General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf you start a thread poor-mouthing about how you just can't swing ACA...
...you'd better be prepared to share some financial specifics. I want to know what your monthly income is, where that income goes now, and which subsidies you are or are not eligible for. If you're not prepared to disclose that relevant information, don't come on here and say ACA (including the alternative payment) is beyond your means and we all just need to take your word on that.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... this should be interesting.
AAO
(3,300 posts)[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
yuiyoshida
(41,831 posts)
AAO
(3,300 posts)
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)[img]
[/img]
bvar22
(39,909 posts)to an open Website.
Anyone asking you to do so should be treated with caution.
Anyone demanding that you do so should be treated with suspicion.
There are other private venues for you to seek financial advice and guidance.
YOU and ONLY YOU are the final authority on what is important or affordable to you and your family, NOT some anonymous poster on an open Internet forum.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)... anyone not smart enough to already know this...
Well, I guess con artists need customer too.
[URL=http://gifsoup.com/view/1290449/picard-facepalm.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL] [URL=http://gifsoup.com]GIFSoup[/URL]
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...and are making up their own New Rules requiring people who are struggling to make ends meet to post that information on a Public Board.
I am embarrassed that something like this would be posted at DU,
much less make the Greatest Page.
Things ain't what they used to be.
You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]
bread_and_roses
(6,335 posts)
Maraya1969
(22,482 posts)obtained from the ACH when dissing it is only an attempt at keeping trolls from getting away from dissing it just to diss it.
This way they will at least have to go through the process and report back the actual response from the AHC so we know they are not just making it all up.
Simple. And they are not exposing themselves.
If it were that dangerous to expose your income what does Skinner allow for some people in need to ask for monetary help here? And they get it too. They are not in danger for it at all.
Response to Maraya1969 (Reply #241)
Post removed
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Seriously.
840high
(17,196 posts)
progressoid
(49,991 posts)
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)Don't post anything he doesn't want to know about. He has an easy solution to that: trash thread.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You don't know who I am. I don't know who you are--you are an invented name on a website.
You could be lying; I could be lying. There's no way to tell.
If I tell you that I am an astronaut making two hundred thousand dollars a year, or a sanitation engineer making sixty five grand a year, or a fast food worker making twenty two grand a year, there's no way you are going to be able to verify that information or "personally" identify me.
To suggest that someone claiming, indeed, INSISTING that a program won't work for them can get away without providing ballpark income information to justify their assertion is what's absurd.
If one doesn't want to make the information "personal," they can talk about "their friend" and let the example be dissected that way.
However, anyone claiming that ACA ain't working for them (or their little friends) had better be prepared to get specific or be regarded with no small degree of askance.
lamp_shade
(14,834 posts)
dawg
(10,624 posts)are those just above the Medicaid line living in states with doucebag republican governors. All others are making enough to afford their portion of the premiums.
Also, insurance, including the ACA, doesn't exist to pay *all* your bills for you. It exists to pay for things a normal person could never afford in the ordinary course of a year. Major expenses. Things that ruin families without insurance now. I have very little sympathy for those complaining about the deductibles and copays. IF they are more than what you have had before, it's because your current policy has coverage holes in it, lifetime maximums, or is designed to shaft you in some other way. (right when you need it the most)
joshcryer
(62,274 posts)And ultimately they will have to press their states to modify it.
But this comes down to the SCOTUS decision to screw over people in states that refused to oblige.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Having a governor who is a massive douchebag is a raw deal.
joshcryer
(62,274 posts)Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)They don't get any douchier that Scott Walker. We've having 92,000 thrown off our state health insurance program and forced to use the ACA, which will be higher because it's private insurance and not Medicaid.
I hope that means 92,000 people who will be voting for whoever opposed Walker in 2014.
joshcryer
(62,274 posts)I mean, let's be honest, the vast majority of Americans are going to be for this. It's another reason the Republicans are so against the ACA. It means their people get voted out of office regularly from now on. Anyone who is against it, gone.
ashling
(25,771 posts)the repooblican can'tidate is even worse! We've got - GOT !!! - to get Wendy Davis elected to clean this crap up!
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Never thought I would be saying that. LOL. Abbott is a nightmare.
Without the subsidy, the federal exchange's cheapest policy is just a tad less than my take home pay. Sigh.
valerief
(53,235 posts)
ellenfl
(8,660 posts)
OriginalGeek
(12,132 posts)argue with a single letter of your statement.
I don't trust Charlie Crist here either but I fear he may have the best shot to beat Skeletor.
I would love to find out, though, that Charlie has truly gone liberal. I'd never be happier to be wrong.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)Just applied for ACA and qualified for medicaid, which Scotty is closing Jan 1st 2014. So I can sign up Jan 1st 2014 and not before. So I won't get coverage until Feb 2014, just because. (as it stands right now)
IADEMO2004
(5,554 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)And I say this in Florida, where the GOP elected a guy that made Millions comiiting medicare fraud.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)
uponit7771
(90,344 posts)TheDebbieDee
(11,119 posts)Here in Missouri, we have a Democratic Governor (Jay Nixon) but a repuke state legislature that reacts to the ACA like vampires react to garlic....
I hate to thin what it would be like here in Missouri if we'd had a republican governor these last 5 years - why we might be in more dire straits than Texas!
irisblue
(32,975 posts)and me.
enough
(13,259 posts)Interesting these are two very large states that have a huge impact on presidential elections.
irisblue
(32,975 posts)The Teabaggers, the well entrenched Republican political establishment, illegal massive 'donations' from Fox news and the persistent weakness of the Ohio Democratic party lead to his very close election. He has been a schmuck from the start. Midterm elections have consequences
enough
(13,259 posts)crucial, no doubt about it.
I'm also wondering if this extreme Republicanism in these big northern states will have any impact on the next Presidential election. Could there be a backlash? In the meantime, getting rid of Corbett is high priority here. And several R Reps might be vulnerable, though that's less likely.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)should be able to apply and maybe be eligible for subsidies on the exchanges. Just because an employer offers insurance doesn't make it affordable and a family with same income as someone who's employer offers insurance may get their entire insurance at no cost or considerably less then the person with same income who's employer plans have higher employee contributions, deductibles and other out of pocket costs.
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)I worked very hard to get the ACA passed, and am a very strong supporter of it. Feel free to search my posts and see the knock-down drag out fights I've been in with people trashing it - people who accuse me of being classist and arrogant because I believe that the ACA is a major step forward. Which it is, even though there are significant holes in it.
Which is where my gripe is with your limitations - there are far more people with legitimate gripes than the category you have described.
Specifically - anyone with moderate income and an expensive chronic illness. The ACA plans are designed to (1) provide preventative care (2) make an average quantity of medical care financially accessible on an ongoing basis, and (2) be reasonable stop-loss mechanisms for the occasional medical catastrophe - so that normal care is accessible and you don't lose your house if, every once in a while, your medical world caves in.
The population it does not serve well are people like my daughter. Her medical expenses run approximately $60,000 every year. IN other words she doesn't just have an occasional medical catastrophe - she has one every single year. That means that she will be paying the premiums every year - AND - every year will be paying the out of pocket maximum ($6200, or so on many plans). For most people that won't happen - it will be rare that they have a year in which they need to cough up an additional $6200. But for people who have to do it every single year, that is a significant burden.
It is still far better than the options she had before, but it is a legitimate gripe that the ACA does not provide access to affordable care to people with moderate income and chronic illnesses.
Sedona
(3,769 posts)"moderate" income? Is she using her gross income or adjusted gross income to figure her subsidy?
The subsidy is based on adjusted gross income.
She flat out needs to check that again, those numbers make no sense.
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)I am one of the biggest supporters of the ACA around - BUT - it isn't perfect in ways you apparently are not even aware of. That doesn't mean the plan should be trashed, but it is disingenuous to insist that it serves everyone well - and that anyone who describes a group of people it does not serve well is automatically either mistaken or lying.
My daughter is currently covered on my health care plan, and we are going through similar pain in the workplace because of the delay in merging prescription and medical into a single out of pocket maximum. But I was using her as an example of the kind of people with health conditions which are not well served by the ACA - those who have chronic, costly illnesses, with income which makes them ineligible for a substantial or complete subsidy of BOTH the premiums AND the cost sharing.
The problem I am pointing out isn't in the premiums - it is in the overall annual cost of health care. Out of pocket maximums only work well for people who rarely use them. They are intended to be rarely used stop loss provisions, not an annual mandatory expenditure.
So it is the annual cost sharing - which acts as an additional premium for people in this category - which makes it unaffordable for anyone whose medical expenses are large enough that they will meet the out of pocket maximum every single year. People with inflammatory bowel disease, people with MS, people with auto-immune disorders who may be hospitalized repeatedly every year, in some circumstances - even people with conditions like diabetes who don't respond to the inexpensive drugs which have been around forever.
But to satisfy your "you must be mistaken," mindset - with an adjusted gross income of $25,000 (around $35000 before adjustment) her annual costs for health care for a silver plan would be $5200 (out of pocket, every single year) + $1678 (average premium for a silver plan in her age range in our state less subsidy) = $6878 every single year. $1678 + the expenses of an average person is affordable at that income level (even though there are many screaming here that they are not). Expenses - every single year - of $6878 are not affordable at that income level.
The average person generally pays less than $1000 a year in out of pocket expenses - so in that income range the annual total medical expenses would be around $2678 (or less). Not necessarily fun at that level - but manageable. BUT if your expenses are large enough so that you exceed the cap every year (rather than once in a decade or more), being required to pay $5200 above and beyond the premiums every single year is not affordable.
For most people it is affordable - but for people with chronic costly health conditions, it is not in the subsidized range which does not also provide a substantial reduction in the cost sharing part of the costs.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)looking at a gold or platinum plan, or do they have the same problem with large annual costs?
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)She will be on my employer plan - which has a similar structure. We can buy down the out of pocket expenses with a higher premium. The increase in premium is $2700 to go from a $6000 out of pocket cap to a $3000 out of pocket cap. With the complication that (unlike the exchange plans) there are separate caps on prescription and medical - and we can't buy down the prescription cap. So I have to run all her expenses from the past two years through a spreadsheet, separated into medical and pharmacy, with the two different co-pay/coinsurance figures to see whether we can save $300.
But the principle is the same - unlike the average person, she is guaranteed either $3000 more a year or $6000 more a year - and the cost to shrink from $6000 a year to $3000 a year is close to the difference in premiums. (So, still, a surcharge which makes it unaffordable to have a chronic, costly illness)
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)Chronic illnesses will still continue to be too expensive for middle income people.
If we had a normal Congress, the Rethugs would be working with the Dems to fix problems like this.
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)The ACA is far better - insurance is at least available. And it is also far better than the HIPAA (which made it available, once you at some point, managed to be insured, as long as you are able to afford uncapped premiums). The ACA at least guarantees insurance, guarantees a cap on expenditures, but that cap is too high, as an every year mandatory expenditure, for middle income people to be able to afford.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)so I went to the site and it's promoting the ACA, too.
I remember him speaking out on the problems of ordinary people not being able to afford catastrophic injuries like his.
http://www.christopherreeve.org/site/c.ddJFKRNoFiG/b.4048063/k.C5D5/Christopher_Reeve_Spinal_Cord_Injury_and_Paralysis_Foundation.htm
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)and needed help from some very generous friends to maintain his life at home. I am not sure, but it might have bankrupted him ad his wife. That's how expensive his injury and rehab and home care was.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)The typical lifetime cap of a million or so (back then) wouldn't even have covered him for a year.
He was an amazing person. Such a positive attitude. I was going through a frightening time regarding the health of a family member, and he had just had his accident several months before . . . and I kept thinking, okay, if he could stay positive despite everything that had happened to him, I could try, too. . . anyway, he was an inspiration.
mimi85
(1,805 posts)As is Michael J. Fox, Linda Ronstadt and a host of others.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)is that it was so incredibly sudden.
One minute he was riding a horse -- the next, he was completely paralyzed, for life.
I couldn't believe how positive he was, right off the bat -- most of us I think would have struggled more with depression.
questionseverything
(9,655 posts)be glad she is not in the pay 3 times as much rate..at 55 and 53 that is what we are looking at
spouse is on expensive med that i think will cap us out every year ..so we will be at 26% plus of a 75 grand a year income
(with the gov't shut down we will be lucky to have income next year as no one is signing contracts,but thats another story)
i just do not get how any1 thinks we are supposed to have 26% of income available for healthcare...the un subsidized part of our premium will be 200 less than our house payment (before taxes and ins)...120 grand house so no mansion here
our taxes ss and income tax run 20% plus
so basically 75% of income would be gone before we pay for vehicles,gas,maintenance,utilities,clothes or food
i find this op especially insulting.....the what do you do with that income now part,it implies that we are not "perfect" and they are
anyway ty for presenting my case in a better way than i ever could
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)Your age (a bit younger than I am) is hard because so many of us have lost jobs and can't find others because we are overqualified.
I am lucky in that regard; when my job was threatened I was at least hired (despite being overqualified) at a job which pays 1/2 of what I have been making and provides insurance at a huge increase. But at least I found a job that covers everyone in our family.
Just to be clear - my daughter's condition and expenses are real (I've kept a running tally over the past 5 years or so). In a couple of years she will face the exchanges (although unless her health dramatically improves she will be unable to work enough to be outside of the Medicaid eligibility range). For now she is still on my insurance plan (similar structure, but we don't have to pay the full premium - but we do have around $6000 out of pocket costs a year). I provided income numbers as an example to address the person who insisted that I must be mistaken about the costs on the exchange for someone with moderate income and very high health care expenses.
Good luck! Do be sure to shop around, make sure you are using the correct income, and if you can't afford it even then to check out the options for a penalty waiver.
questionseverything
(9,655 posts)a "best guess"
the mandate looks to be weak enough that we will qualify for a waiver but as someone that worked my buns off to elect current admin....i was hoping aca could help us too
what has amazed me is the attitude on du....where people will not look at both sides,so your post was a breath of fresh air
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)I grew up on a farm, where next year's income was always a best guess.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 11, 2013, 11:57 AM - Edit history (1)
Your explanation sounds perfectly clear to me. We can simplify this to "The ACA nips away at some problems areas and leaves many people in a very difficult situation. but makes sure the insurance companies make out handsomely."
Anybody arguing that the ACA is a good, broad-based solution just doesn't know what they are talking about. The best we can say for it is that it is a marginal step forward from the most inhumane, most financially inefficient health care system on the planet. And we must take this step, and then work toward a real solution.
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)Most people, in an average year, never come close to the out of pocket maximum, and probably don't really understand how the pieces work together. Not to mention the confusion which comes in when you try to figure costs for an out of network provider where the insurance company pays some portion of the UCR...
But back to the basics - many exceed the deductible, start seeing significantly reduced costs, and that is the end of it. Because our expenses are so large, I've never had the luxury of looking at just the premiums, or just the deductible.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)that they must cover your daughter at the same prices that anyone else is paying. That is a big step forward. It means that you are able to get $60,000 of coverage every year for what? a net of $5000 a year after the subsidies? I know that is still a big burden, but ti is certainly better than the prior system where you might not be able to keep coverage at all, because your daughter will never be profitable to insure.
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)kept tabs on the bill as it went through various iterations (and saw some of my suggestions for gaps filled in as the bill was negotiated - like the PCIP insurance) and get in.
On her current income (once she ages out of my insurance plan), assuming Ohio expands Medicaid, it will be completely subsidized for her. Using the numbers I ran for this example (Gross income $32,000/AGI $25,000) put the annual cost at ~$6900.
On our current plan - about the same. Prescription costs will be uncapped because of the delay of merging the caps for larger employers.
I'm just in favor of all the facts and scenarios being on the table - so the recent insistence that people who still have expenses that are more than they can handle are either mistaken or lying bugs me.
cilla4progress
(24,736 posts)That is a simple truth about ACA. And stupidly, perhaps, I was blindsided by it. I thought at our family income level - and esp. since my layoff this summer - that we would sail through. Alas..
I am in the category of "ACA loser." All I have sought here is a platform, a venue to state this fact. I am not complaining about health "care" (insurance) reform, per se, but some here have not been able to suss out the difference.
As we move forward, if we are going to continue improving reform, we are going to need to consider all true facts.
Our family income, by the way, is quite moderate. I have put my numbers out here - premiums; deductibles; annual out-of-pocket - costs before ACA, and now after. I have stated as to our hh income that it is right at / @ 400% of FPL. That should be sufficient to do an analysis.
As I've also stated, our state's site (Washington) is not yet completely functional. I did however have access before it went online for the public (trained as a volunteer) and that's where I got my numbers.
I'm particuarly pissed at Stephanie Miller, whose show I love, who absolutely REFUSES to entertain any callers or complaints about ACA.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)I used to listen to her regularly, but I find her un-listenable. Between her constant cheer-leading and her posse doing nothing but making snarky, sophomoric comments for 2 hours straight, I just get nothing out of it. Lately they seem to be more hostile to progressives than they are to the teabaggers.
The program used to me more informative. The whole line-up on Sirius Progress is a mess right now. That channel is in serious decline. At least they still gave Thom Hartmann a slot (albeit late at night).
dkf
(37,305 posts)If it was people wouldn't need medigap plans.
Our entire system is too expensive. It may be more affordable than before but can you imagine if we had a Canadian style system? That might make social security halfway livable.
Moreover that doesn't mean less care, it just means less expenses, the kind the rest of the world pays.
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)It would cut out the middleman, and whenever there is a middleman, the middleman always has to take a cut.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Capitalism is fine for certain things...healthcare is not one of them.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)between the terms in use if you're going to make comments like this one.
Ms Toad was not discussing her daughter's subsidy amount. She was discussing her deductible amount. Two different things.
It is entirely possible - indeed - PROBABLE for an individual to have a deductible of well over $2000 dollars, and deductibles are annual amounts. Many ACA plans in the lower metal tiers have deductibles that near or equal the maximum out-of-pocket costs that are set by the law - $6250/$12700.
edited for incorrect figure
dawg
(10,624 posts)I'm a single-payer advocate myself. But the ACA makes things better for most people, especially those with long-term chronic conditions. Many of those people couldn't get insurance at all before the ACA.
The people getting shafted by republican governors are the biggest hole in the system right now. They have a truly legitimate complaint.
Young healthy people, making more than 400% of the poverty line, who would prefer to just "take their chances" and count on the rest of us to pay if anything major ever happens to them do *not* have a legitimate right to complain. That is, of course, just my opinion. But I should be so lucky as to be in their shoes. (Their young, healthy, and relatively rich shoes.)
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)I agree with everything you've said. But my point is that it is not only the people without access to expanded Medicaid, BUT ALSO people in the range where they are eligible for subsidies who have chronic healthy expenses every single year.
A high ($6250 this year) out of pocket stop loss (which is what the silver plan (and the bronze plan even more) are) isn't affordable for people in the subsidy range whose medical bills run to $60,000 a year - becuase they will hit that stop loss amount every year (meaning they've spent that much).
But even with that quirk - which will smack my daughter in the face in a couple of years when she is too old to continue on my plan - there is no quicker way to get Ms. Toad in the face than to suggest trashing the ACA. I just don't believe in denying the reality that there are portions of the population most people aren't even aware of who will still have significant struggles accessing health care.
meadowlark5
(2,795 posts)Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)There are subsidies available both for premiums and for cost sharing. In the Medicaid range, and in the lower income end of the subsidy range (or for people with normal medical expenses) the cost sharing arrangement is reasonable. There might be a huge expense ($6250 without subsidy) once in a while. It would be really hard. But with careful management, people who don't qualify for much subsidy should be able to manage it once in a while.
It is the people who use tons of medical care every single year who will have to pay that much every single year for whom it will be unaffordable.
(For those with unexpanded Medicaid it will be significantly worse for anyone who is below the subsidy range - and who has chronic conditions. They will be paying the full unsubsidized premium (unmanageable all by itself at that income range) PLUS the full out of pocket cap every single year. That's about $10,000 a year for unsubsidized premium + unsubsidized medical expenses.)
meadowlark5
(2,795 posts)I'm trying to figure out if it would be affordable for my sister. She's unemployed and trying to get on disability. She's worked manufacturing her whole life and beat the crap out of her back and one knee. She doesn't think she'll get on disability because she lives in a red state that's cut that budget. She has no insurance right now and she's a time bomb waiting to go off with her health. But her state didn't take the medicaid expansion either. I don't think she's even tried to apply. I think her reasoning is she can't afford anything per month. But she certainly can't afford a health issue either.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)what could be called the ACA "donut hole" for folks in your daughter's tough situation.
However you look at the ACA, it is much better than what we had before, but not a good as it needs to be. That's true of any major initiative.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)which might be another 3-5k. Yet, she's the one not being served well? She should go find individual coverage on the open market under the current health care systerm. I'm going to guess that #1) she won't be able to even be insured or #2) it'll cost... oh... 5k/month...
Young, healthy adults are subsidizing your daughter. A little perspective would be good here.
Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)I was responding to a post which asserted that the only people who had a legitimate gripe were those in states where the governor refused to expand Medicaid eligibility.
I was identifying an additional class of people who have a legitimate gripe: Those who have exhorbitant medical expenses each and eery year (mostly through no fault of their own) - because that group of people have not only the (fairly reasonalbe) expense of premiums BUT they also hit the out of pocket maximum expenditures every single year.
Plans with high out of pocket maximums do not serve the population which ALWAYS has exhorbitant costs well - because the out of pocket maximums are designed to hurt but not kill - because they are so high that the average person will only hit them only perhaps one year out of 10, which makes the hurt managable. For people who hit them every single year, they are far less manageable.
What I offered WAS perspective - the perspective the poster was apparently unaware of - that there are people who are not served well by the ACA which go beyond just those in states which expanded Medicaid is not being implemented.
If you think I'm not aware that this is a major improvement, you could have taken a few seconds followed my suggestion to search and see my position on the ACA - you will find pretty much the same thing you said as an argument for why (regardless of whether it is a perfect fit) the ACA is a critical step forward. Although I had more accurate numbers aobut the cost, becuase I have researched it - and been quoting it in most posts I've made about the ACA.
hooverville29
(163 posts)Ms. Toad
(34,074 posts)but the reall killer is that even though expenses are lower once you meet the deductible, they continue to grow until you hit the maximum out of pocket cap. $6250 (going from memory) under the silver plan. So you have the $1000-$2000 up front every year, before there is any assistance then you continue to have more expenses every year until you have spent $6250 - and for folks like my daughter, that will be an expense each and every year (not a once in a decade catastrophic occurrence - which is when those out of pocket caps work well).
Response to dawg (Reply #3)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
dawg
(10,624 posts)Your only complaint is for something new that you wanted and did not get.
And for what it's worth, my current policy is almost $900 a month with a $10,000 deductible. If you are old enough to collect Social Security, then $300 for a bronze plan to cover you is a bargain of almost unbelievable proportions. Try being 58 or so and applying for an individual policy under the pre-ACA law. I suspect you would pay three times as much.
cilla4progress
(24,736 posts)am 58 now, covered both my daughter (20) and self for $350 / mo. with a $500 deductible!
That plan is now going away (12/13) and those replacing it are @ $650 / mo. with a $6,000 deductible!
Go figure... guess I just found a really good deal before.
And not a poor quality plan. It was run by the State on some level.
Oh well..I think I'm done with this. Thanks to the others who are carrying the banner.
SINGLE PAYER FOR ALL!!
dawg
(10,624 posts)it was probably also subsidized by the state on some level too. If it is going away, it is either because whoever was subsidizing it decided to stop doing so now that the ACA is available, or else there were holes in the coverage that made it inadequate by ACA standards. Otherwise, the plan would continue to exist and would not be changed by the ACA. The ACA only requires plans to change if they fail to meet minimum coverage standards. People who were getting "great" deals beforehand may have been much less "insured" than they thought they were.
cilla4progress
(24,736 posts)It was all very mysterious. I found not many people knew about this specific plan. It was available only to state residents not on any public assistance, but was run by the state on some level (all I know is I made my check out to the state treasurer).
As far as the coverage - all I can say is it worked well enough for 3 years for both my daughter and myself.
Some of the new coverages mandated under the ACA 10 basics are not necessarily needed or appropriate for all.
It is what it is.
In any event, my husband is looking to the Teamsters to bail us out! Really! He was never in the union at his employer (local governmental unit). His department didn't pursue membership, and he is a low-level manager. Turns out he and his dept. may be able to join, and insurance may be more affordable. We lost about 1/4 of family income with my layoff in August, and our health insurance costs are going up with the termination of my previous individual plan, and those offered on the ACA exchange.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)I think ACA insurance plans are modeled similar to some federal/state employee plans.
Response to dawg (Reply #80)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
dawg
(10,624 posts)I know it's tough going on Medicare, even with supplemental. Medicare supplemental polices are highly regulated (not by the ACA, but by previously existing legislation), similar to the standards that will now apply to ordinary individual and family policies under the ACA.
It would be great if we could do more to expand Medicare & reduce the cost to recipients for both basic coverage and supplemental coverage. I would be supportive of that. But that's another issue altogether.
Response to dawg (Reply #160)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)
Brigid
(17,621 posts)I'm getting hosed--but not by Obama.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)and copies of tax returns?
Nine
(1,741 posts)No one is required to start a thread complaining that ACA is too expensive for them. It's a waste of everyone's time to start such a thread if you're not prepared to share some specifics.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)you don't get to micromanage DU.
or if you're here to try and keep people on message, you are wasting your time carrying out some fool's errand.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)I for one am severelyt PO'd by such attitudes, which amount to an orthodoxy that even the Tea Party doesn't demand of its adherents.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)who the fuck is the "our" or "we" that you are speaking for?
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)datasuspect
(26,591 posts)and i will mail you all my financials and details.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Don't demand a standard for others you refuse to live up to yourself.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)it over again. He was asking about some numbers to see if people that are complaining meet the benchmarks.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)And I think the OP knows the people complaining know this as well and wants to exploit this reticence to dismiss them out of hand. I also suspect if someone said, "I made $67,783.32 last year and don't get a subsidy..." the reply would be an accusation it was all a lie.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)not a bunch of hazy "well ACA SCREWED ME!!!! blahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111"
pintobean
(18,101 posts)are a waste of time.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)for any reason on a discussion board and it is wrong to encourage such risky behaviors. Some are going to be in a bad way in some States. Some people have already been so burdened by medical bills that they have no leeway in budgeting to find that premium money. Harassing those with less than you have is ugly behavior.
No one owes you anything. Not a thing.
progressoid
(49,991 posts)Response to Nine (Reply #5)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
Renew Deal
(81,859 posts)
And you can ask questions too!
Lurker Deluxe
(1,036 posts)And I would assume W2s, 1099, schedule A for itemized deductions, 401K balance, any dividend or interests reported and how much money is in your change bottle on your dresser.
Oh ... and where you bought your last pair of shoes, what kind of car you drive, and the blood of your last born.
Then, and only then, can we talk ... but still without any civility or humility, cause ... you know, Obamacare = YAY!!!
Enrique
(27,461 posts)datasuspect
(26,591 posts)are in conformity with the official message, so no proof is required. just hosannas and huzzahs.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)LOL, hosannas and huzzahs, 
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I met this totally hot ACA navigator and...
Nine
(1,741 posts)If someone, in the spirit of Warren Buffet, feels their ACA cost is too low for someone in their income range, I'd be interested in hearing that too. But without some specifics, it would be just as useless a complaint.
Analogy: If you buy software and it doesn't work properly and you go on a forum to complain about it, people are going to ask you about your operating system and other technical details in order to get at the root of the problem. If you aren't prepared to answer those questions, your post would be a waste of time.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)and SSN and i will send you all my information in the US mail.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)You look like a fool. n/t
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)than be one and remove all doubt.
cheers!
joshcryer
(62,274 posts)Of course, they tend to be extremely poor, and are happy for coverage, but your mileage may vary.
Just post some numbers so people can use the exchange and double check them.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)pretty simple.
joshcryer
(62,274 posts)I don't disagree. I'm simply saying why people would want that information.
edit: and pointing out that people positive about ACA don't give a shit posting that information because they're happy about it. It's the more well to do people who aren't happy about it. Any simply reverse engineering and guessing about income will tell you that.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)there seem to be some very clever people who can suss a lot about you with very little information.
the healthcare.gov website makes let's you edit the income information.
that's all the testing a person would need without being impolite and DEMANDING personal information from their fellow DUers.
decent people don't act that way towards each other.
joshcryer
(62,274 posts)The people unhappy with it, when their rates are reverse engineered, are generally more wealthy than those who are positive about it.
You reverse engineering it by figuring out what their payment is, and then putting in income until you arrive at said payment (smoking / non-smoking can be a random element). Generally these are more well to do people except in states where governors are fucking people over by not agreeing to the Medicare expansion (and of course, for detractors of the ACA, that's the fault of the ACA, and not the governors).
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)about as seriously as those conversations that start, "I have a friend that told me ..." They may be true, but ...
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)how does this benefit you personally?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts) lunasun
(21,646 posts)datasuspect
(26,591 posts)gawd.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Forums are basically opinion boards not peer reviewed forums.
datasuspect
(26,591 posts)maybe it can be a source of personal power.
Sheldon Cooper
(3,724 posts)Drivel.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Further, I'm going to assume that you are familiar with the implementation of the program in the 50 states. Further, I'm going to assume that with those numbers you'll need a breakdown of the household budget.
In other words, your demands are as invasive as anything I've seen here. I eschew them without further consideration.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)First, the technical glitches will get worked out for the most part in the next couple months. So that entire line of complaints will die off quickly. The media is all over it today because its a shinny object. I just heard the morning Joe crew say that the government should have waited to open it up because it wasn't ready. Really? If the government waited to open it, the morning Joe fools would be saying that it should never open at all. It had to open on Oct 1st. And now that its open, its staying open.
Second, the complaining about the ACA has been endless up to it opening. And, that complaining was filled with nonsense. And countering it was tough because the ACA had yet to really start. Now that its real, its going to get easier to deal with this element of the complaining. All of the nonsense complaints will similarly come to and end.
Lastly, because the ACA is not perfect, come complaining will remain, and some of it will be legitimate. Complaints in this category can be organized into groups, and then handled by expanding and improving the law and the program. If there are lots and lots of people who get a worse deal than before, the complaints about that will become well enough defined to engage it.
I wouldn't worry too much about the complaining. The law is much better than what we had before, and it will continue to improve.
meegbear
(25,438 posts)Links?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)you eat and if you have a TV and air conditioning'? Not the Democratic Party, that's for sure. 'Poor mouthing'? Seriously? Is that you Elizabeth?
http://realworldnews.tumblr.com/post/63666912913/fox-news-hasselbeck-calls-air-conditioning-the-ugly
Skeeter Barnes
(994 posts)
City Lights
(25,171 posts) leftstreet
(36,108 posts)historylovr
(1,557 posts)Shameful OP.
uponit7771
(90,344 posts)...named need proof to anyone other than the approver.... and they don't just take applicants words for it either!!
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Meta was ended for a reason. Random posters who pose as rule makers suffer a delusion that their wailings are somehow different than the threats of a bully.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Just creepy and uncalled for. If you have an issue you'd like to discuss, discuss it like an adult, directly and specifically.
Javaman
(62,530 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)That is what I thought. Not gonna happen. 
jsr
(7,712 posts)which requires Identity Verification.
Nine
(1,741 posts)"Well, what's your income range? What plan are you trying to get? Are you a family or an individual? Are you ineligible for subsidies? What does your monthly budget look like if you are claiming you don't have anything to spare at that income level?"
"Sorry, I'm not sharing any of that information."
"Ok, then. I'm sorry you're having difficulty but there's nothing really more to discuss and you can't really hold yourself up as an example of how the system is flawed if you're unwilling to provide any specifics."
I'm not imposing a rule. I'm just saying there's no point in making such a post. Without specifics, there's nothing to really discuss.
And this has nothing in common with interrogating poor people about how they budget their money. The ACA was designed to help those with less financial means and to make sure those with greater financial means are paying their fair share. If you voluntarily make a claim that the system isn't working as it should and voluntarily use yourself as an example, it's not unreasonable for people to ask questions about your financial circumstances and dismiss your complaint if you are unwilling to answer those questions.
As I said upthread, you wouldn't complain that some software doesn't work for you and then refuse to say what operating system you have or answer any other technical inquiries.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)First lines of your OP say this:
"If you start a thread poor-mouthing about how you just can't swing ACA...
...you'd better be prepared to share some financial specifics. I want to know what your monthly income is, where that income goes now."
DrDan
(20,411 posts)otherwise . . . I think folks have the right to post as they wish
"I don't like it" does not qualify.
Nine
(1,741 posts)That's not censorship. That's common sense.
You can discuss ACA without using yourself as an example. Create a hypothetical person or family and show us how this hypothetical party is being hosed by ACA. I would ask the same type of questions about this hypothetical person/family. It's not fair to deliberately use yourself as an example and then act like people are picking on you when they ask relevant questions.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)TOS of GD does say 'no whining about DU'. By the way.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)don't remember reading that anywhere in the TOS.
Nine
(1,741 posts)jsr
(7,712 posts)Nine
(1,741 posts)But it doesn't work for people to voluntarily use themselves as examples of how the system doesn't work and then get offended when people ask them questions about their specific financial situation. If you don't want your personal financial situation to be a topic of discussion, don't start a thread talking about how the ACA doesn't work for your specific financial situation.
Someone could just as easily say, "John Doe is a hypothetical single man living in Indiana (for eaxample). He makes this amount of money per year. I ran his numbers and it would cost him this much per month. He pays X for groceries, Y for housing, Z for this other stuff. How is he supposed to make ends meet with the additional cost of health insurance?" And then we could discuss whether X, Y, and Z are realistic for the cost of living in his area and whether it's actually the case that John Doe does not qualify for subsidies or whether something was missed. It's better than nothing. A real-life case study would be more informative but the people apparently submitting themselves as real-life case studies balk when people actually want to, you know, study their cases.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)You know, just like the one you posted?
The OP wasn't about a "rule" declaration, rather, just another DU'er sharing an OPINION.
Don't like it? Fine.
when you say "If you're not prepared to disclose that relevant information, don't come on here and say . . . ", then one is doing more than stating an opinion. One is attempting to establish rules for posting.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)"establish rules" here, your point is moot.
The OP reflects an OPINION. Period.
Seems to me you're the one pushing the censorship line.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)restrain the posts of others unless his/her "guidance" is followed in terms of what relevant data he/she requires to be provided. THAT is not an opinion - it is a demand the poster is attempting to place on others.
I am sorry you cannot follow that. It is very clear from the OP. Many others posts in the thread have stated the same thought.
I am pushing the censorship line? That's rich.
Enjoy the rest of your day. My responses here are done.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)so are your arguments.
btw....she can "require" all she wants, until you are somehow forced to comply, the OP reflects a preference....or opinion.
Sorry, but it just rubs me the wrong way when I see posters trying to twist another's comments into a big damn ordeal.
Looks like she's getting the appropriate feedback from DU'ers without having to throw down the "rule book."
Sorry that you can't see the glaring irony of your point.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)You want account numbers
do you demand the same from people with positive ACA experiences?
what is your motivation for trying to control the tone of messaging on this forum?
Who the fuck died and made you DU sheriff
You First
It's unreasonable for you to demand that people open up their books to total strangers online
And, just why would anyone put such personal financial information on a public forum? No one has the right to tell others what to post about. And - you don't speak for me when you say "WE all."
So now y'all are demanding financial specifics of people.
Demanding Bully
What are you, the self-apponted DU IRS auditor?
Show us a receipt for your rice and beans!
I'm not telling you what I just spent on a new pair of shoes
You sound crazy as a Teabagger, crazier. Even they wouldn't be expecting what you demand with a mouse in your pocket. Either that or demanding using the royal "we".
Do you want any duers who get food stamps to verify their low incomes too?
Bravo! It's about time someone started calling out the poor and desperate
screw you. You are going on ignore
what do you want? a pdf. of my tax return? This is an anonymous internet forum not a senate sub committee hearing. Lighten up.
I would like proof that you aren't a republican, or a paid poster. I would like specific proof you are not a troll. Because do it my way and say only what I want to hear is so very fucking republican.
*****************************************************************************
I would like to repeat that last one . . . . BECAUSE DO IT MY WAY AND SAY ONLY WHAT I WANT TO HEAR IS SO VERY . . . REPUBLICAN
******************************************************************************
you are absolutely correct - some very appropriate feedback is being provided!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)YOUR point.
The posts you cite don't make your point any more valid. 
The angry screed isn't doing much for you either.
IOW: OPINION.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)"Looks like she's getting the appropriate feedback from DU'ers "
************************
"angry screed" - that must be directed toward someone else - I am not angry in the least - amused, perhaps, but certainly not angry
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)and made you DU sheriff?
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)
BKH70041
(961 posts)Tippy
(4,610 posts)there is no point in going forward...I am not an economist I am not in the HC field but I know tens of thousand can not afford HC. That alone is reason enough to give the ACA a chance...Any one with a brain knows nothing is perfect but perfection is not a reason to trash the ACA give it a chance...
JVS
(61,935 posts)in order to justify their opinions on what they can and can't afford.
Nine
(1,741 posts)...and then be unwilling to share specific information that would show whether or not that is actually the case. I'm not demanding anything of anyone. No one is required to use themselves as examples. I'm just saying it's a pointless discussion if you're not willing to share relevant details. Why is anyone coming onto a political discussion board to declare that Obamacare is bankrupting them if not to make the point that Obamacare is bad and broken? Why should someone be allowed to make that statement and then hide behind some shield of privacy? No one is asking for anyone's bank statements, just that they fill in some of the blanks in their own story that they chose to post.
JVS
(61,935 posts)cilla4progress
(24,736 posts)with that information you can refute every complaint about its unaffordability?
Have you not yet read enough complaints out in the mediaverse to substantiate this for some folks?
Nine
(1,741 posts)I don't think it's right for someone to post a "hit and run" claim about how much Obamacare is personally hurting them and then act all offended or coy when other people ask for specifics. "Unaffordable" is a very subjective term. You know what else is unaffordable? Getting hit with a $100,000 hospital bill because you have NO insurance.
cilla4progress
(24,736 posts)complaints here without providing some information; my recollection and experience is many provided details, including my own.
We can either 1) give people the benefit of the doubt and take them at their word (including you, me) or 2) assume that people on this board are either self-serving, too lazy to do the research, or just complaining without cause.
Clearly there are winners and losers under ACA - those who are benefitting (and I am personally definitely glad for that) and those whose costs for various reasons are increasing...perhaps in part to subsidize the plans. Maybe we can agree on that.
It's just a different outcome than I expected.
Nine
(1,741 posts)I think I'll exit the thread now on that nice note. 
cilla4progress
(24,736 posts)buy bye..
whopis01
(3,514 posts)Response to Nine (Original post)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Nice. Better make sure those fucking poor people don't have a refrigerator or an iPhone they can sell to pay their premiums.
It's weird how people that claim to loathe Republicans so much sound like them so often.
Nine
(1,741 posts)JoeyT
(6,785 posts)who voluntarily claim they can't feed their kids without public assistance.
Nine
(1,741 posts)When some Republican does an "experiment" where he shows how "easy" it is to live on minimum wage or to eat well while on food stamps by trying it himself for some limited period of time, are we not supposed to scrutinize this claim and ask pertinent questions about his circumstances? I darn well would like some specifics from people making such claims, wouldn't you? I read Nickel and Dimed and it was a good read, but the author didn't just say, "It's really, really hard to live on minimum wage. The end." She showed what made it so hard. She disclosed when she had to "cheat" a bit (using money she already had). I do think if you're going to discuss things like public assistance and ACA in a political context, you need to get down to details.
Look, if someone I know personally says, "these new ACA expenses are really hurting me," I'm certainly not going to demand to look at their monthly budget so I can see it for myself. But when you come on a political board and use yourself as an example of how the system is no good, that's a horse of a different color. I think you should expect to face some scrutiny under those circumstances.
(Besides that, some people are giving excellent tips and suggestions for navigating the system. Sometimes people are misunderstanding some aspects of it. Letting people help you is another good reason for answering specific questions about your circumstances.)
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)
Myrina
(12,296 posts)n/t
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)
displacedtexan
(15,696 posts)The complaints I've read seem to be from two groups: those who find out that their insurance company and/or state is screwing them; and those who already have health insurance but were hoping to get a better deal from the government.
Bashing the entire concept of the ACA in the first weeks of the roll out is what I find disheartening. This law is based on nothing but human kindness.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)Thanks for the morning laugh. That was hysterical!
jsr
(7,712 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)So many crybaby Boehners. They're so used to Fox News--just make a blanket statement and ignore the critical thinking part of the argument. The "my ignernce is jes as good as yer facts" crowd have come out in droves.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I prefer not to help these people cut their noses to spite the nation's face - something they are oh so willing to do just "out of principle". I doubt these people have ever been able to "play well with others". It's all about "me, me, me!".
Good thing they're in the vast minority and are not taken seriously by the Democratic Party - which makes them even madder.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Negative subliminal messaging is far more effective than outright attacking ObamaCare as the Republicans do, but it comes down to the same thing: hate for the PPACA.
valerief
(53,235 posts)
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Perhaps you are happier with some ideologically pure left-wing bubble to mirror the Faux "news" bubble. But many of us would prefer to know the truth about things, even when -- especially when it might contradict arguments that some on our side might be offering.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)There is no valid excuse, no foreseeable gain, to "cut your nose to spite your face". Self-defeatism never works unless, of course, a person is prone to live in a Faux "News"-style Bubbleland - only one of their political preference.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)But don't criticize others for wanting to know the full story and then deal with that as best we can.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)the majority - unlike the left-wing radicals who convince no one, and endear themselves to no one but their fellow radicals. They are no friends to the Democratic Party, but they're useful tools to the GOP masters.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Your contempt for the left, which represents and fights for the real principles of the Dem Party is disgusting at best.
You are the one who is no friend to the Dem Party. Your type of attitude and insults to the base of the party are divisive. How about you stick to discussing actual policies instead of trying to blame the left for any shortcomings the Dem Party leadership may have. When I see the left on this site they are making thoughtful and analytical posts. If you don't like their opinion then argue the points, don't just go off posting how the left is this or that. That's no better then you know who.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)What a stupid question, indeed.
Just because I'm critical of the people who are cutting their collectives radical noses to spite the nation's face you question my Democratic bona fides? I'm a Liberal Democrat, not a Liberal Radical. Radicals have not proven to be an asset to any political party be they Left or Right. Ask the GOP what they think of their radicals - the Teapublicans.
And if you don't like my posts, feel free to not read them.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I think I just learned the reason you despise the left. Well sort of... You think you are liberal, so you think the left is, I don't know, the fringe or something, like real communists, except you speak of them as if they are idiots like TeaBaggers. Fact of the matter is you are not liberal and so you have a skewed idea of what the left is. The left is the liberals. Liberals are for equality for everyone, not just straight people or who "some people" claim the bible says is equal. Liberals believe in the separation of church and state, just like our founders did.
Nay, you are not liberal at all, as I've just learned, and you can call yourself that on a message board and maybe you'll fool some people into thinking your positions are liberal positions, but you are not going to fool all of us. I just love how some people on here like to claim they are liberals but they love to bash the left. And when I say bash I mean bash, not just criticize.
And btw... if you are so concerned about me not seeing your posts you can feel free to stop posting. I don't like to hide things that need to be rebutted.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)by howling for the moon and getting pissed off and pout when I don't get it. Progress takes time. I understand that because I understand the world doesn't revolve around me. Radicals don't get that concept, be they of the Left or Right kind.
But thank you for sharing your opinion - however wrongheaded. And I do apologize that I didn't pass your particular purity test, but I promise you I won't lose any sleep over it.
And just as you were wrong about whether or not I'm a Liberal, you're wrong about any concern I might have about you seeing my posts. I clearly stated that if you don't like my posts, feel free to not read them. That wasn't a offer of concern. That was sage advice for the overly sensitive.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)values?
It is Republican light at this point. And if you didn't have the left it would be farther right than that. I'll never understand the idea that the left is a bad thing when if it weren't for us we'd be so much worse off.
As to you being liberal, sorry, but when you don't believe everyone has the right to marry you don't get to be a liberal. That's just one of the staples. Add to that you thinking the left is a detriment to the party and well, you've gone way overboard. Again, liberals are the left. Liberals are not center.
I don't see any radical left posts on here. I'm not sure you know what the spectrum is and where you land on it, but there are no radical lefties posting on DU that I have seen.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)BlueCaliDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-13-04 03:14 PM
"Gay marriage is for me unthinkable, but Civil Unions have my 100% vote. I believe that marriage is something done in churches, and the Bible does speak negatively about homosexuality.
However, allowed to be "married" by a Mayor, or a power-invested civil servant for gays, and lesbians, is right, and good.?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1352110
cui bono
(19,926 posts)That speaks volumes.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Otherwise, the readers have no idea if it is actually the real world.
There's posts all over the Internet about policies with $15,000 deductibles costing $5,000 a month. The authors of such posts are lying - such policies are now illegal. But you'd have to know that detail to know they're lying.
Similarly, people posting here claiming the exchanges are going to bankrupt them may be lying. They may be not - it's not like there's a background check when people create an account, and we've had plenty of right-wing trolls over the years.
Sharing some additional information helps to determine which is the case. In other words, to ensure we are dealing with the real world.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)that doesn't rank on the top 100 list for me. The vast majority of people discussing this are being reasonable and forthright.
And as far as accuracy of information goes, it seems to me it is the blind cheerleaders who are having the biggest problems with the facts.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And then you get those reasonable and forthright high-post-count people posting about how the premiums are going to bankrupt them....by leaving out their subsidy in their reasonable and forthright post.
They could be telling the truth. They could be a right-wing troll. Or they could be a left-wing troll - lots of people on the left hate the ACA because it's not single-payer, and are very interested in destroying it to prove their point.
Sharing sufficient information lets us determine which is the case.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Like data mining? Maybe some DUers would rather not disclose any personal information. It can be rather dangerous.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)The biggest risk to our hopes of ever having a modern, humane, affordable, effective, comprehensive health care system is to over-sell the benefits of the ACA. The ACA does a few important things. It deals with some of the most abusive practices of the insurance profiteers, but leaves them alive to fight another day. And with the launch of the exchanges, they are baaaaaack with big price increases for many of us.
I don't recall seeing a single person here who says the ACA is horrible and should be scrapped. But at its very best, it is only a small step in the right direction. The idea of Medicaid expansion was a bigger step. When the SCOTUS overturned that, they effectively turned a major piece of progress into a much smaller marginal improvement. That is not Obama's fault, but it is what it is.
And I bet if one were to go back and replay the conversations at SCOTUS-time, today's blind cheerleaders were probably mostly saying that the SCOTUS decision was no big deal, that ACA is wonderful, the promised land, and everybody else should just shut their pie holes.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)
unRec
Lex
(34,108 posts)amount. That was the case in a thread from last night.
mountain grammy
(26,622 posts)Of course it could be better! It should be universal health care, single payer, Medicare part E for EVERYONE, but life as we know it would end if America adopted such a system...for the better of course!
The last time we had health insurance, we paid $400/ month on a group plan through my husband's work. He no longer works, I have Medicare. We will be able to cover him and our daughter on the exchange with a comparable policy for about $300 with the subsidy.
Now, $300 is a chunk of change for us, but we can swing it. The peace of mind is worth every penny.
PasadenaTrudy
(3,998 posts)telling you what I just spent on a new pair of shoes
Brigid
(17,621 posts)The douchebag governor of this fucked-up state is the problem. IN is one of those states that did not take Medicaid expansion. Not only that, I have just found out that the AG here has filed a lawsuit seeking to block subsidies for premiums here or in any of the other states that didn't take the expansion or set up their own exchanges. I don't know what the hell I'm going to do, but I'm sitting here seriously pondering selling my condo and moving. I'm getting hosed by two idiots I never voted for, and neither of them is named Obama.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)a mouse in your pocket. Either that or demanding using the royal "we".
How might someone, anyone have a tough time paying their tithe to the insurance cartel?
It can be about 10% of their gross, so use your fucking imagination.
I've never seen by what measure we are safe to assume that such is affordable for anyone. What is this logic based on? Where is the peer reviewed study? The national survey? How did we decide that this percentage is "affordable"? Why isn't 12.2% affordable? Are we sure that the number that most folks can reasonably handle isn't 6.8%?
The whole point is YOU want something to pounce on that you can rule to be unimportant that should be cut to meet the obligation to the cartel and if you don't find enough you'll tell these folks to cut off their internet and find some roommates or at best an "I'm sorry that it really will be be tough for you but it is far cheaper than similar coverage before the ACA".
There is nothing to support that everyone can afford damn near 10% of gross with after tax dollars at any income level. Why are you pretending that by default this is an extraordinary claim? No one has proved the baseline, it was a political calculation by millionaires and industry lobbyist not science.
Get the down from that throne and utilize the hide thread feature or better yet and again, use your fucking imagination.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)and what I knew would happen. I've had the training on the nuts and bolts of this too. As a caseworker for 5 years among many who have been the cabinet for 15, 20 even 30 years were expressing doubts about how this will impact people. The same people who decry the "I got miners" or who threw that label around are displaying that a lot lately too.
quinnox
(20,600 posts) B Calm
(28,762 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)Nine
(1,741 posts)Even millionaires will complain that they can't make ends meet because of all the taxes they have to pay and because all their money is going toward funding liberal programs. Am I a bad progressive now if I say I don't think estate taxes, for example, are really putting anyone in the poorhouse and that if someone claims this is the case that I'd like to see some details showing how that works?
ACA costs are not quite like estate taxes, and I don't doubt that some middle class people will feel the pinch from it (and I agree with Jimmy Carter that the middle class now looks like what the poor used to look like). But the ACA is designed to help the poorest Americans through subsidies. It's designed to make costs more equal by not punishing woman for having ovaries, by not excluding people with pre-existing conditions. Yeah, some people who were a little better off before are now going to be a little worse off (except for that little part about not having to worry now about a $100,000 hospital bill bankrupting them). I wish the top percenters were shouldering most of this burden instead of a lot of it being borne by an already-squeezed middle class. But if you come on here and say that ACA is going to ruin you, I want you to explain how this is the case. I want to see numbers. Because even the very well off are not above poor-mouthing. If you're attacking one of the most important pieces of Democratic legislation in a decade one month before an election by voluntarily submitting your own personal situation as an example of how bad it is, I don't think it's asking too much to see some specific numbers to back up that claim. But I guess that makes me a Republican somehow.
treestar
(82,383 posts)No one is arguing the Food Stamp program doesn't work.
No one is saying verify your income. But if you are going to claim something, back it up. Find a hypothetical under which the ACA would not come out well. It's these OPs who are making it personal. "I am shafted by Obamacare," they are the ones bringing it up.
OP is merely pointing out we have no way of knowing if they are telling the truth or not or if their conclusion is sound.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)... on their lack of personal responsibility. Hasn't been nearly enough of that going on here.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)who happen to regurgitate Republican talking points, with low post counts.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)that have an entire 100 bucks left over at the end of the month after paying rent, food and transportation complain they will have to pay that pittance (and a bit more) for an affordable premium that would have been even more before the benevolence of insurance care.
Don't they realize that the insurance lobby angels that wrote the law specifically designed plans in mind for more than one class of people?
I mean, the bronze plan was specifically designed for the working poor, the platinum for the rich and the silver and gold for the middle class, what could be fairer?
Everyone knows the shower at night drone people should have to pay the most in deductibles and co pays because they are least able to afford it, it is simple class based economics. Platinum people need more because they are better people and should have low out of pockets, just like the low taxes on their investment income.
If bronze people that are too lazy to have better jobs can't afford even a few grand extra to use plans designed just for them because they complain they have less than 5 dollars in their dirty pockets then they should just use their Diner card or American Express card for out of pockets and stop complaining, or stay the hell out of the doctors office like they are supposed to.
The class system always works, they should simply admit they are a lesser metal, of lesser value, and wouldn't even have the high co pay plan they can't use were it not for the generosity of the gold and platinum valued people that are trying so hard to help them.
Some people and metals are worth less for a reason.
The class system only works if the rabble know their place and just shut the fuck up for the benefit of everyone else!
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)with ACA.
Nine
(1,741 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Some are trolls. Some are Dems who don't want to admit they hate being coerced by the government to buy a legitimate policy with actual coverage.
BluegrassStateBlues
(881 posts)The ACA is NOT a raw deal.
B2G
(9,766 posts)
rrneck
(17,671 posts)a pdf. of my tax return? This is an anonymous internet forum not a senate sub committee hearing. Lighten up.
Autumn
(45,095 posts)are not a troll. Because do it my way and say only what I want to hear is so very fucking republican.
See how that works? Now I seriously doubt you are a troll but this is a discussion board. People, smart ones anyway, are not going to give out private information. DU is a great place to vent and get information, even if you don't like what people vent or post about. It's really none of your business anyway. Not all people share your circumstances. If all you want to read is how wonderful the ACA is, read only those threads.
Otherwise use ignore and trash thread
bvar22
(39,909 posts)please edit your OP to include all of YOUR personal Financial Information
covering the last 10 years.
Otherwise, I will be forced to assume that your post is just another case of the Conservative Well Off Blaming-the-Poor....AGAIN.
Thanks!
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)It's a very interesting choice of words.
uponit7771
(90,344 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)So, clearly you'll take whatever bill of goods you are given.
If you can't contemplate that regular working folks already paycheck to paycheck might have trouble with 10% of their gross coming out of their net then you need to read some fiction, play, brainstorm, read up on theoretical physics, or otherwise exercise your shriveled up imagination.
I bet motherfuckers would see a lot more clearly if taxes were raised by the same amount on high earners, say the "upwardly mobile professional" crowd at 80 or 100k and up. Then the complaints about cutting into savings and investments, how to pay private school tuition for little Dalton and Sierra, and having to cutback on vacations would pour in.
Even bigger winners than the destitute in the right states are the high earners, who will see their exposer limited. The fear of losing everything was always there and now the system will prevent that possibility and for them their maximum hit will be about what they expect those of us earning less than half of what they do are expected to pony up just for premiums every year as a share of income. With premiums systemically limited and liability limited, the well off have never had a better deal and now with guaranteed issue the comfortable will never be made into "small people" again because of coverage issues!
This set up also is a winner for the upperclass because it takes significant taxes off the table and kicks the wealth spreading down the ladder to middle and lower middle earners. Fee for service always lowers share for the better off because the scale of economy requires that lower earners at least hypothetically can lump it which means no problem for them.
There is also the subsidy misdirection tactic in play here, everyone pitches it as up to 400% of the federal poverty line but more accurately it is available to those 400% of FPL and below to keep their individual cost share to 9.5%, if your policy doesn't cost that much you aren't subsidized at all so a person making 35k and one making 350k have the exact same raw cost (minus maybe some impact from the 1.5% increase to fund the law), not cost share but raw cost.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)And I thank you for it, the almost ten percent premium doesn't come out of the person's "net" but their partial gross!
Which is another flaw in the ointment, if you happen to not be one of the One Percent.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)to an open Website.
Anyone asking you to do so should be treated with caution.
Anyone demanding that you do so should be treated with suspicion.
There are other private venues for you to seek financial advice and guidance.
YOU and ONLY YOU are the final authority on what is important or affordable to you and your family, NOT some anonymous poster on an open Internet forum.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)You don't get to decide what people post or what information they do or don't share.
Nobody should ever share personal financial information on the Internet. What is wrong with you?
treestar
(82,383 posts)the conclusion that the ACA is no good has nothing to back it up.
It would be better to use hypothetical people.
But then they'd have to find a hypothetical situation that would lead to the conclusion they desire.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)with a grain of salt. It isn't a court of law and the OP has no right to demand anything of anybody on DU. if you choose not to believe someone, so be it. Who cares?
treestar
(82,383 posts)It would be easy enough to come up with a hypothetical person whose situation would lead to these bad outcomes. The OP was not demanding the information - in fact it is these other posters who bring up their personal situation, claiming that Obamacare is not a good deal for them. They should just do a hypothetical instead of expecting to just be believed. The posters saying we can' t just believe you without knowing facts are correct - there is no reason to just believe them. That would in fact be naive.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)big deal. But to DEMAND anything is just pure arrogance.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)Teh Whambulance is now going to CHARGE for additional details, then we'll help the suffering ACA victim
cui bono
(19,926 posts)There are tons of OPs that have no substantiation in them on various topics, but you didn't mention any of them.
Here's an example that I remember seeing yesterday that you must have really hated, since there isn't even anything in the body of the message:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3826084
I can understand where you are coming from, but you are asking for very personal information to be posted on the internet. Other threads such as the one I linked to do not require personal info at all and there are tons of those types of threads, so I am really curious why you didn't complain about that one or the plethora of others like it, where there is no evidence of anything posted.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)
Response to Nine (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
mia
(8,361 posts)Even though I'm not impacted yet, I still want to know what you have to say, unless you listen to FOX news.
Zavulon
(5,639 posts)And unless you're an admin, I don't owe you a damn bit of explanation or a list of my financials at all, nor do I care if you take my word for it. The ACA already cost me full-time status at work as it is, so why don't you take your demands to the proctologist I'm sure you would be allowed to keep if you like him / her and have that fine professional extract them from where I'd like to see them shoved?:
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Got some news for you.
Nobody needs your fucking permission to relate their experiences here. Nobody needs to jump through any of your bullshit hoops. Nobody has to prove a damn thing to you.
I mean really, who the hell do you think you are?
Cracking me up!
Oh yeah, that throne you think you sit atop? It ain't really there. Just so you know.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)That is a funny heading.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)I have asked this many times, but get no answers that I trust yet.
I have a farm/business. My income year to year varies a lot. That is one reason that farmers get to do income averaging. If I use last year's tax return figures I qualify for Medical. But this year was way better and I qualify for subsidies on a private plan if I use those numbers as an estimate. But what happens if my income is less that what I think it will be, I get the subsidies, but then find that I should have been on medical?
I think if one's income is higher than expected, one pays the subsidies back. But what happens on lower than expected and subsidies were given?
When I asked the covered CA people they were confused, I mean there really are not that many farmers, and the tax breaks we get are many and generous IMO.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)People can post what they want. Why don't you post your financial info. if you insist others do so?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)is either a troll or a liar or a Greenwald lover, or maybe even a liberal.
More purity tests
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)A few weeks ago it was gay bashing, then it was trans bashing, now it's poor bashing. Some of you have no fucking shame.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)Never thought I'd see shit like this from supposed liberals.
