospitals for Pharmaceutical Access (http://www.snhpa.org/public/index.cfm), a nonprofit group, said, “The exemption for orphan drugs undermines the mission and purpose of the drug discount program.”


I'm wondering about another "unintended consequence" that is brewing. Compel business to provide health insurance ... but do not allow them to deduct that cost as a business expense for tax purposes. Does that make any sense at all? sounds like a great way to get more businesses to ship more jobs to other countries.

Ken Bora
12-08-2010, 09:54 AM
how about this fun note?

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q160/KenBora/MVPletter001-1.jpg


Must be Bush???





.

Cody Covey
12-08-2010, 10:49 AM
so we just had our renewal meeting and our costs went up 5% which comes out to 3 dollars a month. The lady doing our meeting said without Obamacare our costs wouldn't have went up at all saying that children until 26 and no limits to coverage were costing to much money.

Eric Johnson
12-08-2010, 11:44 AM
Ken-

Your letter is dated Nov 29, 2010 but the date the coverage ends is shown as Feb 28, 2010. Huh?

Eric

Gerry Clinchy
12-08-2010, 12:18 PM
Ken-

Your letter is dated Nov 29, 2010 but the date the coverage ends is shown as Feb 28, 2010. Huh?

Eric

I'd guess that there is some requirement for giving 90 days notice of termination of the benefit plan (supposedly the anniversary date of the policy was May).

As mentioned by another poster, I do believe that the provisions of the law for children up to 26 being covered has already gone into effect. And the state exchanges have already started as well. But they ain't cheap. A local paper quoted several different prices for the PA plan. I believe the highest was around $700/mo.

While pre-existing conditions must be covered, I don't recall any discussion about whether the providers of the coverage could charge more for those high-risk insureds. (Probably one of the "details" that will "evolve" within the bureaucracy created to administer the legislation). We do know that car insurors are allowed to charge higher rates to high-risk drivers ... like teenagers & people who've gotten "points" on their licenses for speeding or other moving violations; or even multiple accidents.

The devil will be in the details ... as we have seen with other legislation that ended up with "unintended consequences" that needed to be "fixed".

M&K's Retrievers
12-08-2010, 05:17 PM
If you check my previous posts on this subject, I believe I forecasted the number of uninsureds will double under Obamacare. Hide and watch.

depittydawg
12-08-2010, 08:19 PM
how about this fun note?

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q160/KenBora/MVPletter001-1.jpg


Must be Bush???

.

Health insurance companies ARE the problem. Obama-care did little to solve the health care problems in America. To bad you didn't have a public option now.

Gerry Clinchy
12-08-2010, 08:39 PM
Health insurance companies ARE the problem. Obama-care did little to solve the health care problems in America. To bad you didn't have a public option now.

I thought that's what the state exchanges were?

As for the direct govt-run health care, it has taken 40 years but the UK health system is sinking. The net result is that those with $ can pay for private care that the govt may be unwilling to provided; or unable to provide in a timely fashion. Those who don't have $ get what the govt says they can have.

Years ago, I can recall Michael Caine discussing how he brought his father to the US for treatment for an illness, because the wait in the UK would be long enough to affect the outcome of ultimate treatment. There were clues to what's happening now back then.

There is simply not enough wealth to provide all the medical care that everyone would want for everyone ... some areas of care may improve for some people, but overall there will still be many who do not get the care they would want ... or need.

The only thing that changes is who decides what care gets dispensed and to whom.

Ken Bora
12-08-2010, 08:40 PM
Ken-

Your letter is dated Nov 29, 2010 but the date the coverage ends is shown as Feb 28, 2010. Huh?

Eric


Thats the FIRST thing that jumped out at me as well.
That and them telling not to contact them:rolleyes:
Fricken Horses Gizmoes!!!!!!!
We think that we (My boss and co-workers) may end up back with Blue cross. We had them back a few. Remember the line, if your happy with your health care you can keep it?????
Well not if the company ends the plan???????
And I must be the best kind of customer, I never go!!!!
Well random broken bones every other year and the Dr. Jellyfinger Visit when I hit 45. But other than that I never go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!






.