I wish people wouldn't be so rude to those who lose out under the ACA.

[Nye Bevan]

I fully support the ACA, but there really are people who are worse off under it. In particular, healthy people whose income puts them just over the limit for subsidies will usually be worse off, because prior to the ACA they would be medically underwritten and be issued a policy with premiums that would reflect their good health. Or people who are eligible for subsidies but find that the narrow networks of policies on the exchange excludes the doctors that they want to stay with.

There are of course many winners, like people with pre-existing conditions and low income people who can benefit considerably from the subsidies (or who are newly eligible for medicaid in many states). But there is no need to be rude to those who are worse off under the ACA. The "cool story, bro" type responses are obnoxious, and I just juried a "fuck you" response to one of those posts.

As Paul Krugman puts it:

The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is a policy Rube Goldberg device — instead of doing the simple, obvious thing, which would just be to insure everyone, it basically relies on a combination of regulations and subsidies to rope, coddle, and nudge us into a rough approximation of a single-payer system. There were reasons for this, of course, mainly political: a complete displacement of the existing system would have been both too destructive of powerful interests and too radical for voters.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/obamacare-will-be-a-debacle-for-republicans/?_r=0

The ACA is hopefully an intermediate step towards the single payer system that most of us here want, and yes, it is imperfect, but it is a huge improvement overall compared to what we had previously. But given its imperfections, there are indeed people who are worse off under it, and these folks do not deserve the rude and skeptical responses that we see from many DUers.

[leftstreet]

1. DURec

[warrant46]

37. Like this thread ---I supported the ACA, but my policy that I like is being cancelled because of it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3959538

[robbob]

103. Cool story, bro

.....just kidding....

I'm in Canada, we just look south at the health care debate and shake our heads...

[L0oniX]

339. If only we could have your duct tape we could fix a lot of things.

[Raine1967]

129. Hmm.

I still think that poster is confused.

Welcome to DU.

[Fla Dem]

205. Many DUer's wanted to help DanM or understand his situation, however

he was very evasive and refused to share even a little bit of information, like what state he was from.

[Nine]

211. exactly (nt)

[Union Scribe]

322. Which helpful ones?

The ones calling the OP a liar or the ones taunting them? Yeah, a real longing for understanding and desire to help in that thread.

[Drew Richards]

368. Horshit I offered nicely and gave suggestions he hit and ran a typical example of false flag...

[valerief]

330. And he will only share basic details about the policy with his friends. He only came to DU to...

well, you fill in the blanks yourself.

[warrant46]

347. If that person is that bad

Why is he still here ? -- apparently you know something I don't

[1000words]

2. Hear, hear.

Rec

[geek tragedy]

3. That very small segment of the population will be negatively adversely.

However, the segment of the population that is:

a) young and healthy;
b) not getting employer healthcare;
c) not on their parents' policy;
d) making too much to qualify for a subsidy;
e) prefers cheap plans with no real benefits;
f) will never get seriously sick or injured

is currently being elevated as if they are the only people in the United States who matter.

Poor people, people with pre-existing conditions, people who actually get sick or injured, people who feel forced to stay on their jobs because of a lack of options, people who are getting health insurance for the first time ever--those people are all being ignored right now.

It's all about healthy people who like their catastrophic insurance policies. And a lot of the reports we read about are bogus, so there's that too.

While those folks count, so do everyone else.

[Nye Bevan]

10. Certainly outlets like Fox News are elevating these people,

and are staying quiet about the large number of people who benefit from the ACA. But that is more a reflection on biased media than anything else.

BTW it is absolutely not true to say that the existing plans have "no real benefits". Take a look at an Anthem Lumenos policy for example. It doesn't cover maternity but it seems to cover everything else that is required by the ACA. And these policies are being discontinued in 2014.

[geek tragedy]

11. Which Anthem Lumenos policy? nt

[Nye Bevan]

25. They are all being discontinued.

The only difference is in the deductible/out of pocket. The cheapest was the $6350/$12700 policy (highest out of pocket) which had very low premiums, but still covered check-ups, shots and preventive care for free even if you had not reached the deductible.

[geek tragedy]

30. What if you got sick or injured? nt

[Nye Bevan]

51. Ideally with the premiums being so low you would be able to save in an HSA.

Which is tax-deductible, so you get a tax benefit, and the money rolls over from year to year.

So if you do happen to get sick, you hopefully have money in your HSA that you can use until you hit the out of pocket max (at which point the insurance pays 100%).

The point is that you get to keep the HSA funds for the future if you are fortunate enough not to need them, but the insurance will (1) cover your preventive care in full and (2) protect you against enormous bills in a "catastrophic" scenario. Yes, if you do not have the HSA funds a bill for $6,350 is certainly painful, but it's a lot better than a bill for $200,000.

[geek tragedy]

61. That's not nearly ACA compliant though. Not a mere difference

of 'maternity care.'

[Nye Bevan]

82. That was just the highest OOP Lumenos policy.

There were several with lower OOP that would have been compliant (except for the maternity, and also the lack of pediatric dental and vision, which just occurred to me).

[wryter2000]

120. How many people have tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in a HSA?

If I could afford to do that, I'd buy good health care coverage.

[Nye Bevan]

131. The idea is that you build it up over time.

Instead of paying a high premium, you buy a policy with a lower premium and put the savings into the HSA.

[wryter2000]

154. I'd be interested in seeing the math on that

How much are you saving per month on the premiums? How long does it take for that to amount to the cost of a surgery and hospitalization?

I have excellent coverage through my employer, so none of this is relevant to me, but I can tell you that, although I make a pretty nice salary for a single person, there's no way in Hades I could save enough out of my paycheck to pay for a knee replacement (I've had two) or a hysterectomy (I only had one of those).

[BlueStreak]

182. There are HSA plans in the ACA exchange.

Maybe not in your area, but they are out there. In my case, however, the total out-of-pocket limits are so good on the ACA policies, there is absolutely no reason to look at an HSA policy. For example, I can save $150/month (2 people) with an HSA plan that has $8000 out of pocket versus a much better policy with a much better network that has only $2000 out of pocket max. Why would I pick the $8000? It makes no sense. You don't need the HSA if you have good coverage at almost the same price.

In other markets the HSA policies might be priced such that they are a good choice, but not in my market.

[hueymahl]

140. That kind of misses the point

The discount you receive on the premium vs. a standard policy allows you to put money aside in an HSA account.

The policies he is talking about are excellent policies. They generally cover everything, including drugs, without deduction once you reach the Out of Pocket limit. Not everyone needs Maternity (e.g., older couples, single men, gay couples, infertile couples, likely well over half the population).

My family has had an HSA linked policy for years, and have had years when I have used the entire HSA contribution and years when I have barely touched it.

If I had a million dollars or zero dollars in an HSA account, I would still choose it because it is excellent overall coverage and 90% of the time my total out of pocket is less than a traditional plan.

[The Wielding Truth]

196. All policies have to provide certain benefits to be sold in the ACA national exchange.

Your insurance company must have decided to change your policy to make money by selling on the exchange. Once any change happens on your policy that one must close and you must open another. It is the Company and not ACA that is not letting you keep you current policy that you say you value so much.

https://www.healthcare.gov/how-does-the-health-care-law-protect-me/
How the health care law protects you

Creates the Health Insurance Marketplace, a new way for individuals, families, and small businesses to get health coverage

Requires insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing health conditions

Helps you understand the coverage you’re getting

Holds insurance companies accountable for rate increases

Makes it illegal for health insurance companies to arbitrarily cancel your health insurance just because you get sick

Protects your choice of doctors

Covers young adults under 26

Provides free preventive care

Ends lifetime and yearly dollar limits on coverage of essential health benefits

Guarantees your right to appeal

Grandfathered plans DON'T have to:

Cover preventive care for free
Guarantee your right to appeal
Protect your choice of doctors and access to emergency care
Be held accountable through Rate Review for excessive premium increases

In addition to the above, grandfathered individual health insurance plans (the kind you buy yourself, not the kind you get from an employer) don't have to:

End yearly limits on coverage
Cover you if you have a pre-existing health condition

Note: Some grandfathered plans offer protections they're not required to. Check with your insurance company or benefits administrator to learn if your grandfathered plan offers the rights and protections listed above.

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. they are ALSO the people most in need of insurance....

most likely already have health issues they are dealing with....just a fact of life.

[VanillaRhapsody]

56. You have to provide more information....

an older person doesn't get everything covered under Medicare either...nor will they go bankrupt because of medical issues before reaching Medicare.

there are people out there that would LOVE to have their problems...

[roguevalley]

36. when I worked I made that amount. I could not afford to pay that much a month. How can anyone

expect anyone to do that? What planet are the these people living on?

[onlyadream]

333. But then you have no insurance. Nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

101. That is a good question to start asking State Governors!

[VanillaRhapsody]

247. No they aren't....most didn't expand Medicaid! Thats where the hole is...

[antigop]

224. thank you, lost. I have tried to get people's attention on this several times on DU.

And it's not just the premiums--you have to look at co-pays/deductibles/max out of pocket in addition to the premiums.

Older pre-Medicare empty nesters get nailed if they don't get subsidies.

(And older pre-Medicare couples who never had kids get nailed.)

[antigop]

251. I know quite a few couples who fall in this category. NOT HAPPY. nt

[Glassunion]

24. I expected to pay more. Which I did not have a problem with.

However, I do not think the segment is as small as you think. Nor do I think that you have the demographics nailed.

Where I work, our average age is 36, we get employer healthcare, most of us are not on our parent' policy, we do make too much to qualify for subsidies, our plan was not the cheapest and had fantastic benefits, however I cannot speak as to whether or not several thousand folks will get sick or injured. We are not all that matter. Everyone matters. We cannot ignore those that need healthcare, any more than those who are paying for it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

34. Have you checked the exchange and told your Insurance company you were considering leaving..

I heard of a guy that got his premiums reduced by $75 a week for doing that!

[Glassunion]

59. It's not so much the premiums, those are great.

I'm paying only $256 for those, it's the total out of pocket where it sucks. The deductibles and max out of pocket more than doubled, and % of coverage went down 10%, so what I pay out in a year is going to effectively double.

[VanillaRhapsody]

266. Because its more comprehensive coverage...

you are getting much more bang for your buck

[WinkyDink]

295. Believe it or not, some people don['t want the minimum bells and whistles. Maybe they don't need eye

care. Maybe they're male and so won't get pregnant.

I just wish no for-profit companies were involved. Isn't the good health of all citizens worthy of our tax dollars?

[VanillaRhapsody]

297. believe it or not.....Most people don't know what they need...

they may be male...but they likely WILL get someone pregnant some day...

and likely they have sisters...and a mother!

Do think with Single Payer you get ala carte? You think he won't pay for pregnancy on Single Payer?

The only path to Single Payer is through ACA!

[VanillaRhapsody]

302. it may be arrogant...but it IS true...

MOST people do not hang around political websites...

The first thing I learned on my first real job... working behind a cosmetics counter in sales....people want someone else to tell them what they need to buy....

I am not saying they couldn't figure it out for themselves...I am saying they didn't want to...

And no...I don't mean everybody.

[VanillaRhapsody]

306. Well the states that didn't expand...will at some point get pressured by their

citizens to demand it. Most in those states are NOT feeling that pressure because the majority of the people are predisposed against the ACA. BUT in the next few months...as more and more are able to use word of mouth to describe the great benefits of that expansion...they will have no choice....the people regardless of political affiliation will demand they get the same as all those other states.

This is to me why the ACA is so important of a step towards the Single Payer option....you have to give those misinformed "Republican voters" to taste it first....thats what ACA will do..give them a taste of what could be. They will come around. I know them well...and I know they have been brainwashed to believe that only what directly effects them is important....BUT if they find out there are people getting something they are not....You see the mind of these people....they just want to see other people suffer more than they do. It means they are a "class above the bottom". That's all that matters to them...that THEY are not the ones on the bottom. So once the benefits are widely known...they will demand it BECAUSE they cannot abide being "on the bottom".

[Glassunion]

348. No actually I am not.

Same exact benefit coverage, doctors, etc...

My percentage of covered expenses went down 10%, and out of pocket went up.

[lumberjack_jeff]

70. Men under 50 are affected adversely.

Many of their increases are obscured within the family's total costs, or those of the employers group, but the effect is still there.

The demographic is not as small as you suppose.

[geek tragedy]

115. everyone on that chart combined =6% of the population

Also, does that include premiums?

It doesn't account for those were previously uncovered

[lumberjack_jeff]

121. "very small" <> "of no consequence"

I agree with the OP. I don't think offhand dismissal of the complaints is prudent or conscientious.

[geek tragedy]

127. "While those folks count, so do everyone else." = "While those folks count, so do everyone else." nt

[sabrina 1]

315. Every human being matters, especially when they are sick. To dismiss

what will translate in large numbers of people so cavalierly is reprehensible.

We should have had a Single Payer option, if we were a progressive, rather than a regressive nation, we would have a National HC system where no one has to fear being sick, like every other civilized country.

But you have to have leaders who don't dismiss people as if they merely a business commodity and we don't have many of those, YET.

Who is so unimportant that they can be sacrificed for profit? No wonder when you talk to people from other nations they are appalled at the HC system here.

[HereSince1628]

4. Muddling new social contract with personal insurance policies = a crucible for misunderstanding

Well, that's the way it seems from one set of presbyopic eyes, anyway.

I know Obama loves the concept of compromise, but this compromise between spreading the costs and stepping up for personal responsibility was from it's conception a painfully birthed chimera.

[Scuba]

29. Perfectly accurate and eloquently stated.

[SunSeeker]

78. Saving 45,000 Americans from dying each year is not a "chimera." nt

[HereSince1628]

92. But the confusion is a pretty direct result of muddling.

I really don't have a problem with the ACA.

I think that guys should quit pissing and moaning about maternity and pediatric care, and accept that this is a means to a goal...
the goal being a lot more people not suffering without care.

But, I also see how using what has been a vehicle associated with personal risk as the vehicle for social obligation has mixed together different species.

chimera: an imaginary monster compounded of incongruous parts

Do I need a wooden stake or a silver bullet to push this attack back into the swamps and bogs?

[SunSeeker]

100. I think your post adds to the muddling. If you like the ACA, then why are you knocking it?

[HereSince1628]

105. You are, of course, entitled to whatever thoughts you can muster

I can't understand how manicheaistic dissolution of a complex problem into the slow-mindedness of two choices 'for or against' really does anything to increase understanding of the confusion.

[SunSeeker]

113. Sorry that I was not as impressed with your word salad as some here. nt

[HereSince1628]

117. Anti-intellectualism is a basic feature of internet groups...I'm beyond it.

[SunSeeker]

133. There is no anti-intellectualism on DU that I can see.

A true intellectual speaks with clarity and honesty.

[HereSince1628]

157. I use the word chimera and you complain

I really can't help that your opinion places a real word for a mix-mash outside of 'word salad'

Other's didn't seem to see it as you did. And actually saw it as an efficient and effective use of English.

I regret 2 things both about you and the tea-party

First that you folks see the world in simple dichotomies...for vs against, black vs white.

and second that you don't realize that improvement is based upon critical assessment.

It is possible to believe in the cause AND to be critical of it's presentation, and it's a real shame that ignorant cheerleading so easily replaces true support of policy.

[SunSeeker]

175. Pointing out that the ACA will save 45,000 Americans each year is not "ignorant cheerleading."

Those of us who care about the facts aren't impressed by unsupported criticism.

I am all for constructive criticism. I asked you why you are bashing the ACA and you refused to answer, instead resorting to insulting me, suggesting I was anti-intellectual and now comparing me to the "tea-party."

That is just the sort of bullying the OP is railing against.

[HereSince1628]

180. Except it is a non sequitur...but that's word salad, so Never Mind!

[Wait Wut]

5. Agreed.

But, I've seen some of those 'worse off' people that deserve to be taken down a notch. It's all about wearing the other person's shoes, I guess. Some are good at it, other's complain about the smell.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

6. I don't agree with you much.

But I agree with you on this.

This transition might be a little painful for some, and we should be open to that. This means helping people along instead of the knee jerk "SCREW YOU, YOU LIAR, YOU WANT IT TO FAIL!" response.


Are there fake stories? Yes, and I know that. However, that doesn't mean we should attack those who really are having a frustrating time.

[mike_c]

7. one of the things that makes DU suck...

...is the routine piling on whenever someone reports ACA results or effects that they're not happy with, typically their old policy being discontinued and their being forced into more expensive coverage, sometimes significantly more expensive. There is a cadre of DUers that immediately becomes insulting and downright juvenile, often taunting the OP as a liar or a hater.

Kicked and rec'd.

[1000words]

8. It isn't limited to ACA

There is a form of bullying that is prevalent on this site.

[mike_c]

16. yes, you're right....

It has only grown this bad in the last couple of years. In the past, there were always occasional flame-fests when things in the broader world were tense, like during political primaries, but the level of civility has diminished more generally of late, and the tendency to go directly to bullying and name calling has risen quickly. Where we used to have exchanges between DUers with different opinions, we've become more entrenched and unwilling to discuss our differences lately. I hope that this too is transient, and that DU cycles back to a more civil and engaged discussion board rather than a sounding board for personal biases and entrenched preconceptions.

[kiawah]

26. Bullying is a good word for it.

It's especially prevalent if someone with a low post count (such as mine) dares go against whatever the group-think du jour is (as alluded to by post #12 below). I've started and bailed on countless responses to threads just because I don't feel like getting piled on and accused of trolling.

It's so ironic to me to see various anti-bullying threads on here, where people stroke themselves over their desire to stick up for the little guy; then, two threads later, the same people are some of the most despicable bullies you'd ever want to see.

[leftstreet]

38. Fortunately, bullies are cowards

It's so ironic to me to see various anti-bullying threads on here, where people stroke themselves over their desire to stick up for the little guy; then, two threads later, the same people are some of the most despicable bullies you'd ever want to see.

LOL you nailed that!

[1000words]

171. The hypocrisy is pretty stunning

Welcome to DU, btw!

[valerief]

332. Asking for details is bullying? And when they're not provided, questioning the motive of the poster

is bullying?

[ScreamingMeemie]

267. It isn't even limited to one side of the ACA

battle. There are no innocents.

[Arugula Latte]

12. It's very "interesting," though, when DUers with very low post counts make these assertions.

"I am a super, duper devoted liberal and I voted for Obama twice (double pinkie swear!!!) but I am really concerned because my insurance is going to skyrocket!"

You know that there are indeed a boatload of professional non-professional trolls trolling away about Obamacare on liberal sites.

[mike_c]

22. you might recall that we've actually had "campaigns" on DU...

...originating from the admins or the moderators-- back on DU 1-- designed to foster tolerance and welcoming for DUers with low post counts. Lately I've seen some long time DUers accusing low post colleagues of being trolls simply because they took an unpopular position with a low post count-- exactly the sort of thing we used to urge one another to not do.

On the other hand, many of those low post newbies, some of whom are no longer low post newbies-- seem not to have much appreciation for the generally tolerant culture that developed here during the early years. I've been questioning my continued participation in discussions here lately-- indeed, the growth of my own post count has slowed quite a bit in the last couple of years as the level of acrimony seems to have risen.

[warrant46]

57. the level of acrimony has increased exponentially

I lurked here for years because of my profession and job, I could not join.

When I retired I did join but seldom posted.

Now what you say is exactly spot on.

I was accused of hating (pick a person) at least 4 times by people of promoting (pick an enemy)

Oh well-------

[onlyadream]

67. This happened to me

I guess over 1000 posts is nothing nowadays. Also, my profile says I've been around since 2008, when it's more like 2002 or 2004, can't remember. When my old laptop died I lost all my usernames and passwords, so I just opened a new account. Didn't think it would ever be used against me.

In any case about the ACA hurting people, DUers need to get over it. It's true. And it's bad. And it needs to get fixed. We can't begin to fix a problem until it is recognized. So those DUers with their heads in the sand, knock it off, you're helping no one.

[Thirties Child]

141. Also happened to me.

We moved, got a new computer and a new server, and DU wouldn't recognize me. I originally came on board in 2004, right after Wes Clark dropped out of the presidential campaign (sigh) and mostly lurked, had close to a thousand posts when I was dropped. I've been reluctant to post now, don't like conflict, and am afraid my low count will bring on the Attack Squad.

My son sells insurance, has predicted problems from the beginning. I disagree with him, realize there are bugs but think it helps those who need it most. And it's a step towards what we all need most, single payer. My daughter lives in England, came home yesterday after nine days in the hospital, had all kinds of tests. NHS really came through for her.

[OwnedByCats]

328. I lived over there for many years

Britain has a great system, despite what some on the right have said about it. It's not the scary system they make it out to be. Of course the ones with the most propaganda about the NHS have never actually experienced it. They aren't perfect (as no system can be), but compared to our system it is! When I moved back home I got a small taste of just how bad things got here in the time I was gone when I got a bill from the lab that processed a blood test I had done. Just a standard test, nothing fancy. I had no insurance and no medicaid. The bill was $800 - just for that. I honestly thought it was a mistake, an extra 0 that shouldn't be there but no, that was the correct amount. My check up with the doctor who ordered that test was $100. Almost 4 figures for one visit to the doctor. I had a seizure and was taken to the ER (resulted from bad reaction to prescribed medication I was on at the time) - between the ambulance and the ER, the whole thing cost $5,000, other than being monitored for a few hours, I only had a head CT to be sure it wasn't more serious, like a brain tumor. In one day I was charged more than 10 years worth of tax money I paid for the NHS, and 10 years worth of copay scripts, combined!

Some people are being helped with the ACA, but others are getting hurt. My parents can barely afford their insurance now and they were told they will have to pay $300 more a month starting Jan 1st. My father went out on disability last year because of his debilitating arthritis, but he's not old enough for Medicare yet and he gets too much in disability to get medicaid, even though my state did expand it. Right now they are using their savings to pay their ridiculous premium, copays and deductibles. That was supposed to be their retirement money. I'm hoping they can find something affordable on the exchange when their policy expires at the end of the year or something because they can't continue to pay this much on their now fixed income. Savings go quickly when you pay 4 figures a month just on the premium, let alone the other costs that need to be met. I won't even go into my situation which is pretty dire too right now. Maybe things can be fixed later, maybe they are planning single payer later down the road, I do not know. I can only hope something can be done.

[enlightenment]

98. I remember those days.

When people were encouraged to see the best in new members. Seems like a very long time ago. Now the level of paranoia has increased to the point that even long-time members are perceived as . . . what? Sleeper agents? if they dare to express step out of line. It is particularly interesting to see the "newbies" joining in these witch-hunts - I'm not sure if it's because they are actually old DUers who were shown the door at some earlier date or because they think it will make them more acceptable.

[Egnever]

316. Well

in the early years. We were under bush and at the time being a democrat was a dirty word so the people here then were mostly stalwart democrats. Since bush left the building and it became safe to be a democrat again the numbers here have swelled as have the differences in opinions.

Comparing then to now is not an apt comparison.

[kenfrequed]

27. Oh yeah

"and I absolutely promise I'm not a freeper on vacation or a troll-for-hire working for Humana"

[BlueStreak]

192. Without a doubt, plus

those caught in the red state Medicaid freeze-out.

The other group complaining a lot are the young people who either carried no insurance because, you know, they are invulnerable, or else they carried absurdly high deductibles because, you know, they are invulnerable. I don't have so much sympathy for this group. Their premiums under ACA are quite low even without a subsidy. They need to be adults and take responsibility to not be in a position where they can't cover their medical obligations. If that means giving up one Starbucks a week or cutting back their cable plan a little, so be it.

[MADem]

212. Those people need to be told to look at ways to lower their AGI. It can be done and it is not

illegal to do so.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/Lower-2014-income-can-net-huge-health-care-subsidy-4891087.php#page-2

[MADem]

287. Most people living hand to mouth qualify for subsidies.

These are ways to get the people who are beyond the "subsidy" limit back under the line.

[MADem]

299. People living hand-to-mouth don't have to juggle. They're inside the lines, unless they're

exercising a "champagne tastes on a beer budget" lifestyle.

It's the people in the higher income brackets who have to itemize, or throw a little more into the 401K, or donate a bit to charity to get their numbers under the line.

[msongs]

18. the pitchfork brigade prefers to stifle non-conforming people via threat and accusation. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

40. wow...and now when they get sick...they can actually go to a doctor...

with junk insurance...meh not so much!

[rhett o rick]

177. Self-righteous bullying. Some will decide they represent the side of righteousness

and therefore their behavior is justified. And they dont travel alone. There are some subjects that you must be very careful with your words because the self-righteous bullies arent immune to twisting your words to make you out to be a bigot or apologist for something bad. There are some subjects I avoid altogether.

[pecwae]

326. Yet a successful

report is never questioned. There are going to be anomalies with a new program. Jumping on those who report them, calling them liars and trolls, demanding all sorts of personal information, makes DU and DUers in general look like shit.

[valerief]

331. Are there any posts with *actual* details about the old policy and

changes after the grandfathering period? Cuz whining without details sucks.

[mike_c]

341. ultimately, I don't think it makes any difference....

If someone is dissatisfied with the expense or coverage they receive, why should group approval or disapproval of their reasons for being dissatisfied matter? They have the right to own their disappointment. If others disagree with them, that's OK too, but we should do it respectfully. Trying to "prove" that they have no right to their disappointment is wasted time and immensely disrespectful, IMO. Calling them liars and trolls is even worse.

More and more it seems like the assumption that several DUers make is that ACA disappointed posters are simply trolls, posting fake disappointment in order to stir up disapproval of the ACA. How successful is that likely to be on a liberal forum like DU? Really? The best they could hope for is to become their own minor echo chamber, like the anti-Snowden crowd, or the BOG. But they're not going to have much broad impact on a place like DU. Not really. That effort is far better spent on Yahoo or Facebook messaging where correspondents are less well informed.

In the meantime, DUers can either act like intelligent adults or like squabbling schoolyard juveniles. There's been way too much of the latter around here lately, I think.

[valerief]

342. GD isn't a therapy group. It's where information, not feelings, are shared. nt

[mike_c]

343. sure, but HOW people choose to do that says a lot about their character....

Mean people suck.

[valerief]

344. Disinformation campaigns suck more. nt

[mike_c]

345. do you seriously think that "disinformation campaigns" about the ACA...

...have much impact on a site like DU? I don't. Just like the anti-Snowden crowd has largely isolated themselves inside their own minor echo chamber where they can all chime in cleverly with jibes about "comrade Eddie" and the like, genuine ACA trolls will have zero impact on broader opinions on DU, if those sorts of trolls even exist. We've been talking about the ACA for YEARS in this forum. Opinions have long formed and minds have long been made up. Who do you imagine those "disinformation campaigns" are meant to sway? On DU?

[valerief]

346. DU posts come up on google searches. They bring a person to DU. Why else would trollers post here?

[liberal_at_heart]

355. damn. You are going on ignore. You are obviously a person I don't care to hear from.

[1000words]

369. Bookmarking

You just established a standard for yourself.

[cilla4progress]

353. This has been happening to me

by and large from the beginning.

I don't really care so much, but am glad to read this support and awareness of the other point of view and factual reality for some folks!

[Puzzledtraveller]

13. A major issue I have is employer provided insurance precluding eligibility for subsidies.

I have employer provided insurance. I pay a monthly employee contribution for my portion. As it stands now, individuals and families who would be covered by employer provided insurance are not eligible. My insurance has become near unusable due to higher out pockets and my plan for 2014 continues this trend. For this I do not blame the ACA as it's been happening every year. At issue is my ability to use my own insurance precisely because I cannot afford to use it. An individual earning the same as I but who's employer does not provide insurance may be afforded assistance I am not entitled to. I am getting married next year and expecting my first child in April, the cost for a family on my employee provided insurance will absolutely break me. I am very worried about this. I am a public employee.

[Nye Bevan]

21. Yep, that is a horrible bug in the law,

which will be fixed very quickly if we elect a Democratic House next year.

[TheKentuckian]

172. It was written as a feature not a bug when we had a Democratic House.

Granted, that House pushed for better ramping and was forced to accept a Senate desire to limit subsidized access to the exchanges but I don't see what will change just because the House flips back since the Senate is actually worse shape than then but seems saner when contrasted against the Teabagger dominated House.

[Doctor_J]

321. We had a democratic house when this kludge was passed

It's not going to get better because the insurance companies won't let go of their 600 billion dollars windfall (at least)

[VanillaRhapsody]

43. Go to the exchange...price comparison...take that back to your current insurer.

[Puzzledtraveller]

71. What would I do with that?

It's Kentucky employees health plan, managed by a massive insurance company. I have zero bargaining leverage. Even if I opted out of coverage I still could not use the exchange. I know because I tried. I also know because it's what I do, seriously. I'm a eligility caseworker. Thanks for offering something though, I know you mean well.

[VanillaRhapsody]

77. if that company changes ANYTHING in your plan...you can go to the exchange.

If they make you sign a new contract...you are free to use the exchange.

[lumberjack_jeff]

93. I think we'll see working-class employers start dropping family policies

and instead insure only the worker

[aroach]

240. In the same boat

We are in the same boat. $2500 deductible and 20% co-insurance means that we try very hard not to use our insurance. We'd be out over $200 a month to even meet the deductible, let alone the 20%.

[SammyWinstonJack]

14. +1

[Throd]

15. Agreed.

[whttevrr]

17. I usually stay out of those threads...

Unless someone posts a thread that goes something like this:

OP: Sad to say... My costs are going up.

DU: How much was it to begin with?

OP: I know what is cost.

DU: How much is it now?

OP: Deflect or ignore.

DU: OK, you sound suspect.

OP: Trust me, the check is in the mail.

[MADem]

35. +1 nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

44. +1

[NRaleighLiberal]

19. My first look at this for my daughter is that this is actually worse for her...

she works part time and her company is paying 1200 per year for her coverage. The company is stopping coverage, so my daughter will have to go through healthcare.gov (NC opted out). Putting her info into the Kaiser calculator (she is single, working part time, making a little less than 10 K per year), she apparently doesn't qualify for a tax credit, and even a bronze plan is 2000 per year - 800 per year more than her current coverage.

We are just at the beginning of doing this (I've documented in a OP the issue we've already have getting her identity confirmed due to an Experian issue), but if this is what the result will be, she will likely just look at catastrophic....the 95. per penalty is another option.

[VanillaRhapsody]

46. OH yes she does...

if she is making less than $45,000 a year...she qualifies for subsidy.

[NRaleighLiberal]

49. The Kaiser site doesn't indicate anywhere - I suspect she should get some kind...

and suspect that info will show up once we can navigate through to the end of the process (which means we just have to wait the 2 weeks to get her identity confirmed - mailed documents of proof off today).

She certainly will need the subsidy badly, so that is good news.

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. Plug it in yourself here:

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

[NRaleighLiberal]

55. that's what I used...results below. bad news.

results

Your State Has Not Decided to Expand Medicaid
States have the option to expand Medicaid coverage to everyone under 138% of the poverty level. If a state expands Medicaid, most of the costs are covered by the federal government under the health reform law. At this time, your state has not decided to expand Medicaid.

Depending on your state’s eligibility criteria, you or some members of your family may still be eligible for Medicaid. Contact your state’s Medicaid office or exchange for more information.

Because your income is equal to 87% of the poverty level, you will not be eligible for tax credits in the exchanges. Tax credits are only available to people who make between 100% and 400% of the poverty level. Keep in mind that these results are estimates and you can still apply for exchange coverage if you are interested in receiving a tax credit. The information below is about unsubsidized exchange coverage:

Household income in 2014:87% of poverty levelMaximum % 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) Health Insurance premium in 2014 (for a silver plan, before tax credit):$2,762 per year
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. You could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to:$0 per year
(which covers 0% of the overall premium) Amount you pay for the premium:$2,762 per year
(which equals 27.62% of your household income and covers 100% of the overall premium)
OTHER LEVELS OF COVERAGE

The premium amounts above are based on a Silver plan. You could purchase other levels of coverage, such as a Gold plan (which would be more comprehensive) or a Bronze plan (which would be less comprehensive).

For example, you could enroll in a Bronze plan for about $2,006 per year (which is 20.06% of your household income). For most people, the Bronze plan represents the minimum level of coverage required under health reform. Although you would pay less in premiums by enrolling in a Bronze plan, you will face higher out-of-pocket costs than if you enrolled in a Silver plan.

[VanillaRhapsody]

62. Not medicaid....SUBSIDIES...

its not the same thing.

[NRaleighLiberal]

66. so where is that number? there is no other way to run the calculator...

[Bluenorthwest]

91. It's right there in words, subsidies are for those making between 100 and 400 times poverty level

if you make under that or above, no subsidy for you. The other poster's daughter makes 87% of poverty level, to little to qualify for subsidy and resides in a State which did not expand Medicaid, so no Medicaid. This is called the 'Medicaid Gap'. 7% of those in that gap live in NC.
It is what it is. For a single person 100% FPL is 11, 490.

[VanillaRhapsody]

97. Sorry I overlooked that part..

[NRaleighLiberal]

164. just amazing. I know there must be countless people in her situation - it is not nearly a living

wage. This country has utterly lost its heart and soul - we forget so, so many.

[VanillaRhapsody]

75. this is not a person who can afford to live by themselves in an apartment...

Are they under 26?

the premiums for that Bronze plan will come to $167 a month.

[NRaleighLiberal]

80. she is 28 and living with a friend - we are helping her with rent. she can't even afford all of

that on her salary. Between food, utilities, gas for the car....like I said, her employer was covering her for 100 per month, which now goes away.

[VanillaRhapsody]

87. So her MAGI is $8,700 aproximately?

she is only making $725 a month?

[NRaleighLiberal]

88. yup.

[VanillaRhapsody]

112. is she going to school?

and she is only working about 25 hours a week?

[NRaleighLiberal]

119. No - she's had a tough life - overcome an eating disorder, really doing as well as possible

given the particular genetic bag of tricks she was born with. She is just one of the many who can easily get lost in the system....we are extremely proud of her. But we are unemployed (retired, actually) ourselves and are helping her as much as we can.

[VanillaRhapsody]

282. Maybe she should be thinking of disability?

[Mojorabbit]

280. Not if the state declined medicaid expansion

Our newspapers here in Fl say a million of the poorest will be unable to access insurance.

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. At this point she's being asked to estimate her 2014 wages

I don't think it's unreasonable to project that she'll get more work (or a raise) next year.

[NRaleighLiberal]

58. grocery store part time - her salary has been flat for 3 years.

[lumberjack_jeff]

83. If you estimate too low, the worst case scenario is that she'll have to repay the tax credit...

... in april of 2015.

But if October rolls around and her income is trending below 133% of FPL, you could hire her to paint your house and report that income on her taxes. She could use that income to rent from you.

[stevenleser]

155. They would not penalize her for estimating her income too high, only too low.

She should estimate her 2014 income at 100.1% of federal poverty level. Then she will get a silver plan for $12 a month. I've given this advice to several DUers and they have checked it out and it worked for them.

[NRaleighLiberal]

162. thanks.

[questionseverything]

202. isnt that fraud?

i would personally be very wary of submitting any info to the govt that is not true

[stevenleser]

300. The government itself has said it would not consider it as such. There is documentation.

Predicting your income would be higher should not help you government assistance wise so it will not be considered an attempt at fraud.

You sound disappointed that this might help this person.

[questionseverything]

309. technically it does because it makes them eligible

for an aca policy with huge subsidies...i am just not comfortable with lying to the govt

but i think we all should get covered just because we are human beings...silly me

[stevenleser]

317. No it doesn't, technically or otherwise because those enforcing it said so.

Nice try though

[handmade34]

54. confusing

I think because some states opted out, factors differ… my understanding is that anyone at that level (poverty income) gets substantial subsidies… ????

[NRaleighLiberal]

60. it is really confusing - I ran the Kaiser thing - see above

[Bluenorthwest]

65. That's the Medicaid Gap. 7% of those in that gap live in North Carolina

I looked it up when reading a post from a person whose username indicates NC who was openly mocking someone who was in that gap. That gap does not exist here in Oregon. And I don't find it a bit funny. Here, your daughter would get the Oregon Health Plan, por nada.

[NRaleighLiberal]

72. yes, it is all quite sad. NC is just tossing people under the bus at an alarming rate these days.

[Bluenorthwest]

95. I have many friends there.

Your tomatoes always make me happy, my father loved what we now call heirloom tomatoes and he's have loved those photos, so they remind me of him and that's nice. So thanks. And best of luck turning NC around again.

[NRaleighLiberal]

106. I got my dad into growing heirloom tomatoes about 5 years before he passed away -

it is a perfect circle; my interest in gardening grew from times he and I gardened together when I was very young. He was reinvigorated in gardening later in his life as my expertise and interest in heirlooms grew. I got to name Cherokee Purple, and it became his favorite.

Those of us who can think fondly of our parents are lucky indeed.

[lumberjack_jeff]

99. This.

those of us in states who have accepted expanded medicaid have seamless options. Below 133% = medicaid. Between 133% and 150% medicaid or subsidized private insurance. Between 150% and 400% subsidized private insurance on the exchange.

In NC, you get nothing if you're between 133% of fpl and whatever their current medicaid cutoff is.

[subterranean]

110. She would have qualified for Medicaid if NC hadn't opted out.

Unfortunately, the ACA made no provision for subsidies for people in that position. With so many Republican-governed states having rejected the Medicaid expansion, that's a problem that needs to be fixed.

If it's any consolation, since the cheapest Bronze plan is more than 8% of her income, your daughter will not be required to pay the penalty if she is uninsured.

[NRaleighLiberal]

114. I know...so frustrating.

thanks for your comments.

[killbotfactory]

292. This was because of the Supreme Court ruling, was it not?

They threw out the part of the law that made states expand medicaid.

Republican dominated states are run by spiteful shitbags, so they opted out.

[subterranean]

311. Yes, it was.

That ruling gave those states the green light to opt out.

[Yo_Mama]

293. She qualifies for Medicaid, but if the state didn't extend it, she should also be able to get a

a subsidy on the exchange. But it won't do her much good because of the cost-sharing, I fear.

Best of luck. Can she move?

[jon10]

20. It's an attitude I've seen on the H-1b visa issue

some people are devestated by democratic politician 'X's position supporting more H-1b visas

but other people benefit from politician 'X's positions on OTHER issues

so the people who are hurt by the support of the H-1b visas are told to SHUT UP or are even worse being accused of really being against the other issues

it's actually a form of 'I've got mine, F U' coming from within the party, 'mine' being political support vs oppression

(yes, the republicans support H-1b too, but I expect more support for American labor from this party)

[hfojvt]

28. cool OP, bro

but seriously - knr

still the problem DOES exist - how to distinguish between people who really ARE losing under Obamacare to the phony people who just SAY they are losing - for propaganda purposes?

I think it is better to err on the side of decency.

[NoOneMan]

74. Likewise, how can we distinguish the phony people who just SAY they are winning?

[MADem]

32. I wish people wouldn't be coy about providing their details when they claim they are losing out

under the ACA.

If it walks like a duck, and all that...

[leftstreet]

48. I wish the Democrats had been a little less coy

There's absolutely no reason that after all this time - people are just now learning what's in the ACA. Not all states participating in Medicaid expansion. Employer mandate, caps on costs - delayed. Family Glitch - complete nightmare.

But then Pelosi herself said they'd have to pass it to see what was in it....

[MADem]

79. That's just NOT true. You have reading skills, you can read a bill as well as anyone else.

Don't cry that you didn't know what was in it when you didn't read it when it was on the floor.

That's excuse-making.

We're hearing from a few groups now--aside from the GOP "If Obama likes it, it sucks" bunch, there's the "Single Payer or Bust" crowd (they don't factor in how much THAT would cost when they insist it would be "better&quot and the Libertarian "I don't want to help my neighbor" fellows.

This is the best we're gonna get for now. It's a long road. I think the fact that millions who couldn't get decent medical care now can is a BIG deal and a good start. And here's the irony there--I have TRICARE (and despite the fact that I was "promised" that it would be "free for life" it isn't--I have to kick in for PRIME, and anything less than that is like being uninsured, damn near).

[leftstreet]

94. That's the ticket! Bash working class people!

Bash millions of working class people because they didn't find the time between working too many hours for too little pay, taking care of kids, juggling bills, rushing to find sales, plodding through the grocery store, fixing their sinks, taking their parents to doctors, changing out their car batteries...to settle down online and wade through 50,000,000 pages of the oh-so-readable ACA!!

The nerve of those ungrateful serfs!

[MADem]

111. Let's make some shit up, now, shall we? That IS what you're doing.

This isn't a working class/serf issue, and for you to paint it as such in a lame-ass attempt to wrongly disparage me is disingenuous as all get out.

You should be ashamed of yourself. In fact, let me memorialize that bullshit post of yours, can't have you kicking over the traces of your perfidy:

leftstreet
94. That's the ticket! Bash working class people!
View profile
Bash millions of working class people because they didn't find the time between working too many hours for too little pay, taking care of kids, juggling bills, rushing to find sales, plodding through the grocery store, fixing their sinks, taking their parents to doctors, changing out their car batteries...to settle down online and wade through 50,000,000 pages of the oh-so-readable ACA!!

The nerve of those ungrateful serfs!

Pick up the phone and CALL if you don't have "time" to do it online.

Or go do it in PERSON.

You have options, but you're playing the "coy" game and I can see it from here.

Hmmmm....we know them by their words, and you're coming in Loud and Clear.

[leftstreet]

126. You're blaming people for not understanding ACA

That's cruel. And hardly represents the tone of DU

Pelosi herself admitted they didn't even know what was in it

[MADem]

138. You haven't even tried to understand it. You haven't read it. And what is "cruel" are your

blatant, SHAMELESS misrepresentations about Leader Pelosi.

You haven't done any homework, you haven't made ANY effort.

And you want me to feel sorry for you. You have options--net, phone, in person.

What, you want Obama to come to your house with a clipboard?

Stop quoting Nancy Pelosi out of context. It just makes you look even MORE duplicitous.

Here, ya wanna know what Nancy Pelosi is saying about Obamacare? I got a link for you, maybe you'll take the time to actually READ it--oh, there''s VIDEO, too, if reading is too much trouble for you:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/nancy-pelosi-says-shes-proud-of-obamacare-99102.html


Oh darn--doesn't fit your griping narrative, does it?

You should be EMBARRASSED of your posts, here. Of course, if you're pushing an anti-ACA agenda, you're probably chuffed as hell.

[leftstreet]

143. I meant new users here

I understand the ACA quite well

But thanks for a perfect example of why new users might possibly look around DU...and leave

[MADem]

167. Well, if you "understand it quite well," why don't you be a GOOD DUer, and HELP PEOPLE OUT

instead of piling on, throwing shit-pies, taking Leader Pelosi's words completely out of context with a goal of causing hate and discontent, and adding to the negativity?

Look at yourself--YOU are a "perfect example" of a person who is, in this very thread, causing divisiveness and discontent by pot stirring surrounding the roll out of this program, and how ironic in the EXTREME that you have the nerve to claim--- I understand the ACA quite well ---you are well equipped to HELP people--yet you don't.

Perfect example, indeed.

You're painfully obvious, and it ain't pretty. Shame on you.

[leftstreet]

258. yeah, yeah whatever n/t

[MADem]

285. Figures. Thanks for proving my point. nt

[datasuspect]

187. saying "Leader Pelosi" sounds north koreanish

yuck

[MADem]

198. YUCK? Are you completely unaware of Hill protocol?

"Leader" is the default term for the party head who is out of power. There is the Speaker of the House, and there is the minority LEADER. There's the Senate Majority LEADER, and the Minority LEADER.

Bob Dole called his dog "leader."

Hang around the Hill, you will hear it all the time!

[datasuspect]

201. no thanks!

i'll keep my fat, hairy ass as far away from that festering shithole as humanly possible.

[MADem]

207. Well, the term is a common one--if you ever get over your reticence and visit the Hill,

or even work there, you will hear the term often.

[datasuspect]

210. i'd rather be around human beings

in fact, you can have the whole eastern seaboard of the U.S.

i have no use for it.

[MADem]

213. Well, aren't you a charming bundle of bias!

Since you hate us so much, DO stay away!

[datasuspect]

215. 10 roger on that one

[historylovr]

39. Thank you for posting this.

[cer7711]

41. Well Said!

Last edited Sat Nov 2, 2013, 12:26 AM - Edit history (2)

You are a rare specimen of humanity: heart and head working together, in service to the ideals of heightened courtesy and "more-light-than-heat" constructive dialogue.

I, for one, heartily applaud and thank you for your thread. These are cogent and timely comments, couched as a gentle reminder, that needed to be heard.

[onlyadream]

42. THANK YOU

Two weeks ago, I feel I was one of those people. I was in sticker shock as my premiums more than doubled. I totally did not expect that! Of course I was accuses of being a troll.

Oh, but your current shit policy doesn't have hospitalization.... WRONG!!! It did. There was also no copay or deductible, but now it looks like my copay will be 50% (thats FIFTY PERCENT) and my deductible $3000 individual $6000 family. Oh that is soooo much better! And I get to pay double for it!!! YAY!! At least now ill have mental health, which I'm going to need after this!

[VanillaRhapsody]

47. more details please...

do not just post this stuff and expect it to stand unquestioned.

[onlyadream]

104. Seriously????

Fine.

Currently we have a policy with empire blue cross blue shield. $425 per month. Covers 100% hospital, ER and well visits. Everything else is out of pocket WHICH IS FINE WITH ME.

At the start of the new year, this will no longer be available and will be replaced by a policy which would cost $1198 per month, I just got the letter from Empire today and haven't reviewed the details yet. HOWEVER, I did go on the exchange a few weeks ago, for New York, and saw what was offered. I should have taken screen shots. The rates ranged from $800 to $1200. VERY high deductibles and copays ($3k/$6k, 50%). I also spoke to an agent, who showed me better plans on the exchange, ones with normal deductibles and copays but the premiums were $1700!!!! More than my freaking mortgage!!!

We make over $100k and we're a family of four.

What else do you need?

[VanillaRhapsody]

107. Are you making less than 400% of the poverty level for a family of 4?

that would be $94,000 a year...


Because if you make less than that...you will qualify for subsidies on the exchange...

[onlyadream]

109. I said what we make.

[VanillaRhapsody]

124. OMG.....

over a hundred grand a year....

and how much healthcare were you "paying out of pocket" (with children) up until now (before your junk insurance)?

[onlyadream]

142. Don't judge me

You no nothing about where I live and how I live. 100k for a family of four on Long Island is no walk in the park. I don't want to get into this pissing contest with you as I know how this argument will go, but it is what it is. Just ask anyone who lives here.

And I liked my so called "junk" insurance. It paid ONE HUNDRED PERCENT for Hospital, ER and well visits. Big deal to shell out $60 or $159 for a doctor visit here and there. I guess my new and improved insurance is going to be so much better with FIFTY PERCENT copays and that's AFTER I pay $3000 or $6000. How DARE I be upset about this!!!!

[MADem]

203. Lower your AGI.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/Lower-2014-income-can-net-huge-health-care-subsidy-4891087.php#page-2

I have to wonder if your junk insurance really paid for all your hospital bills (up to how much?) or you just THOUGHT it did...

I think you're not being fully forthcoming, here...but I can't force you to be.

[onlyadream]

229. Can't say that I didn't wonder about that

In a panic, I have called Empire to make inquiries to set my mind at ease. In the end, I'll never really know, not having had to use it.

As for lowering my AGI, that's not the point of me being here talking about this. I guess I am bellyaching about the cost, because it was a surprise, but in the end it doesn't matter for me at this point since we'll have company insurance in January (just got the news this week as my husband is changing from being a contractor to employee). The reason I'm speaking up on this thread is because I was attacked for stating what happened to us. The truth is, there is going to be a lot of unhappy self employed people. This is not good and it needs to be changed. No one should have $3000 or $6000 deductibles, especially if your premiums are over $800! No one. Not even if you're making over $100k.

[MADem]

286. If you lower your AGI, you qualify for the subsidies, that's the point I'm making. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

134. From what I am figuring...

you policy for $1200 a month is only 7.22% of your income at $100,000

You are not going to get alot of sympathy here I am afraid.

[onlyadream]

149. Wrong

?% x 100000 = 12(1200) = 14.4%

Even so, you're missing the point of this entire thread. People like me are surprised. Do you think I can easily budget for this? I'm getting less for more money! AND it was a complete surprise. You don't think we have something to gripe about?

[VanillaRhapsody]

165. no I don't actually...You make EXACTLY $100,000 is that what you are saying?

$8,333 a month...with $1200 month deductible to pay for medical for ALL 4 people and you WONT go bankrupt because there is no more cap...or pre-exisiting...etc. etc. etc.


By the way...I don't qualify for anything either...but I am damn glad of it!

[onlyadream]

170. Oh here we go

Luck has NOTHING to do with it.

Edit to add, I'm wrong.
I am lucky to be born in America where I had the opportunity to work and put myself thru school 100%, I'm lucky that had I had the good health and ability to work hard. Yes, I am lucky. But what does that have to do with this?

Oh, and like I said, 100k in Texas, Florida, or Kansas is MUCH different than on Long Island.
Don't believe me? Ask anyone who lives here.

[VanillaRhapsody]

216. You are still in the 20th percentile...

How much is that house in Long Island worth you get to live in?

Lots of folks sell those houses in Long Island to live in luxury in SC.

[onlyadream]

220. Yes I know.

Just about every friend I've had has left. Our house is a modest three bedroom 1700 sq ft house in a less than desirable school district, and we pay 10k in property taxes. I dream about moving but stay for family.

[onlyadream]

193. Oy.

You don't get it.


What you're saying is irrelevant and insulting. WE absolutely do not recieve $8000 to play around with each month. That is not our take home pay. Also, I'm not looking for sympathy. I think this is a problem that needs to be addressed because this is affecting many middle income families who are self employed. This could be the undoing of the ACA if nothing is done.

[VanillaRhapsody]

223. You are fortunate enough to be one of the 20th percentile...

we have people that are in the hole that make UNDER what you bring home in a month!

Its is NOT going to be the undoing of the ACA...because YOU are in the 20th percentile...

for the ACA to continue we need YOUNG people to buy in.....

You had JUNK insurance at $500 a month for your entire family....as you said "you could afford it" when talking about the out of pocket expenses on top...Many however could not...THAT is why you are lucky.

Need I remind you you are making more than TWICE what the average family does...

P.S. the average salary in Long Island....$56,000 a year!

[onlyadream]

233. I guess we just can't agree

yes, I am fortunate, are there people who have it harder - absolutely. Am I grateful? You bet.

Do I think anyone should pay $800 a month for health insurance that has a $3k to $6k deductibles with 50% copays? No. I don't care what you make, that's just wrong.

[VanillaRhapsody]

234. and that is not true. $573 a month for the Bronze plan. $690 for the Silver Plan..or

You have the option of taking the insurance you are offered at work for 1200 a month.


results
Because your income is more than 400% of the poverty level, you would not qualify for subsidized exchange coverage. The information below is about unsubsidized exchange coverage.

Household income in 2014:425% of poverty levelMaximum % of income you have to pay for the non-tobacco premium, if eligible for a subsidy:None Health Insurance premium in 2014 (for a silver plan, before tax credit):$8,290 per year You could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to:$0 per year
(which covers 0% of the overall premium) Amount you pay for the premium:$8,290 per year
(which equals 8.29% of your household income and covers 100% of the overall premium)
OTHER LEVELS OF COVERAGE

The premium amounts above are based on a Silver plan. You could purchase other levels of coverage, such as a Gold plan (which would be more comprehensive) or a Bronze plan (which would be less comprehensive).

For example, you could enroll in a Bronze plan for about $6,871 per year (which is 6.87% of your household income). For most people, the Bronze plan represents the minimum level of coverage required under health reform. Although you would pay less in premiums by enrolling in a Bronze plan, you will face higher out-of-pocket costs than if you enrolled in a Silver plan.

OUT OF POCKET COSTS

Your out-of-pocket maximum for a Silver plan (not including the premium) can be no more than $12,700. Whether you reach this maximum level will depend on the amount of health care services you use. Currently, about one in four people use no health care services in any given year.

A Silver plan has an actuarial value of 70%. This means that for all enrollees in a typical population, the plan will pay for 70% of expenses in total for covered benefits, with enrollees responsible for the rest. If you choose to enroll in a Bronze plan, the actuarial value will be 60%, meaning your out-of-pocket costs when you use services will likely be higher. Regardless of which level of coverage you choose, deductibles and copayments will vary from plan to plan, and out-of-pocket costs will depend on your health care expenses. Preventive services will be covered with no cost sharing required.


Not Fair? My foot!

[onlyadream]

249. I don't know what your looking at.

I just took a screen shot of what I got on NY.gov, see below. $810 is the lowest premium.

<a href=".html" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt=" photo InsuranceExchange.png"/></a>

[VanillaRhapsody]

256. Kasier Calculator...

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/#state=&zip=&income-type=dollars&income=100000&employer-coverage=0&people=4&alternate-plan-family=individual&adult-count=2&adults%5B0%5D%5Bage%5D=21&adults%5B0%5D%5Btobacco%5D=0&adults%5B1%5D%5Bage%5D=21&adults%5B1%5D%5Btobacco%5D=0&child-count=2&child-tobacco=0

[VanillaRhapsody]

259. Still less than 10% of the $8333 you make per month.

But you know...its also you MAGI so you are welcome to try that figure...

[onlyadream]

272. People who make 100k do not get to keep all of it.

Like I said - I definitely do not get to play around with $8333 a month!


Anyhow, your argument is - so what? You can afford it so shut up!

That is not a good argument. Even if I did take home $8000 or $9000 or $10000 a month, why should we have to pay so much for so little when we liked what we had before? Now - this is not affecting me at this particular moment, as our situation changed. However, many are still in the same boat that I was in. I can see their point and this may be the undoing of the ACA. I'm hearing - oh, but it's such a small percent. Really? I think anyone who is self-employed, making over $94k is going to be in this boat. I doubt it is only 5% of the population.

Here, on DU, people who are saying what I was are getting attacked and that is not right. You wanted particulars, so I gave them to you. I gave you screen shots. And then when it comes down to it you tell me that I'm lucky that we make what we do and to shut up about it. Well, that's not right.

[VanillaRhapsody]

273. No one keeps all of it...that is not JUST YOU!

but its your MAGI that counts...

[VanillaRhapsody]

274. because Insurance is a GROUP thing....

[VanillaRhapsody]

276. I make considerably less than you...will not get a subsidy...and I am not

complaining....


I HAVE worn other people's shoes!

[onlyadream]

283. Okay, you win

people who are in my shoes should just be happy about it.
jeesh.
bye now, have a nice day.

[OwnedByCats]

334. LOL

I love how some DUers seem to know who can afford what. It all depends on so many factors. Where you live, how many in the family, mortgage/rent, utilities, food, child care if necessary, clothing, car payments, car insurance, gas and maintenance, other particulars like student loans or other loans outstanding, property tax and home insurance if you own your own home ... those are just the necessary things in life that must be paid for and I have probably missed some things in that list. I live in upstate NY and have always heard how expensive Long Island is. Then they'll say, well move then! Not everyone can just pick up and move.

100,000 is probably what you get before taxes, right? That may seem like a lot for some people, but these days it really isn't. When I was a kid that would have been considered a lot of money no matter where you lived. Not so much now.

People shouldn't assume anything about one's financial situation. There are a ton of variables. Unfortunately the government does the same thing when they assess your need for subsidies or any other assistance you may need.

[cilla4progress]

359. So true...

and speaking of cats, it is terribly irksome to think of the fat ones who are getting away with virtual economic murder, while we crabs fight over the scraps at the bottom of the barrel. Like Romney who paid no taxes for 10 years. Just the way they like it...they've got us where they want us!

[ctsnowman]

319. You might as well talk to a brick.

I am in the same boat. I love how cavalier some of the people are about what we can afford to pay for access to healthcare.

Peace to you.

[a2liberal]

324. Don't bother

On DU, if you're upper middle class you're "part of the problem". DUers would rather have class warfare between the different levels of middle class and lower income than unite against the billionaires.

[onlyadream]

257. I'm sure you don't believe that copays can be 50%

Below is the screen shot of that first policy (the one with the $810 premium):

<a href=".html" target="_blank"><img src="" border="0" alt=" photo copayinfo.png"/></a>

[VanillaRhapsody]

261. Max out of pocket for 4 people is $12,000

you have 2 children right?

Had a broken bone surgery lately?

Just getting a couple stitches in the emergency room is going to run a couple grand now a days!

[onlyadream]

268. Do you want to see the policy I had?

For $425? Broken bones - covered.
I just looked at the PDF - it was good insurance. You don't want to believe it but it was good.

[VanillaRhapsody]

270. No way!

not for 4 people it wasnt.

[VanillaRhapsody]

271. according to your "Long Island" cost of living expenses...

No way an insurance company could do it for that....

Without health insurance, surgical treatment of a broken arm typically costs $16,000 or more. For example, surgical treatment of a fracture of the humerus (upper arm bone) costs about $14,911, not including the surgeon fee, at Baptist Memorial Health Care in Memphis, Tennessee. A typical surgeon fee for surgical treatment of a fracture could reach $2,000 or more, according to Carolina Orthopaedic Surgery Associates.

And that is not the cost in Long Island...


No way an Insurance company is paying that with a $500 dollar family deductible...

[VanillaRhapsody]

265. Without health insurance,

diagnosis and non-surgical treatment for a broken arm typically costs up to $2,500 or more.

[michaz]

288. I can understand you onlyadream.

I cannot however, understand why others cannot get it that because you make what you do, that you already have outstanding bills and may not be able to pay more than you do now. I do not understand why you should be criticized for making what you make now. Are you fortunate to make that...sure...but so what, that is what you make and are entitled to make that. You still should not have to pay a huge amount more for insurance than you are paying now if what you have works for you. To me that is not fair.

[druidity33]

329. I understand LI... my family is still there.

My brother and his wife (a teacher & an administrator) make over 200 thousand a year (2 kids), he lives in the town he teaches at, she commutes. Their home with a TINY backyard, (nothing special, a 2 story ranch with 3 bdrms and 1.5 baths), is "worth" over 600 thousand dollars. They struggle with money/bills more than my wife and i do and we make just under 50 a year. The cost of living is obscene on LI. I haven't yet talked to him about what this is doing to his insurance, but maybe i'll call tomorrow. I haven't lived on LI in 20 years but i go back once a year for the Holidays... gotta say, i'm not sorry i got outta there while the gettin' was good. All my old haunts are long gone...

Good Luck, btw.

We'll figure out a way to address those problems... gotta think Positive.

[cilla4progress]

358. Hey only - want you to know,

I am in the exact same boat! I was a strong supporter of ACA in advance (and of Obama; campaign for him, donate, lifelong Dem etc.). I believed I could keep my policy, which I liked, when he said that...

My insurer is cancelling our plan as of December 31st. This is a plan that was run (on some level) by my state - Washington, and one had to be essentially middle income (not receiving any other assistance) to be on it. Low premiums, deductibles, free preventive, paid 80% of medical expenses. I have come to understand that the reason it is not ACA-compliant is because it had an annual cap of $100K payout per year, as opposed to the unlimited under ACA.

Under the exchanges, I am looking at an increase in premiums, that darn $6350 deductible, and that's a bronze plan that only pays 60%!

One might say the big benefit is the unlimited annual coverage. Here's the rub though: I was healthy enough all 3 years under this plan (as was my daughter) that we never came anywhere near that cap. So in our experience, the plan was very good.

By the way, these increases come for my family at a time when we are losing 1/3 of our income due to my job layoff!

As it turns out, my husband may be able to join the union at his government employer, which will resolve our problem. If that doesn't materialize, we are looking at an increase in monthly health care expenses DUE TO ACA, at the same time as ACA is providing us with a stop loss of $6350 annually; a very good thing.

It's all very complicated, and a public option would have been the least we could have hoped for.

[VanillaRhapsody]

178. and I just left a job where I was paid $30,000 a year with an insurance deductible for

$500 JUST for ME!

You are in the top 20% of incomes earned in this country!

[questionseverything]

241. if you are making 30 grand a year

and only supporting yourself you have more disposable income per person than the poster you are belittling

just saying

[VanillaRhapsody]

242. I said WAS....not IS...

I am ALSO someone who will not benefit from ACA!

She is in the top 20th percentile in this country and twice the average income in Long Island...

(mind you she said they make more than $100,000...but not how much more) and I plugged in the figures she gave into the calculator...

and she is not being honest...

$573 a month for Bronze...$690 for Silver...or she can take the Insurance her company offered for $1200 a month.

[questionseverything]

278. whats long island zip pls?

i missed her age ,what was that?

hopefully she does not have to cap out every year like the 55 plus crowd will do

when did we go from the 1% being the problem to the top 20% being the problem? i missed that too

this class warfare thing between the 30 granders and the 90 granders is the tea party wet dream,when we are both in the same boat living paycheck to paycheck

[VanillaRhapsody]

279. I didn't say I had a problem with the 20%....I was pointing out a fact..

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/01/1252375/-Consumer-Reports-destroys-rate-shock-horror-story?detail=hide

[questionseverything]

284. ....

VanillaRhapsody (3,833 posts)
216. You are still in the 20th percentile...

Last edited Fri Nov 1, 2013, 04:39 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

How much is that house in Long Island worth you get to live in?

Lots of folks sell those houses in Long Island to live in luxury in SC.

[progressoid]

150. Plus deductibles and co-pays.

[philosslayer]

181. You make over $100K and you want sympathy because your costs went up a little?

Sorry, we're all in this together. There are PLENTY of people who would love to be in your position.

[onlyadream]

208. It's not a contest about who has it worse

It's about the facts. It's a fact that many people who are making over the 94k limit are seeing NOT a small increase, but a HUGE increase in their premiums for WORSE coverage. Don't you think this will become a problem for the dems? I do. Don't you think this needs to be addressed? If you keep telling these people to suck it up, you may be helping the GOP. You may be proving some of their points.

[geek tragedy]

122. No copay or deductible and half the cost of an ACA plan? Bullshit.

Your post reads like a template for rightwing talking points--make fun of health care provisions that only disfavored people use (mental health), use of the talking point "sticker shock" plus the claim that the new plan is inferior in every possible way, but twice as expensive, yet the old plan was discontinued for failing to comply with the ACA.

[onlyadream]

217. I think you missed the part where all sick visits are out of pocket.

Sorry if I sound like a right winger to you, I really wish I didn't. But I am telling the truth. Would you like an email of my current bill and the letter I received today regarding the new policy? I'll send it.

[geek tragedy]

226. Oh, so you didn't actually have insurance, just something that pretended

to be insurance.

Since your insurance didn't really pay for anything but routine check-ups, kinda takes the bite out of the co-pay/deductible complaint you were making. If they don't pay for anything, doesn't really matter what your co-pays or deductible is.

[onlyadream]

230. It worked for us

If I had a $3000 deductible, I would have had to pay out of pocket for all those sick visits anyway. I just figured we were saving from the low premiums.

[morningfog]

352. Faithfully proving the OP's point.

You are overpaid for the work you do, IMO.

[geek tragedy]

362. Pretty sad that's what you consider a clever insult. nt

[morningfog]

364. What's sad is your perpetual rudeness.

[geek tragedy]

365. your sense of decorum is impeccable, on the other hand nt

[morningfog]

366. Hilarious coming from a member of the very small club

that required the admins to change their moderation penalties. Lol.

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. Fully agree.

For all its virtues, it has some significant limitations, and deriding those who are harmed because of it is bad politics.

"Yes, I sympathize. I understand that for you, a 29 year old single male making 401% of FPL your premiums went up 56%, but there are many people out there that couldn't get coverage at all under the old system... affordable or otherwise. It's unconscionable that we should just let them die. A better solution is single payer, but we're not there yet."

[Nye Bevan]

73. I think there will be quite a few people volunteering for a pay cut

towards the end of 2014. Many people will be better off, peversely, if they decide to work for free for the last couple of weeks of the year.

[lumberjack_jeff]

86. Some. Perhaps.

Given the unemployment rate, I think volunteering for unpaid vacations would be a good thing.

[Nye Bevan]

118. Well.... you may not want the boss to see just how smoothly things run without you.

And working unpaid may well earn you "brownie points".

[lumberjack_jeff]

123. I am the boss and I'm gratified to see how smoothly things run without me

[Myrina]

63. Thank you.

Well stated.

[Rex]

64. +1

nt.

[scheming daemons]

69. If you are going to post a personal anecdote, then some corroborating details should be ok

If you post a vague story about how ObamaCare has screwed you over, but you won't provide the relevant details so others can evaluate the veracity of your story, then you don't get my sympathy.

[SunSeeker]

85. +1

[Nye Bevan]

108. But unless you post a notarized W2, it's not really "corroborated", is it?

Anyone can make up any numbers they want. Just pick a salary a little over the subsidy eligible number, go online and look up some premiums, then go to DU to post your "salary", "state", and "new policy" details and premium. It would take less than 10 minutes.

If anything, vagueness in these posts could actually be a sign of veracity. I remember in his excellent book "The Gift of Fear", one of Gavin de Becker's telltale signs to spot a liar was "too many details".

http://womeninwetlands.blogspot.com/2012/06/how-to-spot-con-artist-part-2.html?m=1

[scheming daemons]

116. Sure it is.

If the poster tells us their income level, their former deductible and premium, and their state... we can take those numbers they gave us an quickly find out if what they're saying is true.

If they give us false numbers, then the false numbers will be debunked or proven correct.

Either way... we'll have our answer.

[onlyadream]

335. Well, I posted screen shots and am still called a liar.

It's just not worth the aggrevation.

[FarCenter]

76. Obamacare is a wealth transfer from healthy and middle class to the sick and poor.

By October 2014, that will be obvious.

I'd like to see an analysis of what higher prices for insurance, and more people spending on insurance, will do for the Holiday shopping season.

Obamacare Day, December 15, will rival Tax Day, April 15 as a yearly occasion to hate the government.

[SunSeeker]

89. Society is SUPPOSED to be a wealth transfer from the haves to the have nots.

That is what taxes are for. Society as a whole is better off for it. I don't want to live in a society where the poor are dying on the streets. If you want to live in a Darwinian utopia, check out Somalia.

[FarCenter]

168. Good luck with that as the Democratic platform for 2014

[datasuspect]

176. society is supposed to make benefit to the common weal

where each puts in according to their ability, but everyone gets the same benefits. it's better than punishing the "appearance" of success, because that vast pool of people making between 30,000 - 100,000 per year are NOT the 1% - they work themselves to death to make something a LITTLE better for their families.

[FarCenter]

188. The 1% is always supportive of wealth redistribution in order to tamp down social unrest

But the 1% always ensure that the wealth redistribution doesn't affect the 1%.

They would view a flattening of income distribution among the 99% as a good thing.

[datasuspect]

190. the 1% is supportive of wealth redistribution to the 1%

on the backs of the people who make between 30,000 - 100,000 per year, or what I call the Great Uhhhhmerican ATM.

[FarCenter]

197. That too, but I was thinking of the Democratic 1%ers like the Kennedys, FDR, etc.

[datasuspect]

200. FDR was a class traitor, kennedy was an affront to the "dignity" of regressives everywhere

they were both statesmen - something that doesn't exist anymore.

i think they both wanted to expand societal benefits to the many. politicians don't have high minded ideals like that anymore - i don't think.

[FarCenter]

218. FDR preserved the plutocracy; you haven't seen the Kennedys give away their fortunes

They are more interested in doing good with other people's money.

[datasuspect]

222. FDR's policies

in conjunction with WW2 resulted in the greatest expansion of wealth to the greatest number of people this planet has ever seen. and will probably never see again.

but i fear you are poisoned by ideology and not a suitable interlocutor. my instinct tells me to put you ignore.

[geek tragedy]

132. The 'redistribution of wealth' talking point from an ACA basher.

Combined with War on Christmas Rhetoric and anti-tax rhetoric.

Not even bothering to pretend that you're not a troll, eh?

[scheming daemons]

146. +1

[scheming daemons]

144. That's what real societies do. The one's that last, anyway.

Taking care of the less fortunate is the hallmark of a successful society.


Ask Jesus.

[Romulox]

147. We ask less of our rich (including corporations) than virtually any other nation on earth.

So the call for shared sacrifice tends to ring hollow.

[Maedhros]

163. I'm no fan of the ACA, but this "wealth transfer" bullshit is laughable.

You should change your user name to "FarFetched."

[treestar]

166. What's wrong with that particularly

Or should it be left to churches and charities?

[FarCenter]

184. Nothing particularly, but Obamacare has been portrayed as a win for everybody, not a wealth transfer

Most healthcare expenditures are on people who:
- are old (which is why we have Medicare)
- are chronically ill (e.g. have diabetes, heart disease, kidney failure),
- have a congenital defect (e.g. crippled from birth by spina bifida), or
- are permanently injured (e.g. paraplegic due to neck injury in a car accident).

Very little healthcare expenditures are on people who:
- get sick and are cured by medicine or surgery, or
- are injured and recover normal function.

Therefore, society as a whole does have to decide how much it is going to spend on health care, what the sources of funding will be, and how health care will be distributed, especially to the small subset of people who consume the vast majority of healthcare.

We also need to figure out how to reduce congenital defects through more screening, how to reduce debilitating accidents, and how to keep people from becoming chronically ill.

[trumad]

81. Note that the large majority of those complaining have post counts under 500.

Make you go hum.

[Nye Bevan]

125. I don't have the time or the inclination, but do you check these people's other posts?

If all they ever post is anti-Obama stuff they will be banned, as we saw quite recently.

[JoePhilly]

219. Didn't that take like 37,000 posts?

[trumad]

221. I check post counts.

Have since 2001. I'm pretty much correct most of the time.

[1000words]

252. So what?

Are folks supposed to censor themselves until they've earned proper "cred" from the various DU cliques?

This reminds me of the classic RW argument that since some game the social services system, all should be suspect.

[Fumesucker]

281. It doesn't work that way

It doesn't matter how many posts you have, you'll get mercilessly attacked unless you have rhetorical skill to prevail a great deal of the time and everyone knows it.

You also have to choose your battles wisely because no one can keep up with fifty posters flinging accusatory questions at you.

Being uniformly negative doesn't help either, I'm usually pretty negative in my comments but I try to stay positive for the most part with OPs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/~Fumesucker

[StrayKat]

294. Maybe. . .

It does seem that forums bring out pack behavior and that even those who have high post counts still have to fight off the droves of hyenas looking for a cackle at their expense. However, it seems to me that long time posters have also developed their own cliques who will sometimes come to their defense should they be attacked.

DU is definitely more of a minefield for new posters who do seem to have to go through a hazing period. It seems every word is cause for suspicion and you have no history or 'allies' to back up your legitimacy. Plus, so many posts on DU are personal attacks loosely disguised as topical posts. People get dragged into sides of arguments they don't even know they're a part of.

With a bit of experience people who stick it out seem to become more aware of the mines and pecking order as well as develop their own defense mechanisms including clique posting, hyper-defensiveness, and topic avoidance.

It's par for the course in any forum. But, I suspect in a political forum playing politics is more pronounced.

[Fumesucker]

296. Oh yes, lots of landmines on the DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1025028

Welcome to DU!

[StrayKat]

303. Haha!

Thanks!

*Practices strutting through land mines*

[1000words]

305. Very astute observations

Well said

[trumad]

307. yeah right newbie

[1000words]

308. lol

[JDPriestly]

84. Insurance is always a pooling of resources.

Some pay for their homeowners insurance and file a large claim the first year they have it.

Others who are lucky and careful like me pay for a quarter of a century and never file a claim.

It's been a long, long time since I had to file even a small claim related to driving, but I still pay my car insurance. I don't want to cause a loss to someone else that I can't cover.

And I don't want to have a sizable loss that I can't cover for myself.

So, that is the way it is with insurance, and health insurance is no exception. Most people pay a lot more for their car, homeowners or renters' or professional, etc. insurance than they ever receive back. That's the purpose of insurance. Pooling resources so that the premiums of others cover your costs JUST IN CASE . . . .and your premiums cover their costs JUST IN CASE.

If in a couple of years, someone now complaining about paying more for insurance is diagnosed with some form of cancer or has a terrible accident or discovers he has diabetes realizes he or she could not have bought insurance prior to Obamacare, that person will be happy to pay a little more for Obamacare than to be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

The cut-offs for subsidies are cruel, I agree. But that is typical of all government and a lot of private assistance.
In fact, that is one of the ironies of the attempts to cut Social Security benefits. The average monthly payment just barely keeps a lot of seniors above the poverty level. Just reduce the benefits a slight amount and a lot more seniors will be eligible for things like assistance in paying their rent and even food stamps.

So that aspect of the system is not perfect. But are you really gaining by getting cheap insurance when you are male and young and don't need much medical care or advice only to discover that at the age of 55 when you really start needing medical care for all those little things you ignored when you were young and felt good, you can't get coverage or, if you can, it costs you some astronomical, unaffordable sum?

This is why so many Americans have financial trouble. They can't think clearly in terms of costs and benefits.

[passiveporcupine]

214. The cut-offs for subsidies are cruel, I agree.

Not really. The subsidies are graduated, so if you are just under 400% you barely get anything. It's not like a huge subsidy and then nothing.

I understand why some people (especially those whose employer plans are going up) are in sticker shock. What they don't realize is they have been getting unreasonably low cost health care for so long that they just expect it now...and of course anything taken away from you is going to take some getting used to...but they have to understand that the real cost of their low cost medical coverage was paid by those who didn't have a good employer plan and/or couldn't get or afford medical care/insurance at all.

The whole system was screwed up by employer coverage that made people think they deserved almost free medical care, not just for catastrophic things, but for every day care. It made the whole health care process turn into a game of profit, for medical practitioners and insurance companies, and costs went up so high that those not in the system, could no longer even afford to go pay cash for a doctor's visit.

And yes, once you are used to living on a certain budget and all of a sudden it is cut because your premium doubled, it just may affect your ability to live the way you do now. You may have to give up a few things, you know...adjust how often you spend money on fun and goodies. Eating out, vacations, toys, etc. But remember, if it's hurting you that much, you are probably already living at your means, if not beyond your means. That is a tendency in this country...you make more money, you need a bigger house, a nicer car, more electronics. Well guess what? A lot of people are going without health care/insurance and already living beyond their means, because they don't have a good employer subsidized plan like yours.

So your employer is cutting your bennies and raising your premiums. That's been happening for the last 30 years and was never going to stop, as long as profit was the game in health care. If ACA causes it to happen faster, it will just mean we get single payer that much sooner, because it will finally equalize the right to health care for everyone. In the past, it was very unequal. If you were lucky enough to have employer subsidized insurance, you never really had to think about those who didn't have it.

So now you have to cut back a little, and it hurts. Of course it hurts, but you need to look at the whole picture, not just your personal situation. But I do understand the fear that kicks in with that sticker shock. Nobody wants to have to downgrade their lifestyle.

[arthritisR_US]

90. There will be the 3% who have to pay more but

constantly hear them the loudest over 80% who will be covered?

[Prism]

96. Epistemological closure

It's incredibly severe here regarding the ACA. I've generally stopped reading related threads entirely. There's little information to be had. Other places in the web have balanced perspectives.

Hopefully the kinks are ironed out quickly, because I'm genuinely worried about elections next year. There are millions of really pissed off Americans right now, especially younger voters.

But DU doesn't want to recognize that for some reason. I trust our party's leaders and campaign managers will not bury their heads in the sand quite as deeply.

[Maedhros]

174. The refrain I'm seeing from liberal corners

is that the ACA, while a step in the right direction and clearly better than what we had before, is structured in the most obtuse, clunky and irritating way possible.

One poster up-thread opined that a Democratic Congress in 2015 will definitely fix all the broken bits. I hope so, but the Democrats have built a reputation for inertia as of late.

[Prism]

254. If we can get the house back

I'll be more hopeful.

Just this week, we got letters from our employer insurance in regards to a swapping of mental health networks due to ACA regulations. A co-worker has to find a new therapist to work with after being with the same one for three years.

I don't think head explosion really captures her reaction.

[0rganism]

102. proposal: set up a new topic group for ACA advice/assistance

i think the problem stems from the proliferation of semi-obvious ACA trolls.

There are people with legitimate problems and gripes due to changes in their policies, but they're overshadowed by trolls who drop in to push an anti-Obama agenda. In this environment, skepticism is to be expected. Upon reflection, i do think it's fair to ask that people stating such a complaint provide sufficient information that enables people to evaluate their situation. After all, they are coming to a public forum to voice a semi-private grievance; the motivation deserves to be evaluated as honestly and completely as possible.

What might be very helpful is if we established a separate discussion group where people can go to get help with specific situations. There are a lot of people here who are pretty good with the ACA and sorting through different insurance options. If we could connect the people who need help up with the people who can give it, and do so outside the context of catch-all forums like General Discussion, the whole situation might just take care of itself.

[MADem]

128. I believe the admins have already shot that idea down. Three times.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12593610

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12593661

I'm really reluctant to add another forum to the top.

That is particularly valuable real estate, and I'm not really keen to open something up that isn't going to get very much traffic. If the typical pattern holds, there will be a burst of interest when it first opens up, and then everyone will forget about it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12593796

[0rganism]

148. they could just re-title an existing forum

For instance, we have a topic forum called "Health/Social Security & Medicare".

It would IMHO be appropriate to add the ACA to that topic, since it is on its way to becoming as much a part of the social support infrastructure of this country as the other two.

[MADem]

156. We have one--it's called General Discussion, and it's doing the trick.

You can always post your "health" (aka ACA) questions in that group if you want. Most people prefer GD because it's more visible.

Any problems relative to a particular state's roll-out are properly addressed in the state forums, too.

Why slap a label on a group for an imbroglio that will only last for a short period of time? It's a pain in the ass for the admins and they don't wanna do it.

[0rganism]

179. disagree -- if GD were doing the trick we wouldn't have this thread

what it's doing is pooling the trolls and the people who are really struggling together.

As far as "lasting only a short period of time" goes, why do you see this as a short-term affair? If the ACA is successful, it will become one of the USA's core social benefits, similar to SSDI and Medicare, but affecting/affected by eligibility for both and substantially more complex than either. Why shouldn't we have a topic forum prepared for it?

[MADem]

194. You think the trolls would stay away from a "health" or ACA group?

I'm not sure that "pooling the trolls" is a bad idea. They're outing themselves--with every shitty libertarian, RandyPaul post, they're hoisting themselves on their own petards. They're "bringing it on" and revealing themselves to not be progressives, to not be real DUers, to be disruptors.

This is a short-term affair because, once it is rolled out and the core group of insured are under the umbrella of the program, there won't be a need to whine and cry anymore. The kinks will be worked out and it will be easy-peasy. Getting into the program will be like getting a social security card or a draft card or a driver's license--no need to discuss it endlessly, the details are available online and it will be nothing but a thing.

Again--we HAVE a "topic/forum" where people can go talk about that stuff in a "specialized" atmosphere--it's that HEALTH group you mentioned. This is "health" insurance, after all.

Go post there and see how much play you get. Like it or not, the "action" is in GD.

This is a "hot topic" for now, but it won't be a year from now. Count on that.

[0rganism]

310. yeah, they probably would, at least short-term

their goal is disruption, and they get much better mileage in the GD forum than on any of the specialized forums.

by pooling the trolls with the people who really do need help, the time of helpful people who could be of assistance with a real problem is wasted while they try vainly to extract the nature of a troll's bs problem.

i'm inclined to think that picking out an insurance policy that best fits one's circumstances is going to be a lot more difficult, in the long run, than a one-time application for social security or draft registration. People change over time, our needs evolve, we have extended families and children where once there was none, we change jobs, our risk levels change, our incomes change. This isn't a single-payer-one-size-fits-all solution, it's going to be an ongoing process for every individual throughout his/her lifetime. People are going to need help with it down the road.

we have a topic forum devoted to Social Security and Medicare and we need one for the ACA. could be the same forum, doesn't much matter from my POV. and maybe you're right, in a year someone could post a concern about their insurance situation in GD without getting lots of mean looks. or maybe in a year the republicans will own the senate as well as the house and be trying to rewrite the laws again, and GD will be ACA troll vacation spot #1. we'll have to wait to find out.

[MADem]

314. They'd go to the "Health" group and play the wide-eyed innocent. Count on it.

They aren't interested in disrupting GD....they're interested in disrupting any conversation about the ACA, no matter where it is located. Just because a thread is in a group, that doesn't stop it from hitting the greatest page, or popping up in the "Milestones." It's all down to traffic in the thread--if there's lots of traffic, people will be drawn to the conversation, no matter if it's in GD, Health or some special brand-new group.

"Waaaah, my old plan was better...." "Waaah, I can't afford this...." and they'd play the same games.....Where do you live? No answer.....How much do you make? No answer....How large is your family? No answer....Just crab-crab-crab about how "awful" Obama is. Lather, rinse, repeat.

I have to say I agree with the admins. I've been around here long enough that I've seen this kind of thing before. People get initially excited about a group, and then they completely abandon it. Scroll through some of the ones we have here, many are ghost towns.

Examples:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1105
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1106
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1175
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1225
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1023

[Daemonaquila]

130. In many cases, it's deserved.

I'm one of many people who got shafted because I had a very GOOD policy that didn't cover maternity (my choice, since the only way a baby is coming out of me is at an abortion clinic). Rather than canceling me, my insurer decided to nearly double my premium for their new, fully compliant version of the plan. So I did what most of the complaining folks need to do, but most don't - I went shopping, and not just on the website. End result, I'm getting better coverage for half of what I was paying before ACA.

The problem is that a lot of people are not LOOKING. They are complaining, but not doing anything about it. In some cases it's not their fault - it's pretty hard to research new coverage without well-functioning Internet access. However, the vast majority of folks I've personally heard griping are people who do have the option to spend some time online and get a better deal, but would rather moan about how they're getting shafted.

[Nye Bevan]

135. But instead of posting "cool story bro"

people should post something like "have you looked into other options"?

[Capt. Obvious]

145. Exactly!!

No one ever asks that question. No one. Ever. Never.

Never gets asked.



Did I say asked? I meant answered.

[MADem]

152. People have been doing that--give me your details, I will help you....and the poster refuses.

What is a DUer supposed to think when one sees a newbie who has a small number of posts, maybe an old account with just a few posts in the last 90 days, all of them about ACA, griping...and not providing details so people can ascertain if they are eligible for subsidies.

I've seen this play out over and over and over again. It's not even subtle.

I think MIRT needs to fire up an ACA sub-group and have a peek at some of these posts. I would not be surprised if there's a good number of socks and zombies "complaining" here about ACA.

Funny thing is, every time they gripe, all they do is make the issue clearer for people who are getting ready to apply, because some good soul takes them seriously and spells out the details--again and again and again--for them.

This can NOT be trotted out too often:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/31/2868631/essential-guide-debunking-obamacare-cost-myth/

So before you buy into the sticker shock hysteria, here are four questions you should ask:
1. What does the old plan actually cover? Most of the policies in the existing individual health care market — which are currently issuing notices — offer low premiums, but also come with skimpy benefits and high out-of-pocket costs. These plans often have low limits for outpatient treatment, hospitalization or don’t offer any benefits for procedures like colonoscopy, chemotherapy or mental health treatment. Insurers market these policies to young and healthy people who don’t use their coverage — and never know the true extent of their benefits. (The market is also fairly mobile, with just 17 percent of individual subscribers purchasing the same plan for two years or longer.)
Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers cover 10 essential categories of benefits, offering far more comprehensive coverage than what’s available in most individual insurance plans.

2. Did this person go to the exchanges? Insurers informing policy holders that their health care costs will go up, often direct beneficiaries to their other brand products without telling them about competitive options and prices available through the exchanges. Cavallaro, for instance, got a quote from a broker, but did not explore the available options on her own.
Prices are lowest in areas with the most insurer competition. An analysis from the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform found that “new entrants into the market make up 26 percent of all insurers,” and “tend to price their plans lower than the median premiums in their market.” The average premium in the exchanges is 16 percent lower than previously projected.
3. Yes, the premium is low, but what are the co-pays and deductibles? This coverage often forces individuals who do use care to meet high deductibles — the amount you pay out-of-pocket before your insurance kicks in — pay high co-pays and co-insurance or limit the number of doctor visits that are allowed. Cavallaro, for instance, must meet a deductible of $5,000 a year and has an out-of-pocket cap of $8,500 a year. The plan covers just two doctors’ visits and each include a $40 co-pay.
As the LA Times’ Michael Hiltzik points out in California, Cavallaro could sign-up for a Silver level plan with a $2,000 deductible, maximum out-of-pocket cost of $6,350, pay $45 for a primary care visit and $65 for a specialty visit — “but all visits would be covered, not just two.”
The health law sets exchange enrollees’ maximum annual out-of-pocket costs at $6,350, and silver plans have deductibles ranging from $1,500 to $5,000.
4. Does this person qualify for subsidies? Americans between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty line ($46,000 for an individual, or about $78,000 for a family of three) qualify for tax credits under the law. Six of the 7 million individuals who are expected to sign up for insurance through the exchange will receive an average tax credit of $5,290 per year.
Cavallaro “qualifies her for a hefty federal premium subsidy,” Hiltzik reports and can purchase a silver plan for $333, $40 more than she’s paying now. A cheaper bronze plan would be in the $200s.

[SunSeeker]

183. Excellent suggestion. Thanks for the link. You're right, it can't be trotted out too often...

since this is the first time I've seen it!

[cynzke]

136. Everyone is 100% better......

by eliminating the insurance companies' favorite escape hatch...."pre-existing condition". Up until ACA, you had NO guarantee of coverage despite what that piece of paper you have called your policy states. Actual coverage is decided by the insurance company on a claim by claim basis. They go over everything detail of your claim looking for ways to deny or whittle down payouts and they usually use pre-existing conditions. Well, you say...my policy says/defines pre-existing condition as one that was diagnosed and treated prior to the policy. Insurance companies don't care what their policies say. They violate their policies all the time. Here is an example from Bluecrosssucks.com.

"We signed our infant son up with Blue Cross for his health insurance. When he was about six months old we took him to a specialist to look at his eye. Upon receiving the bill, they retroactively canceled his coverage for all the well-baby checkups gone to up to that point: they actually received a refund from his health care provider. Their excuse was a technicality, that we had failed to disclose a pre-existing condition which had nothing to do with his eye; and my wife was able, after months of wrangling, to prove to them that she had in fact disclosed all the relevant information. They reinstated our coverage at a higher premium, but never reimbursed the doctor. Furthermore they refused to pay the specialist, saying the issue with his eye was also a pre-existing condition. Skipping the more pressing question of "what good is health insurance that doesn't cover a baby's pre-existing condition" we proceeded directly to the fine print terms of our agreement with them, which specified that a pre-existing condition is anything that had been diagnosed or treated prior to the effective start date of the coverage. His eye had never been examined, diagnosed, or treated until we took him to the specialist. They don't care, we have to pay the specialist out of pocket. In the end, we have been paying them nearly a hundred dollars a month for more than a year, and they have paid out a net of nearly zero dollars, effectively stealing from our doctor and from us. I believe they have committed fraud and I am looking into the option of taking them to court."

Read the stories at the link below and you'll begin to realize you had no guarantees no matter how good your old policy looked on paper. These people found out the hard way. At least the ACA has closed one of the most successful tools insurance companies had at their disposal....pre-existing conditions. The income level for subsidies should be raised. It's too low.

http://www.bluecrosssucks.com/consumer.htm

[Nye Bevan]

137. I unequivocally support the demise of medical underwriting.

My point is that there is no need to be obnoxious to people who lose out as a result.

[treestar]

169. I remember seeing people getting checks with the premiums returned

The people who claim to be satisfied probably never had any illnesses.

[Hoyt]

139. Depends on what you call worse off. No pre-existing exclusions, no caps, often better coverage,

millions more covered with subsidies, Medical Loss Ratio will yield refund if they are over-charged, step toward government option or even single payer, no fake coverage, millions getting a better deal even without subsidies, etc.

I don't think that is worse off in most cases.

I do think it is wrong to call them liars, but I don't believe folks complaining are really looking at the big picture.

[ScreamingMeemie]

151. Conversely, I wish I wasn't told "well, hey, at least you got 'yours'" when I try to talk to them

about it. For many of us, the ability to purchase health insurance is a long time coming, and it bites that I feel as if I can't rejoice in that at times... with some.

[redstatebluegirl]

153. It isn't just discussions on ACA that bring on the DU bullies.

Last edited Fri Nov 1, 2013, 06:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Anyone with a low post count is challenged on EVERY post. They pick at the post trying to make the poster out to be a troll. Someone told me to get a thicker skin. Maybe true, but I have seen some really hateful things done to low post count people. I am growing weary for sure.

I feel like I need to say "let the feeding frenzy begin"

[LanternWaste]

158. Another thing that can make DU suck are people who are actively campaigning against the ACA under th

Another thing that can make DU suck are people who are actively campaigning against the ACA under the thin veneer of concern, dissatisfaction and passive-aggressive criticism.

Both demographics exist, and mentioning the one while specifically ignoring the other can be as unhelpful as the bullying you refer to.




And to be perfectly honest, I'm, pretty confident in the insight of the vast majority of DUers to perceive the difference between the two, and then act accordingly.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

159. we are all really afraid of losing benefits and this includes ACA/social security/medicare etc

so i think there is just an impulse to shut people up who complain that these systems are not perfect. i think its just exhaustion related rudeness.

[treestar]

160. How do they really lose out?

They lose from a higher point to a lower point that is much higher than others were at. They still have insurance, it may be better, and they are paying a bit more of a large income for it. It's what they should have been paying before.

[passiveporcupine]

235. It doesn't mean it doesn't hurt or scare them

Just sayin

[treestar]

245. It's far scarier not to make much money

and to have a looming illness and no insurance or insurance with a high deductible that doesn't pay but 80% after the deductible.

[Riftaxe]

161. Those who crap on the few that the ACA hinders

Share a strong kinship with the tribalistic yahoos who shout drunken vulgarities at sporting events except with less empathy.

[BlueStreak]

173. You used an important phrase: "Healthy people"

I understand the sentiment of your post, and certainly agree with the rudeness part of it. It is rude and unfair for people to automatically jump down somebody's throat when they claim that they are hurt by the ACA. I don't think you are lying about it. I think you genuinely believe what you are saying, and I think it is even possible that what you are saying is completely true.

The problem is that you said " healthy people ... will usually be worse off"

Well, nobody can argue with that. If you know for certain that you are going to remain healthy, then any increase in costs makes you worse off. But if you are certain you will remain healthy and have no accidents, then you don't need any insurance at all.

The issue is is what happens in the event that you have a major, costly medical problem. And that is where most of the "ACA is hurting me" stories get into trouble (not all of them, just most of them). If you have been healthy, then you really cannot speak with any certainty about what would happen under your current policy if you developed a very costly condition. As millions have found, that can be a financial disaster. Without knowing that, I suggest you are in no position to say you are worse off with the ACA, because for the first time ever, ACA allows us to know exactly what the worst financial case will be.

I may be in a very similar boat. The best ACA policy is more than twice what I have been paying. I think it is overpriced, but I cannot say I would be worse off with the ACA policy because I know that the worst case is something like $4000 out of pocket in 2014, and a guarantee that I will be able to keep my insurance no matter what happens medically. Nobody had any such assurances pre-ACA.

[progressoid]

185. Or the interesting double standard.

If a member posts their experience with ACA as a positive thing, it isn't questioned. If a member posts a negative experience, that person is suddenly suspect and must provide documented proof.

[factsarenotfair]

186. Nobody loses out. We all gain as individuals when our society becomes more humane and just.

As Donne put it, "no man is an island."

[SunSeeker]

199. Nicely stated.

I remember hearing a wealthy Swedish businessman being interviewed on MSNBC about the high Swedish tax rate. The man said he didn't mind, but the interviewer wouldn't let it go. He was incredulous and kept badgering him about it, finally stating, something like "but you'd have a lot more money if you didn't pay such high taxes." The Swede responded, "I don't want to be a rich man in a poor country." That line has always stuck with me. Your post restates it nicely.

[factsarenotfair]

209. Thank you. :)

I certainly agree with that Swedish businessman.

[passiveporcupine]

237. "I don't want to be a rich man in a poor country."

Excellent response!

[treestar]

250. +1

That is how communist and other revolutions come about.

[winter is coming]

236. Next time I need to see a doctor, I'll point that out.

I'm sure it will cover my expenses.

[factsarenotfair]

239. There are many countries with universal health care where that is the case, and

I think we're moving in that direction.

[treestar]

246. +1

Don't really like the idea they "lose out" and expect people who are poorer than they are to get it.

[taught_me_patience]

189. Oh that's rich...

coming from one of rudest and snarkiest people on DU...

How do you think you made this poster feel?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3934424



or this poster?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3937172

[Nye Bevan]

195. Consoled and comforted? (nt)

[SunSeeker]

227. LOL.

And even funnier, the person replies to you and provides yet another example of their snark and hypocrisy. Apparently they just can't help themselves.

[StrayKat]

191. Me too.

Although I don't share the view that we're all better off for the ACA, I think that the knee-jerk "You're lying!" reaction to everyone posting a complaint or asking for more information isn't helping anymore than the actual lying being done by a few trolls.

Universal health care is long overdue in this country, but the ACA in its current form is not what is needed. Our health care system was long busted before the ACA came into effect, and it's still broken now and will continue to be so because the ACA does more to address payment and insurance than health care which is generally very overpriced, inequitably applied, sometimes less effective than treatments elsewhere, and always a bit of a guessing game.

It's true that some people will come out winners with the new ACA scheme (insurance companies!), but generally we're all losers. We didn't get the universal health care we needed or that much of the developed world is enjoying. We're all being forced to cough up money to unscrupulous insurance companies in order to take part in a broken health care system where we have to beg and plead carriers by way of claim forms, requests for procedures, and lengthy games of phone tag just to get access to our own money. Even so, we're not guaranteed that our claims won't be denied, that our preferred doctors or providers will accept our insurance, that we can access the medications that are most effective, or that our money is being used effectively.

There are legitimate complaints out there, and anyone actually interested in making the ACA work would be heeding them with an eye toward how to resolve them and make healthcare and coverage in the US better. People really are being taken aback by policy cancellations, coverage changes, premium hikes, the confusion of possibly buying insurance for the first time in their lives, and a roll out that is inarguably not gone according to plan.

[passiveporcupine]

253. as I mentioned in a reply earlier

what this law is doing is starting to equalize health care for all. If that means some who had exceedingly good health coverage now have to pay more (and can afford it) then I don't see the problem. All that will do (the equalization of care and affordability) will make everyone more involved in pushing for single payer. Without the equalization, those who were doing fine had no interest in changing the status quo.

[StrayKat]

275. No, I don't see this.

We already had a form of "universal" health insurance for those over 65 with Medicare, yet it didn't seem to make people more interested in improving the overall system for everyone. AARP and Medicare recipients seemed to be interested improving and retaining Medicare benefits for themselves, but I didn't see much advocacy from those groups on behalf of everyone else. Likewise, I don't anticipate people who are not on the exchange are going to be much interested in advocating for those on it.

What I do see is that we are now *all* beholden to insurance companies and we will continue to receive spotty coverage and care and told to shut up if we are unhappy with it.

[passiveporcupine]

354. we will continue to receive spotty coverage and care

Actually, under ACA, there are minimum requirements that a real insurance company must now provide. Much more security now that what the for profit insurance companies were willing to provide.

[StrayKat]

357. No.

Not dropping you is not the same as not receiving spotty coverage and care.

[passiveporcupine]

360. I'm afraid you will need to clarify your reply

I'm not sure what you are talking about. There are definite benefits that must be provided now under ACA. So what exactly do you mean?

[StrayKat]

361. You first.

[passiveporcupine]

370. Apparently you don't want to enter into a real discussion

I asked you what you meant by your statement, because it was not clear to me what you meant, and you say "you first"?

Please be more specific. I have no problem responding to you, but I'm not going to play games.

[StrayKat]

371. A discussion?

This is not the way to initiate a discussion.

I posted a response to the OP with an explanation as to why I had my opinion. You countered with the unlikely projection that the ACA would "equalize health care for all". I pointed out one way your prediction was unreasonable given the real-life observation of what has happened with decades of Medicare. Instead of responding to the actual substance of the post, you call out another sentence in order to change the topic demanding that I explain myself to you without doing the same for your own assertions.

This is the type of behavior that wears out the sincere person because you require them to take the time to explain themselves and back it up while you don't do the same. Not only that, you do so with snide and condescending language like, "I'm afraid you will need to clarify your reply." That is not talking to someone as an equal. Need to? Need to clarify to whom?

[passiveporcupine]

372. I'm sorry if you took my tone wrong

I was not trying to be snide or demanding...I was asking for clarification to your reply to my post that said (I'll try to be more specific in this reiteration) there are new "requirements" under ACA that do actually make insurance "better" than a lot of insurance plans out there prior to ACA, especially on the individual market. I was asking for clarification and instead got a "You first" which did sound snide and demanding, and was not specific enough for me to know what you were referring to.

You said NOT DROPPING YOU is not the same as NOT providing spotty coverage or care. (I hope I remembered that correctly, as I can't go back now to check it).

Perhaps the negatives confused me, but how is being dropped and offered, or forced to buy a better plan (through your own coverage, or an exchange), not fixing the spotty coverage problem? I was not addressing the "being dropped" issue at all, but maybe you thought I was.

I'm sorry I didn't respond to an earlier post on "equalization". I was reading too fast and only responded to one part of that post. By equalization, I mean that when everyone in the country (not just old people) is forced to purchase insurance (I'm excluding the medicare group, as they are already on the plan we all need), then we get more competition for price control, and all people who are paying for it will be interested in fighting for lower costs. If opening the door to exchanges means providers are raising prices or dropping cheap plans they offered before (to individuals or employers), it makes it more equal in equalizing pricing and security coverage for everyone...Prior to this, the people who had good, employer provided insurance were not required to worry about how much their insurance cost, because they never really saw the full cost that individuals had to pay. They were getting such a good deal, they were not about to fight to give it up. Every year their benefits are declining and their price is going up, but until the pricing is equalized by subsidies that help individuals on exchanges pay about the same as employees, we are not all fighting the same war. It may never be fully equalized (the exchanges leave a lot to be desired), but even some equalization helps.

I agree with your post that we are not working with an adequate system even now, and we need single payer. I just believe that the more equal costs and coverage become between the employer provided plans and the plans available to individuals or self-employed people, the closer we will be to all fighting for the same thing. And until we are all fighting for the same thing, we are a country divided, and we may not win.

[StrayKat]

374. Response

Perhaps the negatives confused me, but how is being dropped and offered, or forced to buy a better plan (through your own coverage, or an exchange), not fixing the spotty coverage problem?

"Better plan" is subjective. The coverage that is better on paper is not necessarily in practice. One area this can be seen is in the gaps left by the ACA like the Medicaid Gap. People between 100% and 133% of the poverty line are being hurt by being forced to buy insurance since they don't qualify for Medicaid or ACA subsidies despite their very low incomes. It is possible, even likely, that for these families the financial hardship would be greater than the advantage of having insurance.

Regarding "Equalization":

Your response seems to be assuming that health insurance operates with free market principles under standard market pressures. It doesn't. Unlike in the free market people often don't have the luxury of shopping around hospitals when they have a heart attack or get in a car accident. And, costs vary wildly. Further, how often are treatment costs revealed before they are administered? If you wind up in the emergency room, you are treated and then are billed (sometimes endlessly) at arbitrary rates for procedures you were never informed of being done, were never informed the cost of, and never had an opportunity to refuse or request alternative treatment to. Health care is not subject to competition and price control the same way other goods and services are.

The ACA is unlikely to have a big impact on employer insurance, and is unlikely to result in the migration to single payer insurance. Employer based insurance is likely to remain in place as a popular benefit and the employer paid portion of the insurance keep the cost down for the employee. From the Congressional Budget Office:

In CBO and JCT’s judgment, a sharp decline in employment-based health insurance as a result of the ACA is unlikely and, if it occurred, would not dramatically increase the cost of the ACA.

The main reason that the ACA is unlikely to migrate to a single payer system is it bypasses the multi-billion dollar insurance industry and would severely cut into the profits of the bloated pharmaceutical industry. Both these industries have very powerful lobbies and employ huge numbers of people. Even if reducing these industries is best for the nation long-term, who is going to commit political suicide by going up against them now that there is a bandaid that can be spun into looking like a solution?

I don't understand your reason for excluding the Medicare patients when looking at the impact of getting some people on a 'universal' plan has on the rest of health care recipients. Yes, they have a better plan than pretty much everyone in this country, but Medicare hasn't resulted in dramatic changes in healthcare for everyone else. People on Medicare aren't totally divorced from the rest of the health insurance world because many buy supplemental insurance through private insurers, as well. They also have a vested interest in what happens in the private sector.

[passiveporcupine]

376. I think we are on the same side with a few exceptions

I agree that the ACA has many failings. I personally think they suck. I don't count include Medicare in this discussion, because without the advantage plans, it is still a pretty good option in a country without single payer. I have Medicare, but cannot afford an advantage plan. On Medicare, the premiums are low and the deductibles and copays for regualar care are decent. The hospitalization deductible can still hit you hard, because it is per "period" of 90 days, not per year. But it's a lot better than what most low income people have.

The ACA is nothing more than catastrophic insurance to me. If you qualify for a subsidy, you will probably not be able to use it much for actual care until you have catastrophic needs. How many generally healthy people pay 1500 to 5000 a year in medical care? They don't. So those plans are "insurance" plans only, not health care plans. They do help with some free diagnostics, and they help with prescriptions (not all that well), but they don't let you get "treatment" till you've dished out a whole lot of money. They do serve the purpose of helping people not go bankrupt if they need catastrophic health care.

The employer provided plans are usually much better, and they try to keep the premiums down and benefits up so their employees can actually get some health care under them; but that has been drastically changing. Every year the premiums go up and the bennies go down. That's been going on for the past 30 years. I know a lot of people who are screaming bloody murder about not wanting to lose their employer plan, but I also know people screaming that their employer plan that used to be so good, is now too expensive to use. And they are screaming about having to come up with half the cost of what the individual market pays.

When I talk about equalization, I don't mean in procedures or pricing. You are right, that will never happen in a for profit system with so many different plan options. And I agree health care should not be market place driven. But it is what we have for now. I'm looking for the day we finally get off our butts and say we've had it. It's too expensive. But as long as some people are left out of the picture (the uninsured or underinsured) and the majority of people have really good employer provided plans, I don't see us ever winning this battle for single payer.

The ACA is causing some equalization in not letting insurers drop people who are ill, in forcing them to take people with pre-existing conditions and in not having lifetime limits. That's not enough, but it's better than nothing. There are a lot of people right now who are thankful for the ACA because they could not get insurance before. One of my sisters included. If individuals were paying for junk plans that did not really cover them for a catastrophic illness, then that wasn't really insurance..it was a cost sharing health "care" plan. I can see why a healthy person would be upset about losing a plan like that, but if they had needed catastrophic coverage, it would have left them hanging.

What ACA is doing for us now is making sure most people have some kind of catasrophic Health Insurance. Not Health care. We need a plan that provides affordable health care. As long as employers are paying half the price, the employees with coverage are not paying full price, and they don't have a leg in the game. You maybe be right that this isn't going to change much, but I think it will (and I think it already is). Some employers with low-wage workers are dropping insurance (and some hours too) and letting employees buy their own coverage on the exchanges. I think majore employer plan prices will keep going up and benefits down until they are not offering anything more than catastrophic coverage too. And when that happens, the sooner that happens, the sooner we will have a united group of people willing to fight for single payer. Right now the numbers are too low. It's why it wasn't on the table. Not only was big money fighting agaist it, but so were 80% of the population who have good plans at work and don't "feel" the bite that the uninsured or underinsured felt.

I know several people who have already been helped by the changes caused by the ACA. People who could not get coverage before because of expensive preexisting conditions. We need to take the market and profit out of health care, and until we do, nothing is going to work for everyone. Some people will fall into holes, and what happens to them? Will ER's refuse to treat them now?

Personally, if I didn't have Medicare, I would have already been hurt by the ACA, because my doctor's office has joined with our local hospital to become part of a new team for local treatment under the ACA. In the process of doing that, the billing for procedures was transferred to the hospital, which charges much higher rates than the doctor used to. My last yearly visit cost over $350. Before the ACA, I used to paya little over $100 in cash for the same yearly visit. Medicare only paid $147 of this year's bill, but it was considered my free yearly exam, so I didn't have to pay anything. But what about people who don't have Medicare? What about people on an ACA who get charged $350 to see their doctor once a year. That is criminal to me. And I know it isn't just happening here.

I'm not disagreeing with any of the points you make. I just see this as a step in the right direction...getting "everyone" covered first. Then we have a larger group of people fighting for lower cost.
Just because some of us are on Medicare doesn't mean we aren't fighting for single payer. This is an issue that is very dear to me, and I will continue to fight for it, although I may never see it in my lifetime. I used to have that good employer coverage (and I feel guilty now for having been part of a system that screwed others), and then I went ten years with no coverage, and even though I have Medicare now, I know how necessary it is to take care of everyone in this country and bring down the astronomical costs we pay here.

We are on the same side in terms of ultimate goals. I think I just have a different take on it in terms of whether or not ACA is any good. I know there are still going to be people hurt by it. Especially those who have to pay more than they can afford in premiums, and still cannot afford to use it to keep themselves healthy because of ridiculous deductibles.

[StrayKat]

375. Spotty Coverage and Care

ACA coverage is not as complete or protective as advertised. A small sampling of the areas that to me represent spotty coverage and care not addressed or not properly addressed by the ACA:

ACA Gaps and Loopholes

The area that the ACA has focused on the most is limiting the cost of health insurance. The subsidies are good as is the removal of lifetime caps, but there are still gaps and loopholes. One of the worst gaps is the Medicaid Gap. The ACA was written so that subsidies would start for those whose income is 133% of the poverty line. However, Medicaid is generally only offered to those below the poverty line or with some extenuating circumstances like kidney transplants. The federal government required states to extend Medicaid to those in the 100% to 133% of poverty range. The feds would fully reimburse the increased cost for the first several years. Some states complied, but some didn't and took it to the Supreme Court, which sided with the resistant states. This leaves people who really can't afford to pay a premiums in the lurch. They don't qualify for Medicaid and they don't qualify for subsidies.

****
Have you seen the variation of the cost of various procedures? Within the same city the cost of being on a ventilator was $115,000 at one hospital and $53,000 at another. How can this not influence who gets which procedures? Medicare and Medicaid dictate prices, but for the rest of us the sky's the limit, and justification is not required.

******
There are also loopholes in the ACA that allow for astronomical additional charges to premiums for some procedures. One of the big ones here is gastric bypass. As an example, one catastrophic plan here covers gastric bypass costs $1,320/month for a single person under 50. The same gold level plan for a family costs nearly $5,000/month. Traditional diabetes treatment is covered under the lower cost plans (at 10 - 25% of the cost), but not the gastric bypass. Yet, bypass surgery has been shown to be more effective than medication at combating diabetes, and at least one study found that a gastric bypass procedure and follow-up care tends to cost the insurance company less than a lifetime of diabetes treatment. Further, as mentioned in the same study:

Studies from European countries with nationalized health care systems have found that bariatric surgery is cost-effective from a 5-year societal perspective. . .

But, the cost of the bypass plans is so exorbitant that it poses a major financial obstacle to many, and would likely influence which treatment option is chosen. This is a form of spotty coverage created by wealth inequality issues the ACA doesn't address.

****
Some people seem to be insisting that the ACA will mean that needs like prescription drug and maternity coverage are necessarily provided by all Exchange plans. This actually assumes that people are getting bronze, silver, gold, or platinum care. But, there is also catastrophic care, which does not cover these. So, some people paying into the system still won't be covered for basics. Remember that expensive gastric bypass plan? It doesn't cover the cost of diabetes meds. In the summary of benefits it estimates on p.7 that it would pay $50 out of $5,400 in treatment costs with $2,900 of that being prescription costs for type 2 diabetes.

***

The ACA also doesn't do much to protect against the completely independent everyday shenanigans that the insurance companies got up to prior to enactment and will continue to get up to until there is real reform.

I'll use a local example of a service 'outage'. Kaiser Permanente has been in a long-time feud with area hospitals, and this year finally severed ties with them for reasons totally independent of the ACA. Kaiser insures about 500,000 people in the county and there are four hospitals, but now there is only one that Kaiser patients can use for non-emergency surgeries and procedures. This is a huge change. The three hospitals that no longer participate with Kaiser have 1,333 beds combined while the one remaining participating county hospital has 187 beds. Additionally, the one remaining participating hospital has the worst ratings of the 4 county hospitals.

Although the ACA did not spur this change, it does nothing to protect against it. A universal healthcare system would.


There are many more ways in which coverage and care are still spotty under the ACA. . .

[cynannmarie]

323. very well said, Stray Cat. Thank you for your articulate post

especially the last paragraph with which I wholly agree. I do not understand the urge by many here to deny that some people have legitimate distress with discontinued plans that were not "junk" and are facing significantly higher premiums. They do not deserve to be called liars, trolls or ignorant of the details of their prior coverage. And, as you say, in doing so are not helping the cause of the long term success of the ACA by refusing to recognize some of its shortcomings so as to facilitate its improvement and wider acceptance. There is such a thing as constructive criticism and honest analysis.

Personally, I am very pleased with our prospective ACA plan since we qualify for a small subsidy and our premiums will be a little lower for an almost comparable (not quite) Silver plan than the 1000./mo that my husband and I were paying before (previous plan, now discontinued, had 2700. deductible/0 copays for any dr. visits and affordable copays for tests and hospitalizations). BUT, since we are 60+ preMedicare and make near the 63,000 subsidy cutoff, it shocked me to find that, if we went over the 63K income subsidy cutoff our premiums would be 1630./mo plus 2000. ea deductibles and more expensive copays for everything. With our mortgage, high property taxes, and a son in college, that would be completely unaffordable for us, as I am sure it is for many others in that age and income range, creating a real hardship situation.

I would very much resent anyone to tell me that our previous Kaiser plan was a "junk" plan, or that I did not know its actual coverage details well enough to accurately compare. In the past 3 years, following a cancer diagnosis, I have had 5 surgeries, dozens of imaging tests, countless blood and lab tests and 40+ Dr. visits, most to specialists. Last year my husband had 4 eye surgeries and extensive follow up. Our care has been top notch, and I defy anyone to claim that we have not examined or used every single aspect of our coverage--I know it intimately and in fine detail and have been more than satisfied with it.
Fortunately for us, we will make a smooth transition to a new exchange policy and retain Kaiser and our doctors, so we will have no negative impact in any way. But if we make just a little more income, the picture would change drastically, and not for the better.

If one believes in the goals of the ACA--to make health care more affordable, then one should support that its shortcomings need to be examined carefully and fairly to improve its access for everyone. Doing so requires rectifying the areas where some people are getting hurt by it, instead of denying that such gaps exist, and insulting those who are genuinely adversely affected.
Granted, there are many who are not comparing apples to apples in negatively assessing old and new plans, but that simplistic explanation does not apply in every situation.

[StrayKat]

336. Thanks, Cynannmarie.

Thanks for sharing your experience. It sounds like you and your husband made the most of a good plan; I'm sorry it was canceled. But, it's great that you found an exchange plan that will work for you both. I suspect most people will have similar experiences, but as you point out, a small change in circumstances could result in a big change in premiums, subsidies, or coverage.

[neffernin]

204. One of my friends is adversely effected

Getting our college students and other young adults to pay for the gap in health insurance in this is hardly a winning formula.

What we need is single payer.

The saddest part about all of this is the ACA is just slightly better than what we had before. It is better than what we had before due to the additional subsidies and increased medicaid but it is all still tailored to big pharma and big insurance. Until these corporations are out of the picture our healthcare will always cost too much.

[DrewFlorida]

206. The vast majority of ACA horror stories are fictional bull dung, made up for political effect.

I have been debunking many of them on facebook recently, almost everyone of the so-called "I'm facing higher premiums" claims are from people who have gotten new premium quotes from their current insurer but have not bothered to look on the ACA healthcare exchange for quotes. Just yesterday a person on facebook claimed to have gone on the healthcare exchange to check quotes and that the quotes were astronomical, yet earlier in his tirade he had complained that he could not get his identity confirmed and would have to supply a copy of his license which he refused to do. Of course he could not have gotten through to the point of comparing healthcare quotes on the ACA healthcare exchange unless he had already gotten past the part of the website which confirms your ID. So his entire tirade fell apart and he of course then turned to angry abusive attacks when his false logic was identified.

This is the case with most of the complaints about people paying more, usually they have gotten quotes straight from an insurer, not through the healthcare exchange. I personally could previously not get healthcare coverage because of a preexisting condition, now I can get a very reasonable policy between $350-$500 per month, I am currently enrolled in the exchange and going through the decision making process to make my decision on which plan I want.

Thank you President Obama for making healthcare available and affordable to me, if not for you, the "Death Panels" that are the insurance companies, would not have allowed me to get the care I need!

[B Calm]

327. BINGO! I had a right-wing co worker tell me he would retire

at age 63 if he could afford insurance. He said it would cost him and his wife $1,500.00 a month for a 80/20 plan under the ACA.

[searchingforlight]

225. It is hard to be one of those who is going to carry a larger burden.

I pay school taxes in my hometown and I have no kids. My grandchild is home-schooled (this is not a religious decision but a quality one). I don't like what goes on in the public school but I know that we all benefit from literacy and exposure to knowledge. I am happy that others benefit.

This is the way it is. Sometimes we pay for the greater good.

[ScreamingMeemie]

269. Thank you searchingforlight...

You will never know how much I truly appreciate it.

[ancianita]

228. I sympathize, but as only 3% of the poorly insured population, they get waay too much media hype,

which is just anti-Obama driven sentiment and needless drama.

[aroach]

231. Thank you.

This needed to be said. There are people who are worse off.

We are no better off due to the family glitch but we're really no worse off either. My husband's employer made the necessary changes to our coverage two years ago so we will only see about a $30 a month increase in 2014 which is actually a bit lower than the 2013 increase. It is, however, more than 9.5% of our income but we can't get subsidies because of the glitch. That's pretty disappointing.

[DrDan]

232. agree! Those that "are worse off under it . . . do not deserve the rude and skeptical responses"

absolutely agree with that comment!!!

[ScreamingMeemie]

238. ...and those who are not should not receive a "well you got yours..."

comment.

There are supremely guilty people on both sides of this battle.

[DrDan]

325. civility on both sides is warranted

[Festivito]

262. The lose-out-ers SHOULD NOT be rude EITHER.

Posting their stories such as to hide the details that would show why they lost out.

No, no hiding. Not being rude. Just saying that the pertinent information should not be hidden from the post readers.

Example:
Oh, I was paying only $100 a month, now it's $250. ... without mentioning what you got for only 100 a month. That had to be some real crappy insurance.

... and you're paying near the full amount. What? You make over $50,000 a year and can't handle an additional $150 a month.

... and you would have been paying $10,000 a year or more out of pocket if something did happen. Not now!

... and you can now go to the doctor as many times as needed for a low co-pay price.

... and you cannot be kicked off your insurance just as you got sick because a form you filled out five years ago did not include you had acne twenty years ago? No problem now!

Plus we have those people who finally admit their salary is so low that they qualify for Medicaid and running us in circles not telling us the whole story.

You want to be nicer to these trolls? Go ahead. Pat them on their posts.

But, they shouldn't be rude either.

[Progressive dog]

277. ^^k&R^^ nt

[MADem]

289. +1,000 nt

[uponit7771]

363. +1

[Yo_Mama]

290. I admire you but I don't think you can change the tone here

It is as you said - a lot of people will be better off and some will be worse off. It's not a perfect system.

It offers a lot of protection that didn't exist before for people who lose jobs but will be able to continue on insurance due to the income-based subsidies.

[tavalon]

291. Until we get the insurance companies out of the "business" of healthcare, there

will be winners and losers. Even those of us who aren't entering the exchange are seeing negative changes to our policies. These insurance leeches are going to go down screaming for more blood. They are extracting as much as possible right now. My big hope is that ACA will expose the lack of need for health insurance and turn healthcare into a right instead of a commodity (in other words socialized medicine). Perhaps with that same change, we could go back to being citizens instead of consumers.

[Nine]

312. Do you have links to some of these "rude" threads?

Because what I have seen is thread after thread where people proclaim ACA is sending them to the poorhouse but when pressed for details, they are evasive and coy. In my opinion, such people deserve to be treated with skepticism. We all know there are some people who will be worse off under Obamacare; no one is denying that. And if people who are legitimately worse off are posting and being forthright and are still being treated badly, I disapprove of that. But I haven't seen it myself and it would be helpful to see some examples of this happening.

[grantcart]

313. I agree.

They are useful to find ways to improve it.

There are some here who are just making stuff up, but others are struggling.

[IronLionZion]

318. One step at a time

Every little bit helps. One reform at a time. One person at a time. One state at a time. We are going to get everyone covered somehow. We are going to increase the supply and access to healthcare providers. We will reduce the number of medical bankruptcies. We will reduce crowds and wait times at emergency rooms. And then we will build the support for further reforms to get single payer.

Of course its unfortunate that some folks are losing out now. Thread after broken record thread schooling us about how many ways single payer is better isn't going to help those folks and its not going to get single payer.

There are millions of people in this country right? How can we possibly make a difference?

http://buddhismnow.com/2013/04/22/starfish-thrower/

[davidpdx]

320. I fully support the ACA, but agree that those who have problems qualifying should be respectfully

Last edited Sun Nov 3, 2013, 02:39 AM - Edit history (1)

listened to instead of attacked. I was on a jury this morning for one of the posts in this thread. The word "troll" has been used quite a bit even toward people who have been here for years. Personally I think that is inappropriate and is akin to treating fellow DUers like garbage.

The whole knocking someone because they make too much money is just pure bullshit. Really fuck you to those of you that are doing that. You have no idea what those people's lives are like, how much they have sacrificed to take care of their families. I thought being a Democrat meant having empathy. I guess I was wrong.

Two things I think most of us can agree on:

1) The ACA is not perfect, it's what we have and is an improvement from what we had. Some people aren't going to qualify for subsidies because they make too much money.

2) Large fixes are going to be needed and we eventually need to work toward a single payer type plan

The thing is that's NOT going to happen over night, next month or even next year. The ONLY way that will happen is IF we win back the House and hold on to the Senate. If we don't do that we can screw any fixes until 2017.

How many people want to wait three years for fixes? I sure as hell don't.

By the way before someone asks, I have healthcare. I'm an American who lives in a foreign country with universal healthcare coverage. I stay active everyday to help people in the US by any means possible. I want people to have the type of health coverage I have.

[Warren Stupidity]

337. The ACA is only an "intermediate step" if it fails and has to be replaced.

I don't buy the intermediate step argument. We are stuck with the ACA, probably for decades. It has some decent regulation reforms in it, and if the Idiot States would join the medicaid expansion, it will provide insurance coverage for almost everyone. What it doesn't do is get THE FUCKING FOR PROFIT MOTHERFUCKERS out of the healthcare industry. Instead, it bakes them into it. And like I said, we are going to be stuck with this for decades. Decades of super expensive mediocre healthcare.

[Nye Bevan]

338. It provides a mechanism where the profitability of the insurance co.s can be squeezed...squeezed...

and squeezed some more. And they can no longer compensate for this by tightening medical underwriting standards, as Obamacare has abolished medical underwriting. What happens when no insurance company opts to participate in an exchange? The government needs to step in with a "public option", and from there it is an even smaller step to true single payer.

[davidthegnome]

340. I don't know enough about it yet.

I get the basics (I think), everyone has to sign up for health insurance or pay a penalty. Low income workers will be offered subsidies that will make their health care (more) affordable. I tried to sign up a couple weeks ago - and as we all know, broken website blues and whatnot.

I have no clue what I'll qualify for. Maine is one of those states that rejected the medicaid (medicare?) expansion thanks to our fucking idiot Governor Paul LePrick (also known as frogman, fuckwit, dickhead, and jabba the hut). I have no clue what I'll end up paying, but at my income of about 150 dollars a week, I really hope it's not much. If it's anything over 50 bucks a month, then there's no way I can do it. I'm walking a tight-rope right now, trying to balance so many bills and obligations on a part time income because of health reasons.

I'll wait and see. So far, there's things about the ACA I like - no more denial based on pre-existing conditions, more affordable health coverage for most low income families and individuals, the medicaid expansion that some intelligent states took advantage of....

Wait and see, I guess. I just hope we get the website fixed before they start fining people.

[Zavulon]

350. I couldn't agree more.

Thanks to the ACA I went from full time with health coverage to part time with none. The cheapest policy available where I live will be 27.33% of my new four-figure income level, so I have no choice but to go without. Obviously, "If you like your plan you can keep it" turned out to be a crock of steaming excrement for many people, and please don't try telling me that this was a surprise to anyone. The ACA royally screwed a lot of people, and too many DUers are turning on their own who didn't fare as well as we were told we would.

"Cool story, bro."

"I demand ALL YOUR SPECIFICS RIGHT NOW because there is NO WAY THIS WELL THOUGHT-OUT PROGRAM could possibly be more expensive for ANYONE! Why, it's mathematically IMPOSSIBLE!"

"You're lying, because you didn't tell the world everything about your situation and include your SSN, PIN and a blank check to pay for the private investigator we'll have to use to make sure you're telling the truth, given how oh so very much benefit you'd get out of lying here."

You really find out about people when something you support hurts people who are actually on your side, don't you?

I wonder how long it will take for someone to reply to this with "Cool story, bro." People like that, those who turn on us who got hurt by this, are no different to me than Republicans, but they'd be doing me a favor by piping up now so I'll have a handy list of people to block. I have enough new worries on my plate without reading garbage from the unsympathetic and snide. Conservatives have plenty of message boards ready for me if I need any of that, and I don't think their "You voted for the guy, so suck it up and shut the fuck up" is really any worse than what I've seen here.

And this post is actually a watered-down version of what I just self-deleted. I never thought I could be so angry and feel so shat upon (not just by the ACA, but by people here, of all places) once Bush was gone.

[passiveporcupine]

373. Sorry to hear this

You are below federal poverty level. Are you in a state that is not expanding Medicaid?

The federal government really needs to step up and offer something to those who are falling in the Medicaid doughnut hole in states that are not expanding it. This really sucks for people who are being hit with loss of hours as well as loss of coverage, with no subsidy to help them replace it.

[cilla4progress]

351. Tell it!

I am a loser, under a scenario close to what you describe. Yet and still, I still support ACA, as, as you say, an intermediate step along the way to AT LEAST a public option!

[liberal_at_heart]

356. There are lots of bullies on DU and it is not just about ACA. I don't think I could continue to come

to this site if I didn't put so many on ignore.

[City Lights]

367. Thank you for saying this, Nye Bevan.