(03-05-2015 09:34 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Now if additional doctors would just fall out of the sky.

Just got a letter from my doc. Been seeing him for 10+ years. He's throttling down, and telling me I can stay in his more exclusive club for a $1600/year membership fee.

Yep. My Doc of 15+ years did the same thing, @$1500/year, a year or so ago, after first announcing they would take no new Medicaid patients.

I was told I was a liar.

Again.

(03-06-2015 05:42 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 09:34 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Now if additional doctors would just fall out of the sky.

Just got a letter from my doc. Been seeing him for 10+ years. He's throttling down, and telling me I can stay in his more exclusive club for a $1600/year membership fee.

Well of course this is happening more and more--simply because so many more of a doctor's patients, are now on Medicaid and Medicare. If you were a primary care doctor, would you rather lose money each time you saw a patient, by having to agree to take less than you need to pay your own bills, or actually make a little money by charging a fair market rate?

The key to your statement is "bills"

People have no idea what it takes just to move 1 patient through an office visit. They also have no clue the hoops provider practices have to go through to even get the lower rate Medicare and Medicaid pays out. Guess who puts those hoops in place? That's right, the same damned idiots who ask providers and practices to take their patients for less.

Providers have and will continue to take less of these patients becuase of damned red tape they have to deal with to lose money on everyone that comes through their doors.

Test

(03-06-2015 07:32 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 05:42 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 09:34 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Now if additional doctors would just fall out of the sky.

Just got a letter from my doc. Been seeing him for 10+ years. He's throttling down, and telling me I can stay in his more exclusive club for a $1600/year membership fee.

Well of course this is happening more and more--simply because so many more of a doctor's patients, are now on Medicaid and Medicare. If you were a primary care doctor, would you rather lose money each time you saw a patient, by having to agree to take less than you need to pay your own bills, or actually make a little money by charging a fair market rate?

The key to your statement is "bills"

People have no idea what it takes just to move 1 patient through an office visit. They also have no clue the hoops provider practices have to go through to even get the lower rate Medicare and Medicaid pays out. Guess who puts those hoops in place? That's right, the same damned idiots who ask providers and practices to take their patients for less.

Providers have and will continue to take less of these patients becuase of damned red tape they have to deal with to lose money on everyone that comes through their doors.

And yet, there are some that believe adding millions more will somehow make the system work better through "competition" amongst the Dr's.

The only thing they're competing for is who can run from this schitshow the fastest.

Maybe Gruber was right about some Americans...

(03-06-2015 06:24 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 05:43 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 09:17 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  11.4 million signed up by end of open enrollment.

10 million additional Medicaid enrollments

3 million added to parents plan.

So 10 of the 27 that have acquired coverage since the law was passed were Medicaid enrollees. At the same time, the drop in uninsured includes people who found coverage outside the marketplaces.

http://obamacarefacts.com/sign-ups/obama...t-numbers/

Lots of people in the individual market buy outside the exchange. There is little to no reason for someone that wouldn't qualify for a tax credit to buy on the exchange, just drop by the the insurance agent's office and get a policy. About 8 million people do that each year. There are other ways people are covered as well. If someone turns 65 or has been disabled for two years they qualify for Medicare. Others take a job that provides employer sponsored coverage. If someone joins the military they get tricare.

It is great to see more and more people covered.

Yeah so lets not act like the ACA is the only reason more people are covered. It is quite telling that over 33% of the newly covered are from Medicaid expansion.

Joining the military doesn't entitle individuals to Tricare in the sense that most people think of it. They are covered as long as they serve, but do not automatically qualify for full Tricare when they leave the service.

I used to work insurance, and very few people turning 65 weren't previously covered before going on Medicare. The numbers are hard to sort though, but i would guess next to the medicaid expansion the next largest groupd of insured is probably the young adults added back on parents policies instead of going uncovered until they got a job that provided benefits.

1. Medicaid expansion IS a part of the ACA. How do you not know that?
2. Joining the military gets you covered. That is what I said!
3. I don't know how many 64 year olds were uninsured in 2014.
4. The under 26ers provision of the ACA went into affect a few years prior to the start up of the exchanges so this benefit probably had little affect on 2014 and 2015 newly insured numbers.

(03-06-2015 09:20 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 06:24 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 05:43 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 09:17 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  11.4 million signed up by end of open enrollment.

10 million additional Medicaid enrollments

3 million added to parents plan.

So 10 of the 27 that have acquired coverage since the law was passed were Medicaid enrollees. At the same time, the drop in uninsured includes people who found coverage outside the marketplaces.

http://obamacarefacts.com/sign-ups/obama...t-numbers/

Lots of people in the individual market buy outside the exchange. There is little to no reason for someone that wouldn't qualify for a tax credit to buy on the exchange, just drop by the the insurance agent's office and get a policy. About 8 million people do that each year. There are other ways people are covered as well. If someone turns 65 or has been disabled for two years they qualify for Medicare. Others take a job that provides employer sponsored coverage. If someone joins the military they get tricare.

It is great to see more and more people covered.

Yeah so lets not act like the ACA is the only reason more people are covered. It is quite telling that over 33% of the newly covered are from Medicaid expansion.

Joining the military doesn't entitle individuals to Tricare in the sense that most people think of it. They are covered as long as they serve, but do not automatically qualify for full Tricare when they leave the service.

I used to work insurance, and very few people turning 65 weren't previously covered before going on Medicare. The numbers are hard to sort though, but i would guess next to the medicaid expansion the next largest groupd of insured is probably the young adults added back on parents policies instead of going uncovered until they got a job that provided benefits.

1. Medicaid expansion IS a part of the ACA. How do you not know that?
2. Joining the military gets you covered. That is what I said!
3. I don't know how many 64 year olds were uninsured in 2014.
4. The under 26ers provision of the ACA went into affect a few years prior to the start up of the exchanges so this benefit probably had little affect on 2014 and 2015 newly insured numbers.

You just refuse to get it, don't you?

It may have been offered, but IT WASN'T REQUIRED. As another poster pointed out, shouldn't this "uninsured number" now be zero? It's the LAW, it's no wonder some people prefer that to breaking the law. Geeeeez.

(03-06-2015 09:24 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 09:20 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 06:24 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 05:43 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 09:17 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  11.4 million signed up by end of open enrollment.

10 million additional Medicaid enrollments

3 million added to parents plan.

So 10 of the 27 that have acquired coverage since the law was passed were Medicaid enrollees. At the same time, the drop in uninsured includes people who found coverage outside the marketplaces.

http://obamacarefacts.com/sign-ups/obama...t-numbers/

Lots of people in the individual market buy outside the exchange. There is little to no reason for someone that wouldn't qualify for a tax credit to buy on the exchange, just drop by the the insurance agent's office and get a policy. About 8 million people do that each year. There are other ways people are covered as well. If someone turns 65 or has been disabled for two years they qualify for Medicare. Others take a job that provides employer sponsored coverage. If someone joins the military they get tricare.

It is great to see more and more people covered.

Yeah so lets not act like the ACA is the only reason more people are covered. It is quite telling that over 33% of the newly covered are from Medicaid expansion.

Joining the military doesn't entitle individuals to Tricare in the sense that most people think of it. They are covered as long as they serve, but do not automatically qualify for full Tricare when they leave the service.

I used to work insurance, and very few people turning 65 weren't previously covered before going on Medicare. The numbers are hard to sort though, but i would guess next to the medicaid expansion the next largest groupd of insured is probably the young adults added back on parents policies instead of going uncovered until they got a job that provided benefits.

1. Medicaid expansion IS a part of the ACA. How do you not know that?
2. Joining the military gets you covered. That is what I said!
3. I don't know how many 64 year olds were uninsured in 2014.
4. The under 26ers provision of the ACA went into affect a few years prior to the start up of the exchanges so this benefit probably had little affect on 2014 and 2015 newly insured numbers.

You just refuse to get it, don't you?

It may have been offered, but IT WASN'T REQUIRED. As another poster pointed out, shouldn't this "uninsured number" now be zero? It's the LAW, it's no wonder some people prefer that to breaking the law. Geeeeez.

Providing coverage to the under 26ers was required for family coverage policies under the ACA beginning on September 23rd, 2010. No they weren't required to utilize it but insurance companies were required to provide the option. It was utilized by a lot of families in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Again, the under 26ers probably don't contribute significantly to the change in uninsured from the end of last year to the start of this year. Remember when these young people turn 26 they come off the parent policy. The uninsured number isn't going to drop to zero but it is going down significantly. There are always going to be people that don't have coverage.

More to the point, with two children in college, I looked into the cost of keeping them on my plan... putting them each on their own plan and putting them together in a separate plan

Because insurance is math and not the magic that some people seem to think, there was essentially no difference in the price of those options... as there wouldn't be.

The only difference is 'who pays the premium'... and nobody stops a parent from paying their child's premium for them. The 26 year old thing is a change, but not a particularly meaningful one and does nothing to control costs. The annual cap is slightly better, but only marginally. Very few people ever hit the current cap and those that do often die.... so the actual cost of those caps is extremely little. The 'number of insured' is a farce because it is the law.

The ACA is certainly not without any redeeming features whatsoever, but the spin being put on it, especially by Obamatail is unbelievable.

(03-06-2015 09:20 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 06:24 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 05:43 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 09:17 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  11.4 million signed up by end of open enrollment.

10 million additional Medicaid enrollments

3 million added to parents plan.

So 10 of the 27 that have acquired coverage since the law was passed were Medicaid enrollees. At the same time, the drop in uninsured includes people who found coverage outside the marketplaces.

http://obamacarefacts.com/sign-ups/obama...t-numbers/

Lots of people in the individual market buy outside the exchange. There is little to no reason for someone that wouldn't qualify for a tax credit to buy on the exchange, just drop by the the insurance agent's office and get a policy. About 8 million people do that each year. There are other ways people are covered as well. If someone turns 65 or has been disabled for two years they qualify for Medicare. Others take a job that provides employer sponsored coverage. If someone joins the military they get tricare.

It is great to see more and more people covered.

Yeah so lets not act like the ACA is the only reason more people are covered. It is quite telling that over 33% of the newly covered are from Medicaid expansion.

Joining the military doesn't entitle individuals to Tricare in the sense that most people think of it. They are covered as long as they serve, but do not automatically qualify for full Tricare when they leave the service.

I used to work insurance, and very few people turning 65 weren't previously covered before going on Medicare. The numbers are hard to sort though, but i would guess next to the medicaid expansion the next largest groupd of insured is probably the young adults added back on parents policies instead of going uncovered until they got a job that provided benefits.

1. Medicaid expansion IS a part of the ACA. How do you not know that?
2. Joining the military gets you covered. That is what I said!
3. I don't know how many 64 year olds were uninsured in 2014.
4. The under 26ers provision of the ACA went into affect a few years prior to the start up of the exchanges so this benefit probably had little affect on 2014 and 2015 newly insured numbers.

1. i do know the expansion is part of ACA, and quite frankly the only reason the admin is able to tout somewhat impressive enrollment numbers. Medicaid is also not the same as private insurance in its coverage and in who foots the bill. These people cannot afford insurance anymore today than before the ACA was passed.

2. Yeah, just like getting moat any job does!

3. I donr have exact numbers either, but i used to work health insurance ans medicare supplements. The answer is relatively few. This is the older generation that retired from companies offering extended benefits more often. Those turning 65 shouldnt be considered as contributing to the increase in the number of covered individuals since ACA didn't affect or change anything with medicare.

4. Like owl said, it was an option but now that under 26 that were historically more likely to go uninsured for a few years are required to buy insurance the number likely makes up a good portion of the new enrollees as it was designed to do. Couple that with the high unemployment for that age group and it follows that a high percentage of them ended up on parents plans, meaning it probably (and should since that was a key part of the plan) be a larger percentage of the newly insured than you think.

All in all, yes more people are covered, but a large number of the newly insured are not paying for their insurance, meaning the rest of us are.

These numbers are not as impressive as they appear upon further inspection.

(03-06-2015 10:20 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  More to the point, with two children in college, I looked into the cost of keeping them on my plan... putting them each on their own plan and putting them together in a separate plan

Because insurance is math and not the magic that some people seem to think, there was essentially no difference in the price of those options... as there wouldn't be.

The only difference is 'who pays the premium'... and nobody stops a parent from paying their child's premium for them. The 26 year old thing is a change, but not a particularly meaningful one and does nothing to control costs. The annual cap is slightly better, but only marginally. Very few people ever hit the current cap and those that do often die.... so the actual cost of those caps is extremely little. The 'number of insured' is a farce because it is the law.

The ACA is certainly not without any redeeming features whatsoever, but the spin being put on it, especially by Obamatail is unbelievable.

I took my 19, now 20 year old off my employer plan and on to the one offered by ECU. It is a better policy all the way around, lower premium, deductible, and co pay. So I did the math too. My point about the 26ers was simply that they in all likelihood aren't a major factor in bringing the uninsured rate down between the end of 2014 and the beginning of 2015 as had been asserted by the poster I was responding to.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to belittle me or my posts on the subject of the ACA? We don't see eye to eye on the topic but I would think that there would be no need for that. If my posts upset you that much please just put me on ignore.

So it is a failure. The insured are still having to pay for the 12% of the country that are uninsured.

Meanwhile, the government extorts money from the uninsured that they might have used to pay their medical bills.

Progress. Right.

What we are seeing right now is the best that the ACA will ever work. It will get worse from here. Actually, slight correction, it may have 2-5 years before it really turns down. We'll just have to wait and see.

And the f-king republicans have had 6 years and still haven't come up with anything. Get on an airplane, fly to Paris, get a copy of the French law (I know you can download it off the Internet, but at least this way you get a boondoggle out of it), find somebody to translate it into English, and pass it, for God's sake.

(03-06-2015 10:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What we are seeing right now is the best that the ACA will ever work. It will get worse from here. Actually, slight correction, it may have 2-5 years before it really turns down. We'll just have to wait and see.

And the f-king republicans have had 6 years and still haven't come up with anything. Get on an airplane, fly to Paris, get a copy of the French law (I know you can download it off the Internet, but at least this way you get a boondoggle out of it), find somebody to translate it into English, and pass it, for God's sake.

You begin from the premise that the national government should provide health care.

Why should the Republicans do anything? It isn't the role of our government to provide heath care.

If the states want to do it, then they should have at it. Our government was neither founded or designed to do it. That just might be one of the reasons it's not any good at doing it.

(03-06-2015 11:04 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 10:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What we are seeing right now is the best that the ACA will ever work. It will get worse from here. Actually, slight correction, it may have 2-5 years before it really turns down. We'll just have to wait and see.
And the f-king republicans have had 6 years and still haven't come up with anything. Get on an airplane, fly to Paris, get a copy of the French law (I know you can download it off the Internet, but at least this way you get a boondoggle out of it), find somebody to translate it into English, and pass it, for God's sake.

You begin from the premise that the national government should provide health care.
Why should the Republicans do anything? It isn't the role of our government to provide heath care.
If the states want to do it, then they should have at it. Our government was neither founded or designed to do it. That just might be one of the reasons it's not any good at doing it.

And that's why I like the French system. The government doesn't provide health care. in fact, the government is less involved in health care there than it was here before Obamacare.

(03-06-2015 10:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What we are seeing right now is the best that the ACA will ever work. It will get worse from here. Actually, slight correction, it may have 2-5 years before it really turns down. We'll just have to wait and see.

And the f-king republicans have had 6 years and still haven't come up with anything. Get on an airplane, fly to Paris, get a copy of the French law (I know you can download it off the Internet, but at least this way you get a boondoggle out of it), find somebody to translate it into English, and pass it, for God's sake.

Dont blame the republicans. They could come up with the ideal solution, and it will be harpooned by the president and the liberal media non-stop, and it will never pass. That is pointless. And republicans dont need to help "fix" Obamacare as it is. All that would do is to tie their hands to Obamacare. Right now, Obamacare has no republican votes. They dont need to give any to it now.

The only way for republicans to fix this issue is to first allow the democrats and liberals to completely hang themselves on Obamacare where it becomes such a liability to them that they are willing to pass anything, including a complete repeal, in order to save themselves. Until then, or until a republican president gets put into office, forget it.

Elections have consequences. Dont blame the party that you didnt vote for for the crimes against humanity that the party you put into ultimate power has committed. Put the blame squarely on those responsible. Thats the only way this thing gets changed. If you are going to go out and blame both parties, Obamacare is going to win, because that gives the liberals shelter.

You know what's really stupid?

Bragging about sign-ups and percentages when it is AGAINST THE LAW not to sign up.

It's like bragging about the amount of people who sign up for the Selective Service.

(03-09-2015 08:57 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  You know what's really stupid?

Bragging about sign-ups and percentages when it is AGAINST THE LAW not to sign up.

It's like bragging about the amount of people who sign up for the Selective Service.

Yup.

(03-09-2015 08:57 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  You know what's really stupid?

Bragging about sign-ups and percentages when it is AGAINST THE LAW not to sign up.

It's like bragging about the amount of people who sign up for the Selective Service.

Liberals don't have any common sense. That's abundantly clear to me after participating in this forum.

(03-06-2015 10:53 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I took my 19, now 20 year old off my employer plan and on to the one offered by ECU. It is a better policy all the way around, lower premium, deductible, and co pay. So I did the math too.

You are looking today. I looked prior to the implementation of the ACA.... and more to the point, just because it was better than the one offered by ECU has more to do with ECU's priorities than anything having to do with the ACA. Depending on the focus of an employer or an insurer, you might have to shop around. The bottom line is that while shopping around is fine, keeping a 26 year old on your policy isn't an 'advantage' of the ACA like some say.

Quote:My point about the 26ers was simply that they in all likelihood aren't a major factor in bringing the uninsured rate down between the end of 2014 and the beginning of 2015 as had been asserted by the poster I was responding to.

Actually they are. 24 year olds on their own typically don't carry health insurance. If they have a major issue, the went to Medicaid.... actually the hospitals went to the states through Medicaid. NOW they are 'insured'. According to the NY Times, this number is 3-4mm people. I can't verify the claim, but it is in an article talking about how great the ACA has been.

Quote:I'm not sure why you feel the need to belittle me or my posts on the subject of the ACA? We don't see eye to eye on the topic but I would think that there would be no need for that. If my posts upset you that much please just put me on ignore.

Misinformation always upsets me... and on this specific topic, you spread more of it than most. Ignoring you would allow your claims to go unfettered. As someone who works in healthcare, I owe it to others to see that they get the correct information. Bad information causes an incredible amount of trouble in healthcare. As you and others note, my solutions aren't specifically ones mentioned by any mainstream conservative (though bits and pieces have been articulated by both parties) so my solutions pretty obviously aren't rooted in politics, but in healthcare as they should be.

It's not a question of disagreeing. If you think the ACA is great for you, fine. I've never suggested it wasn't. I'm suggesting that it isn't what you describe it to be... and I'm right. Your experience is an anecdote, not a 'fact of the ACA'

(03-06-2015 10:53 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I took my 19, now 20 year old off my employer plan and on to the one offered by ECU. It is a better policy all the way around, lower premium, deductible, and co pay. So I did the math too.

If that's the case you've got a HORRIBLE health insurance plan. I used to be on the ECU offered student plan. It was a joke in comparison to what I had with my previous employer. I broke my wrist and still got stuck with $30K worth of medical bills.