Do liberals not understand the meaning of DEDUCTIBLE?

10000 for a week in the hospital? In a basic room this might be true. Now add in all the services and procedures. And it costs much much more.Hip replacements cost $50000 in a lot of cases. My friends daughter had outpatient surgery on a broken bone in her hand...surgery took 2.5 hours and cost over $22000. The zeros are correct. These things bankrupt people even with insurance coverage because they can't pay the percentages and deductibles.

dothamath wrote:

youdothamath wrote:

If he runs up $100k in hospital and doctor charges, he is out 6k + 40k. That might not bankrupt him, but it sure would bite

The average cost of an inpatient week in a U.S. hospital is a little north of $11k. So on average he'd be paying between $9k and $10k.

The poster claims that would nearly bankrupt him. In that case, he would almost certainly qualify for a subsidy.

Premiums dropped??? Lol... how many of there 12 million" are medicaid or heavily subsidized? Millions...at taxpayer expense. How is this good? Why should I have to pay more taxes so hospitals make more money?

jjjjjjjjj wrote:

Premiums dropped and 12 million more people are insured, yet it is a terrible law? Sounds pretty good. Of course, single payer was the way to go, but politicians in the Senate were unwilling.

All I know is that the ACA has been a huge success so far. 12 million more on insurance already since September, no pre-existing condition, no exam to set rates, children up to 26 can stay on their parents' insurance. In some places like NY they had 50% premium decreases. The gov't costs of the ACA, projected by the CBO, have already been shown and projected to be significantly less than originally thought in 2010, reducing the deficit. And overall, health costs, soaring for many years, have been increasing at the slowest rates in decades even with us years out of the recession.

Ho Hum wrote:

Health insurance protects you from catastrophic costs that would otherwise bankrupt you. It also does the negotiating for you, which is a pain in the a$s otherwise. In order to accomplish this without high premiums, some plans have large deductibles.

This wasn't being sold as catastrophic insurance. If it was then the costs would be a hell of a lot less than it is.

jjjjjjjjj wrote:

All I know is that the ACA has been a huge success so far. 12 million more on insurance already since September, no pre-existing condition, no exam to set rates, children up to 26 can stay on their parents' insurance. In some places like NY they had 50% premium decreases. The gov't costs of the ACA, projected by the CBO, have already been shown and projected to be significantly less than originally thought in 2010, reducing the deficit. And overall, health costs, soaring for many years, have been increasing at the slowest rates in decades even with us years out of the recession.

You are making stuff up. In my case the cost of my insurance more than doubled for a worse policy.

Costs have not been slowed by the ACA, you idiot. The major provisions that were supposed to control costs are going into effect as we speak. And guess what? They all increase demand for care. You know what that does, don't you?Of course you don't.

Histery wrote:

This is a step in the right direction. In other words, it's better than nothing. The rate of increase for health care costs has already been slowed by the ACA. It's far from perfect, but we all know it is a work in progress. Single payer is coming. Be patient.

Wow. Just wow. Keep drinking that koolaid. And whatever you do, don't step in an economics class. Ever. Though each of your sentences is ridiculously ill-informed, the one about costs and being out of a recession is the best, since health care spending always slows during and after a recession.Hopefully you're trolling.

jjjjjjjjj wrote:

All I know is that the ACA has been a huge success so far. 12 million more on insurance already since September, no pre-existing condition, no exam to set rates, children up to 26 can stay on their parents' insurance. In some places like NY they had 50% premium decreases. The gov't costs of the ACA, projected by the CBO, have already been shown and projected to be significantly less than originally thought in 2010, reducing the deficit. And overall, health costs, soaring for many years, have been increasing at the slowest rates in decades even with us years out of the recession.

say what???? wrote:

Premiums dropped??? Lol... how many of there 12 million" are medicaid or heavily subsidized? Millions...at taxpayer expense. How is this good? Why should I have to pay more taxes so hospitals make more money?

Because at some point, it's going to be you or someone you love who needs expensive healthcare. And under the old system, maybe that person would be lucky enough to have an insurer who was not allowed drop them, so everything would be covered. But too many Americans weren't so lucky. This law isn't in place to make hospitals richer, it's there to protect people from medical bankruptcy and provide them healthcare. It's not perfect and it's expensive. So was the previous system. Did you think that was a good system? Maybe this one will get better. Evidence from other countries suggests single payer systems are better.

Good things cost money. And some things are more important than money. I sure don't agree with many of the financial expenditures our government makes, but healthcare seems like a damn good thing to invest in even if there are growing pains. And there certainly have been. (We apparently spend about the same amount annually as the new health law to maintain a nuclear arsenal capable of ending human life on the planet).

If you lost your job and health insurance tomorrow at the whim of a company trying to add $0.01 per share to quarterly profits (most of us have little control over such things) and broke your leg the next day--I'd want my tax dollars to cover your surgery so you could walk again. I'm not some bleeding heart guy, but I believe you deserve the right to basic medical services and technology as a citizen of the richest civilization in history. You might not want the same for me, but I'll not deny you the dignity of medical treatment even if it costs some tax money.

A recent Morgan Stanley survey of 148 insurance brokers shows that ObamaCare is sending premiums rising at the fastest clip in decades.

"For the last, about, five years they've been doing this survey, so this was the largest percentage increase in any quarter since they've been doing (it)," says Scott Gottlieb of the American Enterprise Institute.

Why nut job libtard source do you get your information from?

jjjjjjjjj wrote:

All I know is that the ACA has been a huge success so far. 12 million more on insurance already since September, no pre-existing condition, no exam to set rates, children up to 26 can stay on their parents' insurance. In some places like NY they had 50% premium decreases. The gov't costs of the ACA, projected by the CBO, have already been shown and projected to be significantly less than originally thought in 2010, reducing the deficit. And overall, health costs, soaring for many years, have been increasing at the slowest rates in decades even with us years out of the recession.

Ummm, that is because the fake cheap coverages have been vaporized. Fake cheap coverages are those which are very cheap. People who have fake cheap coverage think they are safe. It's when they get really sick or injured that they find out the fake cheap coverage covered almost nothing. The fake cheap coverage is essentially worthless, and the insured person suffers a severe financial hardship, and possible bankruptcy.

jjjjjjjjjj wrote:

A recent Morgan Stanley survey of 148 insurance brokers shows that ObamaCare is sending premiums rising at the fastest clip in decades.

"For the last, about, five years they've been doing this survey, so this was the largest percentage increase in any quarter since they've been doing (it)," says Scott Gottlieb of the American Enterprise Institute.

Hey libtard....freeloaders don't deserve my money. People get healthcare whether they can afford it or not. Hospitals don't deserve to get paid what they charge, but with more people being insured, they can continue to charge ridiculous fees for medicine, pills, and diagnostic tests. I don't feel bad if they only collect 20% of what they charge, especially when they charge 80% too much.

No where did I imply that the exchange plans were cheaper than the non-exchange plans.

I said just the opposite may be true in some cases. So, we said the same thing.

I am just saying your plan outside of the exchanges is still Obamacare.

say what???? wrote:

Hey libtard....freeloaders don't deserve my money. People get healthcare whether they can afford it or not. Hospitals don't deserve to get paid what they charge, but with more people being insured, they can continue to charge ridiculous fees for medicine, pills, and diagnostic tests. I don't feel bad if they only collect 20% of what they charge, especially when they charge 80% too much.

If you don't like freeloaders, then you should love Obamacare. And insurance companies negotiate what they pay hospitals for their services. Having more people insured gives the insurance companies leverage they can use to lower hospital costs.

You said "So the OP's mentioned plan is not the least expensive plan through Obamacare". Initially, this means that you were saying that because his plan more expensive, it couldn't be an Obamacare plan. Now, in your last post when you say any play outside the exchanges is still Obamacare, I see what you are trying to say, but it is not true. I have a plan through Coventry that had met the minimum requirements for continued coverage. My plan did not change at all. It is not Obamacare. Just because Obamacare is in effect doesn't mean all plans are Obamacare.

Obamacare helps freeloaders thrive by giving subsidized premiums and increased medicare to people who don't work and have no ambition. You have no idea what you are talking about. How in the world does having insured people lower hospital costs? It doesn't. Having more people insured, especially under mandate, will increase demand. Insurance companies can and will raise premiums to never before seen levels because people have to have it. Yes, insurance companies can use this leverage to reduce payouts to hospitals because of the negotiated rates, but this does not reduce hospital costs, will not reduce premiums, and will do nothing but increase the profit margin of insurance companies. You have to be a total idiot to not realize insurance companies are vultures. They do not have your best interest at heart. They can and will do anything, and use any tactic possible to reduce payouts, not so that they can lower your premiums, so they can increase their profits. Ask anyone who was ever denied coverage for a needed service because it was deemed unnecessary or experimental. Insurance companies are the most self serving pieces of crap in existence. To deny this goes beyond naive.

jjjjjjjjjj wrote:

A recent Morgan Stanley survey of 148 insurance brokers shows that ObamaCare is sending premiums rising at the fastest clip in decades.

"For the last, about, five years they've been doing this survey, so this was the largest percentage increase in any quarter since they've been doing (it)," says Scott Gottlieb of the American Enterprise Institute.

As a general principle, anyone who quotes something like "for the last, about, five years" rather than long term trends is almost certainly spreading disinformation based on cherry picked data.

Looks like you responded without reading my post. Either that or you're confusing me with boomhauer, the insurance company shill. I agree that insurance companies are vultures. I'm not a fan and don't think I've suggested otherwise in this, or any other, thread.

Now to your other points. How many freeloaders are on the Obamacare rolls? 1? 1000? 1,000,000? And how is it different for them than before when they went to the ER whenever they had the sniffles and we paid for it? At least with the ACA, some money will be recouped from those with some sort of income. By the way, I'm also curious how you would handle these people. Would you simply deny them necessary medical attention? If so, how would you differentiate between a freeloader and someone who is just down on their luck?

Regarding cost, I'm not sure hospitals will see a substantial increase in business. If this were true, why all the whining about limiting the hospitals for ACA plans? And what about preventive care? With increased access to preventive care, there should be fewer cases of people needed hospital stays.

Meanwhile we agree that the insurance companies will do anything they can to squeeze another buck out of this. That's why single-payer is the way to go.

Oh no, I didn't confuse you. You made it seem like the insurance companies were going to help the hospitals. They won't. Most of these people with Obamacare exchange plans that are supplemented will not ever meet their deductible and won't pay any part of their deductible anyway. It has always been this way. If people could afford to pay $5000 for a deductible, they would have had insurance prior to Obamacare. Say Laquisha goes to the ER with a back ache wanting pills. The ER charges $800. She has insurance, but hasn't paid any of her $5000 deductible. Maybe the insurance company allows $400 for that ER visit. The hospital gets nothing still, the hospital can only try to collect $400 from Laquisha they will never ever get, and the insurance company, instead of having to pay anything, now has the government's money from subsidizing her policy and has nothing to pay out. Laquisha can now go to the ER 10 times and the hospital still won't collect a dime. You know what? It has always been this way. Funded hospitals still see patients regardless of their ability to pay. This is what people have done and could have continued to do.

There are millions of freeloaders on Obamacare, especially under expanded Medicaid. Freeloaders are anyone who relies on the government for assistance, regardless of whether its intentional or they are down on their luck.

I never said anything about preventative care, but I think its good. Not sure how much it will cause less people to need hospitalized though. I don't think a lot if any of the cheapest exchange plans offer free prevention so I don't see how this will help.