Latest Obamacare commercial

More affordable than my phone bill?? Does he really believe peoples phone bills are $1400 dollars a month and have a deductible?

For many people, coverage bought through an exchange would cost far more than their phone bill. But for many others, Vice President Kerry is probably right - and those others are among the people they're still trying to reach, people for whom coverage (considering the premium assistance, of course) would be affordable but who might not realize that it would be. As for the deductible, yeah some of the plans have fairly high deductibles. But, again, for many people the effective deductible would be far less because of the cost-sharing subsidies that are available in addition to the premium assistance. For people with lower incomes, the annual out-of-pocket maximum is even less than the cap that's in place for everyone else (which is $6+ thousand for individuals and $12+ thousand for families). And even if the deductible is high, having coverage can be of benefit for some (if the coverage itself is affordable) because it protects against something bad happening (or them being diagnosed with something bad) that results in their creating huge amounts of financial liability - that liability is capped far below what it could otherwise be. Further, for a lot of stuff there is no deductible - qualifying plans have to cover it without additional charge to the person covered.

Anyway... take a single person earning about $18,000 per year. Their share of the monthly bill for coverage would be about $60. And their maximum out-of-pocket expenditures for the year would be a little over $2,000 - so, no matter what health care they might need that year, they wouldn't pay more than that $2,000 or so (plus their premium payments). Is that affordable? It's a whole lot more affordable, even in that worse case, than 10 or 20 or 50 thousand dollars in medical bills. And because of the actuarial value adjustments that have to be made on their policies based on their income level, the chances they'd be spending even that $2,000 are significantly reduced. They may only have to, so long as nothing major happens, spend far less.

A young couple with 2 young children where only one parent works and makes about $36,000 per year? Their monthly premium would be about $120, and their maximum out-of-pocket costs - for the entire family - would be a little over $4,000 per year. Yes, a whole lot of people make much more money than that and their coverage wouldn't be nearly as cheap. But the people I'm describing are among the people they are trying to get the word out to - trying to make them aware of what is available. There are fairly affordable options for them.

Of course, we are collectively paying for those options - we're picking up the rest of the tab. I'm not a supporter of ObamaCare, I haven't been since before it was passed. But for many it does make coverage available, and not at the really high cost that you suggest.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
For many people, coverage bought through an exchange would cost far more than their phone bill. But for many others, Vice President Kerry is probably right - and those others are among the people they're still trying to reach, people for whom coverage (considering the premium assistance, of course) would be affordable but who might not realize that it would be. As for the deductible, yeah some of the plans have fairly high deductibles. But, again, for many people the effective deductible would be far less because of the cost-sharing subsidies that are available in addition to the premium assistance. For people with lower incomes, the annual out-of-pocket maximum is even less than the cap that's in place for everyone else (which is $6+ thousand for individuals and $12+ thousand for families). And even if the deductible is high, having coverage can be of benefit for some (if the coverage itself is affordable) because it protects against something bad happening (or them being diagnosed with something bad) that results in their creating huge amounts of financial liability - that liability is capped far below what it could otherwise be. Further, for a lot of stuff there is no deductible - qualifying plans have to cover it without additional charge to the person covered.

Anyway... take a single person earning about $18,000 per year. Their share of the monthly bill for coverage would be about $60. And their maximum out-of-pocket expenditures for the year would be a little over $2,000 - so, no matter what health care they might need that year, they wouldn't pay more than that $2,000 or so (plus their premium payments). Is that affordable? It's a whole lot more affordable, even in that worse case, than 10 or 20 or 50 thousand dollars in medical bills. And because of the actuarial value adjustments that have to be made on their policies based on their income level, the chances they'd be spending even that $2,000 are significantly reduced. They may only have to, so long as nothing major happens, spend far less.

A young couple with 2 young children where only one parent works and makes about $36,000 per year? Their monthly premium would be about $120, and their maximum out-of-pocket costs - for the entire family - would be a little over $4,000 per year. Yes, a whole lot of people make much more money than that and their coverage wouldn't be nearly as cheap. But the people I'm describing are among the people they are trying to get the word out to - trying to make them aware of what is available. There are fairly affordable options for them.

Of course, we are collectively paying for those options - we're picking up the rest of the tab. I'm not a supporter of ObamaCare, I haven't been since before it was passed. But for many it does make coverage available, and not at the really high cost that you suggest.

Stop separating premiums from deductibles...those costs combined are your true yearly costs unless you stay perfectly healthy and never go to the doctors or the emergency room.

You don't have to have a catastrophic event to cause financial upset any more. A visit to the emergency room, or a weekend stay in a hospital room will destroy a working families budget.

No more doctors visits or ER visits and you pay a $20 cost share. You're responsible for 100% of those costs AND the prescriptions until you reach your deductible, and you've already paid your monthly premium that month... so now we have health insurance but we still have to pay for 100% of our medical care every year UNLESS we have a catastrophe that cost more than the dewctible.. 90% of the time a family would be better off without insurance, but the government ensured we wouldn't have that choice didn't they?
 
Stop separating premiums from deductibles...those costs combined are your true yearly costs unless you stay perfectly healthy and never go to the doctors or the emergency room.

You don't have to have a catastrophic event to cause financial upset any more. A visit to the emergency room, or a weekend stay in a hospital room will destroy a working families budget.

No more doctors visits or ER visits and you pay a $20 cost share. You're responsible for 100% of those costs AND the prescriptions until you reach your deductible, and you've already paid your monthly premium that month... so now we have health insurance but we still have to pay for 100% of our medical care every year UNLESS we have a catastrophe that cost more than the dewctible.. 90% of the time a family would be better off without insurance, but the government ensured we wouldn't have that choice didn't they?

Of course the deductible matters, as do other aspects of the coverage (e.g. actuarial value, co-pays, what gets covered without having to pay a deductible). That's why I discussed it and gave numbers for it (or rather, the maximum it could be) in my examples. But before returning to the deductible, the amount of the premium itself - leaving the deductible aside - matters as well for a few reasons (some of which I mentioned). For one, even if you don't otherwise use your coverage, that premium is what you are paying for insurance against major upside risk - something that might cost $50,000 or $150,000. If you can buy insurance against that risk at a low cost (e.g. $100 a month), then that matters - no matter how high the deductible is (within reason of course, which is the case here because under the requirements of the ACA the deductible can only be so high - far, far below the numbers I'm talking about insuring against). For another, as I indicated, a lot of stuff is covered without having to pay the deductible - qualifying plans have to cover some stuff without any additional charge to the people covered. So, if someone has a low premium, that can matter because it gets them access to that stuff for free no matter what the deductible is.

Returning to the deductible - again, yes, it matters. But as I indicated, it is capped and for lower income people it is capped even lower still. I already gave a couple of examples - a young single person in a starter job (or working part time) earning about $18,000 per year wouldn't have to pay more than about $2,000 worth of out-of-pocket expenses (including deductible) no matter how much they ran up in medical bills in a given year. That matters, it's much better than facing $5,000 or $50,000 in medical bills. And because of the actuarial value adjustments that are made to their coverage, they likely wouldn't have to pay $2,000 worth of out-of pocket expenses (including deductible) unless they did run up a lot in medical bills. If they only had, say, $5,000 in medical bills for the given year (even beyond the stuff that's required to be free), they might only have to pay $500 out-of-pocket (including deductible).

We aren't talking about $5,000 deductibles for some people - particularly, for many of the people that an ad of this sort is trying to reach.


EDITED: To make it a bit clearer, particularly as relates to deductibles versus out-of-pocket caps.
 
Last edited:

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I remember when they made a claim that Obamacare would cut medical costs because they would practice preventive medicine.

Well maybe they do for the poor who are getting free Obamacare, but for those who are doing the paying and subsidizing the Freebees and have a $2,000 deductible, they aren't going to a Doctor for preventative medicine, they are saving to pay for a sickness.
 
I was curious what the actuarial value adjustments which I referred to in my previous posts (i.e. those for lower income people) might amount to in real terms - e.g., how much they would lower various plans' deductibles, co-pays, out-of-pocket maximums, etcetera. So I checked the plans that are available through Maryland's exchange at various income levels. It turns out those plans generally have even lower out-of-pocket costs than I had expected.

The biggest benefits (in terms of lowered out-of-pocket costs) go to the lowest income people, with those benefits falling off sharply when you reach certain income levels - those levels being based on applicable poverty levels. For people under 150% of the poverty level, the plans are really cheap - not just based on the premiums, but also accounting for deductibles and such. They're still pretty good for people up to 200% of the poverty level. Above that there are still benefits, but those benefits are considerably less.

For a single person making up to that 150% threshold (for Maryland that's apparently up to a little more than $17,500 per year), most of the plans have no deductible at all. If someone wants to move up to a plan with a small deductible, they can get a lower out-of-pocket cap. And the co-insurance (up to the cap) is typically pretty low as well - 10%. Much the same is true for families of 4 making up to about $35,500 (a little below the 150% threshold), there are a lot of plans for them with no deductible at all and a low co-insurance rate. I was pretty surprised how much the required actuarial value adjustments reduced potential out-of-pocket costs for such people. But, as I consider the situation with greater specificity, I suppose a required 94% actuarial value doesn't leave a lot of room for those covered to have to pay much. Even up to the 200% poverty level the actuarial value of the plan is adjusted to 87% or better, so the deductibles, cap, and co-insurance rate are pretty reasonable.

If I get a chance later I'll post some examples of plans at various income levels.
 
I didn't get a chance over the weekend to post some examples of what I was talking about - i.e., plan details that I found on Maryland's exchange site for lower income people. So here they are. Yes, we're talking about people that aren't making a lot of money - but we're also talking about realistic situations, there are plenty of people out there in similar circumstances. And for them - people who are among the people an ad like the one in the OP is trying to reach - the available plans actually are pretty cheap. For those under that 150% poverty line threshold (the first and third examples below), we're talking about no deductibles at all or very low deductibles. And we're talking about fairly low out-of-pocket maximums. Even for those in the 150% to 200% of poverty level range (the second and fourth examples below) the plans are pretty affordable - no or fairly low deductibles and reasonable out-of-pocket caps.


Single person - 25 years old - St. Mary's County - Income: $17,500

ProviderPremiumDeductibleER CoinsurancePrimary CopayOut of Pocket Cap
Evergreen HMO$58.62$010%$20$400
BlueChoice HSA$60.32$010%$0$2,250
Evergreen POS$75.04$010%$10$500
BC BS MSP$82.42$010%$0$2,250
United Health HSA$127.09$5000%$0$500



Single person - 25 years old - St. Mary's County - Income: $23,000

ProviderPremiumDeductibleER CoinsurancePrimary CopayOut of Pocket Cap
Evergreen HMO$118.83$75020%$20$1,000
BlueChoice HSA120.53$020%$5$2,250
Evergreen POS$135.25$85020%$20$1,200
BC BS MSP$142.63$030%$5$2,250
United Health HSA$187.30$1,1000%$0$1,100



Family of 4 - Parents 25 years old - St. Mary's County - Income: $33,500

ProviderPremiumDeductibleER CoinsurancePrimary CopayOut of Pocket Cap
Evergreen HMO$117.15$010%$20$800
BlueChoice HSA$120.55$010%$0$4,500
Evergreen POS$149.99$010%$10$1,000
BC BS MSP$164.75$010%$0$4,500
United Health HSA$254.09$1,0000%$0$1,000



Family of 4 - Parents 25 years old - St. Mary's County - Income: $47,500

ProviderPremiumDeductibleER CoinsurancePrimary CopayOut of Pocket Cap
Evergreen HMO$248.95$1,50020%$20$2,000
BlueChoice HSA$252.38$020%$5$4,500
Evergreen POS$281.92$1,70020%$20$2,400
BC BS MSP$296.58$030%$5$4,500
United Health HSA$385.92$2,2000%$0$2,200
 

cwo_ghwebb

No Use for Donk Twits
Just how many of these folks have realized that once they file taxes they have to pay back their subsidies?
 
Just how many of these folks have realized that once they file taxes they have to pay back their subsidies?

If their circumstances change - e.g., their family size shrinks or their income increases - then, yeah, they could end up having to pay back the portion of the subsidy they got that they were no longer entitled to (though there are caps on how much they could have to pay back). The same works in reverse, btw - circumstances can change such that they get extra money back at the end of the year because they were entitled to more subsidy than they got.

But they should let their coverage provider know when their circumstances change so that the subsidy can be adjusted and they don't face that issue when they do file their taxes.

I mean, the whole set-up is a mess... and it's just wrong for other reasons. But if the question is are there now affordable health care options for some people - e.g., lower income people - for whom there weren't such options before, then the answer is yes. ObamaCare offers some pretty sweet deals for some people, and part of the point of an ad like the one in the OP is to make them aware of that.
 
Top