"Affordable Care Act" Meets Reality at a Small Pennsylvania Company

Do you have evidence of that?

 

Can you give factual evidence how ACA has been damaging? I'm talking about the actual policy itself if you purchased one?

 

MSNBC? LMFAO!

- - - Updated - - -

It's damaging to the wallet.

 

How would you know if you've never signed up for unicorns and daisies?

- - - Updated - - -

Did you sign up to know that?

 

If your laughing, you must have a rebuttal to the information the video provides right?

 

Do you have a link that proves those figures you put up?

 

Where did that actually happen? Can you site an actual incident where someone got fired because of Obamacare? And why would the worker be fired instead of laid off?

 

"Thicken his champaign funds"? Can you prove that?

 

I was responding to another post.

DC insurance commissioner fired a day after criticizing Obamacare steps

There ya go.

 

Well, there are some things that might be known, or reasonably guessed. I'm generally suspicious of a lot of the outrageous anecdotes they come up with... when you start digging into the detail, there's usually something not quite right. This one is pretty easy to check, since they provided us with the location of the business, the ages of the people, and the number of dependents that they had. I'll start by taking an individual look at the person that they described as the "worst cast", and then look at the small business plans.

The individual was Judy, who said she paid 929 in 2013 for a plan, and would have a rate increase to 1360 this year. Here are the individual plans available to her, with prices assuming that she does not qualify for a credit (in reality she would, and her kid probably qualifies for CHIP):

https://www.healthcare.gov/find-pre...oyerCoverage=no&householdSize=2&income=100000

The best plan available to her and her dependent, the "Comprehensive Care Blue PPO 500", costs 725 per month, and has half the deductible of her original plan.
The copay to see a doctor stays the same. If we were to assume she smokes, the rate on her portion of it might go up 50%, bringing it to about $972, so she'd either be paying several hundred less as a non-smoker, or at worst $50 more as a smoker, for a better plan. She's already better off, and that's without including any potential subsidy.


Moving on to the small business plans:

https://www.healthcare.gov/find-pre...ge4=48&age5=42&age6=14&age7=2&age8=15&age9=18

For comparison purposes, I'm going to price out one of the best plans available (better than the original one they had in 2013), and assume that the employer does not make additional contributions.

The plan:
Small Business Advantage Standard
Family Deductible: $0
Individual deductible: $0
Max Family Out of Pocket: $1500
Max Individual Out of Pocket $750


This plan sounds like it's better than the one that they quoted in the OP's video, and comes at the price of $3,071 a month for the 6 employees & dependents. The video says that the owner's premium jumped 584 at 63%, which means that he was contributing 584/.63 = $926 previously... I'll use that number, to run what it would look like if he were not to pay any more than that. This comes to 2536 for the adults and 535 for the dependents. Removing the employer's contribution of 926, that comes to 1610 for the adults. 2878 for the adults if they are all smokers with a 50% premium hike (max in most states).

A single adult would therefore be paying about 268, or 479 if they smoke. Kids would be around $134.

Looking again at Judy as their "worst case", she would end up paying 402 per month for herself and her child, or 613 per month if she smokes, for a MUCH better plan several hundred dollars cheaper than what she paid in 2013. Instead, in the OP's video, they are quoting her some plan that would almost cover half of the total premium for all people combined. And I'm working with a fairly large margin of error, including a hike of 50% for smokers, assuming that the employer did not qualify for a credit, and by picking a plan that was better than the one they had in 2013.

All this said, this makes a little suspicious about the video. I'm not saying the employees were lying, but perhaps they were lied to, or maybe they need to get a better broker.

 

Yes i am sure a local ABC station is doing "hit pieces" on Obamacare..... /rolls eyes

 

That is a meaningless hit piece.. why, because it is devoid of facts. It says oh look these deductibles and premiums went up. But there is nothing about the coverage. Where is the factual information about the coverage being provided. I suspect that the that guy complaining about what happens if he ends up in the emergency room should be asking himself what happens if he gets a real sickness. What was the maximum out of pocket of the old plan. Lots of the older cheap plans had significant caps on what would be paid, so if one of these people got cancer, well, they were going to go bankrupt, not just have to pay $4000. Now I won't state that as fact, why, because the story says nothing about the differences in coverage. That is why it is a ridiculous story.

 

Well, like I pointed out previously, they did provide enough information to run the prices on healthcare.gov, including the location and ages of the employees and number of children. I think we can pretty well say that the story is bunk based on the prices I found for individuals and small business plans. So I'd say you're giving the piece credit by saying it's just devoid of facts from what I can see.

 

Again what does a local ABC station gain by doing a "hit piece".

 

Are you intentionally ignoring basic common sense? If you were buying insurance, would you look at what coverage was provided? If someone told you to compare two plans and buy one, but refused to tell you the differences in coverage, would you buy insurance from them?

Who knows why they made this story. The reporter who covered it has a husband that is a cardiologist, maybe he doesn't like Obamacare, or Obama because his taxes went up, maybe she has political leanings or an agenda she is trying to achieve. Who knows. But what I do know is that the story is garbage if it is devoid of basic information.

 

The employees didnt go out and purchase these plans it is employer based... did you even watch the video?

The comparasion in the video is last year to this year not people comparing plans today.

 

And the plan changed from last year to this year. Do you not understand Obamacare? Companies under 50 don't have to provide insurance, but all insurance has to meet certain plan requirements... hence the words right at the beginning of the video " Here is the new plan that we had to switch to that takes into account Obamacare regulations"

That is why myself and others have said that their old plan must have been bad. That is why so many have lost their insurance, because insurers old plans were grandfathered in, but if they wanted to make changes to them, the new plans had to meet the new plan minimum requirements. The new plan requirements are called "essential health benefits" they vary from state to state, because each state does have their own insurance requirements. So they were based upon what was the largest and most popular small business plan in the state.

In Pennsylvania, that was an Aetna plan. See the list of benchmark plans: http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/ehb-benchmark-plans/

In particular the Aetna plan requirements are: http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Data-Resources/Downloads/pennsylvania-ehb-benchmark-plan.pdf

So if these guys were offering a crappy plan that had far fewer benefits than the state EHB plan, than their rates would go up, because their new plan had to be similar to the most popular small business plan in the state. So the question is, what was their old plan, how crappy was it, and is that why their insurance rates went up so much. But the story mentions nothing about it. So these mandated benefits are not some ridiculous standard, they are what the most popular plan for small business in the state was offering. But for these guys to get that level of coverage and have such large premium increases, then their old plan must have provided much lower coverage.

If you don't understand that the two plans in the video are not providing the same coverage and the guy even says that the new rates are higher to meet Obamacare regulations, then you don't understand enough to have a valid opinion.

If you want to argue, see.... Obamacare is stupid because it is forcing employers to offer plans with the most popular level of coverage, and not everyone wants to offer that much coverage. Some companies want to offer poorer coverage. Why should this company be forced to offer better (and popular) insurance coverage. Then you could have a valid argument.

But if you want to argue, rates when up, and I have no idea why and I don't understand that coverage changed, but oh lordy lordy how evil Obama is. Then that is not an intelligent point of view.

 

You know you seemed like a decent poster until you added the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) at the end. There is a difference between debating and slinging (*)(*)(*)(*). If you want to sling (*)(*)(*)(*) do it with someone else.

 

Obamacare is pointing a figurative gun at the heads of people who HAD THE RIGHT to be content with their old plans and effectively telling them, "Comrade you will adhere to all new politburo rules designed for the pocket book of the average OVERPAID union employee in every state regardless of your personal income . . . or we shall pull this trigger and the discharged bullet will be in the form of a fine. Oh . . . and the elimination of the old plan that actually WORKED for your personal situation in life and income level. Comrade Obama thanks you . . . from the golf course . . . in Hawaii . . . at his luxury resort."

 

What the (*)(*)(*)(*) are three single guys and two women in their fifties supposed to do with prenatal care that has been tacked on to their coverage increasing the costs because of Obamacare regulations.

I am so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing sick and tired of (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) liberals declaring what is or isn't good or bad insurance. Insurance should be tailored for what you actually need. Only two out of those six people are going to even need contraceptives or prenatal care.

 

That and people smugly saying what a "bad" plan is for someone else. I didnt see any happy faces when they saw their new and Obama improved plans... Funny that.

 

They can call themselves liberal but increasingly the Democratic Party leadership seems to be adopting the ideological principles of the late but not lamented Soviet Union's government.

 

Yep . . . but Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness increasingly seem to be something that elite liberals believe should only apply to themselves. Everyone else NEEDS to be . . . managed.

 

Yes unions. He have them a free pass on the healthcare tax.
Warren Buffet. By not doing anything about the keystone pipeline. Warren is making billions from bringing the tar sands oil to Texas on his trains. I would bet most people doesn't even know that the tars and oil is even still coming in the sates.
Monsanto. Just look at the Monsanto bill he passed. A week later a field of illegal GMO crops were found. Oh guess what. Monsanto was protected form lawsuits. What great timing.
Just look at the Monsanto lawyers that he has hired on to run the FDA. The board that make regulation on Monsanto. Lol. Just look at the Monsanto people hired on to the usda. Also in charge of making rulings on GMO crops. There is some to start.

 

yep, exactly, notice the employer wanted us to view the sticker shock of the plan he the employer hand picked, but did not give any details beyond that