Posted on 12/09/2013 7:29:02 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
In the latest in the Paper of Record’s recent series on their gradually creeping realization that There Is No Such Thing as a Free Lunch: ObamaCare Edition, the NYT has a story out this morning that hones in on the Obama administration’s desire to tout premiums that sound as gloriously low as is humanly possible — even if that means deliberately obfuscating the ways in which insurance companies are now looking to make up the increased costs of the overhaul in other, less immediately obvious areas.
The Obama administration will herald what appear to be “affordable” premiums available to so many lucky Americans through ObamaCare all day long, “but as consumers” [and, evidently, the NYT] “dig into the details, they are finding that the deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs are often much higher than what is typical in employer-sponsored health plans.” There’s plenty of cushion on behalf of ObamaCare in the piece, but the overriding message I’m reading is that ObamaCare is not the wondrous and automatic cost-saving measure officials are touting it as, and that a lot of people, if they’re ineligible for ObamaCare’s more blatantly redistributive effects, are going to have to pay for all of the added “benefits” they now have no choice but to include in their plans somehow:
Until now, it was almost impossible for people using the federal health care website to see the deductible amounts, which consumers pay before coverage kicks in. But federal officials finally relented last week and added a “window shopping” feature that displays data on deductibles.
For policies offered in the federal exchange, as in many states, the annual deductible often tops $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a couple. …
Mark A. York, a 60-year-old freelance writer in Hailey, Idaho, said he began shopping after he received a letter saying that his current insurance policy would be canceled because it did not meet the requirements of the health care law. In the exchange, he said, he found policies with premiums similar to what he is now paying, $440 a month, but “the deductibles were so high — $4,000 to $6,000 a year — that it defeats the purpose of having insurance.” …
Federal officials often point to premiums as evidence that the health care law has made insurance affordable. “Nearly six in 10 uninsured Americans can pay less than $100 a month for coverage in the health insurance marketplace,” Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, has said.
Except that those miraculously low premiums aren’t really much of a favor if they’re accompanied by much higher deductibles, co-payments, and drastically limited provider networks, are they? There’s been a sizable and obviously deliberate lack of straightforwardness going on with this law, and those aren’t the only hidden and/or “unexpected” costs that consumers might now find themselves facing, as the WSJ reported the other day:
Americans with chronic illnesses—who are expected to be among the biggest beneficiaries of the health law—face widely varying out-of-pocket drug costs that could be obscured on the new insurance exchanges.
Under the law, patients can’t be denied coverage due to existing conditions or charged higher rates than healthier peers. The law also sets an annual out-of-pocket maximum of up to $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families, after which insurers pay the full tab.
But depending on the coverage they select, some patients on expensive drug regimens could reach that level fast. Some medications for conditions including hepatitis, rheumatoid arthritis, HIV and cancer can retail for thousands of dollars a month, and some plans require patients to pay as much as 50% of the cost.
uh, and how cheap does anyone think “single payer” is going to be?
folks need to figure out that “single payer” is NOT a euphemism for “someone else pays”
to understand Zeke, look up “Complete Lives System”
When Hillary! kicks off her 2016 campaign. She'll be the "reasonable" alternative to Obama.
Wont sell,. Hillary's 2007 to 2008 proposal was too much like Obamacare for her to have credibility on replacing it..
Thats why Dem progressives want more progressive Elizabeth Warren instead of Hillary for 2016. (Hillary voted for Iraq too.)
She has hands clean and can pitch single payer in their view.
The deductibles on CT policy’s are misleading. They are a better deal than they look. The policy covers in full many costs that would have been part of the deductible on previous policies.the Obama care policies have a high deductible but it allies to costs that I,m not likely to incur.they are like a cross between full coverage and major medical.
“Where’s the polls saying Americans trust Dems to impose single payer?”
Good point, for now. But keep in mind that the polls clearly showed Americans’ disdain for Obamacare before it was rammed down our throats.
At any rate, I’m guessing you’ll start hearing about how those evil insurance companies (Big Insurance) are inflating health care costs with their evil profit motives (high compensation packages for Big Insurance execs, etc). That if we simply cut out the middle man and “self-insure” as a nation (nationalize the industry), we could bring costs to the consumer down to a more affordable level...blah, blah, blah. They will say, yes, it will increase the cost of government but “you like your Medicare, don’t you?”.
It will take a few years, but Progressives believe that those in favor of single-payor health care will increase to the tipping point, thereby increasing the number of congressmen who share that vision, and voila!...nationalized health care will pass or so they believe.
Unfortunately for them, the fiasco with the federal exchange website set them back but they believe only temporarily. They have been working toward this for decades and they look at it over the long term, with temporary setbacks being only bumps in the road.
I hate being such a skeptic, but that’s the way I see it with my crystal ball. I hope I’m dead wrong.
Obama's not 'cost cutting' he's stealing. The same type of policy ($10,000 deductible) was offered from a kiosk at Walmart a few years ago - for MUCH LESS.
Obamacare is another liberal lie... nothing more, nothing less.
Your right to sue for malpractice will be curtailed soon... the next shoe to drop.
Why?
When networks are filled with doctors who 'control costs' by NOT allowing costly operations, mistakes and horrors will follow. Operations put off for so long outcome becomes 'iffy'...
That's a fair assessment that I cant disagree with but predicting past (what happens after) the next election is tough enough let alone years beyond that.
What I been taking issue with is the claim that Obama and Dems purposefully passed a bill that they wanted to fail in a way that would play out as it is now for the ultimate purpose you cite.
Dems couldnt even get a public plan in the bill beyond medicaid expansion because they couldnt get the 60 Senate votes for it.
Michelle Bachmann has proposing a great idea for GOP strategy : when asked what the GOP plan is they should say to get rid of all the mandates outside of the exchanges, and leave the exchanges for the uninsured, and sell it as ‘The Freedom to choose the health care you need ACT’
Dems would have big trouble trashing that.
Have you got that correct!
I have a new co-worker who is loud,has rough language,and is totally certain all evils in the nation are Republican-caused because”they won’t work with obama”.-you absolutely cannot argue with this person,facts and logic are ignored.Also “the company has plenty of money” and should be providing full benefits plus “a living wage”.
so, does this mean Sandra Fluke would have to pay the deductible to get her birth control for free??
exactly
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
Good points, all.
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.