ObamaCare 2018 Open Enrollment Runs from 11.1.2017 thru 12.15.2017 - News You Can Use.

a reply to: carewemust

If you think laughing out loud and tossing the letter in the trash can is an emotional breakdown, put it in my medical chart. Otherwise, I’ll just continue to get kicked in the teeth for another 7 weeks and play around with policies not artificially inflated by the exchange. Maybe I’ll nip the Heavenly/South Lake Tahoe trip in the bud and self-insure for a year — mitigate my exposure to high-risk activities. Who knows. Just doesn’t add up.

Maybe one day per capita health expenditures will decrease, but one thing I’m certain of is that my cohort of individuals is the one that has the least ‘exposure’. Guess when I have that emotional breakdown you speak of I’ll properly lay the blame at the feet of Obama. Until then, I’ll continue to look at it for the absurdness it is and laugh about it in telling my story.

a reply to: BeefNoMeat

First of all, thank you for the complements. I don't feel "swiped at" in any way. I maintain that it really needs to be a better system all together but the ACA was a huge step forward in patient protection, especially for people who are sick or have sick children.

I am grateful that we have ANY option. Prior to the ACA, we were paying (on limited income) $1200+ per month for our family, and each year it went up by a minimum of $200. ETA - This was in addition to thousands of dollars in deductibles - we tend to max that out every year for one of our kids. They were trying to price us out of the market, at which point we would have been screwed. When you have a child with a complex medical issue and no choice but to have insurance or not get care, you are between a rock and a hard place, too.

There are always winners and losers whenever any kind of big policy change happens. I would like to see way more "winners" and the "losers" have minimal impact, but that's just me. We make it VERY hard on ourselves in this country in ways we don't understand.

I went to Germany as a youth, got a serious allergic reaction, and a doctor drove to our tour bus, treated me with an IV on board as well as gave me a weeks worth of medicine, and when I tried to pay him he said "No need, the State pays me." Needless to say that made a huge impression. I am grateful to the German people for that one! Here in America, by today's standards, it would have been a minimum of $500 to be seen at an ER without insurance.

I also had cancer as a very young woman and was then not eligible for insurance on my own for TEN YEARS after remission (my father, back in the good old days, was able to work it out with his company to keep me on until remission). It was an automatic refusal. When I got a job with insurance, it excluded anything to do with cancer or follow-up exams or anything. Then I lost that job due to an investor dying (I had been hired for an expansion that didn't happen), and I was back to nothing. Good times.

A severe twisted ankle that might have been a break was $750 for an ER visit just to have them tell me "it ain't broke and there's nothing we can do, go home."

There were tons of really bad things about how it used to be. We should, in my opinion, build off of the idea that we deserve to be able to care for ourselves. I'm not even talking "free ride" here, but that the cost for being able to obtain medical treatment for emergency or illness needs to be actually made affordable.

I don't think Trump and the Republicans had the answers, certainly not for sick people.

Thanks again, and I appreciate the reply. I really want fairness for all people, and I truly understand your circumstances are causing you distress, and have in the past as well.

a reply to: AboveBoard

It's wonderful you can have coverage.....and at a better rate than before unACA.

But there are millions like me who have to pay big premiums and get NO coverage, except for a physical and a few things unACA throws in as preventative.....until I shell out about $7000....which I do NOT have.
If I break my arm, I am screwed.
If I get pneumonia, same thing.
And no drug coverage until that magic deductible is paid.

I had good insurance before unACA...and BCBS has no pre-existing BS to worry about.
Then my employer threw us under the bus to save $$$.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

I totally hear what you are saying!! That needs to be fixed, and I believe there are ways to do that, but it requires cooperation and compromise in Congress and a deep evaluation of medical costs...which basically means its currently impossible.

I'm sorry you are going through this and if I could change it I would. In our case, our boy would be over the old "maximum life expenditure" limit very soon, and it might prevent him from getting needed surgery, which means death (and I'm not exaggerating this). We are one of those families that "chose life" instead of abortion because our doctors were confident that the surgeries and treatments were available to give him a strong chance at life -- should we have chosen abortion due to medical costs??? (That thought makes me sick to my stomach)

I'm not asking this to you as any kind of attack - I'm just throwing my hands up in the air and wondering what we were supposed to do? Then came the ACA which protected my son from having to worry about wether or not we would "max out." It was like a miracle.

We faced harsh financial hardship prior to the ACA. I don't want to go into details but I can tell you there was a point where the ship was going down and the efforts at bailing were not keeping up with the oncoming water at all. In addition to trying to keep our kid alive, we had creditors turning into wolves at the door.

The ACA isn't perfect, it totally sucks for some people and families, and it can cause financial stress just in the monthly payments and deductibles. My heart goes out to you and everyone that is suffering in that way -- it certainly isn't as affordable as we all hoped it would be. Some of that has to do with how the ACA is structured and some has to do with sabotage of the markets by political shenanigans and some has to do with the astronomical costs of health care in America. Regardless, it isn't fair.

I don't care if they keep the ACA IF that leads to better outcomes for everyone, my family and yours. Unfortunately that hasn't happened, and what was offered to "replace" it was simply not good. I keep thinking we can do better than this!

Peace to you,

a reply to: AboveBoard

You are certainly among those who see unACA as a godsend....
Seems that families like yours benefit greatly....and that is a good thing.

But it should not have happened that so many more are now basically without.
Who know face tragedies because care is beyond their financial reach.

And, TBH.....I see no good happening as long as lobbyists from Insurance Companies, MSMedicine and Big Pharma....and lawyers...are getting theirs.

And single payer will not work either UNTIL costs are brought under control.....because of those I mentioned above.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe


"Single Payer" would bring costs down, just like Medicaid, Medicare, and the V.A. have done. But that would lead to problems with getting the best medical care, along with a wait-time for serious illness treatment that's longer than what Americans are used to.

The best option is to have Medicare for anyone who wants to buy into it, and private insurance for those who do not. The poor would get Medicaid for free.

a reply to: carewemust

That might be a great solution.

It wasn't what was offered as "repeal and replace" or I would have been much more on board, assuming coverage was appropriate.

a reply to: carewemust

The only way that could work is to either have a second Medicare for those under 65.....or to have those under 65 pay higher premiums...and also have them based on income.

If current Medicare is $100.00, then it should be , $200-300. for non -retirees!


And of course supplement so would be available😀

a reply to: AboveBoard

No doubt, everyone has a story. Thanks for your's. It's funny you mentioned Germany and your experience as a kid, several weeks back (maybe a couple months ago) I caught the Joe Rogen Experience podcast and he had a couple dude-bros from the UFC on. One of them was a UFC champion in his weight class (Cody Gambrandt at bantamweight, if that means anything to you) and he is telling his story of going over to Germany and getting this 'crazy, non-FDA approved stem cell sh#t' (paraphrasing but it was really close -- I don't know what therapy/treatment it was other than high-end, well-compensated athletes seek it out). I didn't think much of it at the time, but after reading your anecdote I reflected on it. You can have high-end specialized medicine that isn't 'priced out of the market' with a socialized medicine policy dynamic -- you just have to pay for it. You can have scarce, high-end specialized medicine/healthcare with single-payer, err, socialized medicine.

They should've went 'whole hog' when it was possible. I'd bet my next premium that -- 7 years in --the cost curve would be well on its way to bending. Heck, I'll channel my bleeding-heart and dare say per capita expenditures would be lower and increasingly, decreasing going forward the next several years. There is no good explanation as to why the American per capita health expenditures are over 2.5 times that of the UK's. Really there isn't. Overall health outcomes aren't better -- by any quantatively appreciated measure, ya know like, life expectancy, for one (US has the 12th lowest life expectancy out of the 12th most industrialized nations. Doh!). Link to info in above paragraph

At any rate, there are definite 'winners' and 'losers' in any major publicy policy iniative. I know a 'winner' who had ovarian cancer at 29/30 and she had just began coverage under the ACA after her divorce, when she found out something had popped up. Without those patient protections, she would have never had the money to afford actuarily fair insurance and she would have been in a really grim spot.

The intent was good, but the system was defined to fail. You can't create a moral hazard (artificially deflate prices for the sick, old, basically anyone that would be incentivized to use more healthcare than they could afford in a competitive market) and on top of that have systemic problems of asymmetric information (insurances companies have information that can manipulate the market, or price that information into the policies [I can't go hunt down the man who's COPD treatments I'm subsidizing and we somehow work out a way to split the cost] because the transaction costs of individuals calling them out on it is prohibitively high). A system, from the very start, that contains both a significant moral harzard and is plagued with asymmetric information will lead to the most inefficient outcomes. That's what we have now, unfornately.

Once again I'll be uninsured. Make too much for Medicaid but too little to afford the 370 to 581 a month they demand. I make 10 an hour. Ugh.

Being definitely under the 100% FPL level and qualified for no deductible/no payment should I help you working saps by doing my utmost to help collapse this monstrosity by enrollment and the free ride I'll get? Even though that ride may be short indeed.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: carewemust

That might be a great solution.

It wasn't what was offered as "repeal and replace" or I would have been much more on board, assuming coverage was appropriate.

Repeal-Replace had some strong points, but it would have been pure hell to implement. Essentially, ObamaCare would have been handed off to each state, along with Billions of Dollars, for them to choose how to spend it.

A smaller version of this was trialed in 2013, in 23 pilot states. (The Liberal Dems in D.C. demanded this as a trial for "single-payer") The initiative was called "Government Directed Consumer Cooperatives". As of today, only 2 are left. Due to mismanagement, the rest burned through Uncle Sam's cash, and shut down over a 4 year period.

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: carewemust

The only way that could work is to either have a second Medicare for those under 65.....or to have those under 65 pay higher premiums...and also have them based on income.

If current Medicare is $100.00, then it should be , $200-300. for non -retirees!


And of course supplement so would be available😀

Right...it wouldn't be cheap. If the U.S. government didn't subsidize the Medicare program for those who have enough "work credits", a 65 year-old retiree would pay $470 @ month to be on Medicare. And Medicare itself has some huge holes. For example, you have to pay 20% of all Doctor services..with no upper limit. Get a $100K heart bypass, you pay $20,000. No Prescription, Vision, Dental coverage either.

That's why on the face of it, Bernie Sander's plan is very VERY appealing from a consumer's standpoint. $0 Deductible...Prescription Coverage...Dental...Vision!! But at $3 Trillion a year for starters, the tax increases would be horrific...unless corporations were forced re-direct the $$$ they used to pay for employee health insurance, to the U.S. Treasury, to support BernieCare. Then, consumer taxes would only have to increase by $2,000 a year.

I really would like to see President Trump propose this. He's been speaking highly of countries with Universal Healthcare for decades.

originally posted by: sarra1833
Once again I'll be uninsured. Make too much for Medicaid but too little to afford the 370 to 581 a month they demand. I make 10 an hour. Ugh.

From your Avatar, it looks like you're in Indiana? Indiana expanded MEDICAID. If your income is less than $17,000 a year, you can enroll for $1 to $28 a month. See this article: khn.org...

NO SURPRISE...but since Wednesday, a key OBAMACARE enrollment platform has been on the blink!

But the U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS) says, "We're working on it. Thanks for your patience! Oh..by the way, the entire Healthcare.gov website will be down for Saturday night and half of Sunday. Have a good day!"

originally posted by: carewemust
Then, consumer taxes would only have to increase by $2,000 a year.

I really would like to see President Trump propose this. He's been speaking highly of countries with Universal Healthcare for decades.

Only????
ONLY????

And, BTW.....no thank you if it would be just one damn big HMO. They are just a waste of time if you already have specialists you go to.

What would that do to folks on medicaid and medicare?
What would happen is you only make $30,000 or less a year? Or if you are retired?

originally posted by: carewemust
NO SURPRISE...but since Wednesday, a key OBAMACARE enrollment platform has been on the blink!

But the U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS) says, "We're working on it. Thanks for your patience! Oh..by the way, the entire Healthcare.gov website will be down for Saturday night and half of Sunday. Have a good day!"

Leftover saboteurs is my guess.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Bumping this thread to relay another famous, 9 figure professional athlete’s quest for world-class medicine: Andrew Luck, widely considered (at least up until 2 years ago — without a doubt) to be the next, best NFL QB, is seeking specialized treatment in Europe for his 9 figure shoulder. The nonsense about long waits, rationed medical services and any of the talking points’s usual suspects regarding socialized medicine is unfettered, undukterated parisan politics. If you can pay for it (that’s the beauty of free markets), you can receive the same, if not better, specialized medicine under a paradigm of socialized medicine.

Luck seeks treatment in Europe

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe

originally posted by: carewemust
Then, consumer taxes would only have to increase by $2,000 a year.

I really would like to see President Trump propose this. He's been speaking highly of countries with Universal Healthcare for decades.

Only????
ONLY????

And, BTW.....no thank you if it would be just one damn big HMO. They are just a waste of time if you already have specialists you go to.

What would that do to folks on medicaid and medicare?
What would happen is you only make $30,000 or less a year? Or if you are retired?

A whole lot of people would gladly trade their $10,000 a year health insurance premiums for $2,000 a year in additional taxes.

If you make less than $30,000 a year, or are retired, you can be a subsidized version, or on Medicare. Most retirees are on Medicare. Universal Healthcare doesn't HAVE to get rid of the safety-net and Senior Citizen healthcare we have now.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: carewemust
NO SURPRISE...but since Wednesday, a key OBAMACARE enrollment platform has been on the blink!

But the U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS) says, "We're working on it. Thanks for your patience! Oh..by the way, the entire Healthcare.gov website will be down for Saturday night and half of Sunday. Have a good day!"

Leftover saboteurs is my guess.

That platform, known as the WBE enrollment system, finally came online Friday. 10 days after Open Enrollment began.