Pages

Jump to bottom

3 comments

1 Joanne  Wed, Oct 30, 2013 8:21:31am
What’s important to understand about this trilemma is that it means, roughly, that every change has winners and losers. Put bluntly, the Affordable Care Act’s changes are raising insurance premiums for some people who did well under the old system and lowering them for many of the people who were locked out or discriminated against.

A good example of the tradeoffs is the case of Dianne Barrette, a 56-year-old Florida woman who’s been featured in the media because her current plan will cost 10 times more under Obamacare. As Erik Wemple discovered, her old plan was health insurance in name only. It didn’t cover inpatient hospital care, it didn’t cover ambulance services, and so forth. Under Obamacare, all plans have to cover those benefits. So Barrette’s old plan was extremely affordable — $56 a month — because it covered basically nothing. Her new plan is much more expensive but also much more generous.

But it’s not all zero sum. The law pumps a trillion dollars of subsidies into the market to help people making less than 400 percent of the poverty line — which is $94,200 for a family of four — afford insurance. So now the actual premiums people are paying exist on a continuum, with some people seeing premiums increases and some people paying literally nothing at all
—-
The final factor here is increased transparency and competition among insurers — which should bring down premiums over time. Spiro and Gruber credit competition for Obamacare’s lower-than-expected premiums. We’ll see if it sticks.

So the bottom line is that Obamacare makes insurance more accessible and more comprehensive, which raises average premiums, but it adds subsidies and competitive markets, which lower premiums. Whether premiums are higher or lower for an individual person depends on their precise situation. But premiums are, in general, lower than was expected when Obamacare passed.

I used to have one of those plans…when I lost my job I was rejected for an individual policy due to preexisting conditions (allergies). I then went to a policy that was 6 months in length (and cost $331 monthly). It had decent coverage, but after the initial 6 months, anything previously covered was considered preexisting and would no longer be covered. So…had I been in an accident during the first 6 months and been hurt badly, it would have covered expenses for that initial 6 month period only. And I would have had to pay for anything thereafter at 100%. I cancelled that policy after the initial 6 months. I went for 8 months without insurance. It was one of the scariest things in my life.

The other really disgusting thing I discovered in my 8 months of not having insurance is that everything costs more. You pay full, non-negotiated rates for doctor visits, medicine, etc. I have one allergy drug that costs $130 per month (the non-negotiated cost)…a drug that cost $50 as a copay when I was insured and cost $26 in Canada (as a foreigner, as I discovered after going to Canada, when I was still working, and realized that I had left that medicine at home.)

When you have no insurance you are screwed over every which way to Sunday.

Unless you have a ton of money, catastrophic policies are a waste of money. No one expects to get cancer or be in a major automobile accident. And with those types of policies, you’re mostly left holding the bag. And that would be a very heavy bag indeed.

2 Political Atheist  Wed, Oct 30, 2013 9:16:53am

re: #1 Joanne

And that is a great way to show why it was important not to over promise compatibility.

If you dig into the regulations (go to page 34560), you will see that HHS wrote them extremely tight. One provision says that if copayment increases by more than $5, plus medical cost of inflation, then the plan can no longer be grandfathered. (With last year’s inflation rate of 4 percent, that means the copay could not increase by more than $5.20.) Another provision says the coinsurance rate could not be increased at all above the level it was on March 23, 2010.

While one might applaud an effort to rid the country of inadequate insurance, the net effect is that over time, the plans would no longer meet the many tests for staying grandfathered. Already, the percentage of people who get coverage from their job via a grandfathered plan has dropped from 56 percent in 2011 to 36 percent in 2013.
washingtonpost.com

3 ausador  Wed, Oct 30, 2013 10:13:23am

Ezra Klein certainly does have a few very dedicated GOP trolls who are utterly dominating his comment section. :(


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Harper’s Magazine: Slippery Slope - How Private Equity Shapes a Ski Town …Big Sky stands apart for other reasons. The obvious distinction is the Yellowstone Club, a private resort hidden in the mountains above the community that Justin Farrell, a professor of sociology at Yale and the author of Billionaire Wilderness, ...
teleskiguy
Yesterday
Views: 152 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0