Obamacare Vs Employer Based Plans

[flghtr65]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamac...100000965.html

[acp5762]

I kept my Healthcare coverage after I retired from a 25 year career. My Co-Payments are relatively low for instance, the Co-Payment for annual check ups is only 25.00 and Rx are only a few dollars. Iam very reluctant to even think about exploring the Exchange site. I have heard people talk about concerns that employer based plans may go up so high that employees may have no choice but to go through the exchange. I hope it doesn't come to that, and it shouldn't. If Obamacare pitches that it renders Healthcare affordable then it shouldn't adversely affect established Healthcare that is already affordable. Until Obamacare stands the test of time, I don't think anyone can truly predict how it will affect the future affordability of Healthcare.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by acp5762

If Obamacare pitches that it renders Healthcare affordable then it shouldn't adversely affect established Healthcare that is already affordable.

Affordable for who? You or your former employer?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by acp5762

I kept my Healthcare coverage after I retired from a 25 year career. My Co-Payments are relatively low for instance, the Co-Payment for annual check ups is only 25.00 and Rx are only a few dollars. Iam very reluctant to even think about exploring the Exchange site. I have heard people talk about concerns that employer based plans may go up so high that employees may have no choice but to go through the exchange. I hope it doesn't come to that, and it shouldn't. If Obamacare pitches that it renders Healthcare affordable then it shouldn't adversely affect established Healthcare that is already affordable. Until Obamacare stands the test of time, I don't think anyone can truly predict how it will affect the future affordability of Healthcare.

You should expect your plan premiums to go up and your copays along with deductibles. "Obamacare" is not about "price control" ... some employers may well phase out retirement insurance and opt for paying the penalty, which will be less expensive.

Several things are driving the "phasing out" of private insurance as we know it, one is the penalty is less than the cost of the annual premiums (which gives the incentive to opt out of covering employees); the agency regulations will increase the required coverage to a level that will drive up the cost to a prohibitive level (it's doing that now); employers are able to reduce the hours of employees to avoid compliance with the law; the use of medicare/medicade provider codes and provider payment levels in the "pool insurance coverage" will drive away the "better" providers and leave a group of providers who accept the lower income level status with a risk of inferior service and care; and some on here will soon discover that "the regulations" are shifting to REQUIRE home visits by carriers to "advise" insureds on how to live a healthier life and maintain a healthier home environment to lower the necessity of medical care (and thereby costs) for the carriers with the "home visit" data included in your "on line" medical record.

I can always buy cheaper tires for my vehicles. The question is do I want to "run on them."

You must remember that those who architect this grand scheme ...

..... want a one-horse program aka "one-payer" system with government coverage modeled after medicare/Medicaid from which .....

" the use of medicare/medicade provider codes and provider payment levels will drive away the "better" providers and leave a group of providers who accept the lower income level status with a risk of inferior service and care." It's happening right now .. left and right.

A problem is:

They (the architects) won't have the same coverage as the "peasants" .. you and me!

[Doove]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

some employers may well phase out retirement insurance and opt for paying the penalty, which will be less expensive.

Not providing insurance before there was a penalty was less expensive too. So why did they wait?

[Doove]

Originally Posted by acp5762

I kept my Healthcare coverage after I retired from a 25 year career....If Obamacare pitches that it renders Healthcare affordable then it shouldn't adversely affect established Healthcare that is already affordable.

Originally Posted by Doove

Affordable for who? You or your former employer?

Before you jump down my back, i may have misread your post.

[Jackie S]

[QUOTE
A problem is:

They (the architects) won't have the same coverage as the "peasants" .. you and me![/QUOTE]

That is one of the major complaints that most Americans have with The ACA.
The minute the law was passed, the Government started handing out waivers and opt outs.
The only way ObamaCare will work is if every single American is part of the program. The granting of waivers and opt outs only breeds a clinical attitude among many.

Enforce the law so every American is subject to both the positive and negative aspects of the Law.

If your employer already offered you a good health plan, then The ACA will not really affect you other than rise in your premiums.

But the premiums go up every year anyway.

[Guest123018-4]

Deductibles went way up, out of pocket went up, co-pays went up, some RX was removed from the covered list which delayed my getting some medicine I must have.
Two of my doctors "retired" because they did not want to work under Obamacare.

2014 elections are going t be interesting when Democrat incumbents fail to run on the fact they brought you Obamacare and the dumbass Republicans will not even attack them on it.
They will roll out along with their media lap dogs the same old tired "issues" like abortion, and the Repubs will take the bait and have their asses handed to them. In the end we will all be stuck with another entitlement that will ruin our economy, yes even worse than what Obama has already done, and we will be forced to continue to increase our debt. The inability to see the outcome of the actions of what is going on is astonishing. But I suppose when you are not footing the bill you just dont give a fuck.

Me, I am thinking more and more about getting on that gummit gravy train. I am sure there has to be somebody out there that would want my position but, then again, they would have to work. Oh well.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You should expect your plan premiums to go up and your copays along with deductibles. "Obamacare" is not about "price control" ... some employers may well phase out retirement insurance and opt for paying the penalty, which will be less expensive.

Several things are driving the "phasing out" of private insurance as we know it, one is the penalty is less than the cost of the annual premiums (which gives the incentive to opt out of covering employees); the agency regulations will increase the required coverage to a level that will drive up the cost to a prohibitive level (it's doing that now); employers are able to reduce the hours of employees to avoid compliance with the law; the use of medicare/medicade provider codes and provider payment levels in the "pool insurance coverage" will drive away the "better" providers and leave a group of providers who accept the lower income level status with a risk of inferior service and care; and some on here will soon discover that "the regulations" are shifting to REQUIRE home visits by carriers to "advise" insureds on how to live a healthier life and maintain a healthier home environment to lower the necessity of medical care (and thereby costs) for the carriers with the "home visit" data included in your "on line" medical record.

I can always buy cheaper tires for my vehicles. The question is do I want to "run on them."

You must remember that those who architect this grand scheme ...

..... want a one-horse program aka "one-payer" system with government coverage modeled after medicare/Medicaid from which .....

" the use of medicare/medicade provider codes and provider payment levels will drive away the "better" providers and leave a group of providers who accept the lower income level status with a risk of inferior service and care." It's happening right now .. left and right.

A problem is:

They (the architects) won't have the same coverage as the "peasants" .. you and me!

Obamacare is not about price control, is a true statement. It is about getting the self employed carpenter, plumbers, salesman, etc insured. These people are left out of the individual market pre - Obamacare. They don't work for a large company so they are left out of the Employer based GROUP rate market. In the individual market the health insurance provider picks and chooses who he will insure. If you have high blood sugar or high triglycerides (fat) you will be denied coverage. This is how the health insurance company limits their exposure to risk pre - Obamacare. Now with Obamacare the health insurance companies can't deny coverage to someone due to pre-existing conditions. The health insurance companies will have to take on more risk, when selling policies on the individual market(1-800-number) or when they sell policies on the government exchanges. Having to take on more risk, can or will drive up the prices for some plans. On the Obama exchanges there are a variety of options from cheap to expensive. A 50 year old can get a policy at Coventry Insurance for $50 per month with a $1,500 deductible. This would be better than having no insurance. You can also find a plan that has all the bells and whistles, that will cost more. It's true that congress is exempted from Obamacare and that should be changed. If the estimate from the CBO is correct and Obamacare insures an additional 20 million people, then the program would be a success. Not all companies are selling policies on the government exchanges, Atena and United HealthCare are not selling policies on the Obamacare exchanges, they prefer to not expose themselves to taking on high risk clients who have pre-existing conditions. They are still selling insurance through the employer based group plans. It's true that those on the far left want a single payer system like Canada or Great Britain, but congress put into law a system that is more like Romeycare for Mass and the health insurance companies are still the focal point of how people are insured and claims will be paid out.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Obamacare is not about price control, is a true statement. It is about getting the self employed carpenter, plumbers, salesman, etc insured. These people are left out of the individual market pre - Obamacare. They don't work for a large company so they are left out of the Employer based GROUP rate market. In the individual market the health insurance provider picks and chooses who he will insure. If you have high blood sugar or high triglycerides (fat) you will be denied coverage. This is how the health insurance company limits their exposure to risk pre - Obamacare. Now with Obamacare the health insurance companies can't deny coverage to someone due to pre-existing conditions. The health insurance companies will have to take on more risk, when selling policies on the individual market(1-800-number) or when they sell policies on the government exchanges. Having to take on more risk, can or will drive up the prices for some plans. On the Obama exchanges there are a variety of options from cheap to expensive. A 50 year old can get a policy at Coventry Insurance for $50 per month with a $1,500 deductible. This would be better than having no insurance. You can also find a plan that has all the bells and whistles, that will cost more. It's true that congress is exempted from Obamacare and that should be changed. If the estimate from the CBO is correct and Obamacare insures an additional 20 million people, then the program would be a success. Not all companies are selling policies on the government exchanges, Atena and United HealthCare are not selling policies on the Obamacare exchanges, they prefer to not expose themselves to taking on high risk clients who have pre-existing conditions. They are still selling insurance through the employer based group plans. It's true that those on the far left want a single payer system like Canada or Great Britain, but congress put into law a system that is more like Romeycare for Mass and the health insurance companies are still the focal point of how people are insured and claims will be paid out.

Can you, in a cogent manner, possibly explain how obligating American taxpayers to cover the costs of incidental hospital visits, pre-Odumbocare, by the occassional uninsured patient differs significantly from mandating that American taxpayers cover the costs of perpetual, annual Odumbocare subsidies for every uninsured citizen?

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Obamacare is not about price control, is a true statement. It is about getting the self employed carpenter, plumbers, salesman, etc insured. These people are left out of the individual market pre - Obamacare. They don't work for a large company so they are left out of the Employer based GROUP rate market. In the individual market the health insurance provider picks and chooses who he will insure. If you have high blood sugar or high triglycerides (fat) you will be denied coverage. This is how the health insurance company limits their exposure to risk pre - Obamacare. Now with Obamacare the health insurance companies can't deny coverage to someone due to pre-existing conditions. The health insurance companies will have to take on more risk, when selling policies on the individual market(1-800-number) or when they sell policies on the government exchanges. Having to take on more risk, can or will drive up the prices for some plans. On the Obama exchanges there are a variety of options from cheap to expensive. A 50 year old can get a policy at Coventry Insurance for $50 per month with a $1,500 deductible. This would be better than having no insurance. You can also find a plan that has all the bells and whistles, that will cost more. It's true that congress is exempted from Obamacare and that should be changed. If the estimate from the CBO is correct and Obamacare insures an additional 20 million people, then the program would be a success. Not all companies are selling policies on the government exchanges, Atena and United HealthCare are not selling policies on the Obamacare exchanges, they prefer to not expose themselves to taking on high risk clients who have pre-existing conditions. They are still selling insurance through the employer based group plans. It's true that those on the far left want a single payer system like Canada or Great Britain, but congress put into law a system that is more like Romeycare for Mass and the health insurance companies are still the focal point of how people are insured and claims will be paid out.

donk

[Whirlaway]

If you have an individual plan, you have no choice but to purchase new insurance under the requirements of Obamacare; you do not have to go through the exchange, but your current plan will be required to meet the requirements of the ACA. Which means higher premiums for most.

Is your coverage currently through some group plan ?

Originally Posted by acp5762

I kept my Healthcare coverage after I retired from a 25 year career. My Co-Payments are relatively low for instance, the Co-Payment for annual check ups is only 25.00 and Rx are only a few dollars. Iam very reluctant to even think about exploring the Exchange site. I have heard people talk about concerns that employer based plans may go up so high that employees may have no choice but to go through the exchange. I hope it doesn't come to that, and it shouldn't. If Obamacare pitches that it renders Healthcare affordable then it shouldn't adversely affect established Healthcare that is already affordable. Until Obamacare stands the test of time, I don't think anyone can truly predict how it will affect the future affordability of Healthcare.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Doove

Not providing insurance before there was a penalty was less expensive too. So why did they wait?

Because Obaminable announced an intention to extend the implementation of the penalty AND

because there IS NO CONFIRMATION BY CARRIERS as to what the premiums will be!

As for #1: the same happens every time Congress members begin talking about eliminating the 2nd house mortgage deduction .... "vacation home" sales plummet and a glut of vacation home hit the market ... then the don't do it!!!!!

As for #2, see #1........what is it going to cost me next year?

While he is playing politics to help out his friends .. employers and employees get fucked.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Obamacare is not about price control, is a true statement. It is about getting the self employed carpenter, plumbers, salesman, etc insured. These people are left out of the individual market pre - Obamacare.

What difference does it make if they cannot afford to pay for care up to their HIGH deductible and they can't pay the premiums they are ultimately charged by the CARRIERS?

And what does it matter if they can't find a provider to take their benefits from their policy that will give them the quality of care they need to CURE their PRE-EXISTING CONDITION or any other CONDITION that develops after they get their anemic coverage for the "reduced premium" they pay?

If government doesn't control the premiums but REQUIRES CERTAIN COVERAGE ...

............ who pays the shortfall? So we 'BAIL OUT" health insurance companies?

This is a train wreck in the making. See you in a year! Hopefully everyone will be truthful.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

If you have an individual plan, you have no choice but to purchase new insurance under the requirements of Obamacare; you do not have to go through the exchange, but your current plan will be required to meet the requirements of the ACA. Which means higher premiums for most.

What you just wrote is not true as to "higher premiums" ... what is actually happening (I stress HAPPENING as in not completed) .... carriers' underwriters are evaluating the REQUIREMENTS MANDATED for policies and adjusting other variables and services offered in policies previously plus RENEGOTIATING contracts with providers on a take it or leave it basis ... just like medicare and medicaid "friendly" providers .. at the "end of the day" they will adjust coverages to maintain premium levels or drop premium levels and/or raise copays and deductibles to do the same and keep providers contracted. If you talk to providers personally, not pundits on TV, you will hear nothing, but when one talks to the billing department on medicare and Medicaid you will hear about the "coding" games going on and as of mid-September the CARRIERS and PROVIDERS still didn't have a completed CODING MANUAL with which to review coverage and rates ... and they weren't to get any until years end ....

that was BEFORE the shutdown!!!

You will have less coverage, higher copays, and higher deductibles OR higher premiums.

The numb-brains can't even set up a "sign up" cite ... they can't set up a billing system!

"The King Who Wore No Clothes" ....

Here is a quote from a link in the link touted by FLIGHTY-FLIGHT KNOW IT ALL:

"
9. “You might not be able to keep your doctor.”
When the health law was being debated in Congress in 2009 and 2010, President Obama said that people buying insurance through exchanges would be able to keep their doctor. It turns out, though, that many plans strictly limit the network of doctors they pay for. Consumers can try to stay on their same plan or look for one that covers their doctor, but this might not be possible in some marketplaces, especially if their current insurer is not participating there. (Many uninsured people, of course, will be able to see a doctor for the first time as they gain health coverage.)

“The narrow-network plans are kind of the name of the game in health exchanges,” Melville says. An analysis of exchange plans in 13 states by McKinsey & Co. found that nearly half of them had limited networks. Some people who currently have individual insurance and stick with their current policy may find that it becomes more restrictive after the insurer enters the exchange. Wellpoint’s Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield has been criticized by state senators and consumers in New Hampshire, Indiana and Maine for excluding major hospitals from coverage, but a spokesman says the “narrower network” products, available on exchanges in 14 states, meet or exceed the ACA’s standards for “convenient access,” while also being affordable. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services official Gary Cohen says that many insurers are taking this tack because the limited-network plans can lower costs — and are a “positive development” for health care."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-thi...122450204.html

The "positive development" ...

................. reduce your treatment options!!!!!