3. In insurance, every action seems to generate an equal and opposite reaction, and Goodnough identified an important one. To attract low-cost insurers to the subsidized program—in order to reduce the cost of the subsidies—the state has limited the choice for people who pay no premiums to the two lowest-cost carriers, rewarding those companies by sending a lot of new customers to them.
The insurers in turn have responded by restricting which doctors and hospitals policyholders can choose. Those limitations are controversial, Goodnough reported. She quotes Glen Shor, the Connector’s director, defending these arrangements as “the kind of cost-saving innovation that exchanges are well-positioned to bring about by promoting competition in the market.”
It seems to me the press needs to explore this assertion, as well as the warning from Nancy Turnbull, an associate dean at the Harvard School of Public Health and one of the architects of the Massachusetts reform law. Said Turnbull: “For the exchange to continue to be a big purchaser and have market clout, we’re going to need to be successful at adding more small employers and potentially other populations.”
So far, Goodnough reports, about “15 states and the District of Columbia have established exchanges, with California and Maryland among the furthest in their planning.” Other states are watching and waiting. More good reporting on the pluses and minuses of these mechanisms seems like a useful idea.
?????
This guy is paying $13,000 per year for health insurance for his family and that is a good deal?
Where are the details? What were the premiums and the deductibles in his old plan versus the premiums and deductibles in the new plan?
I pay $389 per month for an Anthem family plan with $10 million in coverage and a $7500 deductible ($2500 per person). I get a free annual physical for everybody in the family but pay out of pocket for everything else until the deductibles are met (and they never have been in the six years I've had this plan). Of course, my premiums have skyrocketed since the "Affordable Care Act" was crammed down the voter's throats - it started out at less than $200 a month for $7 million in coverage. I can go anywhere I want for service and i can buy a prescription anywhere I want. The absolute MOST I could ever pay in a year is $12,168 and this would require everybody in my family requiring more than $2500 in treatment. My plan pays everything after that - drugs, chemo, transportation, etc.
Mr. Kim pays$1000 more than that just in premiums, and I suspect his choice of providers is limited. He probably also has copays and/or deductibles.
How is he getting a good deal here?
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 18 Jun 2012 at 08:15 PM
"..crammed down the voter's throats.."
Unfortunately, usage of this phrase has become a key fieldmark of people who are staunch ideologues to the point where any cited 'facts' are at best highly untrustworthy and at worst outright and quite extraordinary fabrications. I agree with padikiller that the details are important; unfortunately, given the history of prevarication shown by the modern 'right-wing', I will not even provisionally accept his assertions (barring a written, long-form, certified and notarized document offered as proof, of course). This is the great problem - how can we communicate when each side believes the other side is lying? Can we even trust 'facts' any more? What a shame that we don't have some sort of (call it 'news media' for lack of a better term) which would work to inform the citizenry rather than simply confirm their prejudices.
#2 Posted by JohnR, CJR on Tue 19 Jun 2012 at 12:06 PM
@JohnR
I can see why you wouldn't trust my claims, but I don't see your beef with calling it like is regarding Obamacare.
It most certainly was crammed down the throats of the voters in a sickening and corrupt manner.
Poll after poll, then and now, shows that Americans overwhelmingly detest Obamacare.
As for the cost of insurance ---
You can GET A FREE INSTANT QUOTE FROM ANTHEM.
I just checked, and found that if I raise my deductible to $10,000, I can get the premium knocked down to $176 per month.
Thus my maximum out-of-pocket expense (including premiums) wouldn't change much ($12,112) but if everybody stays healthy, then my annual cost will drop to $2,112 per year.
Typically, I pay about $1,000 a year in doctor's visits and prescriptions, so this new plan would save me almost $3000 a year.
As a bonus, I see that Anthem has also dropped its lifetime caps entirely - benefits are now unlimited.
So HOW on earth is the guy who pays $13,000 a year just in premiums getting any kind of a deal?
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 19 Jun 2012 at 01:13 PM
Seems like forcing people to purchase private insurance is better than letting them get health care on the government's dime. Obviously, if you don't have health insurance or you're too poor and/or too old (ie. the ones likely not to be able to afford private insurance), then you currently use the government health care system. We all pay for these systems through our taxes.
The president was voted into office because he ran on the topic of health care. It was never a surprise that this was going to occur.
Don't be naive on your health insurance. You never controlled what doctor's you could see. This has always been controlled by the insurance companies (at least every plan I have ever had).
Half of the laws written into the affordable care act should never have needed to be written in the first place. But bad business practices by insurance companies make it necessary. Of course you should be able to get health insurance with pre-existing conditions. Of course, you shouldn't be kicked off a plan at some arbitrary dollar amount. What is the point of insurance if not to be covered when something bad happens?
We have always been subsidizing the poor and the elderly. Forcing them to use private insurance and getting off the government dime is a good thing.
#4 Posted by Mike, CJR on Fri 6 Jul 2012 at 08:16 AM