Obamacare

After dozens of failed attempts during the initial rush in October, I got my drivers license scan uploaded around the beginning of November. It's been in "identity verification pending" ever since. To get a fresh scan uploaded, I essentially had to start over.

So it goes.

But at least this time there weren't any glitches in getting it done this time.
 
For some reason I couldn't get pact the electronic signature filling out the application on the web site, even after trashing the application and starting from scratch. So I call the phone line instead. The nice lady helps me get the application submitted, and now I'm able to pick plans for my state. ~$28/mo for health, and ~$18/mo for dental.

I just have to get the first premium paid on Friday, and coverage starts the first of March. FINALLY.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
For some reason I couldn't get pact the electronic signature filling out the application on the web site, even after trashing the application and starting from scratch. So I call the phone line instead. The nice lady helps me get the application submitted, and now I'm able to pick plans for my state. ~$28/mo for health, and ~$18/mo for dental.

I just have to get the first premium paid on Friday, and coverage starts the first of March. FINALLY.
What's your deductible and coins%, if you don't mind sharing that info?
 
Holy shit, that's a hell of a plan. Beats mine too, and I thought I had a good deal.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Those are really really generous terms. I've never had a health plan like that, ever. For premiums that low I expected a $10,000 deductible.
 
Those are really really generous terms. I've never had a health plan like that, ever. For premiums that low I expected a $10,000 deductible.
Well, that premium is just what he's paying. I'm sure that DA's portion plus the subsidized portion is much, much higher.

For example, I pay $70 per month, but the that's because the program is subsidizing around $250/month. If I made more I would be paying the whole $320/month.
 
The overall problem being that lots of subsidized people joined, but not nearly as many young, healthy people (thus Obama's state of the union plea). The ACA is unaffordable right out of the gate, but we won't see how bad it is for months or years.
 
The fundamental issue for young and healthy people is that most of us don't get sick very often and we can't afford insurance for major events because we're ether swamped with student loan debt or are working jobs that are ether beneath our education level or are paying less than they did 10 years ago. You want us to contribute? Subsidize our insurance programs or force insurance companies to give us better rates... because right now it's just not worth the expense, especially when the no insurance fee is less than $100. Why WOULDN'T we skip out?

It's bad enough we're paying into a social security system that won't be around for us when we need it. Now we have to pay more?
 
I've been saying all along that while I'm actually a proponent of universal health care, the best way to fix our broken health care/insurance system is to regulate both hospitals and insurances. I've worked in medical billing and the whole process is broken on a fundamental level.
 
I've been saying all along that while I'm actually a proponent of universal health care, the best way to fix our broken health care/insurance system is to regulate both hospitals and insurances. I've worked in medical billing and the whole process is broken on a fundamental level.
This is one of the main reasons FOR going single payer: it would allow the government to negotiate the prices of damn near everything, from hip replacements all the way down to god damn cotton balls. This needs to happen to drive down prices, because right now hospitals overcharge for everything because the insurances companies demand huge discounts to become clients.
 
The problem isn't THE government, it's OUR government. Lets point the finger where it really belongs.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
So the logical first step is to get rid of our government. Preferably immediately followed by creating a new one.
 
And as we all know, the government is well known for cost efficiency.
It certainly couldn't do any worse than the current escalating price war between hospitals and insurance providers. One of the reasons most of the hospitals in Ohio are networked under OhioHealth is explicitly to collectively bargain as a single organization to keep insurance companies from leaning too hard on a single hospital.
 
It certainly couldn't do any worse than the current escalating price war between hospitals and insurance providers.

The problem with your assertion is that you identify the hospitals as charging too much for the services they provide. We all like to point fingers at the hospital that charges $10 for a dose of tylenol, but do you recall the last time we had a news story about a patient dying due to the wrong medicine or dose administered? Each medicine given in the hospital has an associated prescription, the hospital pharmacy fulfills it, and when administered there are a handful of checks to make sure the right patient is getting the right dosage of the right medication at the right time. Barcodes on pharmacy orders, the medication itself, the patient, and the chart all get scanned as the computer verifies that everything is correct.

Yes, the tylenol costs $10 due to all the people and technology that has to deal with it along the way, but that ensures that the hemophilia patient doesn't receive the anti-coagulant.

The bed costs $$$ per night, but that ensures they can afford to treat the laundry appropriately and you won't be putting your child in a bed that may contain traces of the last patient's communicable disease. Necrotizing fasciitis is nasty stuff.

I'm not saying that there aren't places where we could save money, but the story is significantly more complex than, "If the gov't could negotiate our healthcare, prices would drop drastically."

X
 

GasBandit

Staff member
The problem with your assertion is that you identify the hospitals as charging too much for the services they provide. We all like to point fingers at the hospital that charges $10 for a dose of tylenol, but do you recall the last time we had a news story about a patient dying due to the wrong medicine or dose administered? Each medicine given in the hospital has an associated prescription, the hospital pharmacy fulfills it, and when administered there are a handful of checks to make sure the right patient is getting the right dosage of the right medication at the right time. Barcodes on pharmacy orders, the medication itself, the patient, and the chart all get scanned as the computer verifies that everything is correct.

Yes, the tylenol costs $10 due to all the people and technology that has to deal with it along the way, but that ensures that the hemophilia patient doesn't receive the anti-coagulant.

The bed costs $$$ per night, but that ensures they can afford to treat the laundry appropriately and you won't be putting your child in a bed that may contain traces of the last patient's communicable disease. Necrotizing fasciitis is nasty stuff.

I'm not saying that there aren't places where we could save money, but the story is significantly more complex than, "If the gov't could negotiate our healthcare, prices would drop drastically."

X
As I've posted before, the best prices actually come when you negotiate for yourself out of pocket with no insurance. Then, all of a sudden, the hospital starts charging much more reasonable rates for everything, once they know they don't have to deal with insurance.
 
As I've posted before, the best prices actually come when you negotiate for yourself out of pocket with no insurance. Then, all of a sudden, the hospital starts charging much more reasonable rates for everything, once they know they don't have to deal with insurance.
Exactly. One of the main reason those health care prices are so inflated is that they are obligated to give such huge discounts to insurances that they have to increase costs to make up the difference.

The vicious cycle is that insurance companies see that, then start paying less and lobby for greater discounts. The entire system is messed up and insurance companies are a large part of what has made it so.
 
The problem with your assertion is that you identify the hospitals as charging too much for the services they provide. We all like to point fingers at the hospital that charges $10 for a dose of tylenol, but do you recall the last time we had a news story about a patient dying due to the wrong medicine or dose administered? Each medicine given in the hospital has an associated prescription, the hospital pharmacy fulfills it, and when administered there are a handful of checks to make sure the right patient is getting the right dosage of the right medication at the right time. Barcodes on pharmacy orders, the medication itself, the patient, and the chart all get scanned as the computer verifies that everything is correct.

Yes, the tylenol costs $10 due to all the people and technology that has to deal with it along the way, but that ensures that the hemophilia patient doesn't receive the anti-coagulant.

The bed costs $$$ per night, but that ensures they can afford to treat the laundry appropriately and you won't be putting your child in a bed that may contain traces of the last patient's communicable disease. Necrotizing fasciitis is nasty stuff.

I'm not saying that there aren't places where we could save money, but the story is significantly more complex than, "If the gov't could negotiate our healthcare, prices would drop drastically."

X
This is blatantly incorrect. As someone who actually works in a hospital, I can tell you that the prices are inflated in reaction to the discounts that insurance companies demand to accept services from your hospital. If you are not "in-network", you cannot make a claim on a patient's insurance. It can easily be a 20-30% discount at times. There are also inflated costs in order to make up for patients that don't have insurance or simply cannot pay. That last bit is why many hospitals don't have emergency rooms anymore: they are cost sinks and not all hospitals can afford to keep them going. The hospital isn't at fault here because some mark-up is necessary when you are forced to do some services for free... it's entirely the insurance company, which is extorting the hospital for profits.

Here's where government negotiation and single payer comes into play: If everyone is covered, everyone pays. You no longer need to inflate costs to make up for that lost income from that. You also have to deal with standardized prices from the government, who isn't going to demand a discount to keep you in network. This also lowers the price. It works out for everyone because while you are pulling in less money per a patient, you make it up per volume.
 
I only came here to say that your prices must be inflated. I don't really understand how your healthcare insurances work, but I was just looking for healthcare insurances for my girlfriend (to avoid waiting lists in the free public system) and I could find insurances as low as 45 €/month (0 € deductible if I understand what that is, depending on age etc. you may have a maximum of 10k € of hospital bills. If I accept a deductible >0€ I can find insurances as low as 30 €/month), and I don't think the cost of life and quality of service isn't SO different. Of course the story gets complicated when you take into account that we can always go a public hospital which for expensive, live-saving treatments doesn't make you wait so much and has a higher quality than most private ones.
But anyway, food for thought. Maybe.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
The CBO is reporting that over the next 10 years, Obamacare is going to "encourage" 2.5 million full time workers to stop working, so they can get better ACA subsidies. So not only does it kill jobs, it encourages jobs to commit suicide. And progressive mouthpieces from the NYT to Nanci Pelosi are painting 2.5 million less people working as a good thing, as "freeing them" from the tyranny of working. What's the matter, don't you conservatives like freedom? Escape your job! Funemployment for all! Well, except for those who we still need to work to.. you know... subsidize everybody else.

/headdesk
/headdesk
/headdesk
 
Did you read that article at all? They are simply going to stop working full-time. Those jobs aren't going anywhere... people just now have the option of actually enjoying their free time without affecting their standard of living by working less hours. If they want more income, they can get that by working more hours and eating the lower subsidy... but if it makes more economic sense to the workers to work less hours, then the issue seems to be that they should be getting paid more to offset loss of subsidy and not that they shouldn't have the option of having free time.

Economics sucks when it actually favors the worker, doesn't it? :problemo:
 
People don't read articles. They read headlines and assume it supports their preconceived notions. They also assume (almost always correctly) others won't read it either.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Did you read that article at all? They are simply going to stop working full-time. Those jobs aren't going anywhere... people just now have the option of actually enjoying their free time without affecting their standard of living by working less hours. If they want more income, they can get that by working more hours and eating the lower subsidy... but if it makes more economic sense to the workers to work less hours, then the issue seems to be that they should be getting paid more to offset loss of subsidy and not that they shouldn't have the option of having free time.

Economics sucks when it actually favors the worker, doesn't it? :problemo:
Yes, I read the article. I know exactly what it said. It's horrible.

Look, I know you favor paying everyone's bills whether they work or not, but let me lay this out for you -

When people can be professionally unemployed, that economy is doomed. Especially when the workforce participation rate is already at historic lows, and unemployment is high.

The CBO report even spells out that the structuring of the subsidy encourages unemployment.

Shit, I guess I should stop being such a fussbudget and just get on the gravy train while there's still room, so I can coast on 99 weeks of unemployment insurance and a fat obamacare subsidy before the well runs dry. I could sure get through a lot of my steam backlog in a couple years of funemployment. Free me from the tyranny of having to pay my bills, Obama!
 
I'm actually more in-favor of a basic standard of living being available to everyone, regardless of work status. In my vision this wouldn't be glamorous at all... just enough to survive. We're talking full on dystopia. You don't want to contribute? Fine... you can live. If you can call it living. Don't want to live like you just escaped from the Matrix? Find work or make some yourself. Just because I don't think we should be leaving people to die doesn't mean I think they should enjoy it.

Regardless, it's clear this thing needs some adjustment... but it's not just the subsidy program that needs to be adjusted. As I said before, it makes sense to work less if you can maintain your standard of living while doing so. Many people will use this opportunity to do things like start their own business, expand their education, or actually see their kids for once... and yes, some people will use this as a chance to be fucking lazy and do nothing of value (and fuck those people). But if a place of work can't encourage their workers to work full-time because their isn't enough economic justification to do it, it seems to me that they should also be providing the justification... though I do find it hilarious that it's now the workers working less to GET healthcare when it used to be employees keeping them from working full-time to keep healthcare FROM them.

The workers have had to face stiff economic realities over the last 10 years. Maybe it's time for business to do the same.
 
Top