Forty years ago, similar problems existed in auto insurance. Costs increasing because the laws created reasons for increasing costs. Finally states began a major rewrite of auto insurance rules. Then auto insurance rates stopped increasing almost exponentially.

We finally have a solution for medical insurance. We should be moving onto other reasons for increases. Instead, many extremists want to destroy government like a child who takes home the baseball because he thought he was safe at first base. (Extremists often don't use the part of a brain that only exists in adults.)

While wackos have distorted the waters, many never noticed another reason for increasing health costs. He claimed he was fixing things. He also blamed Joe Paterno for pedophilia while not doing any investigation? He subverted discovery for some 14 Vioxx lawsuits - a drug that was killing people. Subverted discovery to protect profits and to keep selling a killer drug.

Once 42 major drug companies existed. Each averaged 7 drugs in the innovation pipeline. Merck, once a most innovative company (because its management were doctors), is now a laggard. Must increase profits by increasing profit margins while, well, Merck only has two innovative drugs in the innovation pipeline. So Merck must rape the public with higher prices.

Once 42 companies were doing seven new drugs. MBAs have successfully merged those companies into 13 with only 3 new drugs in the innovation pipeline. So your medical costs for drugs must increase.

Ken Frazier, a lawyer, was preaching he had greatest respect for scientists. Nonsense. He had so little respect for anyone as it even get Joe Paterno blamed by doing no investigation. He should have been disbarred for subverting discovery on so many Vioxx cases. Instead they made him Merck's president. He has subverted the innovation drug pipeline. Same problem is in most other drug companies.

In a responsible market, costs for a new product drop each year. Because every year, innovation makes the product better. Profit margins can be less as the product ages - is eventually replaced with new innovations. Profits no longer have to pay for the initial product development costs. But in a drug industry now run by management that stifles innovation, prices increase every year even as the patent expires. And as we protect those companies by not blaming management who does not come from where the work gets done.

Drug companies have even paid generic drug companies to NOT market their equivalent. To increase profit margins. To protect an industry that does not innovate like it used to.

Another reason why medical costs and insurance rates increase. Frazier is now downsizing Merck because, as a lawyer, he successfully stifled innovation. Trials of new Merck drugs have not been going well. He is spinning downsizing as if it is a corporate refocus.

Frazier is another reason why your insurance and medical costs will increase. Just like in the auto industry, he will continue to subvert your standard of living - to protect and enrich himself. Using the same knowledge that even blamed Joe Paterno for pedophilia. Making decisions without learning anything about the problem.

With the waters so muddied by extremists attacking health insurance, did you notice another of your enemies spinning his excuses?

An industry that once had more than 250 new drugs in the innovation pipeline now has less than 40 - because these companies are now more concerned with profits than with the products. Your medical costs must then increase.

Has anyone made use of the 'exchanges' and did you get a good deal on coverage?

From the lack of responses: I'm guessin' no one has made use of the exchanges.

Why not?

I have employer-provided healthcare.

Personally, we haven't used it because we are one of the lucky ones with employer-paid insurance. I know other people who have used them, but I don't know what kind of a "deal" they got (though I would have to assume it was better than what they were paying before, otherwise they wouldn't have gone for it.)

My mother-in-law is going to use the state exchange, because preliminary searching shows that she will get a much better deal than what she is currently having to pay, but right now she is procrastinating. Supposedly it is because the site has been slow as millions of people try to use it all at once, but in reality it is because she really, really doesn't want to believe that Obamacare could work out to be a good thing for her.

I have employer-provided healthcare.

If your employer (for whatever reason) chooses to terminate your coverage (or you), you'll use the exchanges, yes?

I expect I will. I'll at least check them out and compare prices with non-exchanges.

If fired, I'd compare them to COBRA. They'll probably be cheaper (COBRA is more about continuity than affordability), but I'd factor in the hassle of changing providers compared to how long I'd expect to be out of work. The next employer will probably provide coverage, and changing providers twice in a short time might not be worth it.

If healthcare were just dropped by my employer, I'd use the exchange. That's what it's there for.

Like HM, I'd first look into COBRA because right now we have a plan that was specifically tailored to our unique medical needs (because Mr. Clod's employer was very clear that he wanted to keep him happy, and added certain coverages just for him.)

But yes, if everything fell apart and Mr. Clod were for some reason unemployed for a long time, we would certainly use the exchange.

We have employer paid insurance but now we can keep our daughters on ours until they get their own or age out at what 26? Thanks Mitt!

I am waiting until the website problems are sorted out.

Would any one just opt to pay the fine and be done with it?

As I understand: for the first year it's 95 bucks or 1% of your income.

At least for now: is that a better option than the exchanges?

But then you are uninsured.

The fines are low for this first year. But they will go up the next year. They are getting phased in.

I imagine you would think it is, since you also believe that you have no need for emergency services paid for with tax money that you resent having had "stolen" from you.

But any reasonable risk assessment of life would come to the conclusion that we all get sick eventually, or perhaps get hit in an auto accident that wasn't our fault, but nonetheless leaves us with massive medical bills. There could be zero fine, and buying medical insurance would still be a good deal, when comparing risk vs. reward.

Clod,

I asked a question...I wasn't makin' a point by way of the question.

I didn't bring myself into the question, you did.

And: no, I resent nuthin' cause I ain't payin' nuthin.


Now...

As I understand it: the point of the fine is to cover those expenses one may incur if using medical resources without insurance.

Leaving aside that one may be able to pay his or her own way without resorting to insurance (out of pocket), at least for the first year might it be the better deal to just pay the fine?


It's just (a line of) questions, folks...I'm curious how people are doing all of this (what choices they're makin'), is all.

I'd imagine that would work, if you only encountered run of the mill health problems. Antibiotics, inhalors, maybe even a bone reset after a break. But if you end up in a hospital bed for a few nights, or you have a sudden and unexpected need for chemotherapy and the like, I expect it would get cripplingly expensive quite fast.

It'd be a gamble. But then I guess that's the point of an insurance system in the first place. The insurance companies gamble that you will never need more treatment than would fall under the copay limit. And you gamble that you might just need a hospital stay at some point.

So, as long as you don't get seriously ill or have an accident requiring a complex medical response, it might well be more cost effective to pay the fine and be uninsured.

"as long as you don't get seriously ill or have an accident requiring a complex medical response, it might well be more cost effective to pay the fine and be uninsured"

I must have gotten sumthin' wrong in my readings 'cause I assumed the fine (which goes up to astronomical levels down the road) would cover you no matter the nature of a medical treatment (no matter how costly).

Again: isn't the point of the fine to cover those expenses one may incur if using medical resources without insurance?

If not: then what's the fine for?

It's for not following the law, liker most fines are.

The only way it "covers" you is by adding to the governments coffers, from which it pays the subsidies for poor people buying insurance. Those people having insurance makes it easier for the hospital to manage the people who get emergency care, and can't pay.

So, if you decide to pay the fine instead of getting coverage, you'll be in the same boat as you are now if you have no insurance, but a bit of the pressure is taken off of the hospitals.

The fine is a stick to get you to join the program. It doesn't grant you access to anything.

Strictly speaking, the insurance companies don't gamble. They are like bookies; they can adjust the rates so that they always come out with a moderate profit no matter who wins or loses. Too many people start losing, they just raise everybody's rates to cover the loss.

The point of the fine is to help offset the medical costs of other people who did buy into the plan, a plan which only works if enough people participate. When you pay the fine, you are not securing any medical care for yourself. You will still be responsible for the entire bill should you become ill. The ER will take a bullet out of you and restart your heart, just as they do now. But they will send you a bill. And just like an uninsured person before Obamacare, you will not get life-saving surgery, you will not get cancer treatment, you will not get therapy to walk again, etc.

It's true that if you do have the means to pay out-of-pocket, you will probably save money by simply paying the fine. But very few people really have those means. They think they do, but they don't truly understand how quickly medical bills can add up. My dad is a soft libertarian who has been playing that gamble his entire life. He has excellent self-discipline, and does indeed live well below his means so that he can keep savings in the five digits earmarked for self-pay medical costs. He did even have to pay out once in a major way when he had an unexpected heart clot and spent a day in the hospital. But he never spent time in an ICU, never got cancer. Had that happened, his 5-digit savings would have been laughable, and he would have been fucked. He shrugs and says, "Well, that's life," and asserts that if he's that bad off he'd be okay with just dying. But my experience is that when face-to-face with death, most people find (too late) that they'd rather stay alive after all.

I'd actually be a fan of the "fine" subscribing you to medicare, and charging you the cost.

IE, single payer.

Okay: I got it now.

Thanks.

I'll have more questions (as they come to mind).

Even the Democrats are upset about the Obamacare website.
But does that stop them from being mistaken when it's time to shift the blame ?

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/1...815_Page2.html
Politico
10/24/13

Obamacare website hearing takeaways: Missing word was ‘sorry’
Well Anna, maybe not the week before Christmas, but during this past summer.
How long have these websites been up and running, but yet:
.
Attachment 45811
(from here)

Have you met Chance?
 

The Affordable Care Act is a big deal, both in it's significance to our society and government as well as a big deal in terms of it's scope. Much has been made of the crucial impact young healthy people will have on the financial aspect of the law. Of course, we all have a financial aspect to our lives, and many people make choices with the costs in mind. The immediate costs of the premiums are easy to quantify, easy to see; you pay them right away. The longer term costs of care for an illness or an injury are much harder to quantify because they're not known with nearly as much certainty. Injured? Sick? Me?? Pfffft... no way man.

But. All of us can imagine, can imagine an accident and these brilliant commercials help us envision circumstances when we take a chance, and what the consequences *might be*.

Just brilliant!

They do get your attention !

Meanwhile in Vermont:Vermont is designing nation’s first universal health-care system

I have researched the exchange here for myself and my son. The bronze plan is really awful and still far more expensive than the plans we have now which are being discontinued because of UN-ACA regulations.

For 2014, the fine is 1% of your gross income. It appears that I will have no other choice at this time. I'm still hoping to finagle something, but currently being self-employed, there are no affordable alternatives.

What is looking to become the big issue is that, by far, the vast majority of those who are signing up are old and/or unhealthy. All those young healthy people needed to make this magically somehow work so that millions more get insurance while not driving up the costs (remember that?) are apparently not doing so. If thats the case come March, then the costs are going to skyrocket. Apparently all of this was known and it was a gamble.
We'll see how this works out. By next March we'll have a far better indication of what will happen in 2015.

As for the 6% who are like me and are self-employed. We're such a small group that we weren't really factored into the equation. No one cares about us ... Oh wait 6% of the US is about 15 MILLION people. Thats a pretty damn significant group. Many are getting the letters like I did. Just chalk us up as the unintended consequences.

Additionally, keep in mind that the exemption for employers will expire as well. Once that happens companies will have to determine if they can/want to continue offering coverage as an added benefit to its employees. *IF* all those young people DON'T sign up and the rates for 2015 are astronomical, then LOOK OUT! Many companies will not be able to afford the added cost.

I must not Obama.
ObamaCare is the job-killer.
. . .
When the Obama is past, I will turn my mind's eye to see its path, where there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

My brother and all his friends are in this category. Their general take on it is yes, they'll sign up, but they're not in a hurry. Expect most of the young people to get it done last-minute, just as in everything else they do.

When do you lose your current plan? Is it immediate, or end of the year, or next March?

March for me & May for my son. At this point, I may have to fudge some numbers and see if we can get medicaid. If that doesn't work I'll have to roll the dice and just insure one of us. Ya think I should go with him because he has a long life ahead or me who is old and fat... He's a lot cheaper than I as well.

I have an Obamacare question.

I'm not working right now, though I hope I will land a job soon. Naturally, I don't have any employer-based insurance. I can imagine a situation where I'll buy insurance (for a year, the regular term for such policies) for myself via my state's exchange or through a broker or via the phone or paper or whatever, the method's not important. Anyhow, say I buy a policy. Say I subsequently get a job (HOORAY!) and part of the job compensation is employer provided/sponsored/subsidized health insurance. What then? Could I cancel my individual plan and go with what my employer is providing, saving me the direct expense of paying for my own insurance? I know that previously, certain "life events" were reasons to change a policy outside of the open enrollment period, like marriage, a new baby, divorce, etc. And naturally, changing jobs is a super-common reason people change insurance. So, I won't be changing my individuality, but I might be getting another option. Does anyone know about this? Could I cancel my individual policy if I'm getting different insurance through work?

"Could I cancel my individual plan and go with what my employer is providing"
Yes. Individual policies basically run month to month. you may cancel at any time. When your new employer plan starts is up to the company. Typically it is 90 days from your FT hire date.

month to month? wow. Ok, thanks for the answer!

...pay your premiums monthly and you assure yourself of that. ;)

Aside from that there used to be a company called Golden Rule who offered short term policies .... 3 month 6 month etc. That may be an option for some as well. If they are still around. NO, you cannot just keep buying from them indefinitely.

Golden Rule is definitely still around; they are one of the few plans that has excellent ABA (behavioral therapy for autism) coverage. I know at least a dozen people on it. It is not cheap, but if you have massive healthcare costs, it is worth it. The people I know pay approximately $16,000 per year between the policy cost and the co-pays/deductible, and in return are getting $100,000 to $150,000 in actual medical costs per year covered.

Sorry for the confusion - poorly written post on my part.
I know the company is around, I was referring to their temp plans.

You are expected to. In fact if you don't you'll pay more.

A new employer is a "life event", so yes.

some good explanations

http://www.opb.org/news/article/npr-...t-health-care/

Oh now I get it dep't:

I did not make enough documentable income last year to qualify for O-care.

Hmmm

Hmmmmmm

You are probably in the Medicare hole. Make too much for pre-ACA Medicare, but not enough for an exchange subsidy? Thank Corbett.

I blame only myself for whatever hole I may be in.

That's fine, but you can still thank Corbett for this particular opportunity to blame yourself.

I guess, did you look that up in your handy-dandy 50-state partisan blame chart? I'm against the guy 100% but a brief Googling says he is looking to expand Medicaid.

Same here
Still looking? Been looking for three years. I think he's a pompous ass. Met him, his wife, the State AG, treasurer and a few other administration peeps at a speech I did with my son. We got to hobnob and all that with them.
Remember that saying Birds of a feather...?

In any case I am not in this particular hole.

If he's looking to expand Medicaid now, it's because he turned it down as soon as the Supreme Court said he could. States that didn't turn it down don't have to "look to" do it.

So its all the States' fault now.

If Corbett is looking at anything its only to further himself.
I hope he does, because I am in that hole.