ACA enrollment deadline Sunday Jan 31

[Marionnette]

I'm confused by what you're arguing. Those copays are pennies compared to what better coverage would cost you per month. That's absolutely ideal insurance for somebody young without serious medical issues - the rates are low because you won't be going to see a doctor or a specialist once a month. This is the same group of people I thought you were saying would rather not carry any insurance at all and pay the penalty. I'm saying that they're getting a lot for their money compared to what I'm getting for what my employer is paying, and I know how much that is. I have co-pays and deductibles, too, and for how much I use it and for how much it costs, your daughter's boyfriend is getting a much better deal.

• He could pay $50 for a "sick" visit without having to pay for the insurance premium every month as well. Having insurance doesn't save him anything there.
  
• He can get amoxicillin and many other generics cheaply without a prescription plan. Heck, I pay OOP for my dog's heart medications at a human pharmacy with no insurance and they are less than what his copay for generics is. When the retail price is less than your copay, you pay the retail price. Having insurance doesn't make those meds any cheaper for him than going without insurance.
• If he goes to see a specialist, winds up in the ER or needs to have any kind of testing, insurance pays absolutely nothing until he has met his high deductible. And then, he pays 30% of the overrage until his OOP maximum is met.
• If the radiologist that reads his x-ray or the lab that runs his bloodwork is not in network, it doesn't apply toward his OOP max or his deductible. And insurance pays nothing on those bills.

IOW, he is no better off with insurance than he is without it unless there is a catastrophic illness. Yes, I understand that the whole purpose is to keep him from going broke in the event that something like that happens. But in the mean time, he's basically paying for everything that he would have without coverage PLUS insurance premiums. And that's what so many young people see when they have these plans. Like I said previously, I deal with a lot of people who spent a year with one of these low-cost/high deductible plans last year and many of them have elected to pay the penalty this year instead of the premiums.

 

[supersnoop]

All insurance always has a negative expected return. I've paid $3,000 each year for the past 15 years to have homeowners and automobile insurance. You know how much that $45,000 investment has returned? $0. That's the point. It's not supposed to pay for normal stuff.

Until people start realizing they're buying insurance, and not "health care," we'll continue to have problems in the market.

 

[dhardawa]

Someone is using the insurance since the insurance companies on the exchanges lost hundreds of millions of dollars last year and some are threatening to pull out entirely in 2016.

 

[supersnoop]

Someone is using the insurance since the insurance companies on the exchanges lost hundreds of millions of dollars last year and some are threatening to pull out entirely in 2016.

"Low growth projections" and "pulling back on marketing" are not the same as pulling out of the exchanges. You're reading some articles with too much bias. I consider all this talk to be nothing more than a negotiation tactic.

 

[dhardawa]

"Low growth projections" and "pulling back on marketing" are not the same as pulling out of the exchanges. You're reading some articles with too much bias. I consider all this talk to be nothing more than a negotiation tactic.

I'm not talking about low growth projections or pulling back marketing. I'm talking about insurance companies who have lost huge amounts of money and are seriously considering not offering exchange plans in 2017 (or drastically reducing the plans/markets offered) because they can't afford to take the loss.

 

[supersnoop]

I'm not talking about low growth projections or pulling back marketing. I'm talking about insurance companies who have lost huge amounts of money and are seriously considering not offering exchange plans in 2017 (or drastically reducing the plans/markets offered) because they can't afford to take the loss.

I haven't seen any reports of "insurance companies who have lost huge amounts of money," at least not from a qualified news source.

 

[dhardawa]

I haven't seen any reports of "insurance companies who have lost huge amounts of money," at least not from a qualified news source.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...16-obamacare-shortfall-as-membership-declines

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...grade-obamacare-affordable-care-act/76040322/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...taining_heavy_losses_is_obamacare_doomed.html

 

[Gumbo4x4]

All insurance always has a negative expected return. I've paid $3,000 each year for the past 15 years to have homeowners and automobile insurance. You know how much that $45,000 investment has returned? $0. That's the point. It's not supposed to pay for normal stuff.

Until people start realizing they're buying insurance, and not "health care," we'll continue to have problems in the market.

On the other hand, my homeowner policy costs about 1/5 what I pay out for health insurance. Were I to break my leg & have my house burn to the ground a week apart, my share of the bill to rehab my leg would be way more than my share to rebuild the house.

 

[OhioDisneyDad]

This thread made me laugh. Alot.

 

[PerfessorZ]

On the other hand, my homeowner policy costs about 1/5 what I pay out for health insurance. Were I to break my leg & have my house burn to the ground a week apart, my share of the bill to rehab my leg would be way more than my share to rebuild the house.

As long as your house burnt down and wasn't flooded. I don't think your health insurance cares about how you broke your leg. And they also no longer care when you broke your leg. You could've broken your leg years ago & they now have to pay for it. If your house burnt down before you bought it, you can rest assured your insurance won't pay to rebuild it.

 

[Southernmiss]

Not to get politicky, but the ACA is also different depending on the state you live in and who your political leaders are.

Not all insurance companies write policies in every state and not all policies are created equal.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

As long as your house burnt down and wasn't flooded. I don't think your health insurance cares about how you broke your leg. And they also no longer care when you broke your leg. You could've broken your leg years ago & they now have to pay for it. If your house burnt down before you bought it, you can rest assured your insurance won't pay to rebuild it.

Not even remotely the point. The point quite simply is that I pay a LOT more for my health insurance than I do for my homeowners insurance, but if I need to USE either policy, the homeowners policy will cover me MUCH better.

If I make a $200,000 claim on my home & a $10,000 claim on my leg, MY out of pocket expense will be higher for the leg - again, this despite the homeowners insurance being a fraction of the cost of the health insurance premium.