General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWe're seeing lots of nonsense ACA stories posted without the facts needed to evaluate them
I just went to http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/ and estimated what a single person at 40 years old living in Florida, a state that opted out of the Medicaid increase, earning $12,000 a year would pay for a silver plan. Do you know what that person's premium is?
$12 a month for a silver plan.
We're hearing all of this nonsense from people about suffering under the ACA. Here is what we need or its bullshit.
1. The state you live in
2. Your age
3. Your income
4. Size of your family including how many kids 20 and younger
If you don't provide that, none of what you said means anything.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)expansion, like Florida, have it 'worst'.
I just checked Kansas City, Missouri with all the other stats the same and got the same results.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)that's all I'm saying.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)
calimary
(81,304 posts)Wouldn't surprise me if there were trolling all over the place.
Astroturfing went on, like this, during the dubya years. Malicious mischief of the political kind. Just for the sake of sowing misinformation, disruption, confusion, and dissent. BE SUSPICIOUS!!!
munster69
(107 posts)You can over calculate your 2014 income to get one of those juicy silver plans!
http://www.stltoday.com/news/special-reports/mohealth/how-poor-could-still-get-obamacare-help/article_b37b1b8a-2d37
"While there are steep fines for knowingly lying on a government application for financial assistance, if someone merely miscalculates their income above the poverty level in 2014, and is later found to have made less than the poverty level, they won’t have to pay any money back, according to the Treasury Department."
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Response to stevenleser (Original post)
Post removed
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)The astroturf stories on all sides, as well as the "i don't believe you unless you provide your dick size and postal code" knee-jerk responses
At the end of the day the only thing that matters are going to be health outcomes and per capita costs (which, in an insanely terrible system are projected to go up under Obamacare, even if less so).
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)If you dont provide the facts to support your contentions, you have always been in bad shape on DU.
That is nothing new.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)it actually lowers deficit projections. Applying that to multi years of expanded risk pools, aggressive negotiating by large footprint federal exhchanges and increased size of Medicaid pool--I foresee a stalling of premiums and possible drops per capita and greater emphasis on outcome-based medicine rather than fee for service.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Ill dig it up for you in a bit
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)that when all the dust settles, per capita costs for health care will have gone up.
The number of ER visits for non emergency "health care of last resort" should go down. Free or nearly free wellness visits should increase early detection of issues and drive treatment that is less expensive and more efficacious.
These points are in addition to the ones I mentioned above such as negotiating prices with the big boys in the health care industry. Even stuff like price of MRI's should be lower when companies like GE aren't able to FUCK OVER THE SYSTEM.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)There is a graph somewhere that explains all that as well...
Federal Health Care Spending to Reach 8 Percent of GDP in 2038, CBO Estimates
http://www.bna.com/federal-health-care-n17179877130/
So to put it in perspective of the next 10 years:
The last 10 years were absurd. This law isn't going to turn absurdity back, but rather slow it from marching forward (but march forward it will).
Here you'll notice while the curve declines, it doesn't go back down:
Still can't find original data source...will get that to you. In any case, its not going down. 
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)they can't assume positive changes in things like high leverage efforts to reduce average cost of particular care options. any projections are based on a status quo of today's scenario and then factoring in inflation, aging population. Thanks for the link and charts. I don't think those will prove to be accurate as per capita health care cost going forward, but we shall all see, eh?
Simple logic tells us that if Canada, most of Europe, Japan, and others can do health care with better outcomes and much lower costs then so can the U.S. once the stanglehold of private sector running the show is loosened a bit.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)per capita costs will go down?
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)This CNBC article shows some of the ways Obamacare tries to ratchet down health care costs won't be able to go into effect immediately but will hopefully have positive effect in a dramatic way just when so many baby boomers will be in later years and requiring more health care.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57606595/will-obamacare-bring-down-health-costs-expert-weighs-in/
similar statements about how provisions that are starting to kick in will reduce health care costs while incentivizing more effective health outcomes. This one has experts' opinions and thoughts on the topic.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)And see if our truthy belief in the system reduced them, or simply reduced their growth from their already absurd state
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)which is why the Republicans are having a shit fit every day.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)... when we all know, as you do, that the words were coined to indicate LIES that sound like truth. Essentially you think the whole ACA is a lie -- or at least it sure sounds like it.
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)I went to the ER. I'm still paying off $15,000 from 7 years ago. That bill will live longer than I will.
For some reason, there are still people that think the ER is a free ride. Well, it is...if you don't pay your bills. Then everyone else gets to pay it for you. So...why is this ACA so bad, again? Oh...that's right. Because so many are getting a 'free ride' that they have to pay for. 
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)But it was harped upon front and center to promote this thing. The numbers are out there of course. Im too lazy but they've been posted here on DU countless times
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Most hospitals write them off for tax breaks (which is another reason they charge poor uninsured people more than insured people--the amounts are arbitrary and they use them to pad their books).
And when the US is spending close to $3 trillion on health care expenditures, yeah, then its a stupid point to continually put front and center. You want to endorse a system that allows 10-15% profit to insurers for collecting money and writing checks, yet you quibble about these amounts?
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)compare what they're losing to what they are bringing in as revenue. Lots of hospitals end up being bailed out by the government paying the unpaid portion which hits our taxes. So...the current state of affairs is we are paying more for those who are uninsured than we ostensibly would if they were insured.
As you point out, hospitals have a list price for services that uninsured pay, and then they have other pricing that is NEGOTIATED by insurers and Medicare. Getting 100% of people under an umbrella of negotiated lower costs will total up to another area where health care costs will naturally go down.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)under the ACA which will be the battle cry to ultimately change the system to one of health care, or in other words single-payer.
With the mandate, the ACA has latgely neutered the element of risk for the insurance companies, so this really isn't even a health insurance system. I don't know what you call a system where the government (a fourth party) forces all its citizens (first party) to pay a dedicated tax that is then given directly to a for profit company (third party) who pays most of it to health care providers (second party) and keeps the rest as payment for writing the checks to the providers.
Absurd system. Get single-payer going already.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)You haven't paid your bill 7 years after the fact and likely never will.
How you turn that around to not getting a free ride is beyond me. If your employer didnt pay you for 7 years would you still say you were getting paid?
Making payments does not = having paid your bill. The hospital still has to cover that unpaid portion despite you making payments. Multiply that by thousands of people and it becomes a real problem.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)That is very different than what you suggested about them.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)7 years later the bill is not paid. I understand he is making payments and I dont have any problem with it. The point though is 7 years later there is still an unpaid portion and he said the debt would likely outlive him so it will never be paid in full if he is right.
I dont have a problem with that as our health care system is fugged and a 15k bill is ridiculous for a lot of folks. But pretending thats not what the free health care in the emergency room is about is strange.
Compound thousands or more likely millions in the same situation and that's a lot of unpaid hospital bills that are being absorbed elsewhere.
Everyone who goes to the ER gets a bill. If that is his point I get it but its exactly those bills that are going unpaid that are contributing to the higher cost of health care. Those bills are why we need single payer.
I am not saying he/she is not trying to pay their bill. God bless them for making payments on it this long.
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)...and keep your God's blessings to yourself. You must be one of those that believes if someone can't pay the bill on the spot, they should just die in the street. Your God must be proud.
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)...no.
I am making payments on a fairly regular basis. I don't have $15,000 in my pocket. If I did, I wouldn't have had to go to the emergency room. I would have gone to the doctor long before it became an 'emergency'.
But, hey...thanks for your 'concern'. 
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Its the internet. Curse words nauseate you? Take a healthy walk and get some fresh air.
Seriously people, relax.
SunSeeker
(51,564 posts)It gets really boring and annoying. DU is supposed to be better than that.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)
progressoid
(49,991 posts)"i don't believe you unless you provide your dick size and postal code"
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)The astroturf and the knee jerk responses what?
It's like saying, "The bus and the car" and stopping there. Notice how that is not a complete sentence?
And, no, at the end of the day whatever you think is the only thing that matters is not the only thing that matters.
Whether my husband and I can afford health insurance or not also matters. Whether my friends can afford health insurance matters, too. And so does whether people I don't even know can afford health insurance or not.
seattle15
(45 posts)Can't handle the truth?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)seattle15
(45 posts)Unless stevenleser was being sarcastic, I'm confused.
William769
(55,147 posts)In case you have not read this it may answer some questions for you.
It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate on our discussion forums in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints. Members should refrain from posting messages on DU that are disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. These broad community standards of behavior are maintained though the combined efforts of members posting and serving on citizen juries, using their own best judgment to decide what behavior is appropriate and what is not.
Members who cannot hold themselves to a high standard risk having their posts hidden by a jury of their peers, and being blocked out of discussion threads they disrupt. Those who exhibit a pattern of willful disregard for the Community Standards risk being in violation of our Terms of Service, and could have their posting privileges revoked.
Revolutionary Community Moderating System
At Democratic Underground, we believe that we can encourage good discussions by empowering all of our members to take responsibility for the discussions on the site. We want every member to feel that they have the power to help make this community the best it can be. We have developed a revolutionary new community moderating system, based on the principles of personal empowerment, transparency, and individual control, that completely changes the power structures and perverse incentives found on most other discussion forums.
Elsewhere on the Internet, there are two basic systems for moderating discussion forums: All-powerful elite moderators, or mob-rule member ratings. On both types of forums, the problems are roughly the same: a lack of accountability for the people moderating the discussions, and a lack of responsibility for the members posting. This, in turn, can give undue influence to a small number of highly motivated, highly organized partisans who may attempt to co-opt the system to try to impose their will on everyone else.
Democratic Underground does something different, based on a tried-and-true idea that has been tested over centuries: The randomly selected jury of peers. Every DU member has a chance to serve as a citizen juror to evaluate the posts of other members. Whenever an alert is sent on a disruptive post, six DU members are selected at random to serve as jurors. Jurors only evaluate one post, at which point their service ends for the day. Rather than empowering trolls, super-partisans, and busybodies, the DU community moderating system empowers the rest of us. (See Our Community Moderating System for detailed information.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)A jury of 6 members is asked to judge the post based on the rules of this site and common sense. A jury hid the posters message. 4 of the 6 jury members felt that the post was in violation of the sites rules.
Stevenlesser was being sarcastic but he was not on the jury. I doubt he alerted on it as well. He engaged the poster.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)you ask me.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Ironically, expanding Medicaid was the best part of this insurance scheme. No surprise everyone thinks the insurance system is shit.
A single-payer system like Canada or UK is the way to go. This just puts a band-aid on a broken system.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)For the first time in 4 years, I'm insurable with preventative visits/treatments covered.
That said, I still take most people at face value and don't demand a shred of proof. I will just assume they aren't looking at it properly when the facts start to get skewed.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)And the problem is that this is partisan confirmation bias. Both sides do it. They don't want to hear stats or reality, but only anecdotes that confirm how they already feel
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)confirm or disprove anyone's contentions.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)So I'm able to do that with a clear conscience. You see?
I am neither "yay this is great for everyone!" or "Boooo, this sucks!" And I bet there are a lot more out there of me than you...or that other guy.
Thank you for thinking beyond your initial perception of me that, because I might not agree with you or confirm your idea of how thing are, I must be "on the other side." That's really bringing this place and it's people down.
IOW, it's making DU suck.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)why pay a penalty that will get increasingly higher for a BIG ZILCH when you can pay similar amount per year for pretty good coverage.
That's just one demographic. Plenty of others who have been shut out of any coverage are DELIRIOUSLY HAPPY with this.
I am guessing a lot of the angst is coming from "free lancers" or self employed folks who were chronically uninsured and who are a bit higher age bracket with families who now see they will have to place a little more importance on their own health coverage by actually buying reasonable plans that can help you in a medically dire situation.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)because she was shut out of the market (along with her son--thanks to the preexisting children caveat that kept him from being insurable on his own policy) and has found (and admitted) that ACA is better than she thought (or dreamed) it could possibly be.
The yayers and nayers are wide and varied. It would be impossible to pigeonhole or make assumptions there.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)and I still think a lot of the whining is from those who CHOSE to underinsure and now are not able to. Yeah, it's going to cost them more.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)Increased class stratification
valerief
(53,235 posts)original Republican plan (ACA).
The Dems' preference, single payer, is best for 99% but not 1%, so that's off the table.
Nationally. At this moment.
Good news! There's blue states. And time isn't frozen.
Canada got single payer via one province going single payer after a national attempt failed.
We can do the same thing here. And it'll be much, much easier than leaping directly to a national plan. Because Republicans can't stop us in Blue states.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Is an abortion EVIL to you or something? It's a fucking MEDICAL PROCEDURE.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)and just think what it such use would mean to women who have had that medical procedure. Like having their minister brand an A on their foreheads.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)to describe botched garments- in the eighties. It kind of died out, thank god.
Weird to see it here.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)now you're unfavorably comparing how EXPENSIVE a hip replacement is vs. how cheap and easy an abortion is under Obamacare. Not liking the way this is going.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)That's what you got out of it? I just made a joke. Put your big boy pants on and chill out
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)The weird tirades that used abortion as a curse word twice and and "dick size" once. I've got a pretty good picture of you. Thanks to you.
Paper Roses
(7,473 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts) DevonRex
(22,541 posts)And he thinks it's funny. Told PW to chill.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)something about big boy pants, right? Why am I not surprised to see misogyny thrown in. I think someones slip is showing.
adding: I know PW is a guy but still. *smh*
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)Lemme guess, youre ok with "grow some balls" too?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Either you believe it for substantial reasons you might share or you are blindly flailing in poutrage
bunnies
(15,859 posts)Im aborting this conversation. Id get farther by banging my head on the wall.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)I'm nauseated
bunnies
(15,859 posts)I'll give you that.
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)Let me get you started.
I haven't had insurance for over 12 years. I'm high risk. The last time I tried to get insurance, the premiums were over half of my check. I wouldn't have been able to pay rent, eat, or go to work. In the meantime, my health has kept deteriorating. I'm fairly certain that some issues that would have been simple to address 10 years ago have escalated into some costly and invasive procedures. Yay for me.
I haven't been able to get through on the web site, yet, but I have checked several online estimators. I'm looking at between $150-$250 a month. Far, far, far less than that insurance company quoted years ago. OH!!! I forgot to tell you the best part! That insurance company that wanted me to sell my soul? They also wanted to attach a rider that would have excluded anything that related to heart, blood pressure, cancer of several types, strokes, etc. And, my deductible would have been $10,000.
The estimates I've been getting from around the internet? No exclusions, deductible $5000. Do you think I should be unhappy about this? Sorry to disappoint you. I'm freakin' thrilled. Not looking forward to my first doctor's appointment, but I'll go. I'll go and hope they can fix some things.
I'm just one story. I'm willing to bet there are thousands of others just like me.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)I just know that's his worldview. fuck it.
I'm happy to hear your story. I wish my mom and sister wouldn't have had to worry so much in their final days.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Nice strawman
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)I've known people that have suffered because of lack of insurance, but none that have lost the battle. I can't imagine how hard it must be. What a helpless feeling.
I've been working full time since I was 16. Most of those years I did well financially. I made the mistake of leaving a really good company and moving to a crap state for health reason. Now, I suffer financially and physically. blech.
There are so many heartwarming stories out there. No longer will a sick child be denied care because their insurance 'ran out'. Parents can focus on healing instead of paying.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)There are so many good stories like yours, and that is good for Everyone. I am very happy to hear this.
Some are not happy that you will finally be able to be insured and that you Are pleased.
Look at this thread of misery, trying to tell you that you are stupid or something, that you should be moaning and fucking groaning against ACA instead. Same as it ever was, same miserable crowd.
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)Happy chills. They used to say that a chill meant a goose walked over your grave. I think that goose may be walking over the grave of unnecessary suffering for thousands. This is just the first step in fixing our health care system. Next stop...pharmaceuticals and expanding the ACA.
No wonder the GOP is frantic and scrambling.
Blue_Roses
(12,894 posts)get the insurance you need. Like I said, I CAN RELATE! As I sit here with a broken foot--needing surgery--with no insurance and paying out-of-pocket for the foot doctor, your story resonated. I left the foot doctor so depressed, since he said I needed the surgery "now" to prevent further nerve damage and broken bones. All this "good news" and it was on my birthday ta boot! That was two weeks ago!
It's nuts that we live in the good ol' US of A, but we can't see to the needs of the people without idiots like Ted Cruz spewing his BS. Oh, and I live in Texas (not by my choice!) so once again, I most defnitely can relate!
My husband's job insurance is so high we can't afford it. Like you, it would have come down to the choice of paying rent or not. We also have 2 kids. And since my husband makes too much for CHIPS (yes, too much is $80 over the cut-off), we fall right through the cracks. I substitute teach, but can't since I was told to stay off of my foot as much as possible. (I was hoping to get on full-time, but that is not possible right now).
I am so tired of worrying about it. I can't wait till our coverage starts in Jan. I just hope my foot can!
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)Did your doctor give you any options until the insurance kicks in? I'm always amazed at some doctors that tell you 'you need...' and can't fathom how we 'can't afford...'.
I'm sorry BR. 
Blue_Roses
(12,894 posts)seem to understand we can't! He prescribed me some pain medication and when I went to pick it up it was over $100! Remember Doc: I'm "out-of-pocket". 
So the pharmacist suggested a cheaper one and he went with that. Geeze. It's embarrassing!
One of the options he discussed was for me to be fitted with a boot specifically for my foot until I can have surgery. (I have a generic one now) BUT, once again, he said it would be pricey and insurance would cover it--BUT, once again Doc--no insurance. ( I was almost in tears at this point.)
So, I asked him, "what are my options now"? He paused and said, " I don't know."Arrrggghhh!
Finally, the nurse suggested a program in our county (it's sponsored only in our county by one of the big hospitals here. So I am checking to see if I qualify for that. He said once I'm approved, he will refer me to the surgeon of podiatry that he did his residency under. This surgeon is on staff at this hospital. So, next is paperwork approval ( I hope ) and then seeing the surgeon. Evidently, the break is an old one that has got all the other bones moving and shakin'. He called it Charcot Foot. Never had heard of it, but he gave me info on it and I googled it. That's a whole nother story!
Needless to say, I'm screwed until I have surgery.
I can see why people snap.
Blue_Roses
(12,894 posts)Like you, if I had taken care of this when it first started giving me trouble, I might not have been told I needed surgery. But, I kept thinking I could make it.
This, THIS, is what the "Ted Crazies", don't get. We work. We take care of our families, but we cannot sustain a productive life riddled with unnecessay bullshit. Not having affordable health care is unnecessary bullshit. We are not a "survival of the fittest" nation. But, I'm starting to think that this is what they want.
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)...to a local program. A foot is pretty damned important. I know a few people that have gotten help from Catholic Charities, in the past (none Catholics), but they've had to cut back.
I hope you can get this fixed, soon. And, yes, the 'Ted Crazies' don't get it. That's what drives me nuts. When you can't go to a doctor for a preventative visit, or for a minor concern, things escalate. The ER won't fix that. People end up sicker, out of work, on public aid/food stamps, etc. It's a vicious circle.
When do you think you'll find out?
Blue_Roses
(12,894 posts)so hopefully not too much longer. I will keep you posted.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)I got through my veterinary association (until I got priced out several years ago). It had premiums of $500/mo (for just me, a single middle-aged nonsmoker female) PLUS a $5000 or $7500 deductible (I forget which, not that it mattered, lol) and 20% copay on everything after that (no out-of-pocket limit at all). So I was out of pocket $11-13.5k before I saw a single dime of coverage for jack shit. And of course it didn't cover my birth control pills even when I ran out the deductible.
Now, with subsidies, I can get a plan with a $500 deductible, $2250 out-of-pocket limit, and premiums of under $50/mo. I am still a single, nonsmoking female, but I am now 56 so things are even pricier, at least in theory. It's a silver HMO plan on the CoveredCA exchange.
Yeah, ACA sucks, man. I'm not able to buy a rip-off plan anymore.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)because I'm sure most of it is. The exceptions should be communicated to that person's congressperson and others who can actually do something to alleviate gaps in coverage that is affordable.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)single payer now
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)I feel for anyone with a family trying to get by on so little.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Next you'll demand SSNs and Bank Account passwords.
Hopefully I don't need this ... 
btw ... I looked up my ACA plan possibilities ... the first surprise was that there were more than a dozen plans.
I won't know exact amounts right away (don't have my employer's sign-up stuff for 2014 yet) but the plans I see from the ACA which sound similar to what I have now, also cost about the same amount as what I have now ... except that my employer pays part of the premium, so the ACA plans would cost me more than my employer based plan (I would not qualify for a deductible).
Whisp
(24,096 posts)what you did there is totally acceptable, (you forgot Stasi and Turd wayer and many others of the sort) but d.o. n.o.t. s.a.y. e.m.o.t.a.r.i.a.n. you will make boo boos that will scar many forever.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)even though I am not sad to see MichiganDem go.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)For some reason, they allowed employer plans to be pre-tax, but exchange plans are after-tax.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)for a number of reasons. One of them being...you can set a wage for yourself that is more than the total of what your business pays you. That is the only portion you have to pay self employment tax on. The rest can be managed through distributions to the owner(s)--you. That is taxed but not with payroll tax.
Also, you may be able to set up your insurance such that it could be pretax as well. I'd check.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)Good time to be a tax accountant.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)How many people on DU actually use their real first and last name. as if putting down their income, family size and state, posting as Mr. FASM (Fascist Authoritarian Sycophant Meanie) is somehow intrusive for people.
Talk about poutrage
wercal
(1,370 posts)We can't compare anything without this type of info.
I would add, it would be good to know the deductible...for instance on your silver plan...to do an apples to apples comparison of rates.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)I'm tired of seeing these complaints from people calling themselves Democrats. Being self centered and selfish is generally republican traits and I'm seeing it here, and honestly, if these people are Democrats- then I'm ashamed to be grouped with them.
wercal
(1,370 posts)1. KS
2. 43
3. $82k
4. 4 people total, 2 under 20
It spit out $6,440 in premiums for a silver plan. I pay $6,324 right now.
Unfortunately, no way to compare deductibles.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)So for you, ACA Silver was 536.67 a month instead of $527 which you are paying now, understanding that we cannot compare deductables and coverage.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)wercal
(1,370 posts)This link is just an estimator. I don't need to sign up, so I don't want to go to the actual exchange, etc.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)wercal
(1,370 posts)But that is not the same as the deductible in most plans, as there is usually a cost split up to the cap after the deductible. As far as I can tell, the link in the OP does not indicate deductible.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)If you qualify for out-of-pocket savings, you must choose a Silver plan to get the savings. If you qualify for these savings, you'll get the out-of-pocket savings benefits of a Gold or Platinum plan for a Silver plan price. You can choose any category of plan, but you'll get the out-of-pocket savings only if you enroll in a Silver plan.
SNIP
BUT out of pocket costs do include deductibles, etc.
wercal
(1,370 posts)Let me go back and explain:
1) The OP posted a link to an estimator
2) I used it and reported my results
2a. My premiums on ACA would be nearly identical to my current premiums
2b. Unfortunately, with his estimator, I am unable to compare deductibles
3) Yes I know it gives total payout, but it is useless for comparison. My current deductible is $3k...the total cap payout on ACA is $12k...but that doesn't tell me anything about whether or not ACA deductible is better or worse.
4) It was just a quick and dirty estimator. I am satisfied and not in search of any more information. I already have insurance...just played along and went to the OP link.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)cough cough *bullshit* cough cough
wercal
(1,370 posts)Why or what is bullshit?
You can't explain.
Petty.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)wercal
(1,370 posts)The OP did a good thing by suggesting we all give some basic parameters when comparing plans. I went to his link, compared plans, came up with a result that was fairly unremarkable, and now the peanut gallery is going crazy.
I don't actually need to go to the exchange, as I already have insurance. The OP's link is just a quick and dirty snap shot of cost, that's all.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)The very thing the OP was complaining about
I'm sure you meant well
wercal
(1,370 posts)If you look at this thread, first I asked the OP to add to his post, what his deductible was.
Then, I went to his link to find out my own information.
Then I reported back my info...and reported the deficiency that it didn't give deductible information.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Healthcare.gov came up with 176. and some change for a Humana Silver plan with a $2900 deductible. I'd say it's prety close.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Because if they do, you need to add in their salary, too. If they don't then you need to join the rest of the American population and encourage your spouse to get a job, too.
And I don't need to join anybody.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)If they don't work and don't have a reason not to do so (because otherwise they could draw disability), then you had problems long before the ACA went into effect, anyway.
wercal
(1,370 posts)First of all, I never claimed to have a 'problem'.
Second of all, you don't even understand the spousal gap (which will likely be remedied soon), and how adding a spouses income only lowers people's subsidy, so what you are blathering about is pure horseshit anyway.
Third of all, if my wife and I have decided that she doesn't need to work, that's our own fucking business, not yours.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)wercal
(1,370 posts)I would love to know what you meant. I would love for you to quote whatever I said that made you post that. You can't and won't though, because there is nothing there. I don't know who you were reacting to...but you are way over the line.
Anger. Not so angry that I don't feel sorry for you. I've seen your posts over the last few months and formed quite a negative opinion of you. Your thought process is not very linear, and you suffer greatly because of it.
Now go ahead and explain yourself
1) What did you see that was so insidious about my ACA comparison, which essentially came out as a wash, that you said it was "bullshit". That is an angry word, and I would love for you to summon the brainpower to explain why you used it.
2) Why put you in charge of whether or not my wife works?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Carry on!
wercal
(1,370 posts)You can't explain why you rudely called my post "Bullshit", in any intelligent way.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I should even attempt, to do so, since you have such a low opinion of me in the first place. A person on the internet ordering me or attempting to force me to do anything after they have already declared they have a low opinion of me is a waste of time.
Please enjoy my response.
PS. I've added you to ignore, so nothing further will be answered to/by you. Have a good day
wercal
(1,370 posts)Let's see:
1. You said my post was "Bullshit"
2. I said I have a low opinion of you
3. You now give yourself permission to not back up your original statement
This means either:
1) You were unaware that calling my post bullshit would cause me to dislike you
2) Or you are using that as an excuse to not back up your statement
IOW, if you insult somebody, and they don't take a shine to it, that doesn't mean you don't have to back up your statement. That's just immature and silly.
A half hour ago you were identifying my 'problems' and dictating my wife's work situation...but now you don't want to be told what to do? Are you starting to understand why people don't like you that much?
Now lets have it. Don't chicken out. Articulate in 140 characters or less, what precisely was "bullshit" about my post?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)you appear to be unnecessarily confrontational.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)But we've heard all day long from people in states like KS complaining about the new law, and the only people they can really blame are those Governors of their states that declined the federal subsidies for Medicaid assistance. Blaming the ACA when the problem is at a state level is pointless, as is discussing something with someone that states that they already found my posts disagreeable for a few months. For sanity and peace, I utilized ignore.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)At Fri Oct 11, 2013, 05:40 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Because it's
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3830926
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
All I did is support the OP, go to his link, and post my results. Out of nowhere, Aerows attacks me.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Oct 11, 2013, 06:18 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I see no attack. Someone saying they don't believe you isn't an attack.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: I doubt a jury will hide this, but I think calling a member a liar is a personal attack and should be hidden.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I didn't even need to check context. Long-time poster complaining about bovine excrement? Fine with me. Even if I disagree 100%
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
wercal
(1,370 posts)I suppose that's easier than explaining the baseless characterization.
An internet hit and run attack.
Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)....breathe.
I'm glad you have a current plan you're happy with. I used to, as well. Your input is appreciated. If I had stayed in Chicago with my previous employer and their plan, I'd more than likely be in the same situation.
One of us is an apple, the other is an orange. We can't compare our situations, only appreciate, and learn from, the other's experiences.
senseandsensibility
(17,056 posts)I would really like to know. Thanks.
wercal
(1,370 posts)Your total household income is used...but then your cost of individual insurance is compared to 9.5 percent of income for determination of subsidy....even though you will likely buy insurance for both you and a spouse. So two people who seperately may be eligible for subsidy become ineligible for subsidy.
senseandsensibility
(17,056 posts)unfair. What have you heard about this being rectified? You seemed to suggest that in another post.
wercal
(1,370 posts)And there will be bipartisan support for changing it. Thats all I know....but I'd recommend calling your congreseman.
senseandsensibility
(17,056 posts)Luckily, my rep is a member of the Progressive Caucus.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)We have to know. How many watts!
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and somehow doesn't have an employer covered plan. You don't make that working at McDonald's anywhere in the US, and pretty much anything past 60K/year means that you have enough value that you are covered by an employer (and that is being generous with a salary).
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)for a silver plan for a single person 40 years old making $90K/yr
$238/month is nothing for a 90K/yr person for health insurance.
There are certain folks in that situation. I know some IT programmers (C++, Java etc) who are independent contractors who might fit that bill. $238/month is great. That's lower than I pay for my portion under my employers plan, of course that plan would probably be considered a platinum. Still, its a good rate.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Some of these complaints are ridiculous and unrealistic.
penultimate
(1,110 posts)I make about half of $90k/yr... Where I live, I can pull that off without much issue. However, someone who makes $12k/yr less than me would still have to pay the same. If they live in a higher cost of living area, it would obviously be more difficult for them. Although, without the ACA they probably still be paying about the same for comparable plans (based on what i've seen) I wonder if premiums will eventually go down as more people sign up for insurance.
I will also say that it's nice to know that I won't be screwed over due to pre-existing conditions too, and that if I was to ever lose the ability to pay for insurance, I won't go without medical care due to the subsidies (although, I'm unclear how that works after the application is submitted)
senseandsensibility
(17,056 posts)That does not sound at all like what I have seen on the Kaiser website, even for couples making that much.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)so they don't have to deal with bennies or worrying about dropping you on a whim. Some of my best earning years I had no insurance- and private insurance was through the roof expensive. More than what an ACA silver would cost me now, but for crappier coverage.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)ACA silver is an improvement and a lot of people are griping just to gripe.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)Could be an accountant, masseuse, have a lawncare service or run a bodega. Which means he would also be paying double for payroll (Medicare/FICA) with both employer (him) and employee (him) portions - and the ACA isn't pretax through the market. Only employer sponsored plans are.
Lots of holes in the opening bid to Single Payer...
Aerows
(39,961 posts)but I think a lot of people are complaining when they are getting a better deal than they got before. I understand that it isn't as great as it could have been, but something is better than nothing and leads to better somethings.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)I make 70k a year and my employer does not cover me. We are a small software based company where a lot of the people get coverage through their spouses and our group just isn't big enough to get any kind of decent deal.
Having said that, I found a decent plan on the exchange that covers me and my wife and the premium isn't awful. Its a better plan than the one I was paying for before and just a tad more expensive per month.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)and make it true, not dismantle it from day one when it has benefited people.
onlyadream
(2,166 posts)And makes over 100k as a contractor. It does happen.
I'm shocked how DUers are so quick to jump on people without the benefit of the doubt. I KNOW that we all want this thing to be great... I really do. I wanted it to be wonderful! But the sad fact, for me, is that the choices the exchange gave me were horrible.
I'd rather keep what I have, however, I found out that it won't meet the standards so I'll have to find something else, which will likely cost a lot.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I'm serious. I understand why families that make less than 30K a year don't have health care insurance, but if your husband doesn't, at 100K a year, he either over leveraged (bought to much house) or ... I'm not going to say what I think, actually. Just state that bit.
onlyadream
(2,166 posts)He's a contractor. We do have it privately tho.
When he got laid off 18 mos ago I was lucky to find affordable insurance that worked for us. however, it doesn't meet the ACA requirements, which sent me to the exchange. Our premiums would more than double and the coverage is much worse with huge deductibles and copays, where now we have none. What we have now is one hundred percent hospital and well visits. Everything else is out of pocket. I was fine with that.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)When I was a self employed software consultant I was paying around 1200/month for a good family health insurance policy, equivalent to what I had when I was working for a tech company. From what I've seen, IT contractors will do very well under ACA, either reducing their costs or upgrading their insurance or both. It should open the door to a lot more independent contracting.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)and aren't traditional employees by the same token most folks that make even less than 60k are covered under group insurance. I see no significant line except for at the very bottom with odd and end holes all the way up.
You'd be surprised, I guess, that there are many different arrangements outside of the norm. The norm by a significant margin to the tune of something like 85% of people that have insurance have that coverage through their employers and not all of the remainder are small business owners. Lots contract, maybe even into the millions while remaining a tiny minority out of the general population.
The IRS has the 1099 form for a reason and not all of those folks are low paid. Additionally, there are people that make fair livings in strictly cash value but get no value from any benefit package as small business employees, little PTO, no insurance or some bullshit high deductible crap, no life, no disability, no retirement but the cash is solid, so solid that it becomes a trap because reducing income is seldom an attractive option even if the value of the compensation package is greater.
I know folks well in pretty much the same hamster wheel, might not pull down 90,000 but that is a pretty good lick in this market and may easily be the equivalent in buying power for cost of living as what these folks have here-house with a decent yard, decent cars, normal amenities, can do stuff for the kids, ferret away a few bucks, keep the bills paid.
Hell, I bet some of the happiest people about the law are folks in very similar positions that have been trying to carry some decent coverage and have been going through hell, highwater, and wild expense to do it in a pretty evil individual market. These folks might not even qualify for subsidies but compared to what they had been able to get, the full freight is a godsend because it will really staunch the bleeding and cut out the underwriting bullshit that had even well of folks, especially ones with children with chronic conditions feeling like they were just holding on.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Or have a job without benefits but still, with outside work, earn similar annual sums yet have no insurance.
For these folks, plans are all over $1,000 or whatever the fuck a company wants to charge.
ACA will cut my monthly COBRA, which is $1,429 now, in half.
That's more than my mortgage.
I can't wait.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)$196.18 a month for a silver plan (Lake county).
(because Florida isn't in the expanded Medicaid program and if you make under 100% of the
Federal poverty level ($11,490) you are ineligible for any subsidies).
http://inplainsight.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/03/20802757-how-can-somebody-in-poverty-not-be-eligible-for-subsidies-millions-of-poor-not-covered-by-health-law?lite
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And if your conscience tugs at you, wait tables for a month on the weekends next year. Small price to pay for $12 a month silver plan.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)that is a bullshit part that needs to be fixed. I don't know if Obama and team believe it is better for this to remain and be a way to force states to participate when so many low income people realize they're getting screwed...but that is a bad deal right now.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Everyone focuses on the fact that they upheld 99% of the ACA, but the part they struck down was really important.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)going into effect. WHy not say "anyone making lower than X" or x% of poverty line" will be eligible for subsidies unless they qualify for state Medicaid. The way the law currently is written must be pretty hard coded which is what would create that gap of people who CAN'T get Medicaid and CAN'T get any subsidy help on their exchange plan.
munster69
(107 posts)In Michigan, where my brother lives, there is no real Medicaid expansion but the gov is handing out vouchers to HELP buy private plus the dreaded Health Savings Account, like the poor will be able to save for anything. Michigan even has the option to bail out of ACA if they see fit after 2017. Michigan is on the list of states that expanded Medicaid but it really didn't.
Details on bottom of page:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1310910
penultimate
(1,110 posts)I thought it was an error in the code logic. Hmmmm.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)of note, that FL number is because Gov. Scott failed to expand Medicaid. In fact it's not so bad for lower income people because the exchanges offer great care for very little, and I suspect it's better care than offered on Medicaid.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)onlyadream
(2,166 posts)State, NY
Family of four, 47, 45, 17, 14
Income: interestingly, I don't remember filling this in on the forms, but it's enough to not get subsidies (>100k)
Results: about five different plans, premiums ranged from $800 to $1300. All had deductibles at $3000 for individuals, $6000 family. All copays were 50% after deductible. Some included dental for kids only.
I would say it rather sucked.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)For someone making over $100K, and to ensure 4 people, your premium doesnt sound horrific.
In a single payer situation, you would probably get hit with a lot of tax for healthcare. I'm not sure how much of course, depending on how single payer was implemented, but at that income level you would definitely feel the tax for single payer.
onlyadream
(2,166 posts)And the 50% copay is crazy.
I don't want to pay 10% of our income (before taxes) for something that we most likely wont use. I doubt we'd ever reach that deductible, and even if we did its ONLY 50%.
What we have right now is individual, family of four, $425 premium, 100% hospital and well visits. Everything else is out of pocket. I had a sono, had to pay, had a needle biopsy, had to pay, kid got sick, had to pay. Regardless of having to pay, we still would have not reached that deductible. Unfortunately, this current insurance doesn't meet the requirements and it'll have to change.
I'm all for single payer, as I think everyone here on DU is. I met a woman from Canada and we had a very interesting conversation about healthcare. The whole thing about the waiting list is completely overblown. They think that we're crazy. She couldn't even believe that if you get laid off you have to pay COBRA, at a cost of $1500 a month. She couldn't get over that.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The ACA is aimed at several groups of people who do not have insurance already through their employers:
1. The poor and lower middle class, up to 400% of the federal poverty level
2. Those with pre-existing conditions
3. Various other situations.
Its not aimed at people who have insurance through their employers
onlyadream
(2,166 posts)Even tho it covers 100% hospital and well visits, and is very affordable. Now we have to find something else, which is why I went to the marketplace. Note that this ins is not thru an employer.
I called my current provider and was told that info was just being sent out about this, and they will offer new plans. I hope it is better than the marketplace.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)A %50 copay AFTER paying such a large deductible is unconscionable. That needs to be fixed because it makes getting actual health care unaffordable except for catastrophic care.
So what if ACA mandates that well-visits must be included in all plans, if, after finding something wrong with you at the well-visit, you can't afford the treatment your doctor recommends, because of impossible copays that are MEANT to keep you from getting treatment.
We need SINGLE-PAYER!
onlyadream
(2,166 posts)I think that eventually, in many years, it'll get there.
My gripe with the ACA is that I can't keep what I have because it doesn't meet the requirements. I LIKE what I have!
I'm thrilled that low income people are able to get good rates, and that existing conditions don't matter, however, what was offered to me was horrible.
Someone posted their rates that they got - our lowest premium quoted was 10x more (note that our income is most definitely not 10x more than the poster) and she had a deductible that was under $100, whereas ours was $3000.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Here you go.
Because your income is more than 4 times the poverty level, you would not qualify for subsidized exchange coverage. The information below is about unsubsidized exchange coverage.
Household income in 2014: 407% of poverty levelUnsubsidized annual health insurance premium in 2014:$10,151
In most states, insurers can charge a tobacco surcharge of up to 50% of your total premium before the tax credit.
The tax credit cannot be applied to the tobacco surcharge. Maximum % of income you have to pay for the non-tobacco premium, if eligible for a subsidy:None
(before accounting for a tobacco surcharge, if applicable) Amount you pay for the premium:$10,151 per year
(which equals 16.06% of your household income and covers 100% of the overall premium) You could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to:$0
(which covers 0% of the overall premium)
Already that is more than was being paid. Prior to the Tobacco surcharge I might add. For two adults, one smoker, in Bullock County Georgia, with 63,200 in income. So the silver plan is 16% of the annual income. That leaves $53,000 for housing, food, and oh yes, copays which are not covered in this calculator. Figure they'll run about another $2,500 which gets down to 50k. But let's not forget taxes, auto, home, and you guessed it, income. So when the person in this example gets done, they'll be paying more, I know, and getting less, I know again, but thankfully the 63 year old woman has maternity coverage. Because pregnancy at that age is really trying. Good news, we'll now have in and outpatient mental health coverage, bad news, we'll probably need it from the stress of paying more than twenty percent of our income for health insurance.
Previously we were paying much less, with lower copays, and with lower deductables. But as was pointed out, we don't matter. So fuck us.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"So the silver plan is 16% of the annual income."
You're exempted on the exchange if the lowest premium is more than 8 percent of your income.
Starting 2014, most people must have health coverage or pay a fee (the “individual shared responsibility payment”). You can get an exemption in certain cases.
The individual shared responsibility payment
If you can afford health insurance but choose not to buy it, you must pay a fee known as the individual shared responsibility payment.
The fee in 2014 is 1% of your yearly income or $95 per person for the year, whichever is higher. The fee increases every year. In 2016 it is 2.5% of income or $695 per person, whichever is higher.
In 2014 the payment for uninsured children is $47.50 per child. The most a family would have to pay in 2014 is $285.
You make the payment when you file your 2014 taxes, which are due in April 2015.
Exemptions from the payment
Under certain circumstances, you won’t have to make the individual responsibility payment. This is called an “exemption.”
You may qualify for an exemption if:
- You’re uninsured for less than 3 months of the year
- The lowest-priced coverage available to you would cost more than 8% of your household income
- You don’t have to file a tax return because your income is too low (Learn about the filing limit.)
- You’re a member of a federally recognized tribe or eligible for services through an Indian Health Services provider
- You’re a member of a recognized health care sharing ministry
- You’re a member of a recognized religious sect with religious objections to insurance, including Social Security and Medicare
- You’re incarcerated, and not awaiting the disposition of charges against you
- You’re not lawfully present in the U.S.
If you have any of the circumstances below that affect your ability to purchase health insurance coverage, you may qualify for a “hardship” exemption:
- You were homeless.
- You were evicted in the past 6 months or were facing eviction or foreclosure.
- You received a shut-off notice from a utility company.
- You recently experienced domestic violence.
- You recently experienced the death of a close family member.
- You experienced a fire, flood, or other natural or human-caused disaster that caused substantial damage to your property.
- You filed for bankruptcy in the last 6 months.
- You had medical expenses you couldn’t pay in the last 24 months.
- You experienced unexpected increases in necessary expenses due to caring for an ill, disabled, or aging family member.
- You expect to claim a child as a tax dependent who’s been denied coverage in Medicaid and CHIP, and another person is required by court order to give medical support to the child. In this case, you do not have the pay the penalty for the child.
- As a result of an eligibility appeals decision, you’re eligible for enrollment in a qualified health plan (QHP) through the Marketplace, lower costs on your monthly premiums, or cost-sharing reductions for a time period when you weren’t enrolled in a QHP through the Marketplace.
- You were determined ineligible for Medicaid because your state didn’t expand eligibility for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.
If you are applying for an exemption based on: coverage being unaffordable; membership in a health care sharing ministry; membership in a federally-recognized tribe; or being incarcerated:
- more -
https://www.healthcare.gov/exemptions/
Much more information:
All Topics
https://www.healthcare.gov/all-topics/
ProSense
(116,464 posts)That's likely a result of the age rating.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)but its 2 years tops.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)
Some here don't want the truth. They want the fantasy. When the truth intrudes, they attack. You and I are expendable. The fantasy must live!
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)I posted a long thread basically pointing out that there was a lot of truth out there, and we should listen and see how we can improve things. That long thread described the situation from several points of view, and pointed out how they are all valid points of view because they are true to the person seeing them.
But rational debate seems to be lacking. Hell, Rational anything is lacking around here at the moment.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)Compassion lacking big time from some. Much more lacking big time from some.
Cheerleaders on attack mode, scouring the board for anyone who steps out of line, fails to hit all the right notes, march out of lockstep. Must protect the fantasy at all costs!
Dolts. Like they run the damn place.
Tactic goes: attack the person to distract from the point he/she is making.
Like I said, lacking in so much.
But good news, they don't run the place.
So hang in there!
Rex
(65,616 posts)Facts are important. Way too much FUD going on right now with the Koch billionaires to let any of the BS slide imo.
SunSeeker
(51,564 posts)Hekate
(90,714 posts)Who? What? No, no, just a general observation of the entirety of the board.
tartan2
(314 posts)I have gone the Kaiser Family Foundation many times and have found that it has very factual information and I have learned so much from that website.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Subsidized would reduce that to 115 dollars. However, my employer offers insurance, about equivalent to a bronze plan, it passes the minimum requirements for ACA coverage, and the premium for that is 168 dollars a month.
I will say my salary is on the high end, it was what was stated on my W-2 for 2012. I may end up making less this year(same employer), I'm hourly.
RKP5637
(67,109 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)consuming nightmare for many of us.
I've probably spent 30 hrs and $20-$30 in cell phone charges trying to get my insurance. I actually got my application accepted one night, and I was ecstatic because it appeared that I could purchase fantastic insurance with great monthlies, a low deductible, and little out of pocket costs. But when I tried to log in again the next day, my application was gone, and when I called the help center, no one knew what happened to it.
You have no idea how deranged this shit is. Of course, I tried to have Experian prosecuted twice in the past, so I suppose they could be fucking with me personally.
Currentlly, what is happening is that I fill out an application, download my passport, driver's license, and social security copies to them, then get a notice that my application has been received. But the next time I log in, I get a notice that I need to send in my documents, and that my application is incomplete.
After going through the entire process 5 times today, I called them and they told me that there was a bug in the system, and not to try to log in for a few days.
I hope that I'm the worst case so far, but I doubt that I am.
And my bosses' insurance went up $75 a month, and she is a woman of the highest integrity, and would never lie to me about something like that.
Yeh, some people are probably fibbing here, but ya know, it is a mess, and some people really don't come out of this ahead of the game.
munster69
(107 posts)This is because businesses have a one year extension, which should not have been given, before they must do the ACA thing. Insurance companies have one year to jack them around but the 80% rule still applies so those paying more will probably get a refund check.
ACA is the best thing to hit America in a long time and is only the beginning. Medicaid "E" for Everyone will be next, but only if we keep republicans from any kind of control.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I'm trying not to be snarky but that is hardly a new thing.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
sheshe2
(83,785 posts)Thanks Steve, the more information out their the better.
PS watched you on faux last night....then turned the station as quickly as I could. That place gives me the willies. You did great though~
B Calm
(28,762 posts)47of74
(18,470 posts)Unfortunately they just keep spewing right wing horseshit.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)costs for health insurance may increase if my husband's employer decides to kick me off his policy and send me out to the exchanges.
To which I say, so what?
Right now, my husband and I are probably somewhere between 80 and 90 percentile in total income. Money is tight because we're paying off student loans. We're still doing better than most people in the lower 90%. Under Obama Care, we may see a little pain in exchange for millions of people getting coverage that they need! Two of my kids are among those millions.
So, if your existing plan is going away and Obamacare is going to cost you more, just know that you've been very well off in the past and don't whine because now you're in the same boat as everyone else!
Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I was in pain coming up with all those hot dog jokes.
Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Rebellious Republican
(5,029 posts)But first answer your question, I believe the correct term for what she is putting in her mouth is called a SAUSAGE, so I guess that only leaves one other notion as to what she may be...... 
Warning: This video is not family appropriate view with discretion!
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)never heard of him before now.
Response to davidpdx (Reply #250)
Rebellious Republican This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts) 
melody
(12,365 posts)Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)I don't really read much from you and I hope most of your other stuff is more grounded than what you've written here.
You're basically saying that those who relay any experience that doesn't fit seamlessly with the narrative that everyone is walking around in a blissful stupor at the wonderments of the ACA, are evil incarnate and deserve to be labeled, have their character assaulted and have suspicion heaped upon them, all pending some interrogation by you.
Heretics and Liars ALL! Burn them at the stake!
With all due respect, who the hell do you think you are, with your blanket accusations and your hoops for others to jump through?
You ought to be ashamed of yourself for maligning other DUers the way you are here. Re-read your OP. Reads like a call to arms. Wrong on so many levels.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)... of assuming so much ill intent where none exists.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)Considering the entire premise of your thread is "assuming" that poor people are making up stories on this board........
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)This is not new. DU has always been hard on people who refuse to post facts to back up their assertions.
Roland99
(53,342 posts)it's about $700-800/mo.
About $550-600 for a lower priced Bronze plan.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I still have mixed feelings about the ACA but I am starting to lean more in favor of it. I do want to see how it is going to work for everybody and I have been getting completely opposite reactions from different people. It sounds great for some and terrible for others, but it is difficult to know who is telling the truth and who is not. I do appreciate those who offer a link to the estimate calculator so we can see for ourselves what sort of deal they are getting, when they provide the link you know they are telling the truth and it provides good info in objectively seeing how this is helping people.
Zavulon
(5,639 posts)motivated your employer to cut you to part-time status, because of which you now make less than $10,000 per year now and you live in Virginia. A quick try of that site says this:
Amount you pay for the premium:
$2,553 per year
(which equals 27.51% of your household income and covers 100% of the overall premium)
You could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to:
$0
(which covers 0% of the overall premium)
I suppose I could walk to a more favorable state once I'm evicted, which is inevitable by the end of the year, but the ACA has absolutely crushed me and there is no upside to it for anyone in my position. Like anyone else, I'd like to see the poor and those with pre-existing conditions helped, but at the cost of those getting by, and at the cost of having somewhere to live myself?
Nice to see so many people defending a Republican plan, though - employees of those insurance companies that the ACA will enrich at the cost of a roof over my head will have a secure, happy holiday season, and in the end, isn't that what really counts?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)include details in your own example, deductibles, co pays and inclusions and exclusions or it makes the sermon seem aggressive and selective. A premium figure is not enough information.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)This will be finalized after I get my proof of income and estimated 2014 income to my state's healthcare exchange (AccessHealthCT.com) -- doing it by postal mail because it's quite a few pages. Will be doing that after filing my Third Quarter Sales Tax Form so I can include as part of my 2013 info.
Anyhow .... the info you asked for
1. The state you live in: Connecticut
2. Your age: 52 (female, even though you didn't ask for that)
3. Your income: Estimated at $16,000 for 2014 (self-employed medical transcriptionist)
4. Size of your family including how many kids 20 and younger: 1, just me, no kids
I've been uninsured for the past 4 years. My premium kept being raised at the same time that my workload was dropping drastically (doctors switching to electronic medical record systems ... a requirement of the ACA). I could no longer afford insurance, so I've been risking catastrophe the past 4 years.
What AccessHealthCT presented was a choice of three plans in EACH of the categories (3 bronze, 3 silver, 3 gold). I chose the silver plan with set prices for co-pays. The other plans were percentages of the price.
The companies with plans on the Connecticut Exchange are Blue Cross, ConnectiCare, and the new nonprofit co-op, HealthyCT (HealthyCT.org). The nonprofit had the most expensive monthly premium, but I'm going with that because I would rather be with a nonprofit. I've already had privately bought insurance from both of the other two companies in the past, and the premium went up an average of 12-15% per year, so I really didn't want to give them more of my money.
Details of the plan I'm opting for:
Premium: $85 per month
Co-pays: $0 for preventative visit, $5 for PCP (for injury), $15 for specialist, $75 for ER
Deductible: ZERO
Maximum Out-of-Pocket Annually: $2,000
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)And by do they love their discussion forums.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts) 
Cha
(297,276 posts)
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I dont think you thought that through.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)If you were you could spend ten minutes at the KFF website you linked and generate a hundred scenarios in which the ACA might well be considered bad by the recipient. Let's try, shall we...
Take Nancy. She's a single, non-smoking, 26 years old department manager at Walmart trying to get by on $22,000 a year. That's not a lot of money. After paying for her appartment and food and a phone she's broke every month. Just like 75% of all Americans who have nothing in savings. But now, thanks to the ACA, she is on the hook for an extra hundred a month in insurance bills, which she cannot afford, and which will provide her with absolutely nothing of value because she cannot afford the deductible and co-pays even if she does get sick. Congratulations Nancy.
How about Hank. He's a married, forty five year old smoker with a non-smoking wife and adult daughter living at home. Their combined family income is $35000 a year. According to the link you provided, Hank will be asked to come up with $150 a month for a silver plan. So much for saving for retirement Hank. But what the hell, Hank and family earn an astonishing 35K a year -- they're rolling in the big bucks, right? He doesn't need to save for retirement, or to send his kid to college, or to pay for a car, or to pay for his deductible and copay -- he needs to send that money in to some insurance company because our party thinks they need it more than he does.
I could go on, but you can play with the link you provided yourself. Yes, the ACA is great for some people -- it's great for people who could otherwise afford insurance and healthcare but were denied coverage thanks to a preexisting condition. And I suppose it might be fine for some of the very poor in states that expanded medicaid -- maybe. But for many, for millions and millions of Americans -- it's a mandated bill they cannot afford designed to enrich the wealthy at their expense.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Maybe that is what has you so upset. I'm not interested in whatever bullshit anyone has to peddle until they put the facts down of why they have an issue with the ACA.
My request for the details prevents people from pushing bullshit about the ACA. If you have a problem with it, then your problem is with the facts and what they show, not with me.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Over and above their cable/satellite bill. Over and above Friday night dinners at Applebees.
It is not going to enrich these companies.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)Spending all their money on Applebees and cable!!!
God this board gets more right wing and idiotic every day.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)Do you use terms like "welfare queen" and "moocher" too? Are you the type of person who complains about what people on food stamps buy?
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)When we grew up. I got free/reduced school lunches for a couple of years. I, myself, have not used those programs as an adult, but I have taken unemployment and also had great earning years where my wife and I paid a lot in taxes. I rarely begrudge taxes because I know how much good that money does.
I am merely saying there is a lot of fear mongering going on the last couple of weeks re: Obamacare, and I'm tired of it. We, the people, will see what the major issues are with it and address it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)ACA is the best for poor people and its easily illustrated as such.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Last week. Call bullshit all you like; it is what it is regardless of what you choose to say about it.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Implementation - consumer experience with healthcare.gov to register, select and buy insurance.
Price - payment post subsidy for the plan and total healthcare costs in 2014 taking into account copays and deductibles.
Performance - experience with accessing the doctors, hospitals and other facilities and being able to actually get the care they need, as well as experience with billing, collections, benefits payments, and subsidy credits/recaptures in 2015 tax returns.
I can wait for real consumer product analysis people to collect and analyze the data.
But from the anecdotes, it may not look pretty.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)There are so many variables it's hard to know what each individual person's situation is. I am very happy for those who have been able to get insurance. The ACA is not perfect, but right now it's a hell of a lot better than what we had.
I live overseas and have universal healthcare coverage here in South Korea.
4bucksagallon
(975 posts)Did you mean how many kids 20 or more, like the Duggars.... LOL!
When I first read it that's how I took it, got to slowwwww down.
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)Apparently we need means testing to post on this board now. Pathetic.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)that seem to do the worst.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Enough information....like copays and deductibles? We can't evaluate your post, either. Maybe a screen shot, too.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Knowin if this iss good or not. I have heard that the lowest cost plans have high deductables...some as high as 4k,
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)vary, they hover around a generalized average in terms of deductibles, etc.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)It is necessary to know if this is a good deal or not.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It's what Colorado put out as the general guidelines for a Silver plan.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)trueblue2007
(17,223 posts)thank you president obama
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)What a bunch of bullshit
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
Renew Deal
(81,861 posts)In the last day
Ian David
(69,059 posts)rtracey
(2,062 posts)I have health insurance, so I dont need the ACA, but for fun, I entered some info about friends and family... 3 out of 6 would pay ready...$467 per year for coverage.....
Household income in 2014:
290% of poverty level
Unsubsidized annual health insurance premium in 2014:
$10,229
Maximum % of income you have to pay for the non-tobacco premium, if eligible for a subsidy:
9.21%
Amount you pay for the premium:
$4,146 per year
(which equals 9.21% of your household income and covers 41% of the overall premium)
You could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to:
$6,083
(which covers 59% of the overall premium)
try it out.....
Prism
(5,815 posts)My healthcare is awesome, the ACA does a lot of good things including helping pre-existings, the very poor, and alleviating medical bankruptcy issues.
However, there are gaps and problems, and it will create a hardship among a decent portion of the population. When, "We'll fix it later!" became a common refrain in defense of the ACA, that was an implicit acknowledgement of those problems.
Now that those problems are here, even recognition of them is seen as some kind of right-wing betrayal.
What's getting me, just sitting back and observing this partisan wunderfest, is how eagerly and creepily authoritarian some people have decided to be. They want to know everything about you, mainly so they can tell you the "right way" to spend your money and live your life.
Usually when you use the phrase "socialist authoritarians," you're attributing it to a fantastical right-wing parody of the paranoid tea party. It's not a phrase to be taken seriously.
Why some here have decided that's now a guideline for their behavior is totally freaking beyond me. That's how they're choosing to partinsanly promote the ACA? By telling others - especially the working poor - the right ways their money should be spent?
Good lord in heaven. And DU's echo chamber is making it utterly impossible to recognize how damaging that approach is.
I'm now seeing some strong ACA partisans practically calling people welfare queens.
Party on, guys. Smashing strategy. I'm sure it won't blow up in your faces or anything. Especially not among the young and working poor who are disproportionately shouldering the "losers" side of the winners and losers scenario that for-profit health insurance guarantees.
There's a difference between promoting policy and burning heretics. And in an atmosphere of stakes and kindling, I don't think anyone should be posting personal information on a public message board. No way.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)This is the whole purpose behind handles in the first place, so that what we post is not attributable to our real identity. If we all used our real first and last names, I would understand an unwillingness to post this information.
If we were asking for information that could remotely be used to identify you, I would understand an unwillingness to post this information.
We're not asking for a phone number, address, social security number, first or last name, passport number, drivers license number, etc.
It's real simple. Income, family makeup, state and age.
I find it interesting that those who object are all, coincidentally, people who are critics of the ACA. I'm forced to conclude that the reason these folks, including you, are really against posting this information is that they want to rant about the ACA without having to provide backup and facts that if provided, would be shown to contradict their arguments.
Again, this is DU, being asked to provide facts and backup for our contentions is not new, it has been a part of DU discourse from the beginning.
Prism
(5,815 posts)Of posters having their information compiled on lists and disseminated during partisan fights by people with nothing better to do with their time. It's why I'm always circumspect with my own information. I've seen this board war information gathering with my own two eyes. It's creepy, and I highly caution people about over sharing in any public space.
Frankly, I don't care what you think of my motives or my purposes. I've watched posters being told, no, they're mistaken about their own lives and financial situations. That their testimony is just not true. Already, I'm hearing enough from friends to know there are grave problems and financial hardships being imposed on the working class and the younger set.
What good are these stories and facts when the almost uniform response is, "nuh uhhh!"
So now we have several awesome Republican attitudes at work. There's the "I've got mine" brigade. The ACA works for them, so everyone else be damned. We've got the welfare queen accusers, who seem to enjoy telling the poor how they're misspending their money on fancy comforts instead of healthcare. And we've the authoritarians who think you're just going to have to sacrifice yourself for the greater ACA.
You may be just ducky with all this.
I'm sure as hell not. Partisanship sucks when the disadvantaged need to be marginalized for the sake of image.
I still remember being against the mandate because of these predictable problems. It takes brass ones to embrace the kind of partisan amnesia required to pretend this stuff isn't happening and that we didn't know it would happen all the way back in 2008.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)I do have to say that, thanks to the ACA, a lot of people will be getting checkups, and having yearly physicals, who otherwise wouldn't. As an advanced nation that's part of the standard we need to meet. And I don't see any here not seeing the treatment of those with preexisting conditions, and no lifetime or yearly limits on care, as great elements of the ACA.
My major gripe is that the deductibles are going to keep people from getting treatment for conditions that instead will be hoped away or just lived with. I think the co-pays should be enough of a mechanism to keep people from seeking frivolous treatment. We need to just treat the sick.
Now that the ACA has passed let's work on lowering drug prices. I think we'll need to wait for a new administration for that, it will be a major initiative and it will likely need a mandate from the electorate.
But the votes will be there, I predict.
Further down the road we can get more people to understand that safer roads and workplaces, and better nutrition and exercise, mean lower rates for all of us and less strain on the budget.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)if there are facts missing? Discounting them without facts is just as offensive. It is unseemly to call other du ers liars. It's also bizarre to get so defensive about reported problems with a system which we all knew would have problems. The BOGers need to stop treating every bit of bad news as something that must be attacked.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And it serves all of us well to assume that. Provide links, facts or backup or it never happened. That's not just for the ACA.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)It makes a difference.
ut oh
(895 posts)So true...
My wife's aunt is one of those people making up shit about ACA. She owns her own business, but does not employ anyone but herself. She was saying that ACA was going to make her go out of business among other severely false statements about it...
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)how can it be judged nonsense?
Shouldn't judgement be reserved until such time as there is sufficient information to make an informed opinion?
If you can't refrain from judging in advance ("nonsense stories" then perhaps you could pull a few more hypothetical situations that examine a variety of potential scenarios. Choosing to query for someone who is making less than $1000 dollars more than the FPL is a sure way to find a very low premium amount, but most of the complaints I've seen popping up on DU have more to do with individuals who are either very close to the 200% of FPL or over it, and thus do not qualify for much of any subsidy.
Interestingly, out of curiosity I tried the Kaiser calculator and entered the data you provided - had to find a zip code, since you neglected to provide that information (tsk tsk).
Oddly, it responded that a single, 40 year old living in Florida (zip: 33075) would pay $240 a year for their subsidized silver plan - which is $20 per month, not $12.
I guess small changes can make for big differences - which is the point that a lot of people have been trying to make.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)enlightenment
(8,830 posts)argument. Okay.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Which is the culture here and something I agree with.
The only reason you have to object is that you are pushing BS.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)Got it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
tjwash
(8,219 posts)However - being a D.I.N.K. household, both of us in our late 50's and non-smokers making 1042 percent above the poverty level in California, I expected something in that area. If we went with BCBS (which I would not-they suck) it would run about the same which is 500 a month or so for each of us.
mathematic
(1,439 posts)"The calculator is intended to illustrate how families in varying circumstances may be affected by the tax credits and limits on age rating included in the law. "
The calculator is not quoting actual insurance offers. In its original context, it is a tool to illustrate certain aspects of ACA. In the context you're using it, it's a rhetorical device used to discredit your opponents. However, since it does not quote actual insurance offers it cannot be used to discredit people that say their actual insurance rates are going up. In particular, the results of this calculator are less "fact" than a photograph of a user's documents detailing how his health care insurance is changing.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)application, as long as we have the facts.
On Edit: "Anecdotes" have never been sufficient around here. DU has always been about, facts, links, backup and evidence.
The only reason someone would object to that here is because they want to rant about the ACA without having to back it up. In other words, they want to push bullshit.
mathematic
(1,439 posts)It's a general tool that wasn't designed to give accurate estimates but rather to highlight some properties of the ACA. It takes an official 2016 projection and brings it back to 2014, adjusting for some factors but not others, etc etc (it's in the "notes" section). It's a reasonable way to estimate things, if you have to estimate things. The problem is that there's no logical reason to say, "Hey your story is bogus because the calculator comes up with different numbers." Particularly when a poster includes evidence, for example a photo of a before & after health insurance policy summary, that the story is not completely fabricated
Also, anecdotes, stories, and narratives have always been the primary currency at DU. Facts are routinely discarded if they contradict a worldview or policy agenda. It'd be nicer if this place was how you described it. I know I'm doing my part.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)if anyone disputes a particular estimate from Kaiser, we can go through the exercise of applying for an app with the persons info as long as it is provided, which is the point.
So far, we have no evidence of the estimate being off.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)The calculator suggested a premium of $320 a month with no subsidies for a silver plan. That's about what I got from the actual site, and bronze started at $220 a month. But I have the option of keeping my employer plan, so I am ($150 a month for a platinum equivalent plan). It's good to know that if I lost my job, I can still be protected, though. Texas, $42,000, single, no smoking, 46.
But the 21 year old making $12,000 in my zip code would get a free bronze plan and 91% of a silver plan's premium covered. That would be a monthly average premium of $47. That's also really good, and I expect a gold plan wouldn't be that much more.
