Health Plan Cost for New Yorkers Set to Fall 50% THANKS OBAMA

I see lots of potential customers for my new RandCare program.

Basically you send me 20 bucks a month and when the weak get sick - by their own lameness - I mail em a copy of atlas shrugged and a note saying "**** u u r out"

An as ac is a satisfied customer!

 

Well, yes, for the uninsurable. Keeping out the sick has still left health insurance unaffordable for many and many more "customers" feel they are at the breaking point.

Having more subscribers will surely bring in more premium dollars but having to accept any subscriber will surely bring in more sick people.

I forget the details exactly, but in the past most individual health plans had a life expectancy of a few years-- meaning the insurance company would only be carrying that risk for a few years so the likelihood of a large claim was small. Remember, they got to approve any applicant.

Under ACA, those plans will carry on "far" into the future (with some movement I'm sure) for a much longer period of time thus dropping more risk at the feet of the insurance company.

 

If you weren't such a smart-ass, you'd realize that this is a great concern if you want to control costs. I'm not sure how they are projecting future claim expenses when all the formerly uninsurables jump in to the mix.

Did you hear the US senator, Max Baucus (D-MT) call ACA a "trainwreck?"

For your information, I'm in favor of some kind of quality nationalized healthcare plan. I have a now-thriving 27 YO daughter who has been uninsurable since birth due to some surgically-corrected heart issues.

 

Those other 49 states in the Union sure are grateful to see New York's health insurance costs drop.

 

Did you? Or did you just read about it? Do you know the context in which it was said?

 

So - if somebody (theoretically, of course) legislated into being a program for people with for pre-existing conditions - such as a surgically corrected heart issue - you would be in favor of this?

 

Yes, I've been in favor of a national healthcare plan for years. My daughter was born with a condition which required 5 heart surgeries before age 8. While her health is "restored" and she can expect a normal life span, she remains uninsurable.

BTW, it's not "theoretical!" It's here.

Baucus' comments were primary a PR comment but a trainwreck is a trainwreck and some of the questions raised in this thread are another trainwreck coming.

 

So you used a quote that you know is not referencing the ACA itself and is specifically referencing PR spending by contractors caused by Republican budget cuts to try to make a point unrelated to it? Seems kind of odd.

Why not just use Perry's "oops" quote and say "oops is oops" and therefore relevent here since some of the questions raised in this thread suggest the ACA was a mistake?

 

I can think the law itself was designed in a horrible manner while still agreeing with the general notion behind it.

I full support the idea of everyone having insurance with no pre-x. I just think the mechanics of how this law is designed to function are severely flawed.

 

The OP is a positive one for the ACA. However drilling down has revealed some imperfections, i.e. healthcares costs in NY were unusually high so a significant rate reduction is not as profound as it appears on the surface.

One of the videos I watched claimed that healthcare claims were expected to go up an average of 32% (claims not premiums). Perhaps justtxyank can comment on this but my recollection from time in the insurance industry was that profit margins were "maintained" in the single digits so health claims going up 32% will be a shock.

Baucus' state is split on the ACA so that means that half of them think it is a mistake... beyond the PR problems.

 

As an entrepreneur and independent consultant - this is great news. I can't afford $800 a month in health care premiums for decent insurance, but now, I can get on a decent plan.

 

Agree with all of that - but it has nothing to do with Baucus' opinion on the ACA. Using his words, out of context with an entirely different meaning, to make the argument is as silly as using "oops" to make the argument.

 

This is a great concern, not because of medical costs, but because the people who needed medical care the most were being purposely excluded so insurance companies could make higher profits.

My main concern with our healthcare is that it is accessible to everyone who needs it. And besides, we are already paying for the uninsured as it is. It's not like Obamacare suddenly makes us pay for a bunch of deadbeats. We are already paying for them.

 

Yeah, I think it is a noble idea. I think it's more important to have healthcare for our citizens than it is to have the best highway system or any number of other things....

As I understand it, much of the uninsured healthcare is consumed in ERs and those costs are passed through the hospital. Don't know about you but I've been in a hosptal room overnight once in about 30 years for a knee repair.

The thing is that these demon insurance companies don't have to offer these policies and no one has to buy them. They take a great risk in doing so and it is very cavalier to criticize them for not accepting everyone. Why don't you do it? It's a scary proposition.

 

As someone who has had cancer and had an insurance company try to bend me over a barrel (I have personal health coverage in my own name and always have), you're not going to get too much sympathy for the insurance companies from me. I got everything I was supposed to get, but the insurance company denied me at every turn. Less savvy patients would have been screwed royally in my situation. I just didn't accept the insurer's answers and kept at them until I got the answer I (and my doctors) wanted.

The ER costs are paid by the hospital, which eventually get passed on to people that can pay. I have only been overnight in a hospital once that I can remember (appendectomy).

If you want to get down to the real problem...it's simple. For-profit medical care doesn't work very well. The medical insurance industry is a cash cow if you only insure healthy people. This is precisely why our insurance system sucks so much.

 

I just want to support this story and offer sympathy. One of my best friends had to fight tooth and nail with the insurance companies while undergoing cancer treatment. It was incredibly draining for her and her entire family. She would literally be dead now if not for her, and her husband, spending literally weeks worth of personal time fighting on the phonelines and getting letters submitted by lawyers, etc.

Anyone who says this is not part of the business model is probably straight lying to our faces.

 

We need a single payer system. Yes 5% might get screwed, but 95% would be much better off with a single payer system. The biggest problem with the whole system is cost. How is the ACA really going to solve that.

 

This is the gist. It is predicated on keeping out the old sick or kicking out the new sick or frustrating the heavy consumer. We need a better system.

 

My brothers came and lived with me (consecutively) for a month or so and were instrumental in getting stuff done during my treatment. I am lucky to have family like that.