morpeth

I referred to the area in which I currently live, and examples from people I know or myself. A premium increases I referred to are outrageous in my opinion and many people in the area I am in suffered - just as many with pre-existing conditions now can get better medical care. In my own experience premiums that I had to pay before didn't jump like that, but the overall nationwide trends I haven't looked at.

The system of delivery of medical care and its costs needs a drastic overhaul in my opinion.

RoadWarriorFromLP

You were able to earn a master's degree without learning that anecdotes aren't data?

morpeth

I qualified my comments that they applied to area in which I lived and some specific instances, which by the way some local insurance agents I know also confirmed to me these were not isolated instances.

So what is the issue ? Premiums for the same policy jumping over 200% to me is quite unacceptable or people previously not getting coverage because of preexisting conditions, just my opinion.

RoadWarriorFromLP

It has already been explained to you why these comparisons are flawed.

Continuing to make the same mistakes does not improve them one whit.

morpeth

Correct but I never claimed that the experience of my area is indicative of results all areas.

If a premium for the same policy jumps from $400 to $900 per month. My opinion simply there is something wrong with a system with such results.

Giantaxe

All major medical plans sold since the start of 2014 must be ACA-compliant. Grandfathered plans still exist but they can't sell to new customers.

This person must be looking for something other than a major medical plan - short term insurance perhaps? Also not clear without more info whether $400 a month is unaffordable... do they qualify for a subsidy? Do they live in a state where Medicaid wasn't expanded? etc.

Giantaxe

They would also jack up the cost of renewing your policy to a level that likely would be completely unaffordable to you.

RoadWarriorFromLP

That I don't think is quite right. In the pre-ACA days, everyone on a given plan would have the same premium schedule (with adjustments for age, gender and tobacco.) Of course, there were numerous plans, many of which weren't that great.

Having had one myself, I can tell you that the premiums were high compared to group plans and then provided inferior coverage to boot. Anything beyond what is comparable to today's "silver" plan would have been absurdly expensive. Then again, my plan was actually legitimate; it wasn't one of those sham plans that didn't charge much but then had some many exclusions and loopholes that it also failed to provide coverage if you really needed it.

RoadWarriorFromLP

How do you even know that it happened?

You seem to acquire all of your "knowledge" by using the "I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy" method. For someone who has a master's degree, I find that to be particularly disheartening.

morpeth

Your assumption is incorrect. I didn't read or "hear about" the information I listed, either I experienced myself or a relative did.

I don't see the point though. ACA has produced numerous improvements, but my own experience , that of others I have seen in my area indicate there are definite improvements necessary to make premiums and medical costs more affordable.

As far as ACA policies most people I know who have them are quite happy with them except when the premium after the subsidy is too expensive for them.

Steerpike

It goes without saying that the rollout of ACA has not been smooth. The ability to encourage (subsidize)/coerce (penalize) younger participants hasn't been as successful as needed to make the numbers work. So for now, too many old people have signed up and are using services far more than anticipated, without the 'healthy/youth' component balancing it out. Most plans are expected to go up in price next year, and some carriers are threatening to pull out (UHC - United Healthcare - being the biggest , but also Humana). This doesn't mean the basic concept is not good; but it needs work, and sadly, the republicans have been so hell-bent on repeal, it is considered political suicide to even *think* about tweaks. This may be changing, according to this article.


My friend works at 'Blue Cross/Blue Shield' and she's having to take a forced vacation due to major losses, blamed on ACA: http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...alifornia.html




I personally don't think this means the ACA is fundamentally flawed, but rather, it needs to be refined ... something the republicans won't contemplate.

Giantaxe

The fine needs to be far higher but, as you say, there is no way Republicans are going to vote for that.

Giantaxe

I don't follow. Pre-ACA people could be rated individually and have pre-existing exclusions based on their medical history.

RoadWarriorFromLP

Yes, that's true. But once you had purchased a given plan, everyone on that plan had the same rate table.

That doesn't mean that every plan would have been available to you or that you would have been entitled to buy insurance at all. But if you did have a plan, then it would have had a price structure that was common to everyone on that plan.

It was also possible for plans to be phased out. This was actually happening to me -- the insurer wanted to get rid of it, and was encouraging the policyholders on that plan to switch to something else.

Unlike many of the individual plans at that time, mine covered drugs that were not generic. That may have been part of the motivation for getting rid of it; it was certainly my motivation for purchasing it.

sir_eccles

Yeah, lack of price control on the providers is troubling. Trying to rely on the insurers to keep prices down is hard. You end up with very narrow local networks.

I think there was a Bush era law that prevents drug price negotiation.