Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov

#51

Post by twoodfin »

hga wrote: post #46
twoodfin wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The case the administration is making is that these old plans had invidious characteristics such as lifetime spending limits and missing "essential" no-deductible coverage for preventative services and birth control. Not sure whether that's an accurate claim for the pre-ACA plans you listed. Presumably ACA's no-deductible requirement applies to the new plan, so while you might pay for irregular doctor's visits, your…

" The case the administration is making is that these old plans had invidious characteristics such as lifetime spending limits and missing "essential" no-deductible coverage for preventative services and birth control. " Coupled with the claim that plans based on the new floor for coverage would be at least affordable. Which many are finding invidious because they can't afford the replacement policies that are initia…

That Kaiser calculator is great. I get the sense that this would have all worked so much better if the law had been structured such that HHS approved plans, insurers sold those plans on their own sites (or through private clearinghouses), while the IRS provided a quick calculator like this and a longer process to get a certification of your last year's income you could present to an insurer to get a subsidized rate.

Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov

#52

Post by pmorici »

jevinskie wrote: post #28
pmorici wrote: post #16

Perhaps because of the sticker shock and because, if you can get them, pre ACA plans are cheaper and offer more value. For example if you go to ehealthinsurance.com and compare the lowest cost pre-ACA 2013 plans with ACA-compliant 2014 plans for a healthy individual in their late 20's early thirties you get the following very affordable options pre-ACA... BlueCross BlueShield; Deductible: $5,000, Co-Insurance: 0%, Do…

I thought the law was supposed to encourage preventative care. Not offering at least one low cost doctor visit seems to betray that goal.

According to the details of each plan they all offer free preventive doctor visits. the 1-2 low cost visits per year are for if you got a cold or something and went to the doctor.

Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov

#53

Post by pmorici »

bluedino wrote: post #39
pmorici wrote: post #16

Perhaps because of the sticker shock and because, if you can get them, pre ACA plans are cheaper and offer more value. For example if you go to ehealthinsurance.com and compare the lowest cost pre-ACA 2013 plans with ACA-compliant 2014 plans for a healthy individual in their late 20's early thirties you get the following very affordable options pre-ACA... BlueCross BlueShield; Deductible: $5,000, Co-Insurance: 0%, Do…

$5,000 deductible? My PPO had a $2,500 deductible and I thought that was insanity.

Assuming you have savings high deductible plans are the smartest financial decision. Insurance is to keep you from going broke in the unlikely event that something serious happens not to pay for every runny nose you might get.

Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov

#54

Post by newsreader »

ceejayoz wrote: post #48
newsreader wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google the following: "was obamacare based on romneycare". Obama says yes, Romney says no. In this case I believe Romney.

Romney wouldn't even talk about Romneycare during the campaign. Taking credit for what the far-right wing of the Republican party deems "socialism" wouldn't have played well for him. Politifact has a ruling: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/20/...

Thanks for the link. And, I do remember Romney being on the defensive because his plan was being compared with Obama's plan.

Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov

#55

Post by twoodfin »

mikeash wrote: post #30
drivingmissm wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think civil disobedience is appropriate, and that people should resist compliance and urge others to resist. I believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and that the law was passed in a party-line vote using shady Senate tactics. Further, we now know that President Obama flat-out knowingly lied when he told the public "if you like your plan you can keep it." The law needs to be delayed so that Congres…

This is as bi-partisan as you can get. The Democrats passed the Republicans' plan. The only reason it didn't get any Republican support was because the Republicans are completely nuts. There is no way to get their support for anything right now.

"As bi-partisan as you can get"? C'mon, that claim doesn't pass the laugh test. Plenty of legislation has passed both houses of Congress in the last five years with large bi-partisan majorities. Leahy-Smith[1] is just the first one I thought of.

As for it being "the Republicans' plan", you're hanging an awful lot on some Republicans' support for an individual mandate (conceived, remember, in opposition to Bill Clinton's nascent proposals for an employer mandate) twenty years ago. The guy who most Republicans actually voted for wanted to change the system to allow health care plans to be sold across state lines, and de-couple employment and health care via a universal individual tax credit [2]. Neither of those are in PPACA.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leahy-Smith_America_Invents_Act

[2] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/10/the-mccain-...

Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov

#56

Post by mikeash »

twoodfin wrote: post #55
mikeash wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is as bi-partisan as you can get. The Democrats passed the Republicans' plan. The only reason it didn't get any Republican support was because the Republicans are completely nuts. There is no way to get their support for anything right now.

"As bi-partisan as you can get"? C'mon, that claim doesn't pass the laugh test. Plenty of legislation has passed both houses of Congress in the last five years with large bi-partisan majorities. Leahy-Smith[1] is just the first one I thought of. As for it being "the Republicans' plan", you're hanging an awful lot on some Republicans' support for an individual mandate (conceived, remember, in opposition to Bill Clinto…

"As bi-partisan as you can get" is intended to be in the context of health care reform. Sure, you can get bi-partisan support for funding veteran death benefits or whatever, but that's not what I'm talking about.

The Republicans created the current plan. The most recent Republican candidate for President supported and passed this plan in his home state when he was governor. It's a Republican plan.

The Republicans have no serious alternative proposal. They pretend they do only to the extent needed to convince people who aren't paying attention that they really mean the "replace" part of "repeal and replace".

Sure, Obamacare isn't exactly the Republican plan in 100% of every detail. It's still the basic Republican plan overall, and the Republicans are not wrangling over details anyway.

Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov

#57

Post by pmorici »

tptacek wrote: post #27
pmorici wrote: post #16

Perhaps because of the sticker shock and because, if you can get them, pre ACA plans are cheaper and offer more value. For example if you go to ehealthinsurance.com and compare the lowest cost pre-ACA 2013 plans with ACA-compliant 2014 plans for a healthy individual in their late 20's early thirties you get the following very affordable options pre-ACA... BlueCross BlueShield; Deductible: $5,000, Co-Insurance: 0%, Do…

Aren't you comparing conditionally-issued insurance with guaranteed-issue health insurance? The big problem I had with sites like ehealthinsurance.com is that a family using it to find insurance had a coinflip chance of actually getting one of those rates after completing an application.

Yes, but how many people is that actually an issue for? Most of the preexisting condition demagoguery you hear about seems to stem from people who were going w/o insurance until they found out they had a medical condition. There were already limits on preexisting condition exclusions in a number of states. You also have to wonder if that in and of itself is worth a doubling in costs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-existing_condition#Current_...

Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov

#58

Post by tptacek »

pmorici wrote: post #57
tptacek wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't you comparing conditionally-issued insurance with guaranteed-issue health insurance? The big problem I had with sites like ehealthinsurance.com is that a family using it to find insurance had a coinflip chance of actually getting one of those rates after completing an application.

Yes, but how many people is that actually an issue for? Most of the preexisting condition demagoguery you hear about seems to stem from people who were going w/o insurance until they found out they had a medical condition. There were already limits on preexisting condition exclusions in a number of states. You also have to wonder if that in and of itself is worth a doubling in costs? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-…

Horse. Shit. I have a perfectly healthy family, a family in which I am notably the least actuarially sound bet. When we started Matasano, we found my wife and (at the time) 7 year old daughter both uninsurable, full stop, at any price, due not to preexisting conditions but instead previous medical examinations that led insurers to believe that at some point in the future the two (coincidentally? female) members of my family might develop a condition.

I've talked to dozens of people since then and come to the conclusion that "functioning human female reproductive system" is, in essence, a coverage-denying preexisting condition in many US states.

Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov

#59

Post by tanzam75 »

tptacek wrote: post #27
pmorici wrote: post #16

Perhaps because of the sticker shock and because, if you can get them, pre ACA plans are cheaper and offer more value. For example if you go to ehealthinsurance.com and compare the lowest cost pre-ACA 2013 plans with ACA-compliant 2014 plans for a healthy individual in their late 20's early thirties you get the following very affordable options pre-ACA... BlueCross BlueShield; Deductible: $5,000, Co-Insurance: 0%, Do…

Aren't you comparing conditionally-issued insurance with guaranteed-issue health insurance? The big problem I had with sites like ehealthinsurance.com is that a family using it to find insurance had a coinflip chance of actually getting one of those rates after completing an application.

> Aren't you comparing conditionally-issued insurance with guaranteed-issue health insurance?

In addition to guaranteed issue, the Obamacare plans have (1) an annual out-of-pocket limit (2) no annual or lifetime limit on benefits (3) an absolute right to renewal.

These features raise the cost substantially compared to previous plans on the individual market. The classic example is if you get cancer and need $2 million in treatment. If your plan had 20% coinsurance, or a $1 million lifetime limit, then you'd be in rough shape. And if the insurance company dropped you when you got sick, on the grounds that you forgot to disclose some trivial and unrelated illness on your application, then you'd be in really rough shape.

The things that make Obamacare expensive are the features that don't show up on the sticker -- because they are now required of all plans. Guaranteed issue is the major one, because they prevent sick people from being washed out of the actuarial pool. All of these features are things that you hope you will never need to "take advantage" of. If you waste your money buying them, that's actually not a bad outcome.

Re: Only 6 people managed to enroll in an insurance plan on Day 1 of Healthcare.gov

#60

Post by pmorici »

tptacek wrote: post #58
pmorici wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but how many people is that actually an issue for? Most of the preexisting condition demagoguery you hear about seems to stem from people who were going w/o insurance until they found out they had a medical condition. There were already limits on preexisting condition exclusions in a number of states. You also have to wonder if that in and of itself is worth a doubling in costs? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-…

Horse. Shit. I have a perfectly healthy family, a family in which I am notably the least actuarially sound bet. When we started Matasano, we found my wife and (at the time) 7 year old daughter both uninsurable , full stop, at any price, due not to preexisting conditions but instead previous medical examinations that led insurers to believe that at some point in the future the two (coincidentally? female) members of m…

You're in IL right? For some reason the insurance situation in IL seems to be really crappy. They allow(ed) for looking back further in people's medical history than a lot of other states according to wikipedia. That doesn't explain why the new plans are so much more expensive though even in states that previously had restrictions on preexisting conditions and medical history use in underwriting.
Post reply on HN