• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ACA Running Thread

Definitely wrong to lie about it. They should have explained which policies were grandfathered in. That would have been fairly simple.

In the grand scheme of things, it's one of many lies from all sides about ACA. Instead of working together to make health care work, one side is lying to sabotage it and the other is lying to protect their asses.

Republicans can't take the moral high road on this one. They've told plenty of lies themselves.

Good post
 
One thing Im reading a lot about is small groups moving to self insured status, say groups of 15 or 20+. Typically, self funding is only available to groups of 100 or even 500+. But, healthy small groups can buy non compliant plans (thanks ERISA), self fund them and buy stop loss to protect against big or unexpected claims. They will save by covering less benefits and self insuring. Makes a lot of sense. expect it will increase small group underwritten rates.

I think this topic will get a lot of coverage over the next 6 months and regulators will try to pass new rules like CA did on stop loss.

Im geeking out here a little but I think its really interesting to see how rational actors respond.

If I remember correctly Hillarycare forbid self insurance and that was one of the reasons it failed.
 
It's more like being charged for flood insurance when you live in Tucson, AZ.

Apologies if I'm reading this wrong, but Tucson Arizona floods horribly all the damn time. It's so dry that when it rains it doesn't sink into the ground and the stupid little water runoff ditches they have only handle the small cases.
 
A catastrophic policy when you're 24 and strong as an ox isn't crappy, it's the one you need.

That is true. At the same time, the whole concept of ACA is forcing young healthy people with money to buy more health insurance than they need (or think they need). That's the only way to get the pool big enough for the insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions and so forth - at least, according to the insurance company lobbyists who helped write large portions of the bill. The only other way to do it would be to have the government directly subsidizing the insurance companies against the free-rider problem of guaranteed issue.

Since that is the underlying concept of the law, it stands to reason that people can't be allowed to get around the law by buying super-cheap insurance policies that amount to nothing more than prepaid doctor visits, don't cover cancer, etc. That wasn't the story the Democrats told when they passed the law, though.
 
The idea that anybody knows for certain the exact insurance they'll need assumes one has a crystal ball.
 
The idea that anybody knows for certain the exact insurance they'll need assumes one has a crystal ball.

Ah, so we should be insured for every possible thing that can happen, just in case.

The hubris of our government telling people that the insurance they were happy with isn't good enough amuses me to no end. Forcing people to buy a more expensive insurance plan and telling them it's for their own good reeks of arrogance and nanny-statism. You, the individual consumer, don't really know what's good for you. We'll make that choice for you.
 
That's pretty much the philosophy many people have about insurance.

Think of the insurance plans as being recalled and taken off the shelves.
 
Your recall analogy is nonsense.

If Toyota recalls my perfectly reliable and affordable 2000 4Runner, I'm not forced by the law to go and purchase a 2014 Toyota 4Runner with a bunch of fancy feaures that I don't want, and in many cases don't need.
 
4Runners are sweet rides. I think I'm going to get one once I shed a daycare payment in 18 months.
 
Your recall analogy is nonsense.

If Toyota recalls my perfectly reliable and affordable 2000 4Runner, I'm not forced by the law to go and purchase a 2014 Toyota 4Runner with a bunch of fancy feaures that I don't want, and in many cases don't need.

You may think it's reliable and affordable, but there's a small defect that has caused a small explosion in the engine in 10 2000 4Runners across the country. Is "if you like your 4Runner, you can keep it" a good strategy?
 
You may think it's reliable and affordable, but there's a small defect that has caused a small explosion in the engine in 10 2000 4Runners across the country. Is "if you like your 4Runner, you can keep it" a good strategy?

That doesn't address the second part of the post...
 
That is true. At the same time, the whole concept of ACA is forcing young healthy people with money to buy more health insurance than they need (or think they need). That's the only way to get the pool big enough for the insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions and so forth - at least, according to the insurance company lobbyists who helped write large portions of the bill. The only other way to do it would be to have the government directly subsidizing the insurance companies against the free-rider problem of guaranteed issue.

Since that is the underlying concept of the law, it stands to reason that people can't be allowed to get around the law by buying super-cheap insurance policies that amount to nothing more than prepaid doctor visits, don't cover cancer, etc. That wasn't the story the Democrats told when they passed the law, though.

I dont think pooling is terribly impacted by these higher cost share plans. Id rather have people in the pool with a $10k deductible than not in the pool at all.

One of the biggest myths right now is that these cancelled policies were all garbage. Most were perfectly good in what they covered (cancer, etc)/ They just didn't over them at a high enough level, per the gov't.
 
You may think it's reliable and affordable, but there's a small defect that has caused a small explosion in the engine in 10 2000 4Runners across the country. Is "if you like your 4Runner, you can keep it" a good strategy?

With a recall, the gov't didn't come and cancel your tags/insurance and take your car and then threaten you with a fine you for not having a "sanctioned" car. And I'm not so sure these policies are as bad as some think. Many of them are quite good. Do you know a plan that covers everything for a $1 copay wouldn't be a compliant plan?

If insurers weren't forced to cancel these plans, customers could choose to keep their plan OR buy the new (improved?) plans if they wanted...
 
If insurers weren't forced to cancel these plans, customers could choose to keep their plan OR buy the new (improved?) plans if they wanted...

Fancy that...letting consumers determine what kind of product they wish to purchase.
 
I dont think pooling is terribly impacted by these higher cost share plans. Id rather have people in the pool with a $10k deductible than not in the pool at all.

One of the biggest myths right now is that these cancelled policies were all garbage. Most were perfectly good in what they covered (cancer, etc)/ They just didn't over them at a high enough level, per the gov't.

If it turns out to be true that increasing the pool with these plans doesn't enable insurers to attract enough healthy young people to make the whole thing work then that will mean the law's underlying purpose is completely flawed. If they don't get the enrollment numbers up by the end of the year that will be a good sign that it isn't working.

The bigger point is that having the government mucking around in something as complicated as the private insurance market in such an incredibly detailed way was doomed to be a cluster from the beginning. The law of unintended consequences, writ large.
 
Ah, so we should be insured for every possible thing that can happen, just in case.

The hubris of our government telling people that the insurance they were happy with isn't good enough amuses me to no end. Forcing people to buy a more expensive insurance plan and telling them it's for their own good reeks of arrogance and nanny-statism. You, the individual consumer, don't really know what's good for you. We'll make that choice for you.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
 
I don't spend too much time on here or discussing politics in general because it makes me sad and I hate being sad, but are people now justifying the cancellation of policies because the gov't is correct in deeming them inadequate, even though people were told they could keep them? I thought this would be a universal wtf moment?
 
Back
Top