I used to have NO monthly premium, now i must pay $40 a month, which in itself isn't all that bad,
but the coverage itself has been paying progressively less and less of my costs, and it's getting very
expensive compared to PRE-Obamacare.

I had essentially the same plan without the mental health, pregnancy, and other mandatory coverages for a third less and a $1,000 deductable before Obamacare.

I have no idea if there's a relationship or not, but I see no need to SCREAM at me about it.

example: I bought dental insurance thru AARP and it's very expensive with a high deductible and the coverage is about 1/4 to 1/3 the cost of the services. So the covered person pays these high premiums, the deductible AND 2/3 to 3/4 of the cost. I'm about to quit my plan. Also, I looked into AARP auto insurance and that was more expensive than the non-AARP I already have. It goes on and on about the "perks" of AARP membership. Really, I don't see any.

They pushed for the bill to pass even though it was injurious to most seniors. Now they sell insurance to fill that hole.

Medicare IS single payer. What gets me is, people on medicare normally pay nothing into the very pot that provides them coverage and when they have to pay a little back in, they complain. You should be thankful you have medicare. You pay very little and get a lot in return. I am all for helping out those who need it, but don't bite the hand that feeds you.

In fact, the Affordable Care Act has numerous provisions related to Medicare, for example phasing out the Part D donut hole, requiring more screening tests and preventive services without co-pays, shoring up the program's longer-term finances, addressing Medicare fraud, and so on. In fact, the changes to Medicare were some of the first ACA provisions to go in to effect and help explain why Medicare cost projections came down.

On the other hand, I doubt very many of the problems described were caused by the ACA. People have complaints about health insurance and have vaguely heard of Obamacare, so they assume a connection. I have been hearing people blame Obamacare for price hikes and other problems since before the law was even passed by Congress.

A few months ago someone I know was griping about Obamacare making her health insurance premiums go up. When I asked her what specific provision of the law were responsible for that, she said she had no idea, only that it had happened since Obamacare took effect so she assumed it caused the problem. Because, I guess, before the ACA messed everything up, the U.S. health insurance system was super cheap and worked perfectly for everybody and we all flew to our medical appointments on winged unicorns, and then afterward we got ice cream personally scooped for us by the invisible hand of the free market.

Start looking at other insurers. All the Medicare supplement plans have the same alphabetical categories, covering exactly the same things. Try insurance agents that carry multiple lines of coverage, rather than agents of a single insurance brand. Also, the medigap or supplement plans can be switched at any time, not just during the enrollment period.

but no more apparently. Which is what I started out saying, but
some people got their pants in a bunch because it was about Medicare
not "normal" health insurance.

thanks for your civility and your good advice.

+ her Medicare premiums, which were about $40/mo.

Not too bad, but the insurance cos. still made out b/c she didn't have many medical issues except for Alzheimers. But M-care and AARP insurance paid absolutely nothing for that, except part of the medication and doc visit costs. Insurers give nothing toward caregiver costs, which is what you need with Alz's.

I don't know if home caretakers paid in every state. I know Illinois does pay relatives and/or outside aides for in-home care.

now. I think a lot of price-gouging has continued with the profiteers shifting the blame to the ACA boogeyman, with absolutely no explanation for why the rates were rising steadily BEFORE the ACA went into effect.

Our plan (see post #4) served us very well for many years. But now we have mandatory lactation services!!!!! yea!!!!

But we are near 60 and doubt either my wife or I will be lactating anytime soon.

From our perspective ACA sucks.

I am paying three times more for a plan that has a deductable ten times greater than my old perfect ably satisfactory plan.

I also do know that it has hit our family budget hard.

It's a waste of money.

I hate having to sign up or change companies every year, but I've saved a small fortune. The first year I paid $5 more but had much better coverage. Now I have a silver plan that is $70 a month cheaper than I was paying and has better coverage.

We have exactly two companies to choose from.

And neither do we qualify for subsidies.

Slowly phase out the private insurers.

As younger, healthier people join the pool.

more accessible.

who can live on that? That is way below the poverty level.If you make over the max. amt., you have to buy O-care and it's not cheap.

I think Obama warned us that it's not perfect. We really need a Congress that's committed to work with the next Democratic president.

we need a congress that is committed to work for the citizens of the united states of america and not the moneyed interests.

It's really very simple.

The ACA was created by the Heritage Foundation -a Republican think tank. Newt Gingrich was pushing this when Hillary was trying to reform health care under Bill Clinton. When BO and the dems co-opeted it, they rebranded it as a Democratic idea. It isn't and never was! It is a terrible idea that does nothing to control costs.

We could have a situation (in time) where you are required to buy something from a private (for profit) company at an outrageous cost. I see the only option is to expand Medicare and let Medicare negotiate prices (e.g. they are currently prohibited "by law" from doing pharmaceutical negotiations).
Stonecarver

I needed treatments. That was 2014. I paid out $18K in allowed itemized medical deductions myself in the first two months. It's not sustainable, but with no ACA I would have had NO insurance and my surgery + hospital stay + preceding tests +scans + docs = about $250K. This did not include the chemo, which came later at an "allowed charge" of $23K per round (I got 12 rounds) for older, conventional drugs.

If we had an honest Congress that wasn't bought, a Congressional investigation into costs would be in order. As it is, DOJ should investigate.

very sorry for your cancer btw, and hope you've gotten maximum benefit from treatment.

I have macular degeneration and get an eye injection every 6-8 weeks. It's an office visit, and each one the bill runs 5K.

What do people who have no insurance or can't afford it do? Go blind?

(I realize this pales exponentially to cancer treatment, but ...)

but I was told to just ignore that charge(!) and look at the "allowed" charge, which was about 1/2. Even the billing is a total fabrication designed to ensure the insurance cos, providers and drug cos. get rich quick. Where are the R's when a real investigation is needed?

We can't always allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

Why didn't he hold out and make Reid have the CBO score Bernie's Single Payer bill for comparison? Did he sell out?

I had to get insurance for this year, after my husband retired, and until I hit Medicare in December. I opted for a Gold plan, and I'm paying a bit more than $800 month, also to United. Just for me. I'm just grateful I can afford it for the time I need it. I turned out to have a couple of unforeseen medical issues, like shingles and a tricky ear infection, and I would hate to have a real crisis occur and not be covered.

Is this another move by the Obama obstructionists in Congress to kill Obamacare?

And the current Congress has neglected to do so.

A Washington Post article from 2014 explains the issue...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/02/can-hhs-legally-fund-the-acas-risk-corridors/

So it is basically sabotage (if I'm reading that right).

The ACA was written by Democrats in Congress and signed by Obama.

They wanted no part of it. Democratic Party barely got it through.

As for Congress, it's nice to think of Congress as being the President's lapdog, instead of all that nasty "co-equal branches" crap that some illiberal thinkers insist must be read into the intent of the Constitution.

I mean, next we're going to be saying that there should be an independent Judicial. The folly of such atavistic, reactionary thinking--all good progressives want to have a unitary government in the hands of one of our own. Only then can we have true democracy and have the people truly in charge.

Who adds nothing to the discussion . Because he/she can't.

it was written by the Heritage Foundation as a counter to Hillary Clinton's health care reform attempts during her husband's presidency in the 1990's. Obama adopted the extreme right-wing conservative health care plan which has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with enriching the insurance companies.

But it was passed by Democrats without a single republican vote.

It SUCKS because the "Democrats" adopted a suck-ass, for-profit health care system that has nothing to do with health care. It's an important point because it's just one more way in which the oligarchs won. Again. The two-party system is an illusion.

But no matter who it was stolen from it was Democrats who voted for it.

If Obamacare is noticeably going down the crapper at the time of the 2016 presidential election, we had better make sure that our Democratic candidate is OK with Medicare for all, because none of the republicans will do jack shit to remedy the problem.

Which of the Democrats would be most likely to take action to kick the insurance companies out of the process? Hmmm, I wonder.

risk aversion packs. Everyone i know who has insurance for the state exchange is happy with their insurance. I admit I only know about a dozen families that have it.

People who get seriously sick are a small percentage of every age demographic. They are the only ones who actually know if their insurance is any good or not.

paycheck for my fire extinguisher.
If I don't get sick, and I don't have to go to the doctor, that money is being pissed away.

See my info in post #4.

The $10,000 deductable insures we get to pay for everything out of pocket. So far ACA has sucked for us, and the sucking sound is from our family budget.

But we do have lactation services however.......

Another little known ACA fact. Your choice of providers is govererned by county lines.

The adjoining, county has five options.

in 2011 and 2013. They failed because their funding was rescinded. Here's a right-wing op-ed from Forbes in 2013 describing it. Note the bias here, proposing the "unpopularity" of the plan and its "damage." Nonetheless, it is a good description of the 2013 and 2011 defunding.

These are NOT ACA Health Plans. They are groups of newly formed non-profits, formed by some states. They were encouraged by the government to do so on the PROMISE funding would be provided. Then the government pulled the funding. These states would not have chosen this route if not for those promises. They would have settle for leaving it in the hands of the commercial insurance companies. COOPs are form to the benefit of its members as opposed to commercial enterprise design for PROFIT.

we kept the House in our hands - this is the reason. You can work around a R Senate but usually no a R House.

Thus they can kill off any plan just by holding back the money. Or they can encourage the success of a program. There is not a single program that can work without the funding to go along with it.

As to an example I am 74 years old and do not specifically remember the names of all of the people who said this. But this is the reason things started going down hill once we lost the House. The Senate can create the best program in the world but if the House refuses to fund it - bye-bye. Just look at what they are trying to do with Planned Parenthood. They also refuse to fund many programs dealing with the environment.

stand with you than it is to persuade the many House reps. At least that has been true in the states I have lived in. With gerrymandering the way it is now what the people want has little impact of the House.

when ACA passed... This is sabotage.

I live in Hartford and have family members working at the HQ of some of America's largest health insurers...they pretty much openly admit to employees that they have a plan and objective to end every part of the ACA except the mandate at the same time they make sure that there can be no rise of a competing market-source such as co-ops or NPOs or increased Medicare access and they're very much working to take away Medicaid access to as many low-income individuals as possible.

that I worked for the only insurance company that was invited to the White House for consultation on the ACA prior to it passing. My company WANTED and advised the Obama Administration to make deductibles affordable, make the coverages better (much better - like making vision and dental coverage a part of medical care, making the subsides larger, etc) and he didn't - because he said he couldn't get the bill passed if it was too "generous" because of the repukes. These SOBs need to be stopped before we're back to where we started or worse. IMHO insurance companies that carry health insurance should go back to being NON-profit like before Nixon go a hold on the industry and the states that refused the Medicaid money should be forced, yes forced, to take it and expand coverage for poor people.

he needed to make and call it what it really is.

Do not know if you where around here prior to 2010, there was a huge push for single payer. Then there was lets get the ACA passed and fix it later. Now here we are today and the co-opts are being pushed out because of so-called budget cuts.

Going back to non-profits insurance and hospital care at this point (excuse the pun) is a band-aid.

If anything, a compressive study is needed to find out why insurance and hospital care in the USA is so dam expensive. But, I think we already know the answer to that.

btw: welcome to DU

Making the industry non-profit again is only one of the things I'd do if it were up to me. There's so much more that needs to be done. I worked in Benefits Administration area of the industry and the shite these insurers get away with to make a profit is unconscionable. One example: a retiree who'd been healthy all his life and paid into his company's health care coverage for over 50 years (he was pushing 100 and still rode a motorcycle before he got ill for Pete's sweet sake) developed a very nasty brain tumor. His supplemental insurance was supposed to cover the surgery at 90%. The insurance co denied his claim 3 times and he couldn't afford it out of pocket. The company he retired from sent their attorneys to have a "sit down" w the insurance co's attorneys. The company attorneys politely informed the insurer that if they didn't cover the retiree's surgery they would sue them on behalf of the retiree and his family. The insurer covered the man's surgery and aftercare, but it took almost a year for this rigamarole to all play out. By the time he got surgery the tumor had grown from the size of a grape to the size of an orange. The insurance co had been waiting/hoping for him to die before they were forced to cover this man for coverage he was already paying for!

Wish I could add more than the system is really broken and insane.

I would say we need a Congressional investigation but with the repukes in charge, it will be a sham.

The president could have passed anything he wanted without one single Repug vote. Really can't blame Repugs for ACA. This was perfect opportunity to get what the country wanted and didn't do it. Republicans were not part of it at all.

My coworkers and I were extremely upset that that was the excuse we were handed. We were more than willing to back him on it especially since he had the votes and I believe he grossly underplayed his hand. Capitulation at its finest.

allowed his Senate seat until after Ted Kennedy went home to die? How revisionist of you.

and the reason why I was still lurking back then. I was under a confidentiality clause at work at the time and could only speak about it in generalities when outside of the job. However, I and my coworkers were in a unique position to watch the whole process unfold from the beginning. We had many, many discussions, meetings and townhalls on ACA and what could be done to improve health care in America. Upper management solicited us for ideas to be presented to the administration. This was an ongoing process for us as a company for years and some of the best minds in the industry made proposals, but here's the clincher: there were many ideas proposed that even staunch repubs could and did get behind that were seemingly dismissed out of hand. Stuff like streamlining processes, rebundling vision and dental w medical care, reducing wait time for insurance approval, allowing RX drug prices to be negotiated by Medicare - which would have reduced patient's and insurer's costs - was rejected. Time and time again. Sometimes on the very day it was proposed. These weren't off the cuff proposals either; there was tons of research backing the assertions up. Yes, Franken was an issue. I almost had an aneurysm over that debacle, however, I still believe he could've gotten a better bill passed than he did. He should've held the repub's/MIC's feet closer to the fire and made them account to us just exactly how reducing costs and inefficiencies in the system was somehow a bad thing. But they say I'm an idealist (sigh).

Since, if one believes as I do, that he innately wanted more.

I wonder if it's because it was early in his admin, he was still in a spirit or mindset of wanting to set a tone of compromise, and hoped to get at least a few republicans on board. If it were now, after what he has gone through, I think he would've barreled through anything possible.

on their shenanigans. Had he used social media to further explain in detail what he was wanting/trying to do in regards to ACA and flat out challenged the repubs to explain their positions to the public, in detail, the people could've seen just how full of shiite they were about the whole situation. He could've also used polling the American people on what they wanted and didn't want in the bill, possibly to great effect. What I really wanted to see him use was his famous rope-a-dope moves on them. Call them out and then let them hoist themselves with their own petards. Keep them playing defense. Make them look like the grossly overpaid bratty children they really are. Keep the people he'd already won over engaged and on his side, especially the young, and use the tools he already had at his disposal to bring more into the fold. He was so successful at doing all that during the election and then he let his momentum fizzle out. I know that's a tall order but with social media it could've been doable over time. People outside of DU were finally starting to wake up and he lulled them back to sleep after the election. I understand the need to compromise but all we ended up with was a slightly improved version of Romney care. For the most part the coverage still sucks, it's still highly overpriced and some still can't get coverage.

if certain things were or weren't included.

Of course the reason 60 votes were needed was because Harry Reid apparently thought all
Senate bills should require 60 votes to pass not 50 + 1. Note that the 2nd part of the ACA
was passed without needing the 60 votes since it was passed under "budget reconciliation"
rules.

That's a choice by the party that is in charge of the Senate and can be changed at any time
(as then majority leader Harry Reid threatened to do when Republicans were holding up Obama's
appointments).

on to a medicare-for-all system rather than let them get a second crack to "free-market" it.

I think you should go back to redstate.

So it can join the 21st century.

The USA must by now have had enough of this rinky dink bullshit?

Are trying to COMPETE with big ESTABLISHED commercial insurance companies. HHS promised to help with their initial start up costs but then pulled the rug out from under them. These newly formed organizations had to start out taking on many sick enrollees while established insurance companies already maintain a pool of the healthier enrollees. Had HHS extended the financing promised giving the COOPs more time to stabilize, some may have survived long enough to garner more healthy enrollees to balance out the insurance pool. The important thing to consider is that these COOPS are newly formed start-ups competing against an established industry. Like ALL NEW business ventures, some survive and some don't. The failure here is because HHS is being PRESSURED by congress to restrict money from start-up groups who are in the red so far. In SOME states, some legislators see a POLITICAL ADVANTAGE to cutting funding from these struggling COOPS. If they fail, some legislators can blame it on ACA. The failure of these COOPs are to blame on politics and the machinations of government, not of the ACA itself.

Definition of a Heath Coop ..."A non-profit organization in which the same people who own the company are insured by the company. Cooperatives can be formed at a national, state, or local level and can include doctors, hospitals, and businesses as member-owners. Co-ops will offer insurance through the Marketplace."

https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/co-op-health-plans-put-patients-interests-first/

These are NOT ACA HEALTH PLANS. They are non-profit ORGANIZATIONS trying to administer health plans competing against the commercial insurance companies. It is NOT the PRODUCT. It is the COMPANY trying to sell the product that is failing.

It seems the WP has become as bad as Fox "News."

Or what evangelical republicans would call "abandoned by God, may they suffer in hell". What a sterile and at the same time, stylish, term to describe people who are sick enough to cut into insurance company profits while also not benefiting health care vendors.

This seems like an ideal situation for the republicans.

This shows the inadequacy of the ACA. Too bad people will have to pay with their lives. What democratic candidates need to do is talk about a system that the republicans cannot damage.

The difference between the successful European systems and us is that in Europe it is uncommon for politicians to want to kill their own people. That sort of went away with Hitler. In Europe, killing people is considered to be a crime, here it is considered departmental policy.

Last edited Sat Oct 17, 2015, 01:45 PM - Edit history (1)

These are rapidly being flushed down the toilet thanks to "austerity". In some countries (i.e. Ireland) health care was free for many. Today, they are looking to collect approx. 20K++ euro per family.

Sad reality it is and it is only going to get worse as the EU portends to be so great or is considered to be so great. Well, let me tell you something -- it is not that great anymore. Ask Angela Merkel; on second thought forget that idea!

It is a contagion that is spreading far and wide and We the People don't matter anymore no matter where you might be.

& recommend.

we need to vote and that it is extremely important to vote to take back the Senate and WH.

But the vote we need to make if we cannot do anything else is for a Democrat in the House. We most likely cannot take it back but the more Democrats we can get this election the easier it will be to convince the Rs that they are now endangered because of what they have been doing.

Pure and simple sabotage.

eom