Good Points of ACA?

There are some things that should appeal to the John Galt types here. First, insurance companies can charge smokers & fat people more than healthy people.

Anything else?

1. Companies cannot exclude you for a condition you already have (the exact terminology is escaping me) such as dysthymia, diabetes, or others.

2. Children up to age 26 are included on their parents plans.

3. No caps.

4 your policy can't be cancelled because you get sick.
5. Women can't be charged more just because they are female.

Insurance is made available to the working poor so that they can seek health care outside of the emergency room and avoid bankruptcy due to medical issues. (the number one cause of personal bankruptcies are due to medical issues).

FredHayek wrote: There are some things that should appeal to the John Galt types here. First, insurance companies can charge smokers & fat people more than healthy people.

Anything else?

They do charge more if you are a smoker, but there is no extra charge for being fat.

Off the top of my head, the only extra charges allowed are:

Smoker

Age (premium varies 1-3X based on age)

Location

Of course the premium also varies based on the policy purchased and its coverage, which has always been the case.

The biggest improvement is the coverage for pre-existing conditions, IMO, though no maximum life time coverage limit is nice too. But you previously could get pre-exiting condition coverage in Colorado with the high-risk pool in Cover Colorado. And based on a quick check, the Cover Colorado premiums were no worse than Obamacare.

The disadvantages I see are generally higher premiums (without a subsidy), larger maximum out of pocket expenses, and worse prescription coverage. Previous plans I saw usually charged a fixed copay per prescription tier (for example $15 for tier 1, $30 tier 2, $40 tier 3, etc). The Obamacare policies I've looked at so far charge 30%, 40%, 50%) which is generally much worse, though I need to look at a few more policies.

I never really understood the need to cover a 26 yr old on your existing policy (well, in the past it could of helped in the rare case the 26 yr old had a pre-existing condition, but not now). I priced several Obamacare policies on the Colorado exchange and if you add a 26 yr old the extra charge came to exactly the same as it would cost the 26 yr old to get their own policy. Plus, when you add someone it becomes family coverage and the deductible and max out of pocket doubles (up to as much as $12,700 max out of pocket), so it seems to me a 26 yr old would be better off getting your own policy and having your parent(s) pay you back. But if the parent(s) is getting group insurance with the employer paying a good part of it, then it might make sense.

I believe the coverage for 26 yr olds on a parent's policy was a stop gap until the ACA took effect.

The ACA is a national bill, and yes Colorado does have policies available, but back when I checked them out they were twice as expensive as BC/BS and covered half as much. Many, possibly most, states dont have policies available to their citizens that are high risk.

archer wrote: I believe the coverage for 26 yr olds on a parent's policy was a stop gap until the ACA took effect.

The ACA is a national bill, and yes Colorado does have policies available, but back when I checked them out they were twice as expensive as BC/BS and covered half as much. Many, possibly most, states dont have policies available to their citizens that are high risk.

Yes, Cover Colorado used to be much more expensive than regular individual insurance for healthy people. But you can still get Cover Colorado now, check the prices online, and compare it to Obamacare prices starting in January. Cover Colorado offers PPO (roughly equivalent to Obamacare Gold and Silver coverage) and HSA coverage. I compared a few and found Cover Colorado's HSA was cheaper than the closest Obamacare policy (not that they are exactly the same by any means), and the PPO price was close. But I just looked at a few cases. So my initial conclusion is that Obmacare costs roughly the same (without subsidies) as similar high risk Cover Colorado policies and that's a huge change from what we had before. Obamacare is just simply more expensive insurance if you don't get subsidized.

pineinthegrass wrote:

archer wrote: . Obamacare is just simply more expensive insurance if you don't get subsidized.

So wouldn't it have made more sense to just charge a tax to the 85% of the population that had insurance in order to cover the 15% that couldn't afford it? That way we all keep our freedom of choice and we don't have to swallow a 10' stack of new regulations. But I suppose that wouldn't help the dishonest goal of cramming single payer down our throats.

Well you said it Rick, single payer is coming.

As for good points of ACA until it defaults and becomes untenable you can pay the $95 and wait until you actually need the ACA and then sign up, which is what many young people will probably do.

Another good point is that if you are 66 or older it doesn't apply. That's really a very good point of ACA.

WindPeak wrote: Well you said it Rick, single payer is coming.

As for good points of ACA until it defaults and becomes untenable you can pay the $95 and wait until you actually need the ACA and then sign up, which is what many young people will probably do.

Another good point is that if you are 66 or older it doesn't apply. That's really a very good point of ACA.

I think auto insurance should work the same way. You get to chose between paying a fine/tax/penalty and then when you roll your car, you can just sign up for pre-existing insurance. Why wouldn't that work?