Vegas Free-for-All - I had a delightful conversation with a health Insurance company rep this morning

I had a delightful conversation with a health Insurance company rep this morning

pjstroh

Mar 30, 2014
1:31am

I'm not getting in the middle of the "Nick" squabble...but I do have a question for Boilerman. Did Nick tell you he does not have his doctor available in the cheaper plan? Or is that a guess on your part? I'm asking because its not common for insurance companies to alter doctor networks in between plans. Usually its just the out of pocket costs that differ. Having said said that...its not obvious to see what the difference is between the plans based on the information provided.

In any case its not easy to compare the new plan to the old one without seeing them side by side. We just have to take Boilerman's word for it. And that's fine. It is a known fact that some people will be paying more under the new law for the same care they had before. Despite being a tiny minority, those people do exist.

Which brings me back to my ongoing point in this thread. You can judge the law by its overall cumulative effect...or you can judge it by cherry-picked anecdotes about individuals that are not happy. History will judge it by the former. Lets give Boiler every benefit of the doubt that Nick's story is true. For every Nick there are many people getting insured for the first time in their adult lives, and many children on their parents' plan. And every senior citizen in tis country is paying a smaller cap on their drugs which will decrease further each year until 2020 at which time seniors will pay nothing for drugs (Nick will get his money back when he retires.) No law is perfect and many improvements can be made to the new health law. But the number of people who got the short end of the stick pre-ACA was much larger.

Our resident conservatives never want to play defense on the system they want to revert back to. They only want to play offense against the new law. And they don't do it with cumulative statistics about coverage, pricing, and access; they do it with a series of cherry picked anecdotes with varying levels of truth and verifiability.

Boilerman

Mar 30, 2014
2:35am

Block User

Below you'll see exactly what Nick emailed me today. I'm not going to ask him to repeat the research he completed last year when choosing a new plan.

Before all those from the "left side of the aisle" jump on Nick, he is not saying that the $570 plan doesn't offer the things below (Nick has not been participating is our discussion). He is saying, however, that after completing his research last December, that he chose a new policy that was the closest match to what he had before. He found the new plan to be substantially more expensive.

I guess Nick's a liar (again) since his new plan isn't quite twice as expensive as his old plan. I would call that exaggerating, but Forkie looks at things differently.

"I picked the plan closest to the plan I had before Obama care
That simple....was paying $546 per month

I want
1. A plan that offers health savings account (hsa). Not all plans offer it

2. I want a one year term. Not all offer it

3. I want 100% Co pay after deductible. Not all plans offer

Tell your lib friends I bought closet to what was taken away from me....apples to apples comparison."

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
I'm not getting in the middle of the "Nick" squabble...but I do have a question for Boilerman. Did Nick tell you he does not have his doctor available in the cheaper plan? Or is that a guess on your part? I'm asking because its not common for insurance companies to alter doctor networks in between plans. Usually its just the out of pocket costs that differ. Having said said that...its not obvious to see what the difference is between the plans based on the information provided.

In any case its not easy to compare the new plan to the old one without seeing them side by side. We just have to take Boilerman's word for it. And that's fine. It is a known fact that some people will be paying more under the new law for the same care they had before. Despite being a tiny minority, those people do exist.

Which brings me back to my ongoing point in this thread. You can judge the law by its overall cumulative effect...or you can judge it by cherry-picked anecdotes about individuals that are not happy. History will judge it by the former. Lets give Boiler every benefit of the doubt that Nick's story is true. For every Nick there are many people getting insured for the first time in their adult lives, and many children on their parents' plan. And every senior citizen in tis country is paying a smaller cap on their drugs which will decrease further each year until 2020 at which time seniors will pay nothing for drugs (Nick will get his money back when he retires.) No law is perfect and many improvements can be made to the new health law. But the number of people who got the short end of the stick pre-ACA was much larger.

Our resident conservatives never want to play defense on the system they want to revert back to. They only want to play offense against the new law. And they don't do it with cumulative statistics about coverage, pricing, and access; they do it with a series of cherry picked anecdotes with varying levels of truth and verifiability.

Boilerman

Mar 30, 2014
2:43am

Block User

While I don't know all the benefits offered on the two Blue Cross plans being discussed, I'm confident that the company is not offering two equal packages (with the exception of one costing substantially more).

I'm anxious to have someone prove me wrong.

alanleroyII

Mar 30, 2014
2:52am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
No law is perfect and many improvements can be made to the new health law. But the number of people who got the short end of the stick pre-ACA was much larger.

Here's the core of the problem as I see it. There are a half dozen very important improvements that the ACA makes to our healthcare system which can be a great benefit to most Americans. Things like requiring insurance policies cover pre-existing conditions and a method for the poor to get more reasonable rates. These most important reforms could have been written into law with a few pages that everyone could understand and agree on. Canada's Health Insurance System was nationalized in 10 pages (Both French and English). Many of our most important documents and laws are the shortest.

So, by the time the special interests and an army of lawyers got through with the ACA it was 1900 pages and has spawned another 20,000 pages of regulations and ended up with no Republican support in congress. It's no wonder the actual roll out was so botched and so controversial that it will be held up as a model of failure for the roll out of large government programs for decades.

What could have been the greatest accomplishment of President Obama's tenure will not be accepted as such...because they didn't keep it simple....because our politicians didn't work together to focus on real problem solving. They didn't even fix the biggest problems...like the obscene end of life medical costs....and the lack of real competition for medical services and prescription drugs.

Pre-existing conditions? That could have been fixed with a one paragraph amendment to the HIPPA act where Group Policies received that protection.

So that's why I hate Obamacare, not just for what it is (a 1900 page legal abomination that nobody read), but for what it could have been (a concise bipartisan law that most everyone understands and supports). If I were President, I wouldn't stand for anything less (or more).

forkushV

Mar 30, 2014
3:03am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
Below you'll see exactly what Nick emailed me today. I'm not going to ask him to repeat the research he completed last year when choosing a new plan.

Before all those from the "left side of the aisle" jump on Nick, he is not saying that the $570 plan doesn't offer the things below (Nick has not been participating is our discussion). He is saying, however, that after completing his research last December, that he chose a new policy that was the closest match to what he had before. He found the new plan to be substantially more expensive.

I guess Nick's a liar (again) since his new plan isn't quite twice as expensive as his old plan. I would call that exaggerating, but Forkie looks at things differently.

"I picked the plan closest to the plan I had before Obama care
That simple....was paying $546 per month

I want
1. A plan that offers health savings account (hsa). Not all plans offer it

2. I want a one year term. Not all offer it

3. I want 100% Co pay after deductible. Not all plans offer

Tell your lib friends I bought closet to what was taken away from me....apples to apples comparison."

Dear Nick:

You could have gotten ALL of the above; HSA, one year term, and 100% co-pay after deductible, for $573.

How do you like them apples?

Dan Svatass

Mar 30, 2014
7:47am

Block User

It could be true that Nick's special doctor is available under one plan but not the other. We don't know.

We also don't know if Nick's special doctor would have stayed on Nick's old insurance after 2013. Doctors have long come and gone on particular plans. It was true before Obamacare that not every doctor is available on every plan, and it remains true now.

But if it's true that Nick's special doctor is only available on the pricier plan, voluntarily paying $3,300 a year more extra in premiums just to get this special doctor, when other doctors on the less-expensive plan might be as good or even better, is quite a commitment.

Dan Svatass

Mar 30, 2014
8:56am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
So, by the time the special interests and an army of lawyers got through with the ACA it was 1900 pages and has spawned another 20,000 pages of regulations

I doubt the alanleroys know how many pages of laws and regulations were repealed as a result of the passage of the Affordable Care Act. You can bet it was a lot.

I'm guessing it took more than 1,900 pages of paper to write letters to the families of the 4,500 American soldiers killed and 32,000 American soldiers wounded in a government program a prior Administration established in Iraq. Somehow, I doubt the number of pages of paper for that project matter as much to the alanleroys.

More to the point: Is there some number of pages that is acceptable for our laws, above which the laws become unacceptable? Double or single space? Font size?

Such a stupid criticism.

alanleroyII

Mar 30, 2014
9:30am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Chilcoot

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
So, by the time the special interests and an army of lawyers got through with the ACA it was 1900 pages and has spawned another 20,000 pages of regulations

When in doubt, bring up the Bush administration? Is that all you've got to support Obamacare? Somehow it figures. Well I didn't vote for George Bush. I think he was one of the worst modern Presidents, but he's quickly being eclipsed by Obama.

You think that 1900 pages is so great, I suggest you review it here for us. One page a day....with your commentary on why each paragraph is really important. That will take care of your blabber for the next 5 years. Maybe then you'll realize that a short bill that covers the most important stuff that has broad general support is far better than a 1900 Piece of Crap nobody read written by bureaucrat lawyers, big pharma, the Doctor's lobby and the Insurance industry...

Dan Svatass

Mar 30, 2014
9:51am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII

Quote
Originally posted by: Chilcoot
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
So, by the time the special interests and an army of lawyers got through with the ACA it was 1900 pages and has spawned another 20,000 pages of regulations
I doubt the alanleroys know how many pages of laws and regulations were repealed as a result of the passage of the Affordable Care Act. You can bet it was a lot.

I'm guessing it took more than 1,900 pages of paper to write letters to the families of the 4,500 American soldiers killed and 32,000 American soldiers wounded in a government program a prior Administration established in Iraq. Somehow, I doubt the number of pages of paper for that project matter as much to the alanleroys.

More to the point: Is there some number of pages that is acceptable for our laws, above which the laws become unacceptable? Double or single space? Font size?

Such a stupid criticism.

Hey, it's your argument, that the number of pages somehow matters.

And it's a stupid argument. The sort of argument that someone with a legitimate beef would never stoop to.

alanleroyII

Mar 30, 2014
10:07am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Chilcoot

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote
Originally posted by: Chilcoot
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyII
So, by the time the special interests and an army of lawyers got through with the ACA it was 1900 pages and has spawned another 20,000 pages of regulations
I doubt the alanleroys know how many pages of laws and regulations were repealed as a result of the passage of the Affordable Care Act. You can bet it was a lot.

I'm guessing it took more than 1,900 pages of paper to write letters to the families of the 4,500 American soldiers killed and 32,000 American soldiers wounded in a government program a prior Administration established in Iraq. Somehow, I doubt the number of pages of paper for that project matter as much to the alanleroys.

More to the point: Is there some number of pages that is acceptable for our laws, above which the laws become unacceptable? Double or single space? Font size?

Such a stupid criticism.

When in doubt, bring up the Bush administration? Is that all you've got to support Obamacare? Somehow it figures. Well I didn't vote for George Bush. I think he was one of the worst modern Presidents, but he's quickly being eclipsed by Obama.

You think that 1900 pages is so great, I suggest you review it here for us. One page a day....with your commentary on why each paragraph is really important. That will take care of your blabber for the next 5 years. Maybe then you'll realize that a short bill that covers the most important stuff that has broad general support is far better than a 1900 Piece of Crap nobody read written by bureaucrat lawyers, big pharma, the Doctor's lobby and the Insurance industry...

Hey, it's your argument, that the number of pages somehow matters.

And it's a stupid argument. The sort of argument that someone with a legitimate beef would never stoop to.

We could have fixed the most critical healthcare problems facing our society with a few pages. That could have had broad bipartisan support.

Instead we produced a divisive 1900 page partisan monstrosity that no one read, has been an implementation nightmare and only 26% of Americans now support. That's not a stupid criticism....just facts.

You're the one who seems to think 1900 pages was necessary to fix healthcare, you read them to us. You have read the bill you support so dearly, right?

«‹29 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now