Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
To provide context, this is the first time I have independently applied for health coverage.
My parents earn above the threshold for the ACA (or around 120k), so they have to pay for their coverage - minus the employer contribution.
Also I found out that I am outside the threshold for the ACA, so I will also have to pay for my own coverage with no subsidies whatsoever.
When I had a look, a basic plan was around $188-191 (before tax) a month, for my own medical needs (like the off chance accident of being run over by a car, and visiting the doctor for a check up every six months).
How can part-time workers (that make up 40%+ of Americans) that work below the $16,000 threshold afford decent healthcare coverage, when they are excluded from the ACA, and Medicaid is so restrictive that the poor can't get access?
Also, what about those earning above the 48-60k threshold (depending on the state) who probably can't afford decent healthcare coverage, given the costs of accommodation, education, and general living expenses, yet are excluded from the ACA simply on the basis they 'earn too much'?
If you don't buy coverage you get a $500-600 fine a year, and if you do get coverage you are having to pay $188+ a month just for basic coverage. There is a subsidy if you earn around 48-60k, but what about the other 60%+ of Americans that get nothing from the ACA but are forced to pay taxes for the 16-60k'ers?
That means that the 16-60k bracket get subsidies from taxes from the poor, the upper middle class, and the rich. We hear about the 1% but who is really taking advantage of the tax system, is it really those earning above 60k or below 16k - or the small percentage of Americans (say 20-30%) that are given subsidies at the expense of everyone else in America that gets nothing?
It's the same with most employer coverage now too. I would have to have a $12,000 emergency to ever see my insurance take over any medical bills. The marketplace is worst with about $14,000 out-of-pocket. It not just the ACA enrollees. Their out-of-pocket wouldn't be as high?? IDK. They should have looked at ridiculous medical costs from doctors and hospitals first. That would have cleaned up much of America's healthcare whoas. Yep.To provide context, this is the first time I have independently applied for health coverage.
My parents earn above the threshold for the ACA (or around 120k), so they have to pay for their coverage - minus the employer contribution.
Also I found out that I am outside the threshold for the ACA, so I will also have to pay for my own coverage with no subsidies whatsoever.
When I had a look, a basic plan was around $188-191 (before tax) a month, for my own medical needs (like the off chance accident of being run over by a car, and visiting the doctor for a check up every six months).
How can part-time workers (that make up 40%+ of Americans) that work below the $16,000 threshold afford decent healthcare coverage, when they are excluded from the ACA, and Medicaid is so restrictive that the poor can't get access?
Also, what about those earning above the 48-60k threshold (depending on the state) who probably can't afford decent healthcare coverage, given the costs of accommodation, education, and general living expenses, yet are excluded from the ACA simply on the basis they 'earn too much'?
If you don't buy coverage you get a $500-600 fine a year, and if you do get coverage you are having to pay $188+ a month just for basic coverage. There is a subsidy if you earn around 48-60k, but what about the other 60%+ of Americans that get nothing from the ACA but are forced to pay taxes for the 16-60k'ers?
That means that the 16-60k bracket get subsidies from taxes from the poor, the upper middle class, and the rich. We hear about the 1% but who is really taking advantage of the tax system, is it really those earning above 60k or below 16k - or the small percentage of Americans (say 20-30%) that are given subsidies at the expense of everyone else in America that gets nothing?
You're missing the point.
The purpose of the ACA is to enrich Big Insurance companies and to expand Federal government power over our private lives.
For most ACA enrollees, the tiny provider networks combined with enormously high deductibles mean they won't use any health care except for extreme emergencies.
Weird.It's the same with most employer coverage now too. I would have to have a $12,000 emergency to ever see my insurance take over any medical bills. The marketplace is worst with about $14,000 out-of-pocket. It not just the ACA enrollees. Their out-of-pocket wouldn't be as high?? IDK. They should have looked at ridiculous medical costs from doctors and hospitals first. That would have cleaned up much of America's healthcare whoas. Yep.To provide context, this is the first time I have independently applied for health coverage.
My parents earn above the threshold for the ACA (or around 120k), so they have to pay for their coverage - minus the employer contribution.
Also I found out that I am outside the threshold for the ACA, so I will also have to pay for my own coverage with no subsidies whatsoever.
When I had a look, a basic plan was around $188-191 (before tax) a month, for my own medical needs (like the off chance accident of being run over by a car, and visiting the doctor for a check up every six months).
How can part-time workers (that make up 40%+ of Americans) that work below the $16,000 threshold afford decent healthcare coverage, when they are excluded from the ACA, and Medicaid is so restrictive that the poor can't get access?
Also, what about those earning above the 48-60k threshold (depending on the state) who probably can't afford decent healthcare coverage, given the costs of accommodation, education, and general living expenses, yet are excluded from the ACA simply on the basis they 'earn too much'?
If you don't buy coverage you get a $500-600 fine a year, and if you do get coverage you are having to pay $188+ a month just for basic coverage. There is a subsidy if you earn around 48-60k, but what about the other 60%+ of Americans that get nothing from the ACA but are forced to pay taxes for the 16-60k'ers?
That means that the 16-60k bracket get subsidies from taxes from the poor, the upper middle class, and the rich. We hear about the 1% but who is really taking advantage of the tax system, is it really those earning above 60k or below 16k - or the small percentage of Americans (say 20-30%) that are given subsidies at the expense of everyone else in America that gets nothing?
You're missing the point.
The purpose of the ACA is to enrich Big Insurance companies and to expand Federal government power over our private lives.
For most ACA enrollees, the tiny provider networks combined with enormously high deductibles mean they won't use any health care except for extreme emergencies.
I went with a non-profit provider, which isn't always an option in some states.Actually, my work health coverage has a very high premium each month with a deductible half-as-low as in the marketplace. I have no idea how my employer determines their/my premiums or deductibles. ??
The private marketplace in my area for my income has an even higher (than my employer) premium and twice as high deductible. I have no idea how the private marketplace determines their premiums or deductibles. ??
It's the same with most employer coverage now too. I would have to have a $12,000 emergency to ever see my insurance take over any medical bills. The marketplace is worst with about $14,000 out-of-pocket. It not just the ACA enrollees. Their out-of-pocket wouldn't be as high?? IDK. They should have looked at ridiculous medical costs from doctors and hospitals first. That would have cleaned up much of America's healthcare whoas. Yep.To provide context, this is the first time I have independently applied for health coverage.
My parents earn above the threshold for the ACA (or around 120k), so they have to pay for their coverage - minus the employer contribution.
Also I found out that I am outside the threshold for the ACA, so I will also have to pay for my own coverage with no subsidies whatsoever.
When I had a look, a basic plan was around $188-191 (before tax) a month, for my own medical needs (like the off chance accident of being run over by a car, and visiting the doctor for a check up every six months).
How can part-time workers (that make up 40%+ of Americans) that work below the $16,000 threshold afford decent healthcare coverage, when they are excluded from the ACA, and Medicaid is so restrictive that the poor can't get access?
Also, what about those earning above the 48-60k threshold (depending on the state) who probably can't afford decent healthcare coverage, given the costs of accommodation, education, and general living expenses, yet are excluded from the ACA simply on the basis they 'earn too much'?
If you don't buy coverage you get a $500-600 fine a year, and if you do get coverage you are having to pay $188+ a month just for basic coverage. There is a subsidy if you earn around 48-60k, but what about the other 60%+ of Americans that get nothing from the ACA but are forced to pay taxes for the 16-60k'ers?
That means that the 16-60k bracket get subsidies from taxes from the poor, the upper middle class, and the rich. We hear about the 1% but who is really taking advantage of the tax system, is it really those earning above 60k or below 16k - or the small percentage of Americans (say 20-30%) that are given subsidies at the expense of everyone else in America that gets nothing?
You're missing the point.
The purpose of the ACA is to enrich Big Insurance companies and to expand Federal government power over our private lives.
For most ACA enrollees, the tiny provider networks combined with enormously high deductibles mean they won't use any health care except for extreme emergencies.
For most ACA enrollees, the tiny provider networks combined with enormously high deductibles mean they won't use any health care except for extreme emergencies.
- Decouple prepaid health services (routine check ups, tests) from catastrophic care. Having insurance as an intermediary for every health care activity is the biggest driver of costs.
For most ACA enrollees, the tiny provider networks combined with enormously high deductibles mean they won't use any health care except for extreme emergencies.
- Decouple prepaid health services (routine check ups, tests) from catastrophic care. Having insurance as an intermediary for every health care activity is the biggest driver of costs.
"Under the ACA, people only use health insurance for extreme emergencies. Under my plan, people will only use health insurance for catastrophic medical emer--um, events."
Her point evades you? We're going to be paying the same prices, or more, for insurance that provides us little to no value. The corporate whores in Congress have set the insurance industry up as needless middle-men in every single health care transaction, offering no practical utility - literally bleeding us. It's a shameful sellout and you know it.
For most ACA enrollees, the tiny provider networks combined with enormously high deductibles mean they won't use any health care except for extreme emergencies.
- Decouple prepaid health services (routine check ups, tests) from catastrophic care. Having insurance as an intermediary for every health care activity is the biggest driver of costs.
"Under the ACA, people only use health insurance for extreme emergencies. Under my plan, people will only use health insurance for catastrophic medical emer--um, events."
In my scenario, people aren't paying outrageous amounts for "prepaid" routine health care services via premiums that are worthless.
Her point evades you? We're going to be paying the same prices, or more, for insurance that provides us little to no value. The corporate whores in Congress have set the insurance industry up as needless middle-men in every single health care transaction, offering no practical utility - literally bleeding us. It's a shameful sellout and you know it.
How are they "middle-men in every single health care transaction" if transactions below ~$12,000 are paid out of pocket, say through funds stashed in an HSA? Because they negotiate rates on your behalf? If your issue is with the rates health care providers (e.g., docs and hospitals) command from insurers, then your ire is (at least half) mis-directed.
My "issue" is with the fact that Congress has mandated that we pay insurance companies regardless of whether we value their services or not.
My "issue" is with the fact that Congress has mandated that we pay insurance companies regardless of whether we value their services or not.
Believe it or not, I get that you don't like the individual mandate.
What I asked is: How are they "middle-men in every single health care transaction" if transactions below ~$12,000 are paid out of pocket, say through funds stashed in an HSA?
My state did not take the ACA build out because it must be paid back to the government. What's the point of that? Too many strings attached. A state needs to stand on it's own without government. My state's medical costs are high because the medical providers; doctors and hospitals, etc. have taken advantage of the Obamacare situation. A broken ankle costs about $40,000 in my state, from when you break it to when you fix it. They have known for decades how to fix broken bones. How do you explain that, hmmm?The ACA leaves an out for states. They can have their own Health Care and no big deal. In Colorado, since the state began their health program, the cost has gone down, not up. If you state is playing grabass with the ACA and refusing to set up it's own programs then it's just ripping off the tax payers in that state. And you will see higher premiums.
The ACA is only bad when your state doesn't give a shit about you. Seems there are quite of few of those.
It works like this. Companies that want to gouge and cheat everyone will be forced to either play by the rules or they can move to a state with no rules. The State sets these conditions. IT sounds like there are hundreds of gougers waiting to set up in your state.
My state did not take the ACA build out because it must be paid back to the government. What's the point of that? Too many strings attached. A state needs to stand on it's own without government. My state's medical costs are high because the medical providers; doctors and hospitals, etc. have taken advantage of the Obamacare situation. A broken ankle costs about $40,000 in my state, from when you break it to when you fix it. They have known for decades how to fix broken bones. How do you explain that, hmmm?The ACA leaves an out for states. They can have their own Health Care and no big deal. In Colorado, since the state began their health program, the cost has gone down, not up. If you state is playing grabass with the ACA and refusing to set up it's own programs then it's just ripping off the tax payers in that state. And you will see higher premiums.
The ACA is only bad when your state doesn't give a shit about you. Seems there are quite of few of those.
It works like this. Companies that want to gouge and cheat everyone will be forced to either play by the rules or they can move to a state with no rules. The State sets these conditions. IT sounds like there are hundreds of gougers waiting to set up in your state.
Stop with the misinformation.
You have NO idea WHO sets the Rates do you?
The Insurance Companies can ask for whatever increase they want, the State DOI can yea or nea it...if it's higher than 10% then DHS get's involved with the approval process.
The companies cannot just charge whatever they want.
No State, no Company can just "decide" not to abide by the Law, ANY plan sold after Jan 10 MUST comply with the ACA.
My state did not take the ACA build out because it must be paid back to the government. What's the point of that? Too many strings attached. A state needs to stand on it's own without government. My state's medical costs are high because the medical providers; doctors and hospitals, etc. have taken advantage of the Obamacare situation. A broken ankle costs about $40,000 in my state, from when you break it to when you fix it. They have known for decades how to fix broken bones. How do you explain that, hmmm?The ACA leaves an out for states. They can have their own Health Care and no big deal. In Colorado, since the state began their health program, the cost has gone down, not up. If you state is playing grabass with the ACA and refusing to set up it's own programs then it's just ripping off the tax payers in that state. And you will see higher premiums.
The ACA is only bad when your state doesn't give a shit about you. Seems there are quite of few of those.
It works like this. Companies that want to gouge and cheat everyone will be forced to either play by the rules or they can move to a state with no rules. The State sets these conditions. IT sounds like there are hundreds of gougers waiting to set up in your state.
Stop with the misinformation.
You have NO idea WHO sets the Rates do you?
The Insurance Companies can ask for whatever increase they want, the State DOI can yea or nea it...if it's higher than 10% then DHS get's involved with the approval process.
The companies cannot just charge whatever they want.
No State, no Company can just "decide" not to abide by the Law, ANY plan sold after Jan 10 MUST comply with the ACA.
In this state, the STATE determines the maximums in premiums. Not the Feds. The Feds just put a minimum only with exceptions for the State Programs. New twist. It looks like those states that rely on the Feds entirely are in for a huge awaking when the fees for not complying starts to be taken from their taxpayers only to be sent to the premiums to those states that have their own system. And no refunds will happen in those states that are fighting tooth and nail. Sooner or later, the taxpayers will speak out in the form of their votes. The ,more you fight it the more you get your foot deeper in that grave. Stop Digging.
Your misinformation is astounding and get seven more unbelievable as time goes by.
DOI? Is that a federal Department? The only Federal DOI is Department of Interior that deals in wildlife. If you mean Department of Insurance, each state has one under the Governors Office.
Since you seem to not to be able to utilize Google, just click on the link.
You can learn or you can just keep making it up as you go or repeating what your handler tells you to.
