How does the healthcare bill affect you personally?

[indigo99]

I honestly don't understand all the hatred toward the healthcard legislation. I personally think that it is far too early to judge the legislation on how it might affect healthcare or the economy as a whole, but I was wondering how it is affecting people personally on an individual level.

As far as I can tell, the only difference that it has made for me or my immediate family is that it allows us to keep my younger brother on our insurance until he is 26. That is DEFINITELY a good thing as he is on daily meds and would not be able to afford insurance or doctor/med bills on his own yet.

As someone who has existing medical conditions, I also really like the idea of insurers no longer being able to deny coverage based on a pre-existing condition (although this won't go into effect for another 3 years).

I'm really concerned about them trying to repeal this legislation and wondered why they are so determined to do so. Am I missing something?

[Clarity]

I was listening to NPR the other day and they were "truth finding" the health care bill again. The consultant commented that while the health care bill is unpopular among Republicans, some Democrats don't support it because it didn't do enough. Most interestingly, she noted that when you broke down the plan by benefit and polled them individually, that the percentage approving of the benefit went WAY up.

I think many object to the fine details, such as who is managing the plan, how it's paid for, how people are required to particpate, etc.

[BabyMine]

I don't think people have a hatred of the whole bill but they are upset that everyone has to pay for it. What they don't understand is that we already pay for people that don't have insurance.

[AnnieW625]

The healthcare bill doesn't affect me right now because both my DH, and I have health insurance coverages with our employers (and most likely will for life as long as one us is a govt. employee), but it will be a positive for my parents in the coming years as they are semi retired and are in the progress of going from Cobra back to private major medical only medical insurance. They are lucky they can afford it, but I know there are many who can't (but really that's a whole other can of worms) My mom had an AVM removed with brain surgery almost two years ago so without the preexisting no denial rules she'd be out a lot of money to pay for surgery and or other treatments if that part of the plan hadn't been approved.

My main issue with the bill is that it was drafted so quickly and really there is no real gaurantee or plan of how it is going to be administered, and we don't know who is actually going to be paying for it. I agreed with the NPR report, that if it was a bunch of separate bills vs. one large bill I think it would've gone over much more smoothly with a large segment of the population.

FWIW, we pay $265 a month for entire family for a Kaiser HMO, well baby visits are covered until 2, all other office visits for kids and specialists are $15. DD1's tube surgery was $15. Speech therapy was $15. Rxs are either $5, $10, or $15 for generics, and I believe the highest cost for a non generic is around $50 (I have never need a brand name), and it's really good coverage. I paid nothing to have DD2.

[lalasmama]

:bag

I have no idea how it affects me personally. Bad, huh? I have private health insurance, 100% covered by my employer, including SO and DD, with a $500 deductable and $10 dr visits. DD's secondary insurance covers her prescription costs completely, and mine are mostly covered on a $5/$10 tiered plan.

I now have a few pre-exsisting conditions, but my employer/insurance doesn't have that exclusion, so it hasn't been an issue.

I really have it so good now that I hate to imagine it changing!

[cono0507]

I think that any healthcare bill that does not include medical litigation reform is incomplete and unacceptable. As one of many healthcare providers here this does directly impact me.

[BabyMine]

It will affect everyone that has private insurance by removing the cap. My mom doesn't have insurance and I am hoping through this she can be covered.

[maestramommy]

The only thing we can tell is that because we have a "cadillac" plan, we will get taxed on it, or something. We have AWESOME coverage. I guess that's considered "cadillac."

I do know my state congress is on the bandwagon to repeal because they consider the requirement to have healthcare coverage unconstitutional. Why someone would want to walk around with no health insurance I have no idea.

[BabyMine]

Actually, anyone that participates in a FSA is affected. 2011 they changed what can be considered eligible and changed the maximum to $2500.

[wellyes]

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that the law will reduce the deficit by over $100 billion over the next 10 years, which sounds very good to me.

[MmeSunny]

I think that any healthcare bill that does not include medical litigation reform is incomplete and unacceptable. As one of many healthcare providers here this does directly impact me.

Can you please explain what this means in laymen's terms? As in your experience. I have a lot of opinions about this bill, but this is not an issue with which I am familiar.

[g-mama]

Why someone would want to walk around with no health insurance I have no idea.

From personal experience, my dad owns an auto body shop. Many of his employees are young single men. They would rather have the money in their paycheck than going towards health insurance because they are immature and not in a "family" state of mind. They feel invincible and choose not to pay for insurance.

[indigo99]

From personal experience, my dad owns an auto body shop. Many of his employees are young single men. They would rather have the money in their paycheck than going towards health insurance because they are immature and not in a "family" state of mind. They feel invincible and choose not to pay for insurance.

Yeah. But should they be allowed to when the rest of us end up paying for them when they end up in the ER? My sister is young and uninsured. I know that she's been to the ER for things that could have been taken care of with a doctor visit because she couldn't afford to go to a regular doctor.

[bigpassport]

I don't know what the short term effect on me personally will be, but I anticipate higher premiums. I am concerned about the constitutionality of the federal government requiring individuals to purchase anything, in this case health insurance. This issue is on its way to the US Supreme Court. I am also concerned that the legislation will ultimately drive private insurance companies out of business, leaving us with only government run insurance.

[indigo99]

The problem is that we already have a healthcare system. The one we have isn't what someone would dream up if starting from scratch though. Having every American insured would be a good thing for the country and its people so how would you suggest starting where we are and getting to that point?

You can look at it more like just another tax - similar to how we are "forced" to buy into social security.

ETA: While I can appreciate a concern for the long term effects of a law, I do think that it is strange to repeal something based on what it MIGHT do without even giving it a chance to do what it was meant to do.

[niccig]

We have private insurance with a lifetime limit of $1 million. Sounds like a lot of money, but a work colleague of DH's ran through that in a matter of months when very badly burned in a car accident. People at work were really worried what would happen to him, turns out his father is executive at a Fortune 500 and he paid rest of the medical bills.

I don't have a wealth family member to do that for us if we need to.

My friend's NICU bill for her son with Down's Syndrome was billed at $250,000 to her insurance company. He now has insurance through MediCal, but if that ever goes away, he won't be able to ever get medical insurance as it's a pre-existing condition and has possibility of all number of medical issues.

I don't know what it will do to our premiums, but I do think my friend's son shouldn't be excluded from insurance because he was born with an extra chromosome.

[vonfirmath]

It's an awful lot easier to NOT pass something unconstitutional than to repeal it once passed

And it is quite a bit easier to repeal something unconstitutional before it makes broad changes in the way an industry works than after it has put most of the competition out of business.

"We might like it" is not a good reason to try something like this.

[megs4413]

It's having a big impact on us, actually. My Dh has been a small business owner for about 6 years now. Up until september of 2009, he worked for a large corporation and had health insurance through his employer (while he ran his business "on the side.") He decided to make a go of his company at that point and quit his corporate job. We went onto COBRA coverage while we attempted to secure insurance for our new small group (he has full time employees now).

in the meantime, the bill was passed. two major impacts for us:
1) our COBRA eligibility has been extended to 2014. this is good in some ways, because we have more time to work out purchasing insurance through DH's business.
2) it has become almost impossible to purchase insurance for our small group. the insurance companies are in a state of sheer panic and are just not playing ball right now.

i don't know what will happen if this repeal gets anywhere (which i sincerely doubt)...our COBRA eligibility under the OLD law ends in april...i have no idea if it would just suddenly terminate or what....it's really scary for us. we've tried really hard to get group insurance worked out, but it seems like everyone's waiting to see what's going to happen and the costs just keep going up, up, up. our COBRA premiums went up a TON this year (more than a 30% increase, i think), though i have no idea if the healthcare bill has anything to do with that for sure (seems like it).

the thing that bothers me the most is that NO ONE seems to really understand the bill. at all. not even the people who signed it into law. JMO!

[MoJo]

Our insurance premiums went up more than usual this year. Both my corporate employer & DH's school system said this was a direct result of the healthcare reform.

However, my brother has been unemployed and uninsured for several years. If my mom (who supports him) is required to buy insurance for him or face fines, that will cause great financial hardship as she can barely make ends meet now. He is over 26, not part of any group, and it's possible that his insurance would take more than half her monthly pay. He would LOVE to have insurance (and a job), but he made too many poor choices regarding employment when he was in his 20s and now there are so many candidates for every position that no one wants to give him another chance.

[katydid1971]

For me its all about my DD. She is 2.5 and has had to have 5 surgeries already. So she will always fall into the "pre-existing condition" category forever. Plus she is already near the old $1000000 max for coverage. This health care bill will help protect my beautiful little girl for the rest of her life.

[mommylamb]

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that the law will reduce the deficit by over $100 billion over the next 10 years, which sounds very good to me.

Actually, CBO just came out saying the bill reduces the deficit by $230 billion over 10 years. The interesting thing about this is that the House just passed its Rules package for this Congress, and one of the things included in the Rules is that all actions that require revenue must be offset with revenue cuts elsewhere. They are calling this Cut As You Go, and it is in contrast to the policy the Democrats had under their Rules called Pay as You Go, which said that all policy actions requiring revenue must by payed for, but through either revenue increases or spending cuts. But the Republicans exempted repeal of the health care bill from their own rule because they knew that repeal will add to the deficit and they don't want to pay for repeal.

On a personal note, the health care reform bill impacts me because my company is a small association that will probably be able to get better insurance in 2014 once the health exchanges are set up. Right now we're on DH's insurance because what my small group is able to get under the current system stinks. Because of some specific issues regarding DH's employer, we also do not get the tax deduction for health insurance.

And of course, I have a FSA, and I now can't count OTC stuff towards that, which stinks, but I can live with it.

[trales]

It has helped us a lot.

We have to buy our own insurance on the open market and with my DH's health problems, the insurance can no longer drop us, and we are no longer uninsurable if we have to buy a new plan.

We currently pay about 18,000 per year and our rates cannot go up b/c of pre existing conditions too much. Not that our insurance is affordable, it is very hard to pay, but it makes it better to know that it will not raise fast enough to bankrupt us.

I am very grateful for the security that it gives us. I wish it went further. But it is a start.

[kdeunc]

Actually, anyone that participates in a FSA is affected. 2011 they changed what can be considered eligible and changed the maximum to $2500.

They did change what is covered this year but the amount doesn't drop to $2500 until 2013. You can still have $5000 this year.

[wimama]

I think that any healthcare bill that does not include medical litigation reform is incomplete and unacceptable. As one of many healthcare providers here this does directly impact me.

:yeahthat: And I am a more than a little skeptical of a bill pushed through this quickly, when over the last several years congress hasn't been able to fix the flawed formula Medicare payments are currently based on. So, their solution is to put bandaids on it and when the time limits on those bandaid patches run out they ask physicians to stop sending claims or process their claims at 21% cut.

As a small business, purchasing our own health insurance it is expensive. DH and I can not be on the same family plan because my DH and I are two of the employees of our small business and we need both of us to be separate policy holders to get a small group rate. So, we have separate deductibles and separate max out of pockets.

[kara97210]

Our insurance premiums went up more than usual this year. Both my corporate employer & DH's school system said this was a direct result of the healthcare reform.

A lot of insurance companies did this, but they also are reporting record profits. Also don't get me started on insurance companies and the tactics they use to deny coverage.

That being said, I think the final bill should have been split into smaller parts, starting with eliminating pre-existing conditions.

[hellokitty]

For us, pre-existing conditions is a biggie. I have some pre-existing conditions that aren't even IMO that big of a deal, but when DH took his present job, we were told up front that it was considered pre-existing and wouldn't be covered, even though the doctor's diagnosis had since then been proved wrong (infertility). My brother was also in a horrible car accident, it was the other person's fault, thank goodness the pre-existing condition issue won't be something he has to worry about. For him, removing the cap is great too, he couldn't continue his therapies, b/c he maxed out on them after only a few months. Luckily, he has the knowledge to work on these on his own, so he has done ok continuing those therapies on his own. Overall, while only some of the bill affects us, I am just happy that in general this bill will HELP those who need it. To me, it's not just about the benefits we will reap, I think that it is good for these benefits to be available to everyone and of course, you just never know what the future holds. You may be healthy now, but yrs down the line, you could end up with the, "pre-exisiting condition" that insurance companies could hold against you. It might not have sounded that handy back then, but after you are in this sort of situation, I bet you will be a fan of the bill and be glad that it is there.

[niccig]

For me its all about my DD. She is 2.5 and has had to have 5 surgeries already. So she will always fall into the "pre-existing condition" category forever. Plus she is already near the old $1000000 max for coverage. This health care bill will help protect my beautiful little girl for the rest of her life.

This must give you such peace of mind to know that she will always be able to get health insurance. :hug:

[mamicka]

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that the law will reduce the deficit by over $100 billion over the next 10 years, which sounds very good to me.

It isn't that cut & dried if you ask me.
http://dc.wispolitics.com/2011/01/ryan-takes-issue-with-cbo-estimate-of.html

I'm very interested to see how all this will end-up. I'm watching the lawsuits.

[mommylamb]

It isn't that cut & dried if you ask me.
http://dc.wispolitics.com/2011/01/ryan-takes-issue-with-cbo-estimate-of.html

I'm very interested to see how all this will end-up. I'm watching the lawsuits.

From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:


Claims that the health reform law relies on budgetary gimmicks to reduce deficits are false. [2]

* Claim: The law uses a gimmick to make it appear fiscally responsible: its biggest spending increases don’t take effect for four years, so CBO’s cost estimate for the first decade (2010-2019) includes ten years of revenue increases but only six years of significant spending. The unstated implication of this charge is that in subsequent decades, when ten years of revenue increases are accompanied by ten years of spending increases, the law will greatly increase deficits.

Fact: There is no gimmick here, and this charge is groundless. CBO estimates that the law will reduce deficits not only over the 2010-2019 decade, but in the second decade and subsequent decades. In fact, the law will reduce deficits by more in subsequent decades than in the first decade, because its most important cost-saving measures are phased in and produce larger savings over time.
* Claim: CBO’s cost estimate double-counts the Medicare savings and additional Social Security payroll tax collections that the law will generate, because these savings and revenues could not both help pay for health reform and improve Medicare’s and Social Security’s finances.

Fact: This, too, is a canard. In estimating the law’s impact on the deficit, CBO counted the Medicare savings and Social Security revenues only once. The financial status of the Medicare or Social Security trust funds is a different matter, distinct from CBO’s estimate of the impact of the legislation on the budget deficit. The skilled CBO experts did not double count, as anyone familiar with budget estimates knows.

* Claim: CBO’s cost estimate is misleading because it doesn’t include $115 billion in additional discretionary spending that Congress must provide to implement health reform.

Fact: The health reform law contains authorizations for a variety of grant and other programs, and CBO has estimated that if future Congresses chose to fully fund these authorizations — which Congress is under no requirement to do — the total expenditures involved would amount to $115 billion over ten years. But the large bulk of this amount is neither required nor necessary to implement the health reform law, and much of it doesn’t even reflect new expenditures. As CBO has stated, more than $86 billion is “for activities that were already being carried out under prior law or that were previously authorized.”[3] CBO has noted that the law’s actual implementation costs — that is, the cost that federal agencies will incur to administer the law — will be roughly $10-20 billion over the first decade.

* Claim: CBO’s cost estimate inappropriately includes savings from the new CLASS long-term care insurance program.

Fact: Congressional leaders deliberately crafted the health reform bill so that it would be fully paid for without relying on savings from CLASS Act premiums. The CBO estimate clearly shows that if one excludes the net revenues of $70 billion from CLASS Act premiums, health reform still reduces the deficit by $73 billion over the first ten years.
* Claim: CBO’s cost estimate for health reform is misleading because it doesn’t include the cost of the “doctor fix,” or fixing the sustainable growth rate (SGR) payment formula for physicians.

Fact: The cost of fixing the SGR formula is entirely unrelated to health reform, as can easily be proved — all of the cost of fixing the SGR formula would remain if health reform were repealed. None of that cost can be attributed to health reform.

[Ceepa]

Allison, I don't know what you can say. :ROTFLMAO:

[Kindra178]

I don't know what the short term effect on me personally will be, but I anticipate higher premiums. I am concerned about the constitutionality of the federal government requiring individuals to purchase anything, in this case health insurance. This issue is on its way to the US Supreme Court. I am also concerned that the legislation will ultimately drive private insurance companies out of business, leaving us with only government run insurance.

I don't understand this and please don't think I am trying to single you out. We all have to buy car insurance per state law in every state. Not sure why when we talk about health insurance it's different. Also, wasn't that a McCain thing, requiring every single American to buy health insurance? Finally, wouldn't that be a boon to insurance companies?

[mamicka]

From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:



That's like me quoting from the CATO Institute & calling it neutral. The CBPP is a liberal think-tank, as I'm sure you know.

[mommylamb]

That's like me quoting from the CATO Institute & calling it neutral. The CBPP is a liberal think-tank, as I'm sure you know.

It is a liberal think tank, but its research is widely respected. In fact, because it is liberal, CBPP is extremely cautious about being factual at all times. It's a credible source, as is CATO by the way. CATO does a lot of good work.

ETA: and Paul Ryan (your original link) isn't exactly neutral.

[Nooknookmom]

From personal experience, my dad owns an auto body shop. Many of his employees are young single men. They would rather have the money in their paycheck than going towards health insurance because they are immature and not in a "family" state of mind. They feel invincible and choose not to pay for insurance.

OTOH, some people don't have it b/c they can't afford private ins. For example, my DH.

Up until 2-3 years ago, we all had seperate plans and were all covered. Then when we had DD2, my rate went up to almost $600 a mo. just for the 2 of us. Add DD1 on her own plan, DH on her own plan and we were paying almost $1,000 for just h. insurance. I couldn't split DD2 on her own plan (which was cheaper) b/c she had a pre-existing condition.

DH's insurance went up DRAMATICALLY, it was either drop his or risk not being able to carry the other $755 worth of premiums for the girls and I. I have major health issues and can't lose my coverage b/c no company will touch me with a 15 ft. pole. I am un insurable.

So, until we can find a decent/affordable plan for a 44 yr. old male, he will be without. Sadly this bill does nothing for us, except penalize him for not having coverage.

The "pre-existing" exemption sounds great on paper, but who is going to pay for all of the treatments the insurers will have to cover for these new insured's? We are, the policyholders. I have already seen a hike in my own plan, DD1's Anthem plan went up 30% in a 2 months span (I had to quickly move her to another carrier).

The companies are scrambling to raise our individual plan costs b/c they see down the road that paying for treatment of folks with major pre-existing conditions will have to be paid by someone. I am one of those pre-existing people, I'd love to be able to change my insurance plan and pay less. Not going to happen I'm afraid.

The real costs lie in the drug manufacturers/medical manufacturers/outrageous hospital charges. That is what needs to be targeted, to lower costs for all of us across the board.

I think the Healthcare Bill was a great "idea" but it is terribly laid out.

[mamicka]

I don't understand this and please don't think I am trying to single you out. We all have to buy car insurance per state law in every state. Not sure why when we talk about health insurance it's different. Also, wasn't that a McCain thing, requiring every single American to buy health insurance? Finally, wouldn't that be a boon to insurance companies?

It's different because you aren't required to buy car insurance unless you want to drive a car which is technically optional. People who don't own cars don't buy car insurance. Requiring all citizens to buy (private) health insurance simply because they are citizen is not the same thing. There is not opt-out - either you buy health insurance or pay a fine. & then buy insurance.

[mamicka]

It is a liberal think tank, but it's research is widely respected. In fact, because it is liberal, CBPP is extremely cautious about being factual at all times. It's a credible source, as is CATO by the way. CATO does a lot of good work.

ETA: and Paul Ryan (your original link) isn't exactly neutral.

No, he isn't neutral but I think he's honest. The point is not "my numbers are right & yours are wrong". The point is we can't be claiming that it's going to do such great things to the deficit because it isn't so cut & dried - we don't really know what it's going to do.

[mommylamb]

No, he isn't neutral but I think he's honest. The point is not "my numbers are right & yours are wrong". The point is we can't be claiming that it's going to do such great things to the deficit because it isn't so cut & dried - we don't really know what it's going to do.

Well that's always the case with any bill. Scoring isn't an exact science, but CBO is nonpartisan and they score bills regardless of whether it's Democrats or Republicans in the majority in Congress, and their scores are the best we have to go by. I mean, OMB gives cost estimates too, but since that's part of the Administration (which obviously is always of one party), so I think CBO is our most credible source. It might not be cut and dried in that the future is impossible to truly predict, but the CBPP piece responds to Paul Ryan's assertions.

[mamicka]

Well that's always the case with any bill. Scoring isn't an exact science, but CBO is nonpartisan and they score bills regardless of whether it's Democrats or Republicans in the majority in Congress, and their scores are the best we have to go by. I mean, OMB gives cost estimates too, but since that's part of the Administration (which obviously is always of one party), so I think CBO is our most credible source. It might not be cut and dried in that the future is impossible to truly predict, but the CBPP piece responds to Paul Ryan's assertions.

Fair enough. :wink2:

[mommylamb]

On the issue of whether health care reform is raising premiums, I thought this was an interesting article in Bloomberg (I don't think anyone can say Bloomberg isn't credible). Of course, it's only talking about Blue Shield in California, but I think it's telling. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-06/blue-shield-plans-to-raise-individual-california-premiums-as-much-as-59-.html

From the article:
The increases “have almost nothing to do with the federal health reform law,” and “reflect trends that were building long before health reform,” Wong said in the e-mail.




Obviously, if the individual mandate is found unconstitutional, then premiums would increase under the current law. I'm not a constitutional law expert, so my opinion on the interstate commerce clause is null.

ETA: if anyone is interested in the rest of the CBPP piece, here is the link: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3366 This is what it says about questioning CBO's scoring:

# In fact, over several decades, the House and Senate Budget Committees, along with presidential administrations of both parties, have developed procedures that CBO uses to prepare cost estimates. In estimating the cost of health reform or its repeal, as with any estimate, CBO uses these longstanding, bipartisan procedures — not assumptions specified by the sponsor of the legislation. Thus, Speaker Boehner’s charge is flatly incorrect.
# Up until now, congressional leaders of both parties have acknowledged CBO’s professionalism and recognized its critical role as a neutral arbiter in budget matters. They have accepted CBO’s cost estimates, even when those estimates have proved inconvenient for their side. This wholesale attack on, and rejection of, a CBO estimate for a major piece of legislation by the leadership of the House or Senate is unprecedented.

[JTsMom]

I worry a lot about health insurance on a regular basis. We pay around $600 a month for insurance through DH's employer. We have a $1000 deductible per person, 20% co-pay on most things for in-network providers. We don't have much of a choice for providers in our local area, which means I spend a lot of time driving to get to people who are in-network. While Jason was getting OT that required a therapist certified in a particular technique, I was driving 70 miles, through ATL and its infamous traffic, each way, every week to get to the nearest in-network provider. Therapy took pretty much an entire day to deal with. DS2's birth cost us close to $1K. Jason recently had a cardiac MRI, which needs to be repeated in 12-18 months. Our share of the bill is $1200. The speech and occupational therapy he desperately needs is limited to 20 visits per year. We have to pay for 40% of those 20 visits. We've never had a choice though, b/c no private company would take us.

I worry constantly about his coverage b/c of his heart condition, not to mention the myriad of other health issues he's dealing with. I was so happy that he was guaranteed to have some type of coverage, regardless of his career path, as an adult.

I have close family members who refuse to get treatment for things b/c they are afraid of their conditions being listed in their medical files, and being denied coverage in the future.

[vonfirmath]

I don't understand this and please don't think I am trying to single you out. We all have to buy car insurance per state law in every state. Not sure why when we talk about health insurance it's different. Also, wasn't that a McCain thing, requiring every single American to buy health insurance? Finally, wouldn't that be a boon to insurance companies?

Actually, you DON't have to buy car insurance

If you are not a licensed driver/don't own a car, you do not need car insurance. I've got friends without car insurance because they take the bus everywhere

In many states, they have a separate way you can show you can financially care for someone you hit and if you do THAT you do not need to buy car insurance either (You can self insure)

[maestramommy]

Actually, you DON't have to buy car insurance

If you are not a licensed driver/don't own a car, you do not need car insurance. I've got friends without car insurance because they take the bus everywhere

In many states, they have a separate way you can show you can financially care for someone you hit and if you do THAT you do not need to buy car insurance either (You can self insure)

Actually, in our state, I don't believe you have to have car insurance. My sitter's Dh got in an accident recently (other driver's fault) and the other driver was not insured, which is legal here.

[secchick]

Remember when Caterpillar and other companies wert taking huge wrtire offs ($100 million charges) related to the implementation? The democratic congressional leaders demanded hearings. Everything died down though, with no hearings. Thats because the documents for every single company that submitted showed that it would be a much better thing for the companies (even the huge ones with tens or hundreds of thousands of employees) to pay the penalty and not bother with providing health insurance. I know for a fact that the large company I work for has considered it and the numbers show that it would be much better for the company to drop health insurance once the exchanges start up.

Here's the thing, and why the hearings were cancelled: The system they designed is still based on majority employer funded healthcare. The $2K penalty and other tax increases are nowhere near enough to cover the cost of the subsidies (since the majority of people who would be subsidized are currently getting employee based insurance, in addition to the new people coming on the rolls that are subsidized).

That and my premiums and taxes are going to go up (3.8% on the sale of your house, for example, that would otherwise be exempt), and I fear that the shortage of primary care physicians could impact us.

I don't see why everyone should have to get a *qualified* plan under the Affordable Care Act. Plenty of people are ok with only catastrophic coverage and are ok with paying routine costs out of pocket. Premiums for young people are going to shoot WAY up. I don't see why it's unreasonable for someone to choose things like paying copays on well visits in exchange for lower premiums.

[wolverine2]

I live in Massachusetts, where we already have had the requirement to buy health insurance (or pay a fine) for a couple of years. My SIL never had health insurance until this requirement came into effect- she just didn't prioritize it financially because she was healthy. I am so relieved that she now has to, and she is relieved as well- she probably wouldn't have bought it unless she had to.

It's so American to want to have the right to not buy health insurance. My DH, who is not American, just doesn't get the whole concept.

As for New Hampshire not requiring car insurance... Live Free or Die! I think I'd rather have a few governmental regulations and live, but I know there are plenty who feel differently, and I think that is the crux of it, rather than the actual health care policy.

[Kindra178]

You are able to buy coverage from your own auto insurer in case an uninsured motorist hits you:

http://www.insurance.com/auto-insurance/explained/why-you-need-uninsuredunderinsured-motorist-coverage.aspx

The vast majority of states require auto insurance if you have a car:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_insurance

At least one state requires you to have a certain level of liability insurance when you have your license issued.

It makes perfect sense to me that if you don't have a car, you don't need auto insurance. But everyone needs health insurance, at the very least, for preventative care. When uninsured people don't have health insurance, we all pay, and not just literally. Long waits at an ER is a perfect example of how we "pay" for the uninsured.

[spanannie]

It's having a big impact on us, actually. My Dh has been a small business owner for about 6 years now. Up until september of 2009, he worked for a large corporation and had health insurance through his employer (while he ran his business "on the side.") He decided to make a go of his company at that point and quit his corporate job. We went onto COBRA coverage while we attempted to secure insurance for our new small group (he has full time employees now).

in the meantime, the bill was passed. two major impacts for us:
1) our COBRA eligibility has been extended to 2014. this is good in some ways, because we have more time to work out purchasing insurance through DH's business.
2) it has become almost impossible to purchase insurance for our small group. the insurance companies are in a state of sheer panic and are just not playing ball right now.

i don't know what will happen if this repeal gets anywhere (which i sincerely doubt)...our COBRA eligibility under the OLD law ends in april...i have no idea if it would just suddenly terminate or what....it's really scary for us. we've tried really hard to get group insurance worked out, but it seems like everyone's waiting to see what's going to happen and the costs just keep going up, up, up. our COBRA premiums went up a TON this year (more than a 30% increase, i think), though i have no idea if the healthcare bill has anything to do with that for sure (seems like it).

the thing that bothers me the most is that NO ONE seems to really understand the bill. at all. not even the people who signed it into law. JMO!

My husband has a (very) small business and we found it better to have everyone self insured as opposed to having a small group. The premiums were definitely less. We have high deductible insurance with HSA and it's been great for us.

[ShanaMama]

deleted because I read the replies & posted below

[kara97210]

It's different because you aren't required to buy car insurance unless you want to drive a car which is technically optional. People who don't own cars don't buy car insurance. Requiring all citizens to buy (private) health insurance simply because they are citizen is not the same thing. There is not opt-out - either you buy health insurance or pay a fine. & then buy insurance.

In the past people who don't have health insurance didn't "opt out" of the system, they went to the emergency room with things that could have been taken of with preventative care. This is one of the major reasons that the cost of health care has sky rocketed over the past 20 years.

[gatorsmom]

From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:


Claims that the health reform law relies on budgetary gimmicks to reduce deficits are false. [2]

* Claim: The law uses a gimmick to make it appear fiscally responsible: its biggest spending increases don’t take effect for four years, so CBO’s cost estimate for the first decade (2010-2019) includes ten years of revenue increases but only six years of significant spending. The unstated implication of this charge is that in subsequent decades, when ten years of revenue increases are accompanied by ten years of spending increases, the law will greatly increase deficits.

Fact: There is no gimmick here, and this charge is groundless. CBO estimates that the law will reduce deficits not only over the 2010-2019 decade, but in the second decade and subsequent decades. In fact, the law will reduce deficits by more in subsequent decades than in the first decade, because its most important cost-saving measures are phased in and produce larger savings over time.
* Claim: CBO’s cost estimate double-counts the Medicare savings and additional Social Security payroll tax collections that the law will generate, because these savings and revenues could not both help pay for health reform and improve Medicare’s and Social Security’s finances.

Fact: This, too, is a canard. In estimating the law’s impact on the deficit, CBO counted the Medicare savings and Social Security revenues only once. The financial status of the Medicare or Social Security trust funds is a different matter, distinct from CBO’s estimate of the impact of the legislation on the budget deficit. The skilled CBO experts did not double count, as anyone familiar with budget estimates knows.

* Claim: CBO’s cost estimate is misleading because it doesn’t include $115 billion in additional discretionary spending that Congress must provide to implement health reform.

Fact: The health reform law contains authorizations for a variety of grant and other programs, and CBO has estimated that if future Congresses chose to fully fund these authorizations — which Congress is under no requirement to do — the total expenditures involved would amount to $115 billion over ten years. But the large bulk of this amount is neither required nor necessary to implement the health reform law, and much of it doesn’t even reflect new expenditures. As CBO has stated, more than $86 billion is “for activities that were already being carried out under prior law or that were previously authorized.”[3] CBO has noted that the law’s actual implementation costs — that is, the cost that federal agencies will incur to administer the law — will be roughly $10-20 billion over the first decade.

* Claim: CBO’s cost estimate inappropriately includes savings from the new CLASS long-term care insurance program.

Fact: Congressional leaders deliberately crafted the health reform bill so that it would be fully paid for without relying on savings from CLASS Act premiums. The CBO estimate clearly shows that if one excludes the net revenues of $70 billion from CLASS Act premiums, health reform still reduces the deficit by $73 billion over the first ten years.
* Claim: CBO’s cost estimate for health reform is misleading because it doesn’t include the cost of the “doctor fix,” or fixing the sustainable growth rate (SGR) payment formula for physicians.

Fact: The cost of fixing the SGR formula is entirely unrelated to health reform, as can easily be proved — all of the cost of fixing the SGR formula would remain if health reform were repealed. None of that cost can be attributed to health reform.


Mommylamb, just wanted to say thank you for your input. I'm always glad when you comment on these political threads because I know that reading and interpreting bills/laws is your job. We are lucky to have you here. :)

[mamicka]

In the past people who don't have health insurance didn't "opt out" of the system, they went to the emergency room with things that could have been taken of with preventative care. This is one of the major reasons that the cost of health care has sky rocketed over the past 20 years.

Yes, however I'd like to know the stats on people who go to the ER who have consciously opted-out of buying health insurance & pay out of pocket or use other buying groups vs people who have no insurance because they can't afford it or it isn't available to them. Believe it or not, some people are able to receive healthcare & pay for it themselves even when they don't have insurance. I'm willing to bet those are not the people who are clogging-up the ER's with preventable issues. Simply saying people without health insurance end up going to the ER where we all end up paying for it is misleading. The ER is not some black hole where it automatically becomes the taxpayer's expense but besides that it isn't true that no insurance = ER.

[ShanaMama]

2) it has become almost impossible to purchase insurance for our small group. the insurance companies are in a state of sheer panic and are just not playing ball right now.

...
the thing that bothers me the most is that NO ONE seems to really understand the bill. at all. not even the people who signed it into law. JMO!



The "pre-existing" exemption sounds great on paper, but who is going to pay for all of the treatments the insurers will have to cover for these new insured's? We are, the policyholders. I have already seen a hike in my own plan, DD1's Anthem plan went up 30% in a 2 months span (I had to quickly move her to another carrier).

The companies are scrambling to raise our individual plan costs b/c they see down the road that paying for treatment of folks with major pre-existing conditions will have to be paid by someone. I am one of those pre-existing people, I'd love to be able to change my insurance plan and pay less. Not going to happen I'm afraid.
....
I think the Healthcare Bill was a great "idea" but it is terribly laid out.


Here's the thing, and why the hearings were cancelled: The system they designed is still based on majority employer funded healthcare. The $2K penalty and other tax increases are nowhere near enough to cover the cost of the subsidies (since the majority of people who would be subsidized are currently getting employee based insurance, in addition to the new people coming on the rolls that are subsidized).

The pp addressed my issues better than I could. Firstly, I 100% agree with megs that the insurance companies and even businesses are in a state of sheer panic & rates have already gone up drastically. I am getting on my employer's plan now & he told me that his rates have gone up drastically as a direct result of the bill. Even so, by going from DH's insurance (he is a small business owner) to mine our monthly payout will go from $1400+/mo to around $300. The correlation between employment & the ability to buy reasonable coverage is a problem IMO & that has not been solved. I am working FT for this alone.

I highlighted the above quotes because, to me, the point is that there are a lot of wonderful things being accomplished by the bill. The problem is that we, as a country, want to help everyone & we need to realize that that comes at a price. This country does not have socialized medicine. There is great debate whether that would be a better route or not. My main issue with the bill is the way it was passed. If the aspects of the bill are so great, why couldn't we see true debate & discussion? A tremendous bill was passed, with a huge amount of opposition & nobody truly knows what's in it. Why couldn't we have taken it a little slower & actually fixed existing problems? I know I am being simplistic & I'll probably be flamed for the next sentence. :duck: I have seen several suggestions on the {right wing} media I read/ listen to that could have been implemented to improve the reform package. What we got was a tremendous bill that has some great things along with lots of ramifications that nobody even fully understands.

ETA: I also agree with the pp who mentioned that tort reform is necessary before we can fix our broken system.

[kara97210]

Yes, however I'd like to know the stats on people who go to the ER who have consciously opted-out of buying health insurance & pay out of pocket or use other buying groups vs people who have no insurance because they can't afford it or it isn't available to them. Believe it or not, some people are able to receive healthcare & pay for it themselves even when they don't have insurance. I'm willing to bet those are not the people who are clogging-up the ER's with preventable issues. Simply saying people without health insurance end up going to the ER where we all end up paying for it is misleading. The ER is not some black hole where it automatically becomes the taxpayer's expense but besides that it isn't true that no insurance = ER.

This article is consistent with everything I’ve seen: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/28/health/main5045280.shtml.

Basically the upshot is that uninsured coming to emergency rooms and not paying adds about $1K to the health care premiums of each family who does buy insurance.

From the article/study: The report found that, in 2008, uninsured people received $116 billion in health care from hospitals, doctors and other providers. The uninsured paid 37 percent of that amount out of their own pockets, and government programs and charities covered another 26 percent.

That left about $43 billion unpaid, and that sum made its way into premiums charged by private insurance companies to businesses and individuals, the report said.

To me that is a pretty big black hole

[mamicka]

This article is consistent with everything I’ve seen: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/28/health/main5045280.shtml.

Basically the upshot is that uninsured coming to emergency rooms and not paying adds about $1K to the health care premiums of each family who does buy insurance.

From the article/study: The report found that, in 2008, uninsured people received $116 billion in health care from hospitals, doctors and other providers. The uninsured paid 37 percent of that amount out of their own pockets, and government programs and charities covered another 26 percent.

That left about $43 billion unpaid, and that sum made its way into premiums charged by private insurance companies to businesses and individuals, the report said.

To me that is a pretty big black hole

There are two groups of uninsured. Hugely simplified, one that wants to be, one that doesn't. I'm saying that the group that doesn't want insurance are the ones that are not wanting to be forced to buy insurance per this bill. They are NOT the ones that are going to the ER & sending us all the bill so you can't use that as a reason to force them to buy insurance.

[vludmilla]

I just want to make one point about those who choose not to buy insurance because they believe that they are able to pay out of pocket. What happens to these individuals when they or there dependents becomes seriously or catastrophically ill?

[mamicka]

I just want to make one point about those who choose not to buy insurance because they believe that they are able to pay out of pocket. What happens to these individuals when they or there dependents becomes seriously or catastrophically ill?

They might have catastrophic insurance or belong to other non-insurance buying groups - I'm not sure what they're called. I don't fit into this category so I don't know specifics.

[kara97210]

There are two groups of uninsured. Hugely simplified, one that wants to be, one that doesn't. I'm saying that the group that doesn't want insurance are the ones that are not wanting to be forced to buy insurance per this bill. They are NOT the ones that are going to the ER & sending us all the bill so you can't use that as a reason to force them to buy insurance.

Hmm, that would be a statistic that would be interesting to see. Have you seen that statistic?

As someone who has been in the medical system a lot recently (2 pregnancies in 3 years and parent who had a very serious accident including hospitalization, etc), I can't imagine why anyone who could afford health insurance would choose not to have it. Especially because of the huge mark up on the uninsured. Luckily we are all well insured - my mom's bills would have been close to $200K without insurance.

[bluestarfish18]

Ours don't change at all. We already have government sponsered healthcare through the military. Best deal ever. We haven't paid a cent in healthcare (besides dental) in over 3 years.

[Katigre]

I just want to make one point about those who choose not to buy insurance because they believe that they are able to pay out of pocket. What happens to these individuals when they or there dependents becomes seriously or catastrophically ill?
Exactly. You can have a terrible illness or injury that costs $25,000 or $250,000 or even 1 million dollars. Let's take this common scenario: You're pregnant without maternity insurance (which is very $$ and difficult to obtain coverage for privately). your baby has a heart defect and you have premature labor. You deliver at 33 weeks by emergency csection. Your hospital bills are $75,000 and your baby's seven week NICU stay is $500,000. Who pays? Are we going to adopt the system in the developing world of "If you don't have money to pay, you are not treated"?

In those countries, you are denied entrance to the hospital if you can't show proof of being able to pay. You do not get medication if you can't pay for it - no matter if it's just a $5 antibiotic. You do not get surgery or treatment that can save your life. No $$ = no treatment, if you or your baby die, that's too bad. It is horrific and terrible and I know people who see that up close and in their face every day in those countries.

That is not going to happen in this country - our hospitals are not going to adopt a tough-love policy of no treatment if you can't pay. Since we have chosen not to do that, that means the alternative is that everyone has to participate in the system. If someone wants to not carry insurance, I think they should have to sign a legal document saying that they will not take more medical treatment than they can personally pay for.

[Kindra178]

There are two groups of uninsured. Hugely simplified, one that wants to be, one that doesn't. I'm saying that the group that doesn't want insurance are the ones that are not wanting to be forced to buy insurance per this bill. They are NOT the ones that are going to the ER & sending us all the bill so you can't use that as a reason to force them to buy insurance.

Can you answer that question - (source of my confusion) - Who is group that doesn't want to be insured? I truly don't understand that as everyone is a consumer of healthcare, even healthy people, as "healthy people" catch bacterial infections, trip and fall (with no one to sue), need their appendix out unexpectedly, have a kidney stone. I am sure the list goes on and on. Obviously, women of childbearing years, including the vast majority of us on this board, are big users of medical care for care relating to getting pregnant, pregnancy, child birth and care for children. Even excluding those women, everyone needs health insurance.

11 years ago I was visiting friends and family in Philadelphia. I had insurance coverage via school. I went for short run with friends, tripped on cobblestone and broke my arm in three places and dislocated my elbow. To put it back together, the surgeon broke additional bones and added wires, screws and plates. I had months of 3x weekly pt and some ot, requiring the use of a custom made brace to sleep in. My arm cost, tallied up, was close to $65,000 (three nights in the hospital was around $40,000). Had I been uninsured, who would have paid for that?

If a random accident could happen to an extremely healthy and very fit 26 year old, that could happen to anybody. I don't want to quote you or put words in your mouth but it seems as if you think there is a population of people who don't want health insurance because they can afford it out of pocket. That is my reason that everyone needs health insurance.

[mamicka]

Hmm, that would be a statistic that would be interesting to see. Have you seen that statistic?
No - I have not seen it. Like I said, I'm betting.
As someone who has been in the medical system a lot recently (2 pregnancies in 3 years and parent who had a very serious accident including hospitalization, etc), I can't imagine why anyone who could afford health insurance would choose not to have it. Especially because of the huge mark up on the uninsured. Luckily we are all well insured - my mom's bills would have been close to $200K without insurance.

This isn't universal - I know many people who get a discount for paying out of pocket.

[mamicka]

Can you answer that question - (source of my confusion) - Who is group that doesn't want to be insured? I truly don't understand that as everyone is a consumer of healthcare, even healthy people, as "healthy people" catch bacterial infections, trip and fall (with no one to sue), need their appendix out unexpectedly, have a kidney stone. I am sure the list goes on and on. Obviously, women of childbearing years, including the vast majority of us on this board, are big users of medical care for care relating to getting pregnant, pregnancy, child birth and care for children. Even excluding those women, everyone needs health insurance.

11 years ago I was visiting friends and family in Philadelphia. I had insurance coverage via school. I went for short run with friends, tripped on cobblestone and broke my arm in three places and dislocated my elbow. To put it back together, the surgeon broke additional bones and added wires, screws and plates. I had months of 3x weekly pt and some ot, requiring the use of a custom made brace to sleep in. My arm cost, tallied up, was close to $65,000 (three nights in the hospital was around $40,000). Had I been uninsured, who would have paid for that?

If a random accident could happen to an extremely healthy and very fit 26 year old, that could happen to anybody. I don't want to quote you or put words in your mouth but it seems as if you think there is a population of people who don't want health insurance because they can afford it out of pocket. That is my reason that everyone needs health insurance.

Serious question, not snarky. Do you not believe that there are people who choose not to have health insurance? I didn't know that it was considered a myth by some. I know some people personally, how's that? Yes, I probably could find sources to prove it but it's my time to give up the PC - DH needs to do some work - so if anyone else has the time, have at it.

ETA: OK - DH wasn't ready yet. This is the first one I found so this at least proves that these people are out there.

[Katigre]

I know people who choose to be uninsured b/c they don't believe in mainstream medicine and use alternative medicine that medical insurance doesn't cover. Their plan should they need something mainstream at a hospital is to pay out of pocket and negotiation the rate.

[mommylamb]

Mommylamb, just wanted to say thank you for your input. I'm always glad when you comment on these political threads because I know that reading and interpreting bills/laws is your job. We are lucky to have you here. :)

Thanks Lisa. Though, I am not an expert on the health care reform law. It's not something I worked on for work anyway. I just know where to go to find the experts ;). Speaking of which, I think this is a really good, strictly factual summary of the final law for anyone who does want to become smart on what's in there and what's not. It's from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/8061.cfm


There are two groups of uninsured. Hugely simplified, one that wants to be, one that doesn't. I'm saying that the group that doesn't want insurance are the ones that are not wanting to be forced to buy insurance per this bill. They are NOT the ones that are going to the ER & sending us all the bill so you can't use that as a reason to force them to buy insurance.

I agree that there are those who would choose not to be uninsured, though I don't think many (if any exist at all) are just so wealthy that they would choose to self insure (in the way that some very large companies choose to self insure). For example, I would bet that the Bill Gates of the world purchase health insurance rather than self insure, even though they have the funds to cover their needs. Of those who are uninsured, I agree that they probably fall into two groups-- those who truly cannot afford health insurance without a subsidy from the government, and those who are young, healthy, and willing to take their chances (feel they're immortal). It's the latter group that the insurance companies want, and why they were willing to trade the pre-existing condition requirement for the individual mandate.

It's absolutely true that there are some individuals who do not want to purchase insurance, but it's better for society as a whole if they do. It means we're all in this together, so everyone's premiums could presumably stay manageable.

The health care bill is NOT a perfect bill IMO. I think that there could have/should have been more done to bring overall costs of health care down other than just getting more people into the system (the individual mandate). And, I'm willing to look at tort reform and cross state plans as strategies to do so (these were both touted by the Republicans and could have been improvements to the bill IMO). I also think that some competition from a nonprofit, bare bones insurance option would have done wonders for bringing down costs. While I don't want a single payer system necessarily, I'd be happy for a nonprofit option to be in the mix.

[Kindra178]

Serious question, not snarky. Do you not believe that there are people who choose not to have health insurance? I didn't know that it was considered a myth by some. I know some people personally, how's that? Yes, I probably could find sources to prove it but it's my time to give up the PC - DH needs to do some work - so if anyone else has the time, have at it.

ETA: OK - DH wasn't ready yet. This is the first one I found so this at least proves that these people are out there.

I am serious and not being snarky either - I have never heard of anyone not choosing to have health insurance. I know of people who believe they are healthy and choose not to afford it, but no, I have never heard of anyone simply choosing not to have it.

The uninsured get screwed because you have to pay the full cost less a certain percentage. We just learned this first hand. We went to an eye doc because one of my guys had a head tilt (no tort). He was 16 months at the time. Doc examined him and billed insurance in such a way that they deemed ds' appt as routine eye care/vision check. So ridiculous but obviously you don't get vision tests on a baby. It's almost been a year, and we are still going back and forth. Of course, subsequent follow up visits have been covered. Doctor's office told me that we could either apply for financial assistance through the hospital billing office or pay the whole bill at once with a 20% discount. The visit was $600 so our charge is $480. You know what the contracted rate with the insurance company is? $384! I know this because the subsequent bills were paid in full.

[elephantmeg]

the uninsured that I see in the hospital where I work
1- Mennonite and amish. They pay their bill or their congregations pay for/with them. It is a generally recognized fact that this happens and that the community is good for it. We had a 28 y o last year who battled cancer for about a year and was hospitalized on chemo, antibiotics, tests galore for 4 or 5 months. Tragically she died. The community did more fund raising than I have ever seen before. Everywhere I went I saw her face. There were dontation jars, covered dish dinners, auctions...
2- self pay that pay. They pay $50 a month but eventually they pay most or all. They are the ones begging to leave the day after delivery (within hours), don't take hospital supplies with charge stickers (the OB unit is great about asking first, they are great about bringing their own unopened ibuprophen), request fewest interventions, tests etc. A lot of them farm their family farms and just can't afford insurance for whatever reason.
3-self pay that are in the ED every other night, stay forever and never pay much for whatever reason but smoke 1-2 packs a day.

I will tell you that hospitals loose a ton of money on people who don't have the ability to pay/don't have insurance that pays for them.

[kara97210]

This isn't universal - I know many people who get a discount for paying out of pocket.

I also can't imagine, when dealing with a catastrophic incident, having to also try to negotiate your medical costs. When my mom was in the ICU last year, the last thing I would have wanted to deal with was having to negotiate the cost of each procedure. And that still doesn’t address the $43 billion in costs that the uninsured not paying costs those who are insured.

Lots of people, both insured and uninsured, have to declare bankruptcy because of medical bills. According to this article (http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH), more than 60% of bankruptcies in the US are due to medical bills.

"They concluded that 62.1 percent of the bankruptcies were medically related because the individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income) in medical bills, mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness. On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including $26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point."

There may be people who choose not to buy insurance, but in the absence of actual statistics, I think those are a small minority.

[kara97210]

The uninsured get screwed because you have to pay the full cost less a certain percentage. We just learned this first hand. We went to an eye doc because one of my guys had a head tilt (no tort). He was 16 months at the time. Doc examined him and billed insurance in such a way that they deemed ds' appt as routine eye care/vision check. So ridiculous but obviously you don't get vision tests on a baby. It's almost been a year, and we are still going back and forth. Of course, subsequent follow up visits have been covered. Doctor's office told me that we could either apply for financial assistance through the hospital billing office or pay the whole bill at once with a 20% discount. The visit was $600 so our charge is $480. You know what the contracted rate with the insurance company is? $384! I know this because the subsequent bills were paid in full.

I'm pregnant and had to have some special lab work done recently. My initial bill was $600, the negotiated rate through my insurance company was $100 of which I only had to pay a $10 co-pay. I can't imagine coming in (without insurance) and having a better rate. Or having to worry about that when my only concern was having these tests and getting the results.

[Melanie]

My co-pays doubled. And frankly I think it's just an excuse. Having just recently come off of ridiculously expensive insurance "offered" by an employer who didn't pay any of the premium but it therefore disqualified us for the Cobra cost reduction plan....I seriously hope this helps people without insurance or without employer-subsidized insurance.

[wellyes]

I also can't imagine, when dealing with a catastrophic incident, having to also try to negotiate your medical costs. When my mom was in the ICU last year, the last thing I would have wanted to deal with was having to negotiate the cost of each procedure.
I can't either, especially for anyone dealing with a long-term chronic or terminal illness. It is mind-numbingly difficult to untangle the bills even when you DO have coverage.


My main issue with the bill is the way it was passed. If the aspects of the bill are so great, why couldn't we see true debate & discussion? A tremendous bill was passed, with a huge amount of opposition & nobody truly knows what's in it. Why couldn't we have taken it a little slower & actually fixed existing problems? I know I am being simplistic & I'll probably be flamed for the next sentence. :duck: I have seen several suggestions on my {right wing} media that could have been implemented to truly fix healthcare. What we got was a tremendous bill that has some great things along with lots of ramifications that nobody even fully understands.

Not a flame, at all, but.... this wasn't a topic that Obama surprised everyone with. The debate over how to fix the healthcare crisis has been going on since Clinton's first term 15+ years ago. I have some problems with the final passed legislation, for sure, but I do think calls to debate it further really were calls to postpone it forever. The urgency to pass something, ANYTHING, is understandable to me. The alternative wasn't a better piece of legislation, the alternative was to do exactly what the parties in power had been doing before Pelosi & crew muscled the law through: absolutely nothing at all.

[ShanaMama]

Not a flame, at all, but.... this wasn't a topic that Obama surprised everyone with. The debate over how to fix the healthcare crisis has been going on since Clinton's first term 15+ years ago. I have some problems with the final passed legislation, for sure, but I do think calls to debate it further really were calls to postpone it forever. The urgency to pass something, ANYTHING, is understandable to me. The alternative wasn't a better piece of legislation, the alternative was to do exactly what the parties in power had been doing before Pelosi & crew muscled the law through: absolutely nothing at all.

Your points are well taken, my question was why couldn't THIS piece of legislation be examined & debated? Not sit around & discuss the issue for another 15 years, but not the backhanded-closed-door-deals-made-legislation-passed scenario that we saw. (and thanks for quoting me. I see I need to go back & clarify my wording)

[daisymommy]

I know people who choose to be uninsured b/c they don't believe in mainstream medicine and use alternative medicine that medical insurance doesn't cover. Their plan should they need something mainstream at a hospital is to pay out of pocket and negotiation the rate.

:yeahthat: And they all make well under $100K, so not at all wealthy. My In-laws are included here. Many friends I have here locally as well. These are people who haven't gone to a doctor in years because they are so healthy. They were spending thousands of dollars a year in insurance premiums, and felt the money was better spent being saved up in their bank account. They also only go to natural practitioners who don't take insurance to start with, so what was the point, except for in case of an emergency.

I will say that I personally do not feel safe with this arrangement, I like having a safety net. We go to the doctor for well child checkups once a year. That's it. But we can afford to keep our insurance "just in case", while others feel it's waste of thousands of dollars each year that could be spent elsewhere (if they aren't using it). But that's freedom in America for you!