Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hate the term, free. People don't seem to value free. The cost of these preventative services are baked into the premium. Preventative services will not require a co-pay.
For example, women > 40 may have a bi-annual mammogram without paying a co-pay. This should, in theory, encourage more women to get a mammogram and lead to earlier detection of breast cancer.
The earlier a cancer is detected, the greater the likelihood of survival.
The later a cancer is detected, the more it's going to cost to treat it and the odds of survival diminish.
It's all about the long view.
If by "long view" you mean the destruction of our health care system and European style socialism, then yeah I agree with you.
Just one question about your link: what is "free?" Does a unicorn visit the doctors' offices with twenty dollar bills stacked up on its horn to cover the cost? Or is there a "preventive care fairy" that leaves money on the examination table every night? I'm confused about this whole "free" thing, because in my experience, somebody somewhere is paying.
I just posted about my aversion to the term, " free". The cost of preventative services is baked into the premium. Since one is paying for it, one might as well take advantage of preventative services, no? Worst case, it could lead to an earlier detection of something nasty. The sooner a nasty is detected, the less it's going to cost to treat it and the outcomes improve.
That a primary care MD is up a guy's junk checking for abnormalities that could indicate potential testicular or prostate cancer is good, no?
No co-pay means the medical provider bills the insurer. Most medical providers are in one or more PPO/EPO and know exactly how much they will receive from the insurer, no different than pre ACA.
No one envisioned that 40 million would attempt to use ERs for their primary healthcare, when this law was passed in the 80's.
There are no federal laws that prohibit insurance from being sold across state lines. It's a state issue. 50 states- 50 different politically appointed insurance commissions- 50 different sets of laws and regulations.
Most folk DK the laws in their own state, let alone those of the other 49. The home state of the insurer would govern the laws of the policy. It's not practical, in the current environment, for insurers to set up PPO/EPO relationships in all 50 states.
In order for cross state to work, the states would need to abdicate insurance regulation to the fed. The big box insurers would then likely prevail.
40 millions were NOT using the ER for routine visits - it is as much a lie as is "covered blood pressure screenings" under obamacare.
the problem with EMTALA evolved in a direction that there is no clear stop sign - and therefor a 50 yo homeless alcoholic with a liver cirrhosis can end up getting a liver transplant instead of just having his varices banded and sent out - because it was possible and because of the possibility of a law threat if that was not done.
Routine ER visits for the minor problems do not happen - as you are being charged upfront in the ER at least 150$ cash or credit card - and only then helped plus you have to spend indefinite amount of time if you come not for an emergency - ER perform triage and a strep throat will have to wait up to 12 hours to be treated, if the person is stupid enough to go to the ER than to a urgent clinic instead.
on the insurance states rules agree, but the solution can be worked out if there would be no opposition on that - and for some unexplainable reason there has been an extreme opposition to that from democrats always.
To the original OP,
The ACA is NOT FOR PEOPLE WHO ALREADY HAVE INSURANCE.
Does everyone understand that?
Why is it so difficult for people to grasp that idea?
It is for working people WHO DON"T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE.
If you have insurance, you don't qualify for the ACA.
I don't know how many times people have to hear this until they get it
through their heads.
LET ME GIVE you an example of junk insurance, the policies they are now
cancelling,
My daughter was hired this year working for a BIG supermarket here in
SOUTH Carolina, and after 90 days she was eliglble for Health Insurance.
She would pay 300 a month for a plan and the benefits were this,
the plan would pay 2,000.00 for any one hospital stay, there was a
10,000 deductable for doctor visits, and no prescription benefits.
THAT IS JUNK INSURANCE. She makes 10 an hr and pays 300 a month for
that? Now do you understand what junk insurance is?
Her BIG company had to upgrade her health insurance due to the ACA law
because it was a junk insurance policy. Now she has a wonderful health plan
under BCBS.
So, if you have health insurance that you like, and I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE
TO BAIL the hospital out if you get sick and can't pay your hospital bill, you keep it.
You do know if you have junk insurance and don't pay your hospital bill that I PAY FOR
it? The taxpayers pay for people who don't have insurance and can't pay their bills.
That is why the AFA was enacted, to take the burden off of the hospitals being left
holding the bag for uninsured people.
40 millions were NOT using the ER for routine visits - it is as much a lie as is "covered blood pressure screenings" under obamacare.
the problem with EMTALA evolved in a direction that there is no clear stop sign - and therefor a 50 yo homeless alcoholic with a liver cirrhosis can end up getting a liver transplant instead of just having his varices banded and sent out - because it was possible and because of the possibility of a law threat if that was not done.
Routine ER visits for the minor problems do not happen - as you are being charged upfront in the ER at least 150$ cash or credit card - and only then helped plus you have to spend indefinite amount of time if you come not for an emergency - ER perform triage and a strep throat will have to wait up to 12 hours to be treated, if the person is stupid enough to go to the ER than to a urgent clinic instead.
on the insurance states rules agree, but the solution can be worked out if there would be no opposition on that - and for some unexplainable reason there has been an extreme opposition to that from democrats always.
I read some various blogs, some of them ER doc blogs. Once you read those, it becomes readily apparent who is abusing the ERs. They have some people who will literally come in every single day and at times, multiple times a day. They tend to be primarily homeless and primarily drug users. Let's be realistic. These people are not going to get mandated insurance or even Medicaid. So, the problem remains unsolved.
I agree with the notion of getting rid of employer provided care and letting people buy their own on exchanges. The difficulty is in paying for that. Employer coverage is wages and they would be all too happy to walk away from that giving employers a significant pay cut while pocketing the same (what the Kochs want) . But if we can move to a system of reimbursement of coverage - maybe even set to a certain minimum percentage by law - I would be all for that. Having your health and well-being tied to your employment is one of the major failings of the US system. ACA doesn't fix that really other than giving a more affordable. more permanent option than COBRA to people who lose their jobs.
Kaiser reports that the average employee contribution to their employer's group healthcare cost is $ 4,565 in 2013. That's an 89% increase in the cost of contribution since 2003 and had nothing to do with ACA.
Where is the average Joe going to come up with an average cost of $18,000 a year for comparable insurance? The cost of insurance is not likely to decline because the cost of healthcare/medical inflation continues to increase 7-8% each year.
ACA was designed to be the least disruptive way to introduce a mild reform of U.S. healthcare. The more people insured and taking advantage of routine preventative services, the better the long term outcomes. Catching a cancer in the early stage is less costly to treat and significantly increases the survival rate. Those without insurance or the means to pay cash, usually do without preventative care and in doing so put themselves and their families into a more uncertain position.
My husband is > 65 and not retired. So we are covered under his employer's group policy. Because he could retire, I have been on top of the cost of an individual policy because I am ten years away from eligibility for Medicare. I know the costs before and after ACA. The post ACA costs are 35-50% less for better coverage. I live in a highly competitive insurance and healthcare county. Mileage varies dependent upon location.
Not true. Actually quite to the contrary.
Neighbors in their late 50's have had some recent and serious medical issues. He had a heart attack and she was diagnosed with breast Cancer. They are self-employed and have an individual family policy. They will receive greater benefits at slightly less cost than their former policy.
Individul family policy and not employer-sponsored plans might be better of. Or not. Depends on a state
That 56 year old woman in Florida who was on the news whining how she was so happy with her former policy that cost her $55 a month. She rec'd a cancellation letter from BCBS/Florida telling her that policy was being terminated and they offered her a $700 +/- policy. This local news story went viral.
That is NOT true. The cheapest Florida policies would still be ~ 400$ per month for a premium, with a huge deductibles and huge co-pays after the deductible. That is for a bronze plan that is a very crappy policy, BTW. I checked myself BS/BC in Florida and the possibilities, so I know.
The reality is that her soon to be former policy was junk. It did not cover the ER, hospitalization or treatment. She was eligible for a subsidy. Her cost would increase by $1 a day for substantially superior insurance.
So? it was her choice. there should be policies of all varieties, not the overpriced junk as now under obamacare
The media has consistently reported that 40% of the soon to be terminated policies were seriously sub prime. These are policies sold over the internet and on late night TV, in those states where doing so was legal.
oh, my, and you believe the media. It's a LIE. Most of the policies were absolutely OK. Who are you, or obama for that matter to decide what policy is standars and what is substandard?
There should be a possibility to buy a coverage tailored to my needs, but that is not the goal of the law, the goal is to make the healthy and fit and young pay for noncompliant, obese, unfit, lazy and sick
What the insurers have not done was inform their policy holders why their soon to be former policies were not grandfathered. The rules of grandfathering are relatively generous. The biggie is that the policy cannot have an annual/lifetime cap.
If the insurer has the possibility to hike the price - he will do it, is that a revelation to you? They won't and don't have to explain anything - they used this crap to increase the prices - because they are allowed to and because the sole purpose of this law is to benefit the insurance companies on the backs of the middle class
Some insurers have used this as an opportunity to exit the individual market and focus on the group healthcare market. This is the case in California where BCBS and Kaiser have an 80% market share. Those left with the crumbs said adios. That the state gives the top 2 serious tax breaks has a huge influence on outcomes.
Knowing why one's policy did not qualify for grandfathering remains the great mystery.
I'll tell you why - because it is best option for the insurer to hike the price and having it he would be a fool not to use it
I hate the term, free. People don't seem to value free. The cost of these preventative services are baked into the premium. Preventative services will not require a co-pay.
For example, women > 40 may have a bi-annual mammogram without paying a co-pay. This should, in theory, encourage more women to get a mammogram and lead to earlier detection of breast cancer.
The earlier a cancer is detected, the greater the likelihood of survival.
The later a cancer is detected, the more it's going to cost to treat it and the odds of survival diminish.
It's all about the long view.
I agree.
It would have been better to have termed it "no out-of-pocket cost" or something similar.
However it is described, the end result is hopefully the same. More people will be encouraged to not wait until they do have to pay something out of pocket for treatment.
To the original OP,
The ACA is NOT FOR PEOPLE WHO ALREADY HAVE INSURANCE.
Does everyone understand that?
Why is it so difficult for people to grasp that idea?
It is for working people WHO DON"T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE.
If you have insurance, you don't qualify for the ACA.
I don't know how many times people have to hear this until they get it
through their heads.
LET ME GIVE you an example of junk insurance, the policies they are now
cancelling,
My daughter was hired this year working for a BIG supermarket here in
SOUTH Carolina, and after 90 days she was eliglble for Health Insurance.
She would pay 300 a month for a plan and the benefits were this,
the plan would pay 2,000.00 for any one hospital stay, there was a
10,000 deductable for doctor visits, and no prescription benefits.
THAT IS JUNK INSURANCE. She makes 10 an hr and pays 300 a month for
that? Now do you understand what junk insurance is?
Her BIG company had to upgrade her health insurance due to the ACA law
because it was a junk insurance policy. Now she has a wonderful health plan
under BCBS.
So, if you have health insurance that you like, and I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE
TO BAIL the hospital out if you get sick and can't pay your hospital bill, you keep it.
You do know if you have junk insurance and don't pay your hospital bill that I PAY FOR
it? The taxpayers pay for people who don't have insurance and can't pay their bills.
That is why the AFA was enacted, to take the burden off of the hospitals being left
holding the bag for uninsured people.
To the original OP,
The ACA is NOT FOR PEOPLE WHO ALREADY HAVE INSURANCE.
Does everyone understand that?
Why is it so difficult for people to grasp that idea?
It is for working people WHO DON"T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE.
If you have insurance, you don't qualify for the ACA.
I don't know how many times people have to hear this until they get it
through their heads.
LET ME GIVE you an example of junk insurance, the policies they are now
cancelling,
My daughter was hired this year working for a BIG supermarket here in
SOUTH Carolina, and after 90 days she was eliglble for Health Insurance.
She would pay 300 a month for a plan and the benefits were this,
the plan would pay 2,000.00 for any one hospital stay, there was a
10,000 deductable for doctor visits, and no prescription benefits.
THAT IS JUNK INSURANCE. She makes 10 an hr and pays 300 a month for
that? Now do you understand what junk insurance is?
Her BIG company had to upgrade her health insurance due to the ACA law
because it was a junk insurance policy. Now she has a wonderful health plan
under BCBS.
So, if you have health insurance that you like, and I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE
TO BAIL the hospital out if you get sick and can't pay your hospital bill, you keep it.
You do know if you have junk insurance and don't pay your hospital bill that I PAY FOR
it? The taxpayers pay for people who don't have insurance and can't pay their bills.
That is why the AFA was enacted, to take the burden off of the hospitals being left
holding the bag for uninsured people.
Unfortunately , cognitive dissonance will not allow those that have determined from the outset that they simply do not like the ACA and have "dug in" from understanding or even grasping this. But I hear ya!
You know what's going to cause the ACA to fail.. all the whining followed by the adminstration coddling the whining..
Let the law do it's thing.. THEN determine AFTER it's runing if it fails.. all this manipulating isn't helping.. and I imagine is the right wings attempt to dismantle the law. They are good at breaking government and saying "see, it doesn't work"..
I'm so sick and tired of it all already.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
