Individual health insurance in the USVI

In a better world, our elected representatives would have the best interest on the country at heart

If only this were a better world. Elected representatives only care about themselves and their pockets. If ACA is so great than why have our "elected reps" exempted themselves (and in some cases many of the businesses in their states) from it?

How can a country "of the people, by the people, for the people" allow our reps to sit "above it" all and exempt themselves from the law? Here's to Rand Paul's proposed amendment!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/24/paul-no-one-is-above-the-law-but-congress/

This is so true, if it were so great, why did they drop it like a hot rock and were exempt. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. I'm quite surprised that the Pres hasn't started accusing republicans for hacking into the website and uploading viruses to destroy the website. I guess that will be the next excuse or accusation.

I don't understand. There are lots of people who already have insurance who will not be affected by ACA. Until a year ago (when I started Medicare) I was in a private program through my pension. That insurance continues for pensioners under 65. And both my children have health insurance through their jobs - that doesn't change either.

I don't understand. There are lots of people who already have insurance who will not be affected by ACA. Until a year ago (when I started Medicare) I was in a private program through my pension. That insurance continues for pensioners under 65. And both my children have health insurance through their jobs - that doesn't change either.

There are many who are not so lucky.

More than 1 million cancellation notices have been sent to Californians as the Affordable Care Act begins allowing individuals to buy insurance through exchanges, Jones said. The federal law requires policies to offer minimum levels of coverage, forcing companies to terminate many existing plans. But Jones said that under the law, insurers have another year to do so.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013/11/12/calif-insurance-commissioner-more-than-1m-californians-having-insurance-cancelled-due-to-obamacare/

One of the fundamental flaws of the Affordable Care Act is that, despite its name, it makes health insurance more expensive. Today, the Manhattan Institute released the most comprehensive analysis yet conducted of premiums under Obamacare for people who shop for coverage on their own.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/04/49-state-analysis-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/

i thought i read that so far over 5 million have had insurance cancellation notices since the implementation of the ACA, seems to me this thing is causing more hard than good

I moved the non-insurance part of this discussion to "under the coconut tree".

I don't understand. There are lots of people who already have insurance who will not be affected by ACA. Until a year ago (when I started Medicare) I was in a private program through my pension. That insurance continues for pensioners under 65. And both my children have health insurance through their jobs - that doesn't change either.

Linda J,
It is likely that up to 100 million people, who presently have coverage through the private market or their employer could lose there present health coverage because of the ACA legislation.

Why? If your plan was created after March 23, 2010, it will either change to meet the new requirements, or the company will cancel it, forcing you to acquire a new policy. If your present policy is changed by your insurance company to meet the new requirements, your premiums will likely rise substantially, even though you may not require the additional coverage!

The ACA requires all insurance plans to keep you if you become chronically ill, even if you made a mistake on your health insurance application. They can no longer limit the coverage you receive over your lifetime. Plans can no longer deny you coverage if you or your child has a pre-existing condition. It also requires free wellness care, birth control, as well and coverage for maternity services and pediatric care regardless of your age or gender. All plans are also required to cover mental and behavioral health treatment. All of these requirements lead to increased cost of the policy whether through the ACA website or your carrier if you have been cancelled.

Presently, the law is only dealing with the private insurance policies purchased by individuals and by small businesses who employ less than 50 people but in early November of next year, the insurance policies offered to employees by corporations which represent the vast majority of policies in the U.S. will be required to meet the minimum standards of the ACA. Because nearly every policy is altered by insurance companies every year, very few will fall into the 'created prior to March 23, 2010' category. It is expected that nearly 80-100 million people will receive their Christmas present, a cancellation notice next fall. We have already received a warning letter from BCBS about the premium next year and our deductibles were increased to $8000 from $2500 for our family for 2014. That really translates to a premium increase if you use your insurance.

My plan already met the requirements of ACA, as I'm sure many others do.

And yes, I know I am lucky - lucky in so many ways.

Gone, I find that 100 million number pretty hard to believe.

My plan already met the requirements of ACA, as I'm sure many others do.

And yes, I know I am lucky - lucky in so many ways.

Gone, I find that 100 million number pretty hard to believe.

I think the 100 million hasn't hit yet, but will by the end of 2014. When the time extension runs out for businesses who offer insurance to their workers. I was told at our meeting last week that if they can't find a suitable plan to offer by the middle of 2014, they will be forced to "rethink their position" on offering health insurance especially to retired employee's who have served faithfully for over 20 years. This means, many of us will get the boot and will be forced onto the ACA to find insurance on our own no matter the cost. This will hurt an already strained fixed income. Like they said, it's a benefit, which means it can be given or it can be taken away. So you ain't seen nothing yet, but it's coming.

This is going to be the nail in the coffin for the economy because where I had a little extra cash at the end of each month to spend on hobbies, travelling and fluff, it will go to paying for health insurance for my wife and I. I'm figuring a minimum of $2000.00 a year out of pocket. So forgive me if I'm not jumping up and down touting and cheerleading what a wonderful program this is.

you are looking at more than that especially when you take into consideration the deductibles , that alone could be upwards of 12,000 a year

A friend of mine posted this on Facebook. I have zero opinion, but thought you all might want to add it to the discussion if you haven't seen it yet:

The organizing web site for the Virgin Islands single payer health care movement

http://www.vihealthcare.org/

A friend of mine posted this on Facebook. I have zero opinion, but thought you all might want to add it to the discussion if you haven't seen it yet:

The organizing web site for the Virgin Islands single payer health care movement

http://www.vihealthcare.org/

Here are some of the problems that I see with their plan. "Everybody in. Nobody out."

Does that mean that everybody pays, no one gets it for free? If not then how can it be fair?
From their webpage:
"Once we do calculate what is included in VIHC we can calculate the financial requirement and figure out where it comes from. There is no such thing as a free lunch and there is no such thing as free health care. And borrowing it from future generations is immoral and irresponsible – they will have their own bills to pay without our dumping our health care costs on their shoulders."

This is very true. And everyone today has their own bills to pay, no one needs to pay more so that someone else can pay less, it would not be fair to dump your health care costs on someone else. Everyone should pay the same price for the same service. That's fair!

In a single payer system, the "system" usually ends up setting the fee structure for procedures. If you were a doctor or other health care professional how would you like it for someone else to come in and set your fees? Are all doctors equally trained and equally competent? Probably not, but under a single payer system they will all get paid the same for a procedure. At least that's how Medicare works. That is why many doctors do not take Medicare. Are all doctors going to be forced to participate or is it voluntary?

An interesting article about the "great" Canadian health care system and why many come to the US. Even though everyone doesn't have health care in the US, those that do have access to a better and more efficient system than in Canada. Do we want a mediocre system that is slow, rationed, crumbling but available to all? Single payer will definitely change the face of health care. Read the article for a Canadian medical student's view of their health care. There is much more in the article than what I posted.

"I was once a believer in socialized medicine. I don’t want to overstate my case: growing up in Canada, I didn’t spend much time contemplating the nuances of health economics. I wanted to get into medical school—my mind brimmed with statistics on MCAT scores and admissions rates, not health spending. But as a Canadian, I had soaked up three things from my environment: a love of ice hockey; an ability to convert Celsius into Fahrenheit in my head; and the belief that government-run health care was truly compassionate. What I knew about American health care was unappealing: high expenses and lots of uninsured people. When HillaryCare shook Washington, I remember thinking that the Clintonistas were right.

I decided to write about what I saw. By day, I attended classes and visited patients; at night, I worked on a book. Unfortunately, statistics on Canadian health care’s weaknesses were hard to come by, and even finding people willing to criticize the system was difficult, such was the emotional support that it then enjoyed. One family friend, diagnosed with cancer, was told to wait for potentially lifesaving chemotherapy. I called to see if I could write about his plight. Worried about repercussions, he asked me to change his name. A bit later, he asked if I could change his sex in the story, and maybe his town. Finally, he asked if I could change the illness, too."
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

Rotorhead, this is a very common story in Canada even though many Canadian citizens will conceal this fact.

Lived there, been there, experienced it. One side of my family resides in Canada as do a number of friends and old neighbors and they all complain constantly about the wait times, ability to see a specialist, and the cost of it all, "concealed in their income taxes'!

Most of my family and friends pay over 55% in income taxes and a considerable portion is to fund their Health Canada system. It should be renamed to Tax & Wait Canada!

Also, The HNS in the U.K. is similar and also very inefficient and tax unfriendly.

I'd rather wait a couple of months and put up with the pain than have to mortgage my house in order to pay to have a procedure done quickly.

I'd rather wait a couple of months and put up with the pain than have to mortgage my house in order to pay to have a procedure done quickly.

Really? With Breast Cancer - or any cancer where waiting means it grows and grows? I doubt if you were diagnosed that your answer would be the same.

I'd rather wait a couple of months and put up with the pain than have to mortgage my house in order to pay to have a procedure done quickly.

Really? With Breast Cancer - or any cancer where waiting means it grows and grows? I doubt if you were diagnosed that your answer would be the same.

So right divinggirl! I mentioned earlier that my neighbors in Canada on both sides (and one was a general practitioner' had health insurance policies in Michigan to avoid this problem. Many, not all of my relatives in Ontario have a U.S. HC policy for catastrophic care.
Fact!

Wow...I know a lot of Canadians both friends and family and I don't know any with such policies in the US. Must be something only rich people can do.

My parents live in Florida, they have Canadian snowbird friends who come down every winter. One of them recently had cataract surgery. It seems that in Canada cataracts are not considered life threatening so surgery is frequently delayed. Their friend told them that his health care in Canada scheduled him for cataract surgery in two years. He had it done in Florida two weeks after he made his appointment. He did not want to lose his drivers license and be unable to drive for two years while he waited.

Apparently this delay is not unusual.
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/03/07/ontarians-in-needs-of-cataract-surgery-seeing-procedure-postponed-eye-doctors

Healthcare rationing is a fact of life in Canada, no doubt about that. But at least they don't bankrupt you and your family while you're waiting. Canadians really seem to have the best of both worlds, universal healthcare and the ability to cherry pick and go to the US or wherever for other stuff they don't want to wait for. Nice!

Healthcare rationing is a fact of life in Canada, no doubt about that. But at least they don't bankrupt you and your family while you're waiting. Canadians really seem to have the best of both worlds, universal healthcare and the ability to cherry pick and go to the US or wherever for other stuff they don't want to wait for. Nice!

Why would people who are happy with their current coverage want to pay the same amount or more for a system that rations health care? Should they be forced to participate? What about the presidents promise about ACA that if you like your current policy you can keep it?

Should people be forced to participate in a system that is worse than they have now just so that others who do not have insurance can be covered?

It sounds like you consider it OK to go out of the country for medical care. What if an insurance company offered an affordable policy for major medical conditions but required you to go to India or Thailand to receive care? Several companies in the states which have the old traditional 80/20 plan now offer full coverage if you go out of country, your option.

People actually believe what politicians say?

People actually believe what politicians say?

I don't! That's why I don't want to get forced into a government designed medical system. With additional costs added for government oversight. Those government workers are just overhead and they don't work for cheap.

Why should a male or a female who is in their 50's and has had a hysterectomy have their old insurance policy canceled because their old policy did not meet the requirements of the ACA, it didn't include contraceptive coverage? One plan doesn't cover all.

I guess they do believe what politicians say because the big talking points for pushing Obamacare was to give all these uninsured folks health care insurance that supposedly number in the millions, who are they, poor people or people who can't afford healthcare are able to get medicaide to cover them. How about all these people going bankrupt or filing bankruptcy due to lack of health insurance, come on now, there may be a small minute amount who have fallen on hard times due to a catastrophic illness. But the majority can't keep their hands in their pockets and burning up those credit cards shopping with money they don't have and are what is causing the bankruptcy to go astronomical and they far out weigh the few who doesn't have healthcare. But it's what ever lie they need to tell at the time to push their agenda forward.

Just like the lie, you can keep what you have if you like it. If that kind of action is OK with you, that scares the hell out of me because then the government can push anything they want as long as the end justifies the means.

Maybe THE ELECTED POLITICIANS WHO CAN AFFORD $500K OR MORE FOR INSURANCE WOULD WANT TO SIGNUP?

Healthcare rationing is a fact of life in Canada, no doubt about that. But at least they don't bankrupt you and your family while you're waiting. Canadians really seem to have the best of both worlds, universal healthcare and the ability to cherry pick and go to the US or wherever for other stuff they don't want to wait for. Nice!

It seems to me that we are may missing the point! Canada Health is NOT FREE! OBAMACARE is NOT FREE!

The taxes in Canada are outrageous, PERIOD! A large portion of them are attributed to the cost of Canada Health. BTW, there are a number of services not provided by Canada Health and you have to take out a private policy to cover them.

The cost of Obamacare is going to be borne by responsible, hard working, middle class families, the young and the elderly, PERIOD! Medicare has been slashed to help pay for Obamacare. The elderly, who have paid into Medicare taxes for years now find that their healthcare may be jeopardized. Taxes will have be increased to pay for this liberal entitlement and again, who gets hurt. The middle class! The rich don't have to worry about it and the poor get free healthcare.

I personally am better equipped to select a plan based on MY needs and pay for it instead of the government playing mommy for me!
It has been proven that all the benefits bestowed on the poor from the Great Society has not worked! So, why add another?

We do need to be compassionate about the folks who cannot afford care but we did not need to redesign the entire system for a few at the cost of others. I really feel for the folks who have had their policies cancelled and will have to pay substantially more to obtain coverage under the AFFORDABLE Care Act. Additionally, the new policy will likely NOT be accepted by their present doctors or hospitals. Sounds like another well thought out plan to get votes!

This is much more than a train wreck!