That sucks. I've been really happy with Paychex, and haven't had any bait-and-switch. Been with them since 09
And as an aside for anyone shopping HealthCare.gov (in Texas anyway), I think Humana's Platinum Zero-Deductible plan is the best bang-for-the-buck offered. It has a $1,500 Out of Pocket max and it's only slightly more expensive than a Gold Plan with a $2,500 deduct/$5,000 out of pocket max.
Thanks for the heads up.
100% painless.
1st i called the 800 # and got an entirely competent cust service rep. Very little wait time for her to come on live too.
At the site, it clearly spelled out my options, including staying with the same insurer if i chose to.
They also offered a boatload of local centers where one could attend in person for a Q and A if they had questions on ACA.
Perhaps seeing how it went with fellow Texan scott......
Otherwise, while we want to keep this non partisan are the bitter Texas Repugs making it harder then in Texas.
Ultra smooth sailing here so far.
So you signed up on a state exchange?
Shouldn't be any harder in Texas than the other 33 states that are using the federal exchange.
How do you think bitter republicans could hamper the federal exchange?
I didn't even pay that much attention but yeah i think it was a Calif site.
I thought it was in conjunction with Fed but maybe it was a Calif only.
Update yes it was the Calif website.
Texass doesn't have its own?
You can view bcbs plans here...
http://www.bcbstx.com/coverage/indiv...?WT.svl=button
And if they qualify for subsidies here...
http://www.bcbstx.com/coverage/premi...t-eligibility/
As much as I despise the ACA, I haven't heard of any plan that will address the primary drivers of cost. Exploding elderly population supported by an increasingly unhealthy younger population equals higher costs.
Crap.
Went in to sign up and play around and look at costs for myself.
Got all the way through the signup information 20+ pages and then it crashed and wouldn't let me sign the application. Lost everything.
"Exploding elderly population supported by an increasingly unhealthy younger population equals higher costs."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-history-of-health-care-spending-in-7-graphs/2012/01/09/gIQAFlCCmP_gallery.html#photo=1
Obamacare Couldn't Stop Drug Company From Charging $13,700 for a Drug that Costs $300
http://www.alternet.org/obamacare-couldnt-stop-drug-company-charging-13700-drug-costs-300
There are inefficiencies through the system from top to bottom.
One bit not much considered when we talk about cost inflation: We can treat more things than we used to be able to.
50 years ago, treatment for a lot of things was "here is an aspirin", and testing was very, very limited both in terms of data provided and what was looked for. Easy to get low per capita figures based on that level of treatment.
Now that we can address a host of things, we do. That means a LOT more consumption of heath care.
You have that demand curve moving upwards, even if our demographics weren't changing to being older and sicker, which we are.
You have higher education costs, which eats into the ability to produce doctors, lowering supply of providers, who are themselves aging out and retiring in large numbers.
https://www.aamc.org/download/296002...bvol12_no2.pdf
You have health insurance company profit margins.
You have the bewildering array of billing standards from a bazillion companies and the huge administrative burden on providers.
You have hospital systems, required to accept all patients, and who then have to shift costs around when they aren't paid.
It is complex, but a lot of the trends one can observe all point to higher costs, and an overall inefficient system.
Start page
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/publication...insights.jhtml
goes to:
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-indu...sue_Operations
To be clear: just pointing out the data available in case you want it, there is a detailed whitepaper available there to read if you want actual data. They do it every year. I think they get a fair way to getting some handle on some other underlying causes besides the one you named, and I agree with.Factors affecting 2014 Medical Cost Trend
For 2014, PwC's Health Research Ins ute (HRI) projects a medical cost trend of 6.5%.
Defying historical patterns—and placing added tension on the health industry—medical inflation in 2014 will dip even lower than in 2013. Aggressive and creative steps by employers, new venues and models for delivering care, and elements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are expected to exert continued downward pressure on the health sector.
The ACA doesn't really replace the current system, it merely slaps a band-aid on the worst parts of the old system, IMO, but I fully agree with the sentiment.
I think until we go to single payor, we will have to suck it up, and we will never get there because the right would scream bloody murder about it.
We all share in all the costs, as they are embedded in the cost of every ingthing we consume, so we might was well get the real costs out in the open, where we can deal with them.
But I have said this before. sorry CC, I will try to stop throwing that into the thread asking about mechanics of signing up.
Meh, if Boutons stays out of the thread we can talk about it in a civil fashion. The real problem is that health care is too damn good. People are living into their 90's and there is an expensive pill or surgical procedure for everything that ails you. This creates a moral dilemma vs. a financial dilemma. Health care is the only thing where everyone thinks they should have the best available. People understand that we can't all live in the Dominion and drive Ferraris, but it's "immoral" that everyone can't get the best health care available. We as a nation could afford health care back when if you got cancer or had a heart attack you just died. Now the medicines and treatments have just gotten too good. People just keep on living way into non-productive years sucking up expensive health care like crazy. My mom is in her late 80's and my Dad will be 94 in a couple of months and I guarantee you Medicare has kept them alive and spent at least a million dollars on them since they turned 65. It buys them heart surgeries, valve replacements, knee replacements, hip replacements, rotator cuff surgeries,hearing aids, pills by the hundreds of thousands, walkers, then scooters, chairs that stand them up... , my horndog dad probably has a penis pump stashed in his night stand. It's going to bankrupt the country when the meat of the baby boomers hits their 70's. It's unavoidable IMHO. I don't see a solution except "death panels". Send em home with an aspirin. If they can afford to buy their own healthcare, fine. If not, it sucks to be you.
GFY
"The real problem is that health care is too damn good"
bull . The real problem is that health care is $1T+ too expensive overall and per capita 50% too expensive, and that's with 50M not insured.
yes, if an American can live until 65 and gets access to health, the US longevity is close to adult, serious countries with universal health care. But keeping a 65+ alive in USA who has diabetes, CVD, etc, etc due to a life pre-65 ty diet and no exercise is very expensive. That's the health care dream: don't cure them, just keep the alive as a revenue stream (same story in retirement homes).
So, do you advocate death panels?
straw man
of course not, but I do strongly want to see the end-of-life wishes of patients respected, rather than kept alive artificially for many $1K/day.
Seniors are ATM for BigPharma
- "On average, individuals 65 to 69 years old take nearly 14 prescriptions per year, individuals aged 80 to 84 take an average of 18 prescriptions per year."
https://www.ascp.com/articles/about-...scp-fact-sheet
The "prescribing cascade" and nursing home residents
With more than 15% of hospitalizations involving elderly patients caused by or related to adverse drugs reactions, and the increased risk of drug-drug interactions or adverse drug reactions associated with polypharmacy, Knight noted it is especially important to be aware of what he called “the prescribing cascade” with elderly patients, wherein the side effects from one prescription medication beget a prescription to counteract them, which leads to more side effects, and still another prescription, and so on and so forth. This is especially common among nursing home residents, whom Knight said are prescribed more medications than patients in any other setting. In particular, he noted that certain drugs such as antibiotics and PPIs are overprescribed in this population. He said that studies have shown that more than half of nursing home residents had experienced an adverse drug reaction, and that patients who are taking nine or more medications are 2.3 times more likely to experience an adverse drug reaction. Guidelines for effective medication management and monitoring in this population call for physicians to prescribe only medications that are clinically necessary to treat the patient’s assessed conditions; to consider non-pharmacologic interventions, where appropriate; to minimize risks for adverse consequences; and to re-evaluate the patient’s medication regimen when there is a change in the patient’s condition. “Analyze the problem; don’t just treat the symptom,” monitor for continued need and effectiveness, and “consider the patient’s age and co-morbidities when choosing the medication and dose,” Knight said. - See more at:
http://www.hcplive.com/conferences/a....d0QigrY1.dpuf
etc, etc.
Nursing homes, some now owned by private equity/hedge funds/Wall St for their guaranteed cash flow, pump their residents full of pills, courtesy of Medicare.
From what you've said in the past about your income you aren't getting any subsidies so why are you trying to go through healthcare.gov?
your Repug buddies fabricated a huge blast of bull noise of "death panels" when someone told them ACA was JUST RECOMMENDING that docs, patients, and families discuss end-of-life care.
Which pills would you deny those nursing home residents?
Because I'm currently paying 100% of the health insurance for 11 employees and their families and it's about to go up another 28% including the 4% "fee" that is supposed to pay for Obamacare. My premium would be well above $100,000 on my March renewal. I was checking out the system to see how hard it would be to navigate my employees through and I'll just give them all raises to cover their subsidized ACA premiums.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
emo