Oh man...this ain't good

This is the big loophole that has been pointed out. The perverse incentive will be to enroll, not pay premiums, wait until you are dumped, and then re-enroll in a new plan, since you can't be turned down. As I recall, a side effect of that is that under the law, the insurance company is only on the hook for expenses in the first 30 days of a delinquent policy, and the healthcare provider has to pay the rest.

So when those non-paying parties start incurring expenses on their policies... well, it won't be pleasant for anyone except the free riders.
 
The linked article talks about the percentage of people who have paid a few days or more early. More relevant is the percentage of people who pay by the deadline, which is likely to be much higher. Most relevant is the percentage of people who pay at all, which will be higher still.

My best guess is that the default rate will be roughly equivalent to default rates for other major household bills, such as mortgages, utilities, etc. At the very least, it will be closer to that than it will be to 20%.

The law sucks for a lot of reasons, but I'm not convinced yet that this is one of them.
 
I am shocked this number is not higher. The bigger issue will come as providers take care of these folks, then have to try and collect the deductibles and co-pays.
 
I don't know - I would assume so. But I'm guessing the insurance company wouldn't bother with it, would they? Especially since doesn't the ACA have a bailout provision for them? That leaves the hospitals - which I assume would treat it like they treat their current delinquent payees. I don't know the answer - someone in health care can probably speak to whether they're aggressive about going after deadbeats.
 
Bad idea (healthcare for everyone). Bad bill. Bad implementation. This bill is going to have a huge negative effect on our country. Hopefully a future president can get us back on the right track.
 
One thing to remember about this POS law
We the people are on the hook no matter what

The insurance companies have safety nets which require us to pay them if their losses are more than projected

so the Grace Period clause ( which posters like Pharm don't think exists) protects the insurance company in 2 ways. 1. they only absorb one month loss of premium even though the grace period could be 3 months
and 2 if their overall losses fall too low we pony up the money
The doc/ hospital could be on the hook for some losses.
Hospitals will get some reimbursement from us
It is the Docs and Us who will lose

O wonder how many of those who have not paid anything have received medical care since jan01
 
A surgeon friend says that what the docs have been told is that they have to treat patients who says they are in the exchanges. If the patient pays anything to the provider (ie a deductIble) and it turns out that they haven't paid their premiums and therefore don't have insurance, the docs must refund the deductible. That doesn't make sense, but what does about this debacle? He is concerned enough that he is downsizing his office and opting out of the exchanges, but thinks if the ACA fails and we go to single payer, he will retire. As will a lot of good doctors. And the people who will have access to the top medical care will be those who pay out of pocket. So...the wealthy will have great care and the poor will get free, mediocre care. And the middle class will get screwed - high premiums and mediocre care. So what exactly has changed?
brickwall.gif
 
I agree that the figures for future costs of the wars are bloated, but it was a somewhat-credible link to give a starting point "for the sake of discussion," as you say.

I await Roger35's response. I won't hold my breath.
 
I guess the WH, in their rush to spin the loss of millions of jobs/ work hours as a good thing missed this from the CBO
"The nonpartisan agency said most of that would come from people choosing not to work or working less in order to keep their incomes low enough to continue to get subsidies toward buying coverage. "

So in BO's world it is goo for people to choose to get gov't subsidies and benefits ( paid for by the few people who still work and by all future generations) rather than work?
 
If I didn't read this from a serious source I would have said it was from the onion
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the Congressional Budget Office report that shows Obamacare will make the labor force lose 2.3 million full-time workers by 2021 is positive because it lets Americans be “free agents.”

“We have the CBO report, which rightfully says, that people shouldn’t have job lock. If they — we live in a country where there should be free agency. People can do what they want,” Reid told reporters outside of a close policy luncheon. “And what they’re saying here is — and the fact checkers have already done this — the Republicans talk about losing millions of jobs simply isn’t true. It allows people to get out of a job they’re locked into, because of — they have healthcare in their job.”





“So my caucus is right on track to understand this. The CBO report is far better for us than it’s not. Republicans should get away from repeal and start talking about some constructive ways to handle the issues that they’re concerned about,” he added."The Link



whiteflag.gif
 
A majority of the country is dumb. A majority collect government handouts. I can send you many links proving it from both conservative and liberal commentators. So because a majority are dumb, does it make it right?
The Link

Maher is a liberal genius, right? I agree with him here, except for a few unacceptable barbs at those he hates. R35 prove that a "majority rejecting the rw" is not a dumb group. Supply facts, links or frankly anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top