Trying to understand the ACA/Obamacare

[Antares]

"
The request, justification, and determination of whether the requested increase is unreasonable, are public information posted by both HHS and the state. This report’s conclusions about rate increases that equal or exceed 10 percent are based on an analysis of the rate justification information submitted to HHS. "

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Rate Review Annual Report - September 2013

Now run along kid.

 

[Andylusion]

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?

In order to get everyone else covered, without costing the Federal Government trillions more dollars, the ACA 'mandates' that States expand coverage of Medicaid. Of course as you know, most of the states are already in a budget pinch, are cutting back Medicaid instead.

I used to have my own private insurance. It was a high deductible insurance policy that only cost $67 a month. That plan of course was eliminated by ACA, so now I have zero insurance. I'll just cost the tax payers money instead. I think that's fair, since they voted for the idiot that eliminated my plan.

Of course I should be able to get insurance through my work this year, but if not, screw you morons. You voted for the idiot, not me.

Live and learn.

 

[dblack]

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?

In order to get everyone else covered, without costing the Federal Government trillions more dollars, the ACA 'mandates' that States expand coverage of Medicaid. Of course as you know, most of the states are already in a budget pinch, are cutting back Medicaid instead.

I used to have my own private insurance. It was a high deductible insurance policy that only cost $67 a month. That plan of course was eliminated by ACA, so now I have zero insurance. I'll just cost the tax payers money instead. I think that's fair, since they voted for the idiot that eliminated my plan.

Of course I should be able to get insurance through my work this year, but if not, screw you morons. You voted for the idiot, not me.

Live and learn.

Honestly, that's the only sane way to respond to this kind of stupidity. Just game the fuck out of their system and hope it flames out without taking all of us with it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

pppppsssst?

DOI is Dept of Insurance

Insurance is what I do kid, no keep going

You should resort to a better job with your skills. Digging Ditch. Years ago, I was an Insurance Agent myself. So what. And the DOI is at state level. Funny, those states that have taken the bull by the horns are having a dramatic decrease in rates and medical bills. If your state is showing less than a 10% rate increase then I suggest you fire your entire state government. The State of Colorado isn't increasing it's medical costs and premiums, it's lower them. That was the main idea behind the ACA and that is to get a handle on the Medical Costs and allow everyone to gain access to those services.

AS I stated, if your state has elected to play BS games then you deserve to live there. I DEMAND better than that where I live and I get it.

 

[Antares]

pppppsssst?

DOI is Dept of Insurance

Insurance is what I do kid, no keep going

You should resort to a better job with your skills. Digging Ditch. Years ago, I was an Insurance Agent myself. So what. And the DOI is at state level. Funny, those states that have taken the bull by the horns are having a dramatic decrease in rates and medical bills. If your state is showing less than a 10% rate increase then I suggest you fire your entire state government. The State of Colorado isn't increasing it's medical costs and premiums, it's lower them. That was the main idea behind the ACA and that is to get a handle on the Medical Costs and allow everyone to gain access to those services.

AS I stated, if your state has elected to play BS games then you deserve to live there. I DEMAND better than that where I live and I get it.

God are you dense?

I said DOI was State level.

 

[Antares]

pppppsssst?

DOI is Dept of Insurance

Insurance is what I do kid, no keep going

You should resort to a better job with your skills. Digging Ditch. Years ago, I was an Insurance Agent myself. So what. And the DOI is at state level. Funny, those states that have taken the bull by the horns are having a dramatic decrease in rates and medical bills. If your state is showing less than a 10% rate increase then I suggest you fire your entire state government. The State of Colorado isn't increasing it's medical costs and premiums, it's lower them. That was the main idea behind the ACA and that is to get a handle on the Medical Costs and allow everyone to gain access to those services.

AS I stated, if your state has elected to play BS games then you deserve to live there. I DEMAND better than that where I live and I get it.

"
The request, justification, and determination of whether the requested increase is unreasonable, are public information posted by both HHS and the state. This report’s conclusions about rate increases that equal or exceed 10 percent are based on an analysis of the rate justification information submitted to HHS. "

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Rate Review Annual Report - September 2013

Now run along kid.

Dipshit your State follows the same Law everyone else does.

You aren't very good at this,

 

[hipeter924]

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?

In order to get everyone else covered, without costing the Federal Government trillions more dollars, the ACA 'mandates' that States expand coverage of Medicaid. Of course as you know, most of the states are already in a budget pinch, are cutting back Medicaid instead.

I used to have my own private insurance. It was a high deductible insurance policy that only cost $67 a month. That plan of course was eliminated by ACA, so now I have zero insurance. I'll just cost the tax payers money instead. I think that's fair, since they voted for the idiot that eliminated my plan.

Of course I should be able to get insurance through my work this year, but if not, screw you morons. You voted for the idiot, not me.

Live and learn.

I didn't vote for Obama, and I wasn't eligible to vote at the time.

 

[Politico]

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?

Sounds like you understand it fine.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Just to be fair...... just to be fair! I don't think it was the 'intention' of government to enrich big insurance companies.

Instead, I think it's just a natural result of regulations. Regulations inherently enrich the biggest companies, because all regulations cost money, and between two companies, one massive, and one small, which one has the money to afford meeting the regulations?

Well naturally the huge massive companies do, and the smaller or upstart companies don't. The result is, the smaller companies are pushed out, and the big companies soak up the customer base.

But I don't think it was 'planned out'. Government just isn't that smart.

 

[boedicca]

Just to be fair...... just to be fair! I don't think it was the 'intention' of government to enrich big insurance companies.

Instead, I think it's just a natural result of regulations. Regulations inherently enrich the biggest companies, because all regulations cost money, and between two companies, one massive, and one small, which one has the money to afford meeting the regulations?

Well naturally the huge massive companies do, and the smaller or upstart companies don't. The result is, the smaller companies are pushed out, and the big companies soak up the customer base.

But I don't think it was 'planned out'. Government just isn't that smart.

You're wrong. And it's not a matter of Government being That Smart...it is That Corrupt. Much of what the Government does these days fall into the category rent-seeking Cronyism. ObamaCare is a prime example.

 

[Andylusion]

Just to be fair...... just to be fair! I don't think it was the 'intention' of government to enrich big insurance companies.

Instead, I think it's just a natural result of regulations. Regulations inherently enrich the biggest companies, because all regulations cost money, and between two companies, one massive, and one small, which one has the money to afford meeting the regulations?

Well naturally the huge massive companies do, and the smaller or upstart companies don't. The result is, the smaller companies are pushed out, and the big companies soak up the customer base.

But I don't think it was 'planned out'. Government just isn't that smart.

You're wrong. And it's not a matter of Government being That Smart...it is That Corrupt. Much of what the Government does these days fall into the category rent-seeking Cronyism. ObamaCare is a prime example.

Perspective I guess. All regulation inherently benefits rent-seeking. If it didn't, it would cause the destruction of the insurance market.

Those are the only two outcomes of regulations. It either benefits the rent-seekers, or it destroys the market.

Destroying the market, would cause electoral catastrophe. Of course the politicians are not going to go for that.

Equally, the public demanded that government 'do something' in health care. That's the unavoidable fact. The public demanded this.

So, given the situation, what do you think politicians are going to do?

To me, we got what we asked for. Any reasonable politician would have done the same. You voted me in to 'do something' about health insurance, and I can either regulate and cause problems, or regulate and benefit the big companies, and if I do nothing, I'll be voted out. What to do....... I'm going to regulate to benefit companies. That's the only option, that results in me being praised as 'fixing uninsured people' and being elected to a second term.

Obama made the politically correct choice.

All of this is the fault of the public. We need to educate the public. Attacking politicians will do nothing, because the next time the public demands politicians 'fix something', they are going to make the same choice again.