New study compares pre obamacare "substandard" plans to post obamacare excahnge plans (health care, insurance)
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.
Supporters of ObamaCare often claim that health insurance policies on the exchanges are of better quality because they include many benefits that pre-exchange plans did not. Yet the number and type of benefits a plan covers is a far more subjective dimension of quality than out-of-pocket costs or the size of the network. What supporters also overlook is that people who prefer foregoing some benefits for lower out-of-pocket costs and broader networks no longer have that option. There is no evidence that ObamaCare improved the overall quality of insurance. There is, however, considerable evidence that it has worsened dimensions of quality such as out-of-pocket costs and size of provider networks.
This is a topic that comes up frequently. Those who received cancellation notices from their insurance companies are often told by ACA supporters that their plans were "substandard" and that they should be grateful for being forced to buy a new plan and thanks to obamacare, they can now have a "better" plan. This study shows what many of us who received the cancellation notices have been trying to tell the blind supporters all along. The new plans are not necessarily better under obamacare. Some of us were happy with our old policies and would liked to have been able to keep them, as promised. Some of the "substandard" plans actually were better then what is being offered via the exchange.
Of course plans that don't cover much of anything are going to have lower deductibles. The number of physicians in a network has zero to do with what is actually covered in a plan. But what do you expect from a paper that uses casual terms like Obamacare as well as anecdotes. I hope the University of Iowa didn't let papers of such poor quality pass when the author was working on his PhD there.
This is a topic that comes up frequently. Those who received cancellation notices from their insurance companies are often told by ACA supporters that their plans were "substandard" and that they should be grateful for being forced to buy a new plan and thanks to obamacare, they can now have a "better" plan. This study shows what many of us who received the cancellation notices have been trying to tell the blind supporters all along. The new plans are not necessarily better under obamacare. Some of us were happy with our old policies and would liked to have been able to keep them, as promised. Some of the "substandard" plans actually were better then what is being offered via the exchange.
Obama himself called them crappy plans, which they were not. Gone is the time when we could sit across the table with our doctor and our insurance provider, and all agree that a health care plan met all our agreed to wants and desires. Now we are in a soft tyranny where federal bureaucrats decide what health care insurance we must have and what we shall not be allowed to have.
Of course plans that don't cover much of anything are going to have lower deductibles. The number of physicians in a network has zero to do with what is actually covered in a plan. But what do you expect from a paper that uses casual terms like Obamacare as well as anecdotes. I hope the University of Iowa didn't let papers of such poor quality pass when the author was working on his PhD there.
This is timely in that I got a notice from Cigna, my carrier in the last few weeks: Essentially last year my plan anniversary date was Nov 1, Cigna notified me that I could option to either change my anniversary date to 31 Dec and keep my non-conforming plan for another year for $272/mo (up from $217) or switch to the ACA compatable plan for $435/mo. Of course, I selected the former. On April 30 of this year, Cigna proudly mailed me a letter showing that, via executive order, the ability to keep my old plan had been extended by 3 years only to be followed by a letter dated 1 Aug from Cigna informing me that Covered California had overridden the EO and would no longer permit that policy to be available in CA after 31 December. Originally Cigna claimed that a letter with my new plan options would be sent to me on Sept 1, now it has been delayed to Nov 1.
And BTW, an ACA compatible plan requires a annual co-pay $1150 greater than my existing plan.
I am not eligible for a subsidy in CA due to low income. I played with the site, and even as high as $44K/year, I was still told that I MUST use MediCAL (when the site actually works).
Medical is a mess, their own list of Doctors is still inaccurate, plus, it's enrollment has some very devastating estate ramifications for those over 55, that are not acceptable to me.
I had a plan that I liked. Way cheaper than the lie called affordable.
And I would get the added knowledge yah my money is being redistribute.
This I still have my old plan for a while longer. When that runs out, the fine would be cheaper.
This is timely in that I got a notice from Cigna, my carrier in the last few weeks: Essentially last year my plan anniversary date was Nov 1, Cigna notified me that I could option to either change my anniversary date to 31 Dec and keep my non-conforming plan for another year for $272/mo (up from $217) or switch to the ACA compatable plan for $435/mo. Of course, I selected the former. On April 30 of this year, Cigna proudly mailed me a letter showing that, via executive order, the ability to keep my old plan had been extended by 3 years only to be followed by a letter dated 1 Aug from Cigna informing me that Covered California had overridden the EO and would no longer permit that policy to be available in CA after 31 December. Originally Cigna claimed that a letter with my new plan options would be sent to me on Sept 1, now it has been delayed to Nov 1.
And BTW, an ACA compatible plan requires a annual co-pay $1150 greater than my existing plan.
I am not eligible for a subsidy in CA due to low income. I played with the site, and even as high as $44K/year, I was still told that I MUST use MediCAL (when the site actually works).
Medical is a mess, their own list of Doctors is still inaccurate, plus, it's enrollment has some very devastating estate ramifications for those over 55, that are not acceptable to me.
This is a real story....a story that Democrats and liberals keep telling us is 1) either a lie, or 2) you are not smart enough to choose your insurance and the government must tell you what you need and what you must pay.
How many more examples of Democrats and liberals being the scourge of this nation do we need to see before we purge these incompetent douchebags in totality?
When I mentioned my experiences with the Covered California website our own Lexus Nexus publically chastised me for tying up the website resources running various scenarios. For all the evil disgusting commentary I have experienced from the liberal crowd here this was the first time that the essence of the comment was how dare you gain the needed knowledge to make an informed descision (when the knowledge I was obtaining right form the State if California belied the President's claims.
This is a real story....a story that Democrats and liberals keep telling us is 1) either a lie, or 2) you are not smart enough to choose your insurance and the government must tell you what you need and what you must pay.
So true. So many people who have lost their previous coverage have been called liars or have been assumed to be too stupid to navigate the marketplace. Maybe this study will wake some of them up. I won't hold my breath but it would be nice if people would be willing to see what is really happening.
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.
