These threads aptly illustrate that having health insurance does not equate to receiving health care.
Posted on 11/03/2016 9:54:27 AM PDT by xzins
On the heels of the postman’s delivery of an estimated 1.4 million insurance cancelation notices, the Obama administration announced last week the 2017 rates for insurance policies sold on Obamacare exchanges. Predictably, the escalation in rates continues unabated.
As CNN.com reported, rates for 2017 will increase on average 22 percent, and as much as 116 percent in Arizona. CNBC.com highlighted the further cost increase consumers will face from higher deductibles: “[d]eductibles for individuals enrolled in the lowest-priced Obamacare health plans will average more than $6,000 in 2017.” Consumers also face fewer options. Seventy fewer companies are participating in the exchanges next year and approximately 21 percent of consumers will be limited to choosing plans from a sole insurance carrier.
With the public again facing the heartburn of fewer and more expensive choices in health insurance plans offered on the Obamacare exchanges, the “Affordable” Care Act is now front and center again. Since then, critics of Obamacare have been on their annual encore tour of the “I-told-you-so” choir.
Bre Payton already noted the hilarity of President Obama calling the recently revealed problems with Obamacare “bugs” while comparing them to a cell phone glitch. The president insisted you fix a snafu rather than return to the days of the rotary phone. Unless, of course, it starts on fire. Call me crazy, but breaking every promise made to enact the “Affordable” Care Act reeks of spontaneous combustion. There’s a name for a product that goes up in smoke—it’s called a lemon. You don’t fix a lemon, you junk it.
The Federalist’s Mary Katharine Ham exposed a further twist (of the knife?): Obamacare makes the prudent and responsible act of purchasing insurance for a healthy family foolhardy and unreasonable, at least in a purely economic sense. To hit the trifecta, Michelle Malkin shared her family’s continued Obamacare saga as they face their third cancelation in as many years.
Proponents of Obamacare took a bifurcated approach: First, as President Obama did, they stressed the law had some problems to fix, then pivoted to Republicans’ refusal to fix the law. Second, supporters of the “Affordable” Care Act stressed the popular aspects of the law, such as paying for pre-existing conditions and for adult children up to 26 years old. Of course, these popular aspects of Obamacare (along with the other coverage mandates) directly cause the increase in insurance rates, triggering the death spiral.
But there is yet another flaw in seeking to vindicate Obamacare by focusing on those with pre-existing conditions. Just as Obamacare injures the healthy, it also visits harm on those with pre-existing conditions. It does so in four ways.
1. Limited Access to Doctors
First, to manage costs, insurance policies on the Obamacare exchanges limit access to doctors and medical facilities. For the healthy, Obama’s broken “if-you-like-your-doctor, you-can-keep-your-doctor” promise is an inconvenience and a burden. But for those with chronic health conditions, the consequences are more significant.
Malkin makes this point in passing, noting that her family’s soon-to-be canceled plan is “nosebleed expensive, but provides us access to specialists not curtailed by bureaucratic gatekeepers. This has been important for us because several members of my family have required specialized care for chronic illnesses.”
For individuals with rare conditions or diseases, called orphan diseases, the impact is even more dire because a limited number of doctors and clinics specialize in those diseases. For instance, there are just about 120 approved cystic fibrosis centers throughout the United States to provide care for the approximate 30,000 individuals with this genetic disease. Many patients already must travel several hours to see their specialists. Some are now finding those doctors and clinics are off-limits, as these recent posts on a patient forum show.
These threads aptly illustrate that having health insurance does not equate to receiving health care.
2. Restrictions on Drug Coverage
The last thread above highlights another problem with Obamacare. Individuals with pre-existing conditions frequently require an artillery of prescription medications. Insurance companies (still) participating in the Obamacare exchanges defend against the high costs of covering those with pre-existing conditions by limiting coverage for certain prescription drugs or establishing higher co-insurance and co-pay percentages.
Limiting drug choices affects those with pre-existing conditions more frequently and more significantly than it does healthy individuals. A quick Google search shows the above concerns are not isolated.
Repeat: Health insurance does not equate to health care.
3. High Deductibles and Co-Pays
Exchange-based insurance companies also attempt to manage costs by offering policies with high deductibles and co-pays. Ham pointed out the irony here. Prior to Obamacare, she had a high-deductible plan that cost less than her current plan. President Obama referred to such plans as “junk.” But following Obamacare, Ham’s “individual deductible is more than two times the high deductible on [her] old ‘junk.’”
The rise in deductibles hits those with pre-existing conditions the hardest because they regularly incur $5,000 or more in annual medical expenses. Of course, those with pre-existing conditions who are able to afford the high out-of-pocket expenses benefit if they could not obtain insurance before Obamacare. Unfortunately, according to a survey by the Commonwealth Fund, 44 percent of the underinsured (i.e., those with high deductibles or out-of-pocket expenses compared to their income) forego needed medical care.
Hillary Clinton points to this survey to support her proposed “fixes” to the “Affordable” Care Act. She suggests sweetening the law by adding more freebies—requiring insurance companies to cover three sick visits a year with no out-of-pocket expenses. Clinton also wants to limit out-of-pocket costs for prescription medications to $250 per month. However, even the most ardent advocate of Obamacare recognizes that such measures will further increase already too high premiums, leading more to forego insurance.
Repeat again: health insurance does not equate to health care.
4. Loss of State High-Risk Pools
Finally, prior to Obamacare states addressed the inability of many with pre-existing conditions to obtain health insurance by providing high-risk pools. Insurance sold in these pools was funded by a “combination of state funds, enrollee premiums, and fees assessed on private health insurance carriers.”
However, following the passage of Obamacare, the number of state high-risk pools dwindled from 35 to 13, with many of the remaining pools closed to new applicants. Thus, many people with pre-existing conditions lost the availability of high-risk pools, leaving as their only option the high costs and limited choice Obamacare provides.
Admittedly, some individuals with pre-existing conditions benefit from Obamacare. But it is a pretty narrow group: those without access to employer-based health insurance who were within the estimated 20 percent of applicants denied private health insurance, who lived in one of the 15 states without a high-risk pool, and who can afford the high premiums and co-pays of policies offered on the Obamacare exchanges. It’s not quite the promised panacea for those with chronic health conditions!
It’s time for the proponents of Obamacare to recognize that there just isn’t enough sugar in the world to make the “Affordable” Care Act palatable. This lemon needs to be tossed.
Margot Cleveland is a lawyer, CPA, and adjunct professor for the University of Notre Dame. Cleveland can be reached via email at mobrien@nd.edu or on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland.
Deductibles so high that they mean you really don’t have insurance unless a catastrophe strikes your family.
Absolutely, having a deductible that the normal family would not be able to pay in ten years is the same as not having insurance at all!
And we told them that! but they would not listen because they were trying to sneak Canada’s socialist system all the time. Single payer will also be just as bad as not having insurance at all.
People with PECs were bamboozled, or just plain ignorant of the law.
The law simply says that insurers must cover PECs, not that they must do so cheaply.................
Single payer can be so corrupted that we might discover that progressives get to live and conservatives get to die.
That secularists live and Christians die.
That Maragaret Sangers desirables live, and her despised peoples die.
Death panels.
If “being Christian” means carrying on some religion at a cultural level, this is plausible.
If actually spiritually delving into the Lord like one’s soul depended on it... different result is likely. The ancient church found that it gained more people than were fed to lions.
This is why we opted out. It’s simply not worth it. I did a risk assessment (it’s actually part of what I do in my job) and realized we were better off to go without insurance.
To use an analogy, imagine you are a young man with three toddlers. Would it be a good idea to buy life insurance? Of course it would.
Now, imagine that the cost of a life insurance plan for four times your annual salary was higher than your house and car payament, forcing you to abandon saving for your kids college, not to mention family trips, bikes for the kids, etc.
An intelligent man would simply go without and start saving the money for the possibility of his early demise.
This is what health insurance has come to for a lot of us.
And, psssst. Don’t tell anybody. But if you pay for health care out of pocket or with a credit card you can save from 75-90% on the actual health care costs. The stories are legion and many are from people I know personally.
The health insurance crisis, imo, is manufactured.
However, I wouldn’t be overly gloomy at this point because it looks like help may be just around the corner. Hillary is becoming more despised by the day, and a Trump win with coat tails will provide the basis for doing away with O’Care for a saner system.
We were talking about the single payer government insurance.
Committees decide who gets treatment and who doesn’t.
>>Deductibles so high that they mean you really don’t have insurance unless a catastrophe strikes your family.<<
Ironically, that’s what insurance is supposed to be, i.e., protection from catastrophe, not a prepaid health plan.
The massive trend toward higher deductibles and out-of-pocket charges is the first necessary step toward restoring a functioning, consumer-friendly, healthcare market in the U.S. If it works as it should, consumers will start routinely pricing needed services and going to whichever doctor provides them the services they want at a price they can afford.
To be competitive, healthcare providers will have to start pricing services more realistically (instead of gaming the insurance companies) and prices will fall. That should eventually lower both the cost of insurance and the level of deductibles/copays as a free market in healthcare finally develops.
And in a free market, we can choose our providers instead of being forced to go to only the ones covered by our insurers.
Getting there won’t be easy, but we’re actually on the right route. The problem is that the markets are currently so messed up by government and insurers that people have to face these massive deductibles at the outset. But it’s that or single payer with government dictating the terms.
The rack rate is there for show.
Trying to stop the Christian doctors from making it a ministry would be hard... just for starters.
I wouldn't agree with that.
These O'Care people charge mortgage sized MONTHLY premiums to go WITH their catastrophic plan deductibles.
The idea behind choosing a catastrophic plan is that it causes your premiums to nosedive to very low levels in a competitive, free market system.
The better plans call for you to pay a higher monthly premium to get all kinds of coverages.
You can buy a car insurance plan/extended warranty to do the same thing, if you want to make that kind of payment on your car. You can even get one that provides oil changes.
But your monthly premium will go up.
With O'Care you have high deductibles no matter which plan you're on. Some a little less and some a little more, but none of it rational.
>>And, psssst. Don’t tell anybody. But if you pay for health care out of pocket or with a credit card you can save from 75-90% on the actual health care costs. The stories are legion and many are from people I know personally.<<
And that’s exactly what we’d all find out if we ever get the government and insurance companies out of the primary payment role. And as prices become more rational, people would find insurance companies willing to drop the deductibles. Plus premiums would drop, enabling people to handle their deductibles routinely, just as they routinely handle their car and home maintenance issues.
Want to have car insurance triple, and the cost of maintenance triple as well. Just have the government mandate that car insurance policies have to cover all routine maintenance. Within a year the average oil change would cost several hundred dollars and every decent-sized mechanic bay would have two or three insurance people on staff to file claims.
Under a single payer system, Reagan says we’re just a step away from despotism. Then they’ll make everyone do what they want.
I asked my doc a few weeks back if he’d take cash payments for services and he immediately said yes.
His paperwork overhead is outrageous, his time to payment would sink the rest of us, and his final ‘profit’ is far less than the charge he has to forward because of all the overhead.
I’m in no way arguing that Obamacare is the right route, quite the opposite.
What I’m saying is that the market trend toward higher deductibles and out-of-pocket payments is a needed first step to restore a free-market healthcare market. That trend is happening across the employer-paid insurance plans in a big way over the past few years. The Obamacare premiums and deductibles are mostly a result of establishing something that just doesn’t work in practice, primarily due to adverse selection. That is, only the really sick can justify the insurance.
You and I are on the same page. I use the car insurance analogy often.
If we separated health care insurance from the employee/employer relationship it would go a long ways to fixing the whole problem.
Oh, and guess why that relationship exists: The federal government created a wage freeze during WWII so employers started offering free health insurance to bring in the good candidates.
i.e. the FedGov caused the problem.
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.
