Who did ObamaCare help in the first place? I don't know anyone, but I imagine that somebody came out on top of all of this.

(11-18-2014 09:25 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Who did ObamaCare help in the first place? I don't know anyone, but I imagine that somebody came out on top of all of this.

Insurance companies...

(11-18-2014 09:25 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Who did ObamaCare help in the first place? I don't know anyone, but I imagine that somebody came out on top of all of this.

Those previously denied 'regular' insurance who had to go to high risk pools. Their premiums go way down, but their utilization remains high. They're getting 'essentially' the same amount of care as before (give or take) but paying far less for it. As I understand him, Tom In Lazybrook claims to be one of these people. My apologies to Tom if I am wrong.

(11-18-2014 09:25 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Who did ObamaCare help in the first place? I don't know anyone, but I imagine that somebody came out on top of all of this.

Oh, it definitely helped some people, and it definitely hurt others. All the folks that you see interviewed on Fox--it hurt them. All the folks you see interviewed on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS--it helped them. There are plenty of both. This is an example of a zero-sum game. You might say it's also an example of media bias.

Of course, all those people that it "helped" are those who got insurance. But did it really help them. If I'm standing in the ER with a Bronze plan and $5,000 out of pocket that I don't have, am I really better off than I was a year ago in the same place with n insurance? And if I didn't get a 100% subsidy, am I worse off because I've had to pay out insurance premiums? And what about all those docs and other providers that don't take Obamacare insurance? Am I better off if I want to see one of them?

(11-16-2014 09:28 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 09:05 PM)G-Man Wrote:  There isn't a monthly premium. If you're saying there is, you're either being disingenuous or you don't understand.

The "share" is a fixed amount CURRENTLY, that is supposed to "be enough" to pay anticipated needs (claims) based on future expectations compared to past experience (as a function of how many members there are contributing).

But if needs ever exceed the expected "share" contribution (something there's no way to predict because none of this is actuarialy-sound) one of two things initially happens - needs are only partially paid, or share contributions are increased (based upon costs of needs exceeding shares paid for a certain period--most of these health-share plans evaluate it, if, within two to three months, needs continue not being fully covered). Then the plan administrator either decides to raise the monthly share amount for everyone (if the charter allows it), or they let the members take a vote on it. And that's when some people decide to bail.

These medical share plans operate very similarly to an un-reinsured MEWA. And this is where a third very nasty thing can happen... Google "MEWA" combined, with "risk" to see why these things pose a very real danger to those who think they're well "covered" through them.

I've seen them go belly-up. It's not pretty. And if you're stuck with a "need" when that happens, too bad, so sad. Might as well as never have "shared" a dime. And unfortunately neither ERISA laws nor state reinsurance pools will protect you. You're on your own.

It isn't a premium in the strict definition, but it is a mandatory monthly contribution, which your previous post implied did not exist. And of course there is risk, as with everything. But I see this as a decent way out of the system entirely. And it is a no-brainer on the cost/benefit front, as they don't have to do all the BS the insurance companies have to do thanks to ObamaCare now. $199/mo + $125/yr enrollment = up to $1,000,000 coverage with $500 annual deductible. Plans at that pricing level premium in the exchanges for me come with a $6,000+ deductible. And the assurance that I'm helping pay into that statist wet dream of a full government health care takeover. I'd rather pay less for better coverage while subverting their system. Even if that does include some modest level of risk with it.

Are you unhealthy GTS? The reason I ask is that to me it's very smart to take a high risk plan like a HDHP and feed a Health Savings account. If you really only go to the doctor once or twice a year then a HDHP is a pretty smart move for someone that's young and fairly healthy.

(11-18-2014 03:03 PM)BucFyre Wrote:  Are you unhealthy GTS? The reason I ask is that to me it's very smart to take a high risk plan like a HDHP and feed a Health Savings account. If you really only go to the doctor once or twice a year then a HDHP is a pretty smart move for someone that's young and fairly healthy.

I go to the doctor once a year -- usually for sinus junk.

There is a local group of doctors who do a no-insurance straight cash homie practice which I tried and love. Superior service. Way cheaper. No BS. Even with insurance I prefer going to them over any of the local bloated hospital groups.

Instead of HSA I'd prefer to just push the money into diversified dividend stocks. I can always cash out if I need it. And it will make some money too.

(11-18-2014 08:06 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 03:03 PM)BucFyre Wrote:  Are you unhealthy GTS? The reason I ask is that to me it's very smart to take a high risk plan like a HDHP and feed a Health Savings account. If you really only go to the doctor once or twice a year then a HDHP is a pretty smart move for someone that's young and fairly healthy.

I go to the doctor once a year -- usually for sinus junk.

There is a local group of doctors who do a no-insurance straight cash homie practice which I tried and love. Superior service. Way cheaper. No BS. Even with insurance I prefer going to them over any of the local bloated hospital groups.

Instead of HSA I'd prefer to just push the money into diversified dividend stocks. I can always cash out if I need it. And it will make some money too.

If eligible for one, an HSA is the absolute best retirement savings account someone can have. It's the only account that is tax deductible for contributions, no tax on investment gains, and tax free for future withdrawals. You can always pay with after tax dollars for current medical expenses, even while contributing to an HSA, and delay using the HSA to pay for future medical expenses or insurance premiums when retired.

It's like a Roth for medical expenses, but a Roth that is also tax deductible. Can't beat it.

(11-18-2014 09:16 PM)G-Man Wrote:  If eligible for one, an HSA is the absolute best retirement savings account someone can have. It's the only account that is tax deductible for contributions, no tax on investment gains, and tax free for future withdrawals. You can always pay with after tax dollars for current medical expenses, even while contributing to an HSA, and delay using the HSA to pay for future medical expenses or insurance premiums when retired.

It's like a Roth for medical expenses, but a Roth that is also tax deductible. Can't beat it.

I'll look into it.

(11-18-2014 08:06 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 03:03 PM)BucFyre Wrote:  Are you unhealthy GTS? The reason I ask is that to me it's very smart to take a high risk plan like a HDHP and feed a Health Savings account. If you really only go to the doctor once or twice a year then a HDHP is a pretty smart move for someone that's young and fairly healthy.

I go to the doctor once a year -- usually for sinus junk.

There is a local group of doctors who do a no-insurance straight cash homie practice which I tried and love. Superior service. Way cheaper. No BS. Even with insurance I prefer going to them over any of the local bloated hospital groups.

Instead of HSA I'd prefer to just push the money into diversified dividend stocks. I can always cash out if I need it. And it will make some money too.

This is precisely what most people don't understand about the wealthy, or insurance in general. Similar to what GTS is suggesting, they (by and large) self-insure... doing what the insurance companies do and invest the premiums themselves... saving the overhead and profit... essentially betting that their 'family' has slightly above average utilization or better... and not having to deal with all of the rules and exclusions.

Quote:an HSA is the absolute best retirement savings account someone can have

Except that some insurance policies say if you don't use it, you lose it after your renewal process on the year, G-man.

(11-19-2014 01:20 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:an HSA is the absolute best retirement savings account someone can have

Except that some insurance policies say if you don't use it, you lose it after your renewal process on the year, G-man.

That's usually a FSA, not an HSA. I can't say that there isn't some 'odd duck' somewhere that you are aware of, but it would be the first one i'd seen

(11-19-2014 01:20 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:an HSA is the absolute best retirement savings account someone can have

Except that some insurance policies say if you don't use it, you lose it after your renewal process on the year, G-man.

Actually, you're confused. Let me explain it for you:

An HSA is not an FSA. And neither an HSA nor an FSA is an HDHP. But both can help you pay for things that an HDHP doesn't. However an FSA has to be through an employer. An HSA can be through an employer or on your own. Many HSAs and most FSAs are administered by TPAs. But HSAs require HDHPs. FSAs do not. An HRA is also a type CDHP, just like an HSA and HDHP combined is a type of a CDHP. And most HRAs are also administered by TPAs. But unlike an HSA, you may not be able to keep your HRA if you leave employment. But you might if your COBRA rights allow it. Or perhaps you could, if you're taking leave through the FMLA. But HSAs are definitely not FSAs. And what you described is an FSA. FSAs are not CDHPs either. With an FSA you do have use it or lose it. But now FSAs also have carry-over credit. HSAs are like IRAs but unlike an IRA you have to have a HDHP to have an HSA. You can have an FSA or an IRA without having any HDHP because both an FSA and an IRA have nothing to do with CDHPs. But if you have a HDHP, and a choice between an FSA, an IRA or an HSA, choose the HSA because unlike the IRA, the HSA is both tax deductible in and tax free out, whereas IRA can only be tax deductible in and taxed out, or after tax in, and tax free out. And the FSA will require you to use it or lose it except for the new carryover. Whereas an HSA has not use it or lose it requirement. And now, the ACA may help you pay for your HDHP which allows you to have an HSA, but only if you qualify for APTC. But if you need APTC, you probably can't afford to contribute to an IRA, or an HSA, even if the APTC paid for all of your HDHP. And you definitely wont' have an HRA if you qualify for APTC, because having an HRA won't allow it.

Got it?

(11-18-2014 10:36 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-18-2014 09:25 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Who did ObamaCare help in the first place? I don't know anyone, but I imagine that somebody came out on top of all of this.

Insurance companies...

No. It helped cooperatives that compete against insurance companies, and it helped people in states where Medicaid was expanded. It also helped people who don't make a lot, with big APTC. Insurance companies were not helped. They basically had to bend over and take it.

So, if HSA's are generally recognized as a positive in these instances, why is Gov't working to shut them down? Strange, wouldn't you think?!?

(11-20-2014 01:56 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  So, if HSA's are generally recognized as a positive in these instances, why is Gov't working to shut them down? Strange, wouldn't you think?!?

Because Obamacare is about control, not health care.

(11-19-2014 01:20 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:an HSA is the absolute best retirement savings account someone can have

Except that some insurance policies say if you don't use it, you lose it after your renewal process on the year, G-man.

(11-19-2014 10:44 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 01:20 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:an HSA is the absolute best retirement savings account someone can have

Except that some insurance policies say if you don't use it, you lose it after your renewal process on the year, G-man.

Actually, you're confused. Let me explain it for you:

An HSA is not an FSA. And neither an HSA nor an FSA is an HDHP. But both can help you pay for things that an HDHP doesn't. However an FSA has to be through an employer. An HSA can be through an employer or on your own. Many HSAs and most FSAs are administered by TPAs. But HSAs require HDHPs. FSAs do not. An HRA is also a type CDHP, just like an HSA and HDHP combined is a type of a CDHP. And most HRAs are also administered by TPAs. But unlike an HSA, you may not be able to keep your HRA if you leave employment. But you might if your COBRA rights allow it. Or perhaps you could, if you're taking leave through the FMLA. But HSAs are definitely not FSAs. And what you described is an FSA. FSAs are not CDHPs either. With an FSA you do have use it or lose it. But now FSAs also have carry-over credit. HSAs are like IRAs but unlike an IRA you have to have a HDHP to have an HSA. You can have an FSA or an IRA without having any HDHP because both an FSA and an IRA have nothing to do with CDHPs. But if you have a HDHP, and a choice between an FSA, an IRA or an HSA, choose the HSA because unlike the IRA, the HSA is both tax deductible in and tax free out, whereas IRA can only be tax deductible in and taxed out, or after tax in, and tax free out. And the FSA will require you to use it or lose it except for the new carryover. Whereas an HSA has not use it or lose it requirement. And now, the ACA may help you pay for your HDHP which allows you to have an HSA, but only if you qualify for APTC. But if you need APTC, you probably can't afford to contribute to an IRA, or an HSA, even if the APTC paid for all of your HDHP. And you definitely wont' have an HRA if you qualify for APTC, because having an HRA won't allow it.

Got it?

Fwiw I understood all of that but I work in benefits.

See, I didnt' know there was a difference between FSA's and HSA's (i think our company has only ever referred to them as HSA's). I'll have to ask my wife about her HSA then..

(11-19-2014 10:44 PM)G-Man Wrote:  An HSA is not an FSA. And neither an HSA nor an FSA is an HDHP. But both can help you pay for things that an HDHP doesn't. However an FSA has to be through an employer. An HSA can be through an employer or on your own. Many HSAs and most FSAs are administered by TPAs. But HSAs require HDHPs. FSAs do not. An HRA is also a type CDHP, just like an HSA and HDHP combined is a type of a CDHP. And most HRAs are also administered by TPAs. But unlike an HSA, you may not be able to keep your HRA if you leave employment. But you might if your COBRA rights allow it. Or perhaps you could, if you're taking leave through the FMLA. But HSAs are definitely not FSAs. And what you described is an FSA. FSAs are not CDHPs either. With an FSA you do have use it or lose it. But now FSAs also have carry-over credit. HSAs are like IRAs but unlike an IRA you have to have a HDHP to have an HSA. You can have an FSA or an IRA without having any HDHP because both an FSA and an IRA have nothing to do with CDHPs. But if you have a HDHP, and a choice between an FSA, an IRA or an HSA, choose the HSA because unlike the IRA, the HSA is both tax deductible in and tax free out, whereas IRA can only be tax deductible in and taxed out, or after tax in, and tax free out. And the FSA will require you to use it or lose it except for the new carryover. Whereas an HSA has not use it or lose it requirement. And now, the ACA may help you pay for your HDHP which allows you to have an HSA, but only if you qualify for APTC. But if you need APTC, you probably can't afford to contribute to an IRA, or an HSA, even if the APTC paid for all of your HDHP. And you definitely wont' have an HRA if you qualify for APTC, because having an HRA won't allow it.

Got it?

Ok, that was funny.... but exactly how people in government talk. It's like talking to people in the Military. It's not a truck, it's a MAV (mobile assault vehicle)

(11-20-2014 10:34 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  See, I didnt' know there was a difference between FSA's and HSA's (i think our company has only ever referred to them as HSA's). I'll have to ask my wife about her HSA then..

See? Some good DOES come from this place

(11-16-2014 02:17 PM)G-Man Wrote:  It works like this. You aren't insured. There is no doctor or hospital network. No one in the health-share is insured by anything. It's a cooperative of "trust"-- Trust that you'll help pay other's needs when you're asked to, and trust that If you have a need, there will be enough people helping to pay your own need so that you don't get left holding the bag. But there's nothing making them back up their willingness to help pay your bills except their "word" when they join, that they will.

Also, if you have pre-existing conditions, forget it. No coverage for them.

Otherwise, once you're a member, everyone who has a NEW (not pre-existing) major expense arise, generating medical bills above a certain threshold, lets the organization know of their "need". The organization informs a certain number of members about your need, to sufficiently cover it, IF each person informed follows through to send you money. Also, they're encouraged to pray for you and send you notes of encouragement. But hopefully, they send you enough money to cover your need so you're not stuck with bills you can't pay.

You hope this sharing of needs program doesn't fall apart, because if there are more needs than money, there's nothing to pay the needs. If that happens too frequently, the organization implodes. If it implodes and you have a health problem, you're screwed. Because losing your "membership" doesn't count as you having a qualifying event that allows you to move to an Obamacare plan that will cover your pre-existing condition that developed for which you now need insurance. Instead, you have to wait until open enrollment.

If you want insurance, buy a short term medical plan that takes you through next December. It won't cover pre-ex conditions, but it will cover you if you have an unexpected major claim. It's not ACA compliant, but it's insurance and backed up by insurance state guarantee funds. If you need to switch to Obamacare because you develop a bad health problem, when the short term policy ends, you switch to Obamacare during next year's open enrollment period.

One main qualifier to "join" the health-share is that you profess to be a Christian. So, if enough people like GTS join, who aren't honest about who they are (an Atheist "using" the system for their own personal gain); If enough of these people who aren't telling the truth, join (indicating they might not be honest in other areas, too--like paying your needs when they committed they would--because by joining in the first place, they're proving they're not willing to be honest, by lying about who they are), then you're more likely to be stuck at some point in the future when you need help the most, because/when they don't honor paying your need, since they don't take commitments seriously.

So, you pay money into a pot, along with a lot of other people, and when you have a big expense you're able to dip into that pot and pay your bill.

Sounds a lot like insurance to me. Actually, it sounds just like "non-profit" insurance that leftists often orgasm over. They should be all about this.

(11-20-2014 06:16 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(11-16-2014 02:17 PM)G-Man Wrote:  It works like this. You aren't insured. There is no doctor or hospital network. No one in the health-share is insured by anything. It's a cooperative of "trust"-- Trust that you'll help pay other's needs when you're asked to, and trust that If you have a need, there will be enough people helping to pay your own need so that you don't get left holding the bag. But there's nothing making them back up their willingness to help pay your bills except their "word" when they join, that they will.

Also, if you have pre-existing conditions, forget it. No coverage for them.

Otherwise, once you're a member, everyone who has a NEW (not pre-existing) major expense arise, generating medical bills above a certain threshold, lets the organization know of their "need". The organization informs a certain number of members about your need, to sufficiently cover it, IF each person informed follows through to send you money. Also, they're encouraged to pray for you and send you notes of encouragement. But hopefully, they send you enough money to cover your need so you're not stuck with bills you can't pay.

You hope this sharing of needs program doesn't fall apart, because if there are more needs than money, there's nothing to pay the needs. If that happens too frequently, the organization implodes. If it implodes and you have a health problem, you're screwed. Because losing your "membership" doesn't count as you having a qualifying event that allows you to move to an Obamacare plan that will cover your pre-existing condition that developed for which you now need insurance. Instead, you have to wait until open enrollment.

If you want insurance, buy a short term medical plan that takes you through next December. It won't cover pre-ex conditions, but it will cover you if you have an unexpected major claim. It's not ACA compliant, but it's insurance and backed up by insurance state guarantee funds. If you need to switch to Obamacare because you develop a bad health problem, when the short term policy ends, you switch to Obamacare during next year's open enrollment period.

One main qualifier to "join" the health-share is that you profess to be a Christian. So, if enough people like GTS join, who aren't honest about who they are (an Atheist "using" the system for their own personal gain); If enough of these people who aren't telling the truth, join (indicating they might not be honest in other areas, too--like paying your needs when they committed they would--because by joining in the first place, they're proving they're not willing to be honest, by lying about who they are), then you're more likely to be stuck at some point in the future when you need help the most, because/when they don't honor paying your need, since they don't take commitments seriously.

So, you pay money into a pot, along with a lot of other people, and when you have a big expense you're able to dip into that pot and pay your bill.

Sounds a lot like insurance to me. Actually, it sounds just like "non-profit" insurance that leftists often orgasm over. They should be all about this.

Well actually, you can't dip your hand into that pot and pay your bill. Because there is no pot of money. There are no "reserves" (like an insurance company is required to keep). You submit your bill to the administrator, and instead of having that bill paid by the administrator, the administrator notifies several other people in your health share to each send you their monthly share amount. It' a share/pay as you go only type of thing.

And the question is whether enough people will send you money when you need money.

It's kinda like a ponzi scheme, actually, in the fact that as long as enough people think it's going to work for them, they'll keep paying. It's not a ponzi scheme though, because a true ponzi would always be running a deficit. However, not all Ponzi schemes fail--some keep working because enough people keep believing they'll pay off for them. But those that do fail, fail because people started becoming concerned about if they'd "get theirs" or not, if they keep paying money. So that's why I say this is "like" a ponzi... If/when enough decide this isn't going to work out for them, then it's history. People will stop "sharing" each month. If/when enough do, it all tumbles down.

And if/when this thing goes "belly up" nothing is there to pay your huge medical bills if you're left holding the bag for that. You're not insured, so that some state attorney general or insurance commissioner can force the company to pay you. There is no company. There's no FDIC or state insurance guarantee fund. There's just your hope that enough other members will send you money, when you need it.

One reason they want people in their groups to be committed as Christians is so they can chastise them (warning them about their duty as a Christian) to honor their word, if they don't send the money.

But when you get atheists joining who are willing to lie about being a Christian, hoping the Christians will come through and pay their bills if they ever get sick, then the obvious question is whether you can trust such an Atheist who was willing to be untruthful to join (claiming to be a Christian to get in on the good thing the Christians established)-- can that Atheist who was dishonest joining, be counted on to be honest to pay his share if he just decides its also expedient (as it was to join under false pretense) not to pay? What's the motivation to do the "Christian" thing? It's not his commitment to his Christian beliefs.

And even if he says I'm wrong-- by joining in the first place, he already has proven beyond opinion, but by action, that it's not his commitment to being an honest person.

That's why what GTS is planning on doing, is wrong.