Progressives tout California Health care "success"

[B-Large]

People will not "be able to keep their doctor if they choose". They will be able to keep their doctor if their doctor a) decides to continue practicing in a compensation environment which is much less attractive, b) if their doctor allows for self-insurance payment, c) if they can afford to self-insure in addition to having to pay premiums which in many cases are doubling, d) their doctor is willing to work outside of ridgid ACO bonus payment guidelines.

 

People will not be able to "convince their employeer to keep their current plan", as every major health plan offered today by every major employer becomes a Cadillac plan under the projected premium increases, as the metric doesn't scale. In response to this virtually every major provider and every HR department in the country has made major changes to their offerings and coverages beginning in 2014. "The health insurance you currently have" has been cost-legislated out of the market. I've seen this happen from the inside out. If you don't belive me, I'm more than happy to tell you I told you so.

 

The Health Insurance industry, like very other industry, must opperate within the legislative environment in lives in. You can't blame the 7' tall man for hunching over when you put him in a room with 5' ceilings.

 

What Doctor will not take a credit card payment for more than what his charges will be reimbursed by insurers? That's like saying I know I will only get $1.00 from United Healthcare, but hey cash payor, I will not take your $1.35 based on principle? I run oversee cash programs at the hospital, all the who's who in town pay in cash for things that are outside of their insurance, they have been doign it for 10 years and I am sure before I came on the scene

 

There have been no discussion of any divergence of plans we have offered in the past at the hospital... I sit on Kitchen Cabinet meetings (C-Level Meetings) each month and never has there been paranoia about health plan options like you cite... nor have I found estimes on the Colorado Exchanges to be all cadillac plans, or some kind of ruse on the consumer... they seem to me to be cat plans wiht deductibles.... I am not sayign your are wrong about abrupt changes in the group plan marketplace, but have not seen it come to pass yet so perhaps its a running topic in which one day I will say I was right, or you will again say I old you so...

 

That is not what the President meant or inferred. Nor was that how the 'the people' understood it with respect to passage of the ACA. In fact, one of the only ways this thing was passed was under the guise of "don't worry, nothing is going to change for those of you who currently have insurance". That was always clearly wrong. At best, the President doesn't/didn't understand how the market would react to this massive bill.

 

I think that's a fair assumption, he is the President not a healthcare policy wonk. Sigh. and it doesn't matter, people's group plans will not cease to exist Jan 1, and at open enrollment their options by the employer would likely have changed anyway as employers consider more competitive plans.. Each year Cigna comes and goes, Aetna comes and goes, Rocky Mountain Health Plans comes and goes, Kaiser is a mainstay and our Captive University Plan stays... and so on, and so forth

[birdog1960]

it's amazing that so many people are already nostalgiac for "the good old days" of health insurasnce. firstly, they are not and have not been good. outright denials are extremely common for care few clinicians would see as unnecessary. costs for nonpreferred drugs are punative (as i feel they should be). red tape is purposfully thick to avoid rerquesting or receiving exclusions. and people are refused insurance for preexisting conditions or priced out of eligiblility leaving 1/5 of the country uninsured. on top of that, private insurers have failed miserably at their repeated attemptsd to reign in costs. just awesome... what a great system!!!

 

but as soon as gov't is seen as doing any of these long ignored and practiced sins (excluding preexisting conditions which have been legislated out), all hell breaks lose and the evil gov't is trying to ration care. drop the double standards and many may well be veys happy with the impending changes.

[IDBillzFan]

It was the reality prior to Obama's plan or presidency- you made this a referredum on Obama for partisan puposes, I didn't. The truth is people with means pay cash for consistency and convenience when they see the need (concierge practices blew up way before the senetor from Illinois was even heard of), the group in the middle play whim to their insurance carrier, and the poor get what we determine we are willing to provide.

 

LA, you're smart guy and a good poster, but you really want to espouse the "upfront, honest and trasparent" test to a poltican, and I mean any politician? They skirt the line between between infer and imply for a vocation...

 

the reality here is the ACA is not really that much different that what was in place- its an expansion of private insurance companys marketplace, with rules placed on both the buyer and insurer... to which in the end is mutally beneficial. As the end of the day I would prefer this never come pass, that insurers offered insurance to all customers who wanted to buy it, deaedbeats got turned away and that Americans got down with the fact that healthcare us expensive and not going Walmart anytime soon... so when the committee is done, this is what we get.

 

You're completing missing the point somehow. The "If you like your plan/doctor, you can keep your plan/doctor" was THE selling point for Obama in virtually every speech he made to sell ACA to eliminate public objection to his signature bill.

 

You seem to be suggesting that everyone would have been perfectly fine if Obama said "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, you know, as long as you pay your doctor in cash in addition to being forced to pay for Obamacare, where you'll lose your doctor."

 

And yes, I understand politicians make a living off of imply/infer. Obama is particularly adept at using it to blame everyone else for his failures. Nothing is ever his fault. And even when it is, you heard him wrong. Or you misunderstood. Or maybe he didn't explain it well enough. He's a fool would wouldn't make it past copier boy at any large private firm.

Edited July 24, 2013 by LABillzFan

[Doc]

People can always keep their doctor no matter what Group or Individual Plan they have, its called paying in cash. People have that option, in fact more people are going to concierge programs because their plans network of providers does change. New Employees here at my hospital have to change their primary care provider and specialist provider if they want the very cost effective self insured group plan... that isn't the ACA dictatig that, that is the plan.

 

You can always keep your health plan, convince your HR dept to never change the optiona at open enrollment (Our TPA changes every year from Cign to BC/BS and back), or prior to ACA, keep paying your premiums on your private individual plan and pray your don't even need to use it for something big and go back and find a reason to cut you off.

 

the ACA did not change your MD, or change your plan, the health insurance industry does that. Tecnically, the President was not lying, these things changed before the ACA and will continue to change after.

Wow, we're spending $2T on Obamacare and Barry's letting us keep our docs by paying cash? What a concept!

[jjamie12]

...and it doesn't matter, people's group plans will not cease to exist Jan 1...

Except we now know (some even predicted that this would happen... imagine that) that this is absolutely false. Plenty of people's group plans are going to cease to exist and they'll be forced to the individual exchanges.

[B-Large]

You're completing missing the point somehow. The "If you like your plan/doctor, you can keep your plan/doctor" was THE selling point for Obama in virtually every speech he made to sell ACA to eliminate public objection to his signature bill.

 

You seem to be suggesting that everyone would have been perfectly fine if Obama said "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, you know, as long as you pay your doctor in cash in addition to being forced to pay for Obamacare, where you'll lose your doctor."

 

And yes, I understand politicians make a living off of imply/infer. Obama is particularly adept at using it to blame everyone else for his failures. Nothing is ever his fault. And even when it is, you heard him wrong. Or you misunderstood. Or maybe he didn't explain it well enough. He's a fool would wouldn't make it past copier boy at any large private firm.

 

It didn't have total public support, they deemed and passed it. ah ****, this was incomplete, I will fill it in later....

 

it's amazing that so many people are already nostalgiac for "the good old days" of health insurasnce. firstly, they are not and have not been good. outright denials are extremely common for care few clinicians would see as unnecessary. costs for nonpreferred drugs are punative (as i feel they should be). red tape is purposfully thick to avoid rerquesting or receiving exclusions. and people are refused insurance for preexisting conditions or priced out of eligiblility leaving 1/5 of the country uninsured. on top of that, private insurers have failed miserably at their repeated attemptsd to reign in costs. just awesome... what a great system!!!

 

but as soon as gov't is seen as doing any of these long ignored and practiced sins (excluding preexisting conditions which have been legislated out), all hell breaks lose and the evil gov't is trying to ration care. drop the double standards and many may well be veys happy with the impending changes.

 

thats the point, nothing as really changed. the ACA is a double down on what we had, with more protections against the least desireable actions of insurance companies. some people argue cost is not controlled, but the bill is written to do that as well... but we can't know how this will workout until it is implemented (thats sounds Pelosi like, I know)

Edited July 24, 2013 by B-Large

[Alaska Darin]

it's amazing that so many people are already nostalgiac for "the good old days" of health insurasnce. firstly, they are not and have not been good. outright denials are extremely common for care few clinicians would see as unnecessary. costs for nonpreferred drugs are punative (as i feel they should be). red tape is purposfully thick to avoid rerquesting or receiving exclusions. and people are refused insurance for preexisting conditions or priced out of eligiblility leaving 1/5 of the country uninsured. on top of that, private insurers have failed miserably at their repeated attemptsd to reign in costs. just awesome... what a great system!!!

 

but as soon as gov't is seen as doing any of these long ignored and practiced sins (excluding preexisting conditions which have been legislated out), all hell breaks lose and the evil gov't is trying to ration care. drop the double standards and many may well be veys happy with the impending changes.

It has nothing to do with "the good old days". It has to do with how this horrible leftislation passed ("we have to pass it to find out what's in it"), the fact that it has so many hidden boogie man that the President himself was hoping the Republicans would save us from much of it while keeping his reputation intact, and that it addresses virtually NONE of the things that actually make health care expensive.

 

But you keep riding the retard roller coaster. Just don't act surprised when you fall out at the apex of the worst loop-de-loop and end up dead, because anyone with half a clue warned you not to get on the ride in the first place.

[birdog1960]

It has nothing to do with "the good old days". It has to do with how this horrible leftislation passed ("we have to pass it to find out what's in it"), the fact that it has so many hidden boogie man that the President himself was hoping the Republicans would save us from much of it while keeping his reputation intact, and that it addresses virtually NONE of the things that actually make health care expensive.

 

But you keep riding the retard roller coaster. Just don't act surprised when you fall out at the apex of the worst loop-de-loop and end up dead, because anyone with half a clue warned you not to get on the ride in the first place.

thanks for your concern, but save it ...i'll take my chances. for cost savings to occur in any proposed model, primary care needs to be utilized more and specialty care less. even the bean counters in big private insurance have finally realized this. doesn't mean i'll see a big compensation increase necessarily but a big cut isn't very likely in any model. so, given that (or even without accepting that premise), i support a model that provides basic care to as many of the citizenry as possible. in that model, worst case, i'm overworked. in the best case, many more people receive decent care, and those two options are not mutually exclusive. best or worst, i'm ok with it. and if you're somehow right, i kinda like roller coasters, especially when flat land is so unsatisfactory.

[birdog1960]

He's a fool would wouldn't make it past copier boy at any large private firm.

absolute bs...he could be making multiples of his current salary in the private sector, not to mention his wife's additional income, now unrealized. ivy league lawyers are not generally known to go wanting, except by choice.

[DC Tom]

thats the point, nothing as really changed. the ACA is a double down on what we had,

 

I thought the point was that what we had wasn't working, and we had to fix it. Instead you're saying we doubled down on the same problems?

[3rdnlng]

absolute bs...he could be making multiples of his current salary in the private sector, not to mention his wife's additional income, now unrealized. ivy league lawyers are not generally known to go wanting, except by choice.

 

How could Obama make multiples of his current salary in the private sector unless you are saying going around the country making speeches for megabucks is really "private sector"? Where did Michelle's income come from and what kind of a shady deal was that? Speaking of shady deals, what say you about that Chicago home purchase with Tony Rezko?

[birdog1960]

How could Obama make multiples of his current salary in the private sector unless you are saying going around the country making speeches for megabucks is really "private sector"? Where did Michelle's income come from and what kind of a shady deal was that? Speaking of shady deals, what say you about that Chicago home purchase with Tony Rezko?

he was a senator (i'm assuming you're asking how he could do it before he became prez since that question is ridiculous if you meant now). plenty of businesses want ex senators in their firm, on their board, etc. presidents at prestigious universities often make multiples of the president of the country's salary. he'd probably land such a job in no time. how does newt gingrich make his money, now? and even without pulling political strings, he's a very clever fellow with a strong academic pedigree...if wealth building was his primary goal, i'd bet on him to do it. Edited July 25, 2013 by birdog1960

[Doc]

he was a senator (i'm assuming you're asking how he could do it before he became prez since that question is ridiculous if you meant now). plenty of businesses want ex senators in their firm, on their board, etc. presidents at prestigious universities often make multiples of the president of the country's salary. he'd probably land such a job in no time. how does newt gingrich make his money, now? and even without pulling political strings, he's a very clever fellow with a strong academic pedigree...if wealth building was his primary goal, i'd bet on him to do it.

He's got a strong pedigree and is a good speaker, but let's just say that politics has served him far better financially than he would have done otherwise. And I'm not talking about official salary.

[birdog1960]

He's got a strong pedigree and is a good speaker, but let's just say that politics has served him far better financially than he would have done otherwise. And I'm not talking about official salary.

well he certainly wouldn't be a copier boy in the private sector. and , if focusing all his considerable energy on wealth accumulation, he'd likely make more. a local congressman who lost a reelction bid was offered a 7 figure salary (i'm told by a good source) by a cable co (to his credit, he didn't take it). what do you think an ex senator or prez is worth to companies like this? he could likely have multiple part time positions and seats on boards paying even more.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Ah, yes. President Obama absolutely would have been in his element peddling influence and corruption to work beltway deals between Washington and major corporate interests; as you've stated.

[birdog1960]

Ah, yes. President Obama absolutely would have been in his element peddling influence and corruption to work beltway deals between Washington and major corporate interests; as you've stated.

but he isn't, is he. and he's not likely to.

[TakeYouToTasker]

but he isn't, is he. and he's not likely to.

Which wasn't your point. Your point was that he's very well suited for work in the private sector, and then you laid out the type of work he's qualified for, which I agreed with.

[B-Large]

I thought the point was that what we had wasn't working, and we had to fix it. Instead you're saying we doubled down on the same problems?

 

"with more protections against the least desireable actions of insurance companies"

 

you fogot this portion

[Joe Miner]

"with more protections against the least desireable actions of insurance companies"

 

you fogot this portion

 

So did Congress.

[DC Tom]

but he isn't, is he.

 

That is definitely debatable.

 

"with more protections against the least desireable actions of insurance companies"

 

you fogot this portion

 

All of which were intended to limit costs.

 

So you're saying now that we have the same broken system but with less cost control. And that took a 2500 page bill to create. With the intent of reducing costs.