In ER, and only to the extent of stabilizing the patient for discharge. Good luck finding cancer early and treating it at the ER. But once you are terminal, sure, come in, they'll give you a pain killer.
Medical services can't be denied by a patient's inability to pay, that's the law.
Mine would have been less. I had quotes right before BHOcare went into effect then BAM they almost doubled.
and that is in NO way the insurance companies taking advantage of a situation, correct?
What's your point? Even if you incorporate that data the years after the ACA still look awfully good from a health care inflation standpoint, wouldn't you agree?
No you dolt. Did you not read the article response I posted? Of course not. It's essentially saying that the health care inflation rate (the real one, not your cherry picked one) is very closely in line with the CPI rate. Hence, this whole notion that the ACA has driven down the costs of health care is barbarically laughable. CPI has been down and is a graph PRECISELY like the one posted for health care.
The point simply being, the ACA had NOTHING to do with the significant drops in health care inflation - most of which happened before Obama was EVEN IN THE SENATE. Where you get off thinking the ACA played a part in the inflation drops is beyond me. Regardless, as Doc Savage eloquently put it, you're going to see a BIT of variance in either graph after this enrollment period...
I guess you missed my link to HuffPo in there too (certainly not a Right Wing publication). Try again.
No you dolt. Did you not read the article response I posted? Of course not. It's essentially saying that the health care inflation rate (the real one, not your cherry picked one) is very closely in line with the CPI rate. Hence, this whole notion that the ACA has driven down the costs of health care is barbarically laughable. CPI has been down and is a graph PRECISELY like the one posted for health care.
The point simply being, the ACA had NOTHING to do with the significant drops in health care inflation - most of which happened before Obama was EVEN IN THE SENATE. Where you get off thinking the ACA played a part in the inflation drops is beyond me. Regardless, as Doc Savage eloquently put it, you're going to see a BIT of variance in either graph after this enrollment period...
If Obamacare is the cause of this remarkable slowdown in health inflation, then how does Mr. Phillips explain that this slowdown clearly began in 2003-2004, before President Obama had even been elected to the Senate?
That sucks that your two insurers send you to the website. You probably can still walk in their doors and sign up (or call).Good points. However there are a few problems with them.
1. The 2 main insurers(the two I am willing to choose based on my needs) send you straight to the gov website to sign up.
2. I have today and tomorrow to do this as I will be on a jobsite starting Wednesday and lasting a couple weeks. So my timeline for this is quite short. If the system wasn't so F'd up, I'd have already had this done but due to BHOcare I have to jump through all these extra BROKEN hoops that didn't exist before. And no, the website isn't there just to compare. I don't think you've actually had to do this on your own if you think that's all it does.
Also written by a guy from the Fraser Institute.
In ER, and only to the extent of stabilizing the patient for discharge. Good luck finding cancer early and treating it at the ER. But once you are terminal, sure, come in, they'll give you a pain killer.
No, I don't agree that ACA still looks awfully good from a health care inflation standpoint. Did you not understand my post? The graph you cited did not include the huge premium and deductible cap increases for 2016. Average premium (deductible cap) increases for 2016 are as follows: Bronze 11% (10-11%), Silver 10% (6-8%), Gold 14% (?), Platinum 16% (-4%). When you subtract the expected 1.5% CPI increase for 2016, that Excess Health Inflation graph you linked goes off the chart for 2016.What's your point? Even if you incorporate that data the years after the ACA still look awfully good from a health care inflation standpoint, wouldn't you agree?
Unfortunately, there are many here who take what he says at face value.Going to have to go with s0me0nesmind1 since eski seems only capable of trying to shame him. Oh eski. I don't care that you always miss the point its the people who believe you and join in because they don't know any better. Oh well.
No, I don't agree that ACA still looks awfully good from a health care inflation standpoint. Did you not understand my post? The graph you cited did not include the huge premium and deductible cap increases for 2016. Average premium (deductible cap) increases for 2016 are as follows: Bronze 11% (10-11%), Silver 10% (6-8%), Gold 14% (?), Platinum 16% (-4%). When you subtract the expected 1.5% CPI increase for 2016, that Excess Health Inflation graph you linked goes off the chart for 2016.
https://www.healthpocket.com/health...6-obamacare-premiums-deductibles#.Vji7y7erRpg
Wow...just wow.No, I understood your post perfectly well. Your first problem is only taking marketplace premiums and deductibles instead of taking all health spending and your second mistake is only taking one year instead of all of them since the ACA or at a minimum 2013 to present. Now compare the excess health care inflation to what happened in the years before.
Now doesn't the ACA look awfully good once you stop trying to cherry pick your data? Don't be duped again, friend.
Going to have to go with s0me0nesmind1 since eski seems only capable of trying to shame him. Oh eski. I don't care that you always miss the point its the people who believe you and join in because they don't know any better. Oh well.
Going to have to go with s0me0nesmind1 since eski seems only capable of trying to shame him. Oh eski. I don't care that you always miss the point its the people who believe you and join in because they don't know any better. Oh well.
Wow...just wow.
My personal experience with my employer based insurance, plans, options and cost have nearly flatlined now that ACA i.e. Obamacare i.e. Romney Care, i.e. Trump care (you KNOW Donald will keep ACA plus take full credit when elected) has become law.
Typically in the past before ACA, employee rates went up 25% year after year.
And worse, companies keep switching companies they participate with.
Talk about keeping your favorite doctor(s) under the old system.... yeah right.
Nice republican talking point they toss out there against ACA, but... if that was actually true.
Now, with ACA, our company plan(s) went up $4 the first year, $3 the second, and projected to be less than $10 increase for 2016.
Yeah it goes up , but nowheres near 25% as in the past pre ACA years.
But all ACA i.e. Obamacare is are the same old insurance for profit companies that we had before. And everyone knows how that system works. Someway somehow insurance companies will find new ways to keep costs rising and denying people coverage.
That is why some sort of national health system is needed, but that would have to be created by smart people outside of government.
The end result would still be national or government health insurance for all, but managed by some detached or unique government agency.
Like a mini government all unto itself and managed solely by the best people Donald Trump could round up.
PS.
One huge but forgotten advantage with employer based insurance today resulting directly from ACA i.e. Obamacare is the fact other family members can be brought onboard ones plan despite preexisting conditions.
Several employees have had their spouse lose a job and with that their healthcare, and that suddenly unemployed spouse had some sort of medical condition as well.
Before ACA, that spouse would never have been allowed onto their spouses company plan with a preexisting condition.
Nor their child with a preexisting condition, for that matter.
Now with ACA reforms, several employees have brought their spouse onboard with their company plan.
But you'll never hear congressional republicans nor republican president hopefuls talk about THAT.
It's only about 50% Obamacare by itself.
The other 50% were the ACA reforms that went into action.
Citation?
Non-covered medical conditions
Not all medical conditions qualify for uncompensated mandated services imposed by EMTALA, which is contrary to the misperception that many individuals assume that if they are ill, they will be treated, regardless of their ability to pay.
The sole purpose for the EMTALA mandated MSE is to require Emergency Departments to make a determination whether an emergency medical condition does or does not exist, using their normal assessment and diagnostic protocols. Since the MSE is a mandated EMTALA service, health insurers are required to cover benefits for their subscribers. They are also required to cover EMTALA mandated services necessary to stabilize individuals determined to have an EMC.
EMTALA intentionally omitted any requirement for hospitals to provide uncompensated stabilizing treatment for individuals with medical conditions determined not to be an EMC. Therefore, such individuals are not eligible for further uncompensated examination and treatment beyond the MSE.