Posted on 05/10/2014 12:42:31 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A new report finds that Obamacare customers are in for sticker shock because, unlike many employer-sponsored insurance plans, the fine print in many Obamacare policies requires patients to meet their deductible before lower-cost prescription drug co-pays kick in.
That means hefty out-of-pocket expenses for Obamacare plan holders, especially since Obamacare deductibles are "relatively high" as compared to employer-sponsored insurance plans.
The report, which was conducted by the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation and Breakaway Policy, concludes that even Obamacare customers who receive taxpayer-funded subsidies will "find it difficult to afford the amounts they will have to pay out-of-pocket before their Exchange plans begin to pay benefits."
The study found that so-called "combined deductible" plans account for roughly half of the 1,208 Silver Obamacare plans analyzed and average $2,267 for a 27-year-old single person. That means that individual would have to pay full price on prescription drugs until he or she met the $2,267 deductible.
"Deductibles under Exchange plans are being applied to products and services not generally subject to the deductible in [employer sponsored insurance] plans," said the report. "This could further complicate enrollees' task of evaluating plans' cost sharing provisions, as they will not only have to consider the amount of deductibles but also the way they are applied."(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Correction. Only people who pay will pay the deductible. The wealthy won’t care and the poor will stay on welfare.
Sandra Fluck gets free birth control and that is what is really important.
Medicaid: Half of Doctors Won’t Accept New Patients
http://blog.heritage.org/2014/05/08/medicaid-half-doctors-wont-accept-new-patients/
Doctors have been turning down Medicaid patients for over 20 years, ObieCare has just increased the number that’ll be turned down. One of the most efficient uses of funds to provide health care to the poor would have been to increase reimbursement rates, thereby making it possible to treat Medicaid patients without losing money, but the administration chose to spend that money on things like Pajama Boy ads instead.
They not only designed an inefficient, low quality, badly managed system, they also screwed up in the areas where they might have done some good.
Not a shock that insurance companies & pharmaceuticals will get paid first. I am not anti- capitalist.. I am anti- companies writing the laws for their benefit. I think I read about it somewhere in the Federalists papers. What is happening now is not capitalism, but outright theft.
BTW.. everyone should pay attention, soon we will all be on Obamacare.
About the poor, don’t worry, they will be forced into the ER when no one else can see them. What a bargain, huh?
are deductables for real?
I assume that doctors assume that deductables have not been met, so they simply bump up their charge by the amount of
the deductable, as getting any money
from a patient is unlikely.
or not, please enlighten me
What is not emphasized is the fact that that the deductibles are annual. Lots of people don’t consider this and are surprised when they find out. One finally meets the deductible say in November only to find out in January it starts all over. Then the pooh hits the fan when they realize this.
I’m not sure it works that way. My daughter needs $300 plus in deductible costs prior to a cat scan and MRI to check a lump in her breast. I always thought they billed you afterwards, it seems you need the money up front now. I guess for poor people without cash that means no healthcare at all with the upfront deductible?
One increased 10 times and the other "only" went up by 2.5 times.
I love this obamacare, it's so fair and I can't wait for my $2,500 per year savings to begin...I think that is scheduled for 2057.
The article talks about silver plans. If people are striving to get the low premiums when they buy and ACA plan they will buy a lower premium bronze plan and face even higher deductibles and copays.
It was good politics for Obama to delay the enforcement of ACA rules on business plans, which cover most working Americans. Had he not there would be a firestorm of opposition to him and the ACA in this election year. Obama and the Dems know most Americans won’t focus on the ACA until they are actually faced with higher costs and lower coverage. The 5-6 million people whose insurance was canceled are too small a group to matter politically today unless they are highly organized and well funded which they aren’t.
The firestorm has been effectively delayed until 2015. If the Republicans don’t take the Senate in 2014 the Senate Democrats are prepared to stonewall through the firestorm no matter how many times the Republican House votes to kill the ACA. The only chance House Republicans have to end the ACA will be using the appropriations process to defund it. They have always had that power but have not had the political courage to stand tall long enough through the resulting government shutdown to force Obama and the Senate to capitulate. It is hard to imagine Karl Rove and the other moneymen supporting this approach with the 2016 presidential election approaching.
If the Democrats lose the Senate the Republicans have a dilemma. When tens of millions of people on employer plans are facing 30% to 100% premium increases, plus higher deductibles and copays, in a single year there will be a cry from the people. Democrats and Obama will blame the problem on greedy insurance companies and demand single payer. Large multinational companies, and their K street moneymen, will be quietly telling the Republicans Senators to do nothing or acquiesce to single payer. Large corporations want to shed the cost of employer paid health care and won’t want repeal. As a result it is very unlikely a Republican Senate, with a one or two seat majority, will vote to repeal the ACA. All it will take is McCain, Graham, Alexander, Collins and perhaps one or two other Republican Senators, who want to be hailed in the press for 5 minutes as “bipartisan”, to kill repeal. Once repeal is killed once in Congress, Obamacare is permanent and the Republican Party is effectively dead for hard core conservatives.
Even if a Republican Senate passes a repeal measure by one or two votes, Obama will veto it. The Republicans will not have the votes to override and Obamacare will become a permanent entitlement. By 2016 the ACA will be old news, Hillary will run against Jeb Bush or Chis Christie in a “historic” election. With hard core conservatives staying home, and the white female swing vote going to Hillary, she will win comfortably and bring in a Democrat Senate. Game over. Beyond 2016, demographics will overwhelm the Republicans Party, particularly if amnesty is passed in 2014 or 2015, which it will be.
The ACA gives the executive branch and the bureaucracy unprecedented discretionary power over the lives of individual Americans and the language of the law prevents Congressional oversight. If Scalia and Kennedy don’t exit the Supreme Court by the end of Obama’s second term, their ages suggest they will fade out during the first term of Hillary. Once they are replaced by another Kagan or Sotomayor, there is no chance the Supreme Court will place any limits on the ACA or the power of the imperial Presidency.
The period of history we are living through is analogous to the end of the Roman Republic and establishment of the Roman Empire. The election of Obama and the passage of the ACA was effectively the tipping point when the American people, through their elected representatives, chose chains over freedom.
Over the next 5-6 years we will see the fundamental change Obama promised. Amnesty, which the Republican Party establishment has decided to back, will ensure the progressives stay in power permanently. The retirement of Scalia and Kennedy from the Supreme Court will give progressives a permanent majority on the court. Expect the 2nd Amendment to be interpreted as applying only to members of the National Guard, police departments, or state and federal law enforcement. Once the Court so rules, guns held by private citizens will be outlawed and forcibly collected. Freedom of religion will be restricted, particularly for christians. Hate speech laws will pass, upheld by the Supreme Court, and enforced by the bureaucracy. These laws will effectively shut down conservative talk radio and free speech on the internet. Any voices of opposition that aren’t silenced will be persecuted by the IRS for tax law violations or the Justice Department for real or imagined crimes.
In the early 1930’s Hitler could have been stopped if a few prominent men had chosen to be patriots instead of standing aside. Over the past six years, we’ve seen the tyrants (Obama, Pelosi, Reid) openly and without shame trampling liberty. At every key point, those who were in positions to make a difference (Boehner, McConnell, Cantor, McCain, Romney) have failed the test. Not only have they failed the test, they’ve aided the tyrants in stifling the voices of protest from the tea parties, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and a few others.
While it is true too many leaders have failed us in this time of peril, placing their comfortable lives and social status, ahead of their oath of office and duty the real fault lies with the American people. The American people of today are not the independent farmers of 1776 who rose up against the tyranny of the British Empire. Americans today are highly dependent on employers, government, and the technology of the modern age for their lives and happiness.
The progression from an agricultural society, in which most people were self reliant, to a modern technology enabled urban society has created dependency. In addition, as our ruling class has chosen to subject the American worker to competition from low cost labor from abroad, the government safety net has become more essential to survival for urban and suburban dwellers who, unlike the farmers of the founding, are unable to sustain life independently. The Americans of today have chosen to give up freedom for the perceived security of the safety net. It is ironic that the ACA, which today most moderates and liberals perceive as another reasonable addition to the safety net, will in the future be the vehicle future tyrants use to snuff out the lives of individuals who oppose the regime.
There is a feeling of discomfort in the population today. There seems to be a sense the nation is heading in the wrong direction but at the same time an unwillingness to blame it on the progressive policies of the current regime. Very few Americans are alarmed at destruction of the culture and the encroachments on individual liberty.
What will these Americans do in ten years when the ugly side of government tyranny is being displayed daily? When talk radio and other voices of opposition are gone. When the population is disarmed. When swat teams descend on the neighborhood carrying away the nice couple next door who occasionally said negative things about the president. When they are denied a medical procedure due to their age when the much older precinct captain of the majority party received the same procedure two months ago. When their IRA and 401K accounts taken and swept into social security to protect their savings from the market. Two years later when they are told their individual savings account is now being pooled and disbursements will be based on need determined by a bureaucrat instead of their own choice. When the armed forces begin swearing an oath to the president instead of the Constitution. When electricity supply is no longer reliable with periodic blackouts lasting days. When day to day life fundamentally changes will the Americans of the near future simply cope like the people of Venezuela, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union or will they march in the streets in mass despite the risk to life and property? Within ten years we will likely know.
How will it go in the US? Ukaine might be an example. One part of the country imposing its will on everyone else, and some areas not in accord fighting to determine their own path. Calls for federalization, with state and local rights. Some regions and communities will handle it well and have a future, otheres not so much.
“How will it go in the US?”
I agree with you the level of resistance will vary by location. One dilemma the government will have is the decline in availability and reliability of electricity if it continues its war on fossil fuels and mandates far less reliable green energy. Combine this with the inadequate investment in maintaining the fossil fuel generating infrastructure. Electricity powers the technology used to collect data on citizens and monitor their movements. Without reliable and continuous supplies of electrical power, the central government has less ability to monitor people.
As government becomes more centralized and controlling its need to spy on citizens it views as threats will increase. As electricity becomes scarce, will government allocate it to the cities where the potential exists for large scale unrest or will it allocate it to the countryside where people or more independent and likely to be actively resisting government? To the extent the power is allocated to the cities, the countryside will become more independent, learning to live with less technology. People who are not using cell phones, televisions and computers are more difficult to track and monitor. People forced to communicate face to face are more likely to form strong bonds, learn to trust and help each other, and ultimately organize resistance groups. People who can grow their own food, maintain the own homes, and move around independently are much less willing to follow orders.
In the cities a different dynamic exists. The anonymity of urban life results in higher use of technology. There is a large underclass in urban areas which if not controlled will plunder and pillage. Modern police forces rely heavily on reliable supplies of electricity to sustain the technologies they use to control the underclass. Take away electricity for hours everyday and the criminals will run wild. Take away electricity for days and the welfare dependent masses will no longer sit at home mesmerized by television. They will take to the streets and occupy themselves stripping stores bare and burning vehicles for entertainment. This will create another dilemma for the one party state. Does it use military force to crush its voters or does it allow them to destroy the city?
Reliable electrical power is essential element of modern civilization. As power becomes scarce and expensive, civilization will begin to unravel. History demonstrates as civilization unravels the state will become more and more despotic until the sheer numbers of people contributing to anarchy overruns the power of the police force.
Throw a wild card into the mix, such as an EMP attack, and the collapse will come rapidly. Will the survivors form a new republic or will outside invaders come in to colonize and control what is left? Likely the latter. China can easily send hundreds of millions of colonists to overwhelm the survivors, rebuild the infrastructure, and exploit the natural resources.
The China potential problem...there was a posting about a week ago about Chinest buying up lots of real estate in Detroit. Detroit controls the bridges to Canada and is a large port on the Great Lakes. Detroit without what's left of the population would be a huge piece of real estate in a more regionalized US.
You bring up electricity, and what would happen in the cities. Look at most cities. The interstates could be used to keep people in them if things necessary for survival weren't available in them. The populations would be trapped, so they wouldn't be a concern, I'd suspect. Keep in mind that gas can't be pumped if there's no electricity and public transportation could easily be cut off. (thinking about that, I'm thinking having an almost-full gas tank at all times might be smart)
It's been said before that the next civil war will be about water rights. Those areas you speak of that succeed? It will be those that have what it took in the early days of manufacturing....water for drinking, transportation, and evergy. Land and conditions to provide their own food. Some of those old rural MA towns that still have small populations of ol' yankee heredity, for example, should do just fine. It'll be about places that still have the resources and skills for self-sufficiency.
The oligarchs are doing a pretty good job of managing things so there isn't a collapse. But as you stated, it'll be the unpredictable, the event that can no longer be controlled, that causes chaos. Add to the possiblilities disease or the food supply being so tainted and with so many shortages that it isn't adequate.
When will it happen? Who knows? When it does, things will deteriorate quickly.
So what you’re saying is, we should roll now and make the bass turds pay for what they’ve done to this country.
Sandra Fluck gets free birth control and that is what is really important.”””
I sincerely hope that no male ever gives her a reason to need birth control pills.
Then I hope she has a reaction to them.
With tanglement in everyone’s ‘health care’, hospitals are not sure they will EVER get paid.
So now things are literally COD.
By election day most people on employer plans will know the bad news. Employee options are usually done in October.
my adult dtr on Medicaid needs specific treatment from a neurologist and I know he's itching to drop her....the insurance is a nightmare and I don't blame him, but my dtr can't really advocate for herself very well and infact, the patient can't even intervene between the Dr and the state medicaid people....
Ayn Rand said that the time to go on strike was when you’re no longer allowed to vocally protest the government’s actions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.