Skip to main content

View Diary: No 'rate shock' for Obamacare in California (204 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Actually, what this comes down to is . . . (6+ / 0-)

    Two groups make out very well under the ACA (aside from the insurance industry--that's a given).

    1.  Government--Local, state and federal, because the 'onus' to have health insurance [via the 'mandate,'] is put on the individual.


    2.  Those folks who have substantial income, and could have afforded to buy health care insurance, except that they were 'uninsurable' due to pre-exisiting conditions.  A sub-group of that group would be the relatively affluent who were just barely 'rated out of the market' (costs).

    IOW, now that the risks and the costs are spread, this group's health insurance expenses are falling--in some instances, dramatically.

    OTOH, folks in what was once the least expensive health insurance market--employer 'group' health insurance--have seen, and will continue to see increases in their premiums.  

    And some of these same folks will lose coverage through their employers, altogether.  And many of them will find that equivalent insurance plans through the Health Exchange are considerably more costly, than their previous group plans.

    That pretty much sums it up, IMO.


    "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


    by musiccitymollie on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:54:53 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Nope, nope and nope (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      You're making assumptions without much fact to back up those assumption.  Read up on MA and what actually happened with Romneycare.  There was no mass exodus from employer plans.  Rates ended up going down while benefits increased in many employer plans to keep and attract new employees.

      Congressional elections have consequences!

      by Cordyc on Sat May 25, 2013 at 09:26:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Respectfully, we'll have to agree to disagree (0+ / 0-)

        on this one. ;-)

        The PPACA may be similar, in that the Heritage Foundation 'created the concept,' but the 'scale' is vastly different--not to mention the fact that many areas of the country have far different demographics.  

        Hence, likely a considerably different outcome.

        BTW, Massachusetts had one of the 'lowest' rates of ''uninsureds' in the nation BEFORE the MassConnnector was setup--Google It!

        I have watched C-Span daily for over twenty years now.  Including every Governor's Association annual meeting, or convention.  

        Shifting health care 'off the states, and into the individual,' has been one of their primary goals for years.

        Same with the 'small business' lobbies.  They have long sought to have access to a larger 'pool' of insureds, in order to bring their own premiums more in line with 'group' premiums.

        Remember, the PPACA puts the 'onus' on the individual to carry health insurance.

        So, the days of employers and 'governments' bearing the 'primary responsibility' for insuring Americans, is over.

        For sure, health care reform did not happen in a vacuum.  ;-)


        "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


        by musiccitymollie on Sat May 25, 2013 at 11:53:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, regarding employers 'shedding' their health (0+ / 0-)

          insurance plans--time will tell.

          Mr. M and I were told during last year's health insurance 'open enrollment' that because of the PPACA, we would probably not be covered by his company after this year.

          Now--we haven't gotten the final word.  I'm 'guessing' that this year, instead of a November Open Enrollment Period, that they will let us hear something by September, IF they follow through.

          Hopefully, they will not.  As bad as our coverage has gotten, from what I've read, coverage through his employer would be more affordable, at least.

          But, that is somewhat an unknown.

          We are in a state that is not setting up an exchange, or providing extended Medicaid, (which we would not qualify for, anyway).

          We also would not qualify for a subsidy--another reason that we hope to keep our 'lousy' group plan.

          Our out-of-pocket maximum expense that we are responsible for AFTER our plan deductible, more than doubled for 2013.

          It is just over $20,000 (that's above and beyond our premiums, and our annual 'deductible'), IF we go out-of-network for even $1.00.

          Can you imagine?

          And, this year we had 'no choice' in plans.  Even though  for years, we have had a choice between three different levels of coverage.  

          And yes, this one is not as comprehensive.  Because we had enjoyed good health, we took the 'mid-level' one.  The only one they now offer, is the least comprehensive plan.

          And all of this is after several years of double-digit premium increases.

          I hope that employers don't drop a lot of folks.  But if Mr M's employer would even consider it, it is hard not to imagine that other large employers won't, as well.


          "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


          by musiccitymollie on Sun May 26, 2013 at 12:11:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (182)
  • Community (72)
  • Civil Rights (51)
  • Baltimore (44)
  • Elections (41)
  • Bernie Sanders (38)
  • Culture (38)
  • 2016 (34)
  • Economy (34)
  • Texas (32)
  • Law (31)
  • Labor (29)
  • Hillary Clinton (28)
  • Environment (27)
  • Rescued (23)
  • Education (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Politics (21)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Freddie Gray (21)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site