So NOW there 40 million "uninsured" Obama? ..contrary to this

[billyerock1991]

lol, he's talking about the 16 million Americans who happen to have individual plans that can't be grandfathered in. Many of them will get cheaper plans on the exchanges, especially when you factor in subsidies.

and that's bad how???

 

[midcan5]

America needs a new name, 'the land of whining can't do people' that fits the right in America who remain puppets for big money. What a bunch of sad sacks. And the web is notoriously bad for large inputs, been there done that. You cry babies are so negative, maybe you should ask mommy to tell you a fairy tale or crawl under the covers as life is just too complicated for wingnuts.

20 Questions You Have About Obamacare But Are Too Afraid To Ask | ThinkProgress

'2. What if I already have health insurance?'

"The big changes under Obamacare mostly affect the Americans who don’t already have insurance. If you already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, or Medicaid nothing about that will change. You’ll continue to have the same plan and it will continue to be administered in the same way. (You should receive a notice from your insurance company explaining whether or not your plan is compliant under Obamacare, and notifying you about the new exchanges opening next month.) If you’re self-employed and you buy your insurance on the individual market, you might want to compare your current plan to the new plans that will be offered on Obamacare’s marketplaces — you could be able to choose a cheaper option."


"There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve, then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tiny blasts of tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us." Pogo

 

[Zoom-boing]

The main reason people lose their health plan is because the insurance companies were overcharging them and the plan was no longer price competitive so they cancel it.

That was funny.

By the way, can you explain why everyone's prices are going up?

that is a easy one .... the states,100% of the red state that are supposed to take the medicaid package that's paid by the feds they are refusing to do so ... so those cost the state more ... in my state, a dems/liberal state, a blue state, we don't have that problem ... in my state my health care plan gotten way better then the one I have now ... it will cost me 300 dollars less ... I just got confirmed yesterday ...you're not going to convince me that the ACA is a bad thing ... but you have convinced me that you're dirt stupid...

Is it now subsidized?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Claim: Premiums are going up because of the law. Premiums are going down because of the law.
FactCheck.org says: It depends.
Politicians have been making these claims since before the law was passed — it was the first item on our list of whoppers back in 2010. Both sides have a penchant for misrepresenting studies on the matter to support their point. Our short answer — “it depends” — may be unsatisfactory to readers, but whether you’ll pay more or less than you would have without the law depends on your circumstances.
Are you uninsured and have a preexisting condition? You’ll likely pay less than you would have otherwise. Are you uninsured but young and healthy? You’ll likely pay more (without accounting for any subsidies you may receive). Are you insured through your employer? You likely won’t see much change either way.
Let’s start with employer-sponsored insurance. Employer-sponsored premiums did go up slightly due to the law from 2010 to 2011 (a 1 percent to 3 percent increase, according to experts), because of added benefits, such as coverage for dependents up to age 26, free preventive care and an increase in caps on coverage. Overall, premiums for family plans jumped 9 percent that year, with the bulk of that due to higher medical costs, not, as critics claimed, the health care law. Since then, premium growth has been 4 percent on average for 2012 and 2013, modest growth rates historically.
Note that premiums have been going up for years and will continue to do so — with or without the health care law. When Democrats make claims about premiums going down, they’re talking about premiums growing at a lower rate than they would have otherwise.
The growth in national health spending (that’s spending from the government, businesses and individuals) from 2009 to 2011 also has been at around 4 percent, the lowest level since such spending was first measured in 1960. President Obama has boasted that the ACA has helped make this happen. It could be playing some role, with an emphasis on new payment models, but experts say the cause is mainly the down economy. A Kaiser Family Foundation study said the economy was responsible for 77 percent of the slow growth rate, and that rate is expected to pick up as the economy recovers.
Now, the big question mark is for those who buy their own insurance. We’ll know more in October, when the state and federal exchanges have published rates and are accepting applications. But even then, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to make generalizations. Some folks will pay more, some will pay less, than what they would have otherwise. Many who had purchased on the individual market in the past will get more generous benefits — which will be good news for some and irrelevant to others. And the vast majority buying their own exchange plans — 80 percent, according to the CBO — will receive subsidies that bring their total out-of-pocket costs down.
These plans sold to individuals can no longer charge more based on health status or gender, but they can vary premiums based on geography, age and tobacco use. Republicans have warned of a “rate shock” in this market, with the young and healthy being subject to higher premiums if the market is flooded with older and less healthy policyholders. A RAND study, published in August and sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, estimated there would be “no widespread trend toward sharply higher prices in the individual market,” in the words of the lead author. But rates would likely vary from state to state.
The research group looked at 10 states and the U.S. overall, estimating no premium change for the U.S. at large and five states, a decline in two states, and an increase up to 43 percent in three states, not accounting for tax credits. The study, which held age, tobacco use and actuarial value (level of coverage) constant in comparisons, said average out-of-pocket costs would be unchanged or decline for all states once tax credits are factored in.
But that’s one estimate from an economic model, with noted “limitations.” Says the RAND study: “Current data on nongroup premiums are limited, and there are many uncertainties about how individuals and insurers will respond to the complex policy changes introduced by the Affordable Care Act.” It cautions against “sweeping statements” about the impact on premiums, since rates will differ based on individual circumstances.
That brings us back to our short answer: It depends.
“False Assumptions on the Health Care Law,” July 11
“Obama Overhypes Health Savings,” July 19
“Health Insurance Premium Spin,” April 5
” ‘Obamacare’ to cost $20,000 a Family?” March 1

as informative as your chart is it also depends on what plan you get ... Silver Plan, Bronze plan on so on .... but you are right it has been way cheaper then I would have expected ...as you can see on the Colorado chart over 50 its 245 month ... my plan in Colorado is the silver plan as of yesterday its going to cost me $251.12 a month with a 250 dollar deductible and a max pay out of $2000 dollars... right now my plan cost me 550 dollars a month with a $5000 dollar deductible ... in my currant plan if I go in for something else, its 5000 deductible first, its doesn't max out for the year they keep charging a 5000 deductible every time I go in ....starting January that plan is gone ... an my ACA plan comes into affect... these repub-lie-clowns are trying to convince me its bad and it cost more???? good luck with that

the vast majority is more expensive

 

[healthmyths]

lol, he's talking about the 16 million Americans who happen to have individual plans that can't be grandfathered in. Many of them will get cheaper plans on the exchanges, especially when you factor in subsidies.

and that's bad how???

"factor in subsidies." Who pays the taxes that pay the subsidies???
Again.. there ain't no free lunch!!

 

[Billo_Really]

"factor in subsidies." Who pays the taxes that pay the subsidies???
Again.. there ain't no free lunch!!

There is for me. I just did the subsidy calculator and if I go with the silver program, my yearly premium is only $1021. If I elect to go with the bronze program, my yearly premium is $0. That's right, I pay zero dollars and have health insurance coverage.

Can't beat that!

 

[Zoom-boing]

"factor in subsidies." Who pays the taxes that pay the subsidies???
Again.. there ain't no free lunch!!

There is for me. I just did the subsidy calculator and if I go with the silver program, my yearly premium is only $1021. If I elect to go with the bronze program, my yearly premium is $0. That's right, I pay zero dollars and have health insurance coverage.

Can't beat that!

So ... prior to the (un)aca others were paying for those who used the ER as "free" health care. Gotta stop that! That's just wrong! So ... post (un)aca, others are paying for those who now get "free" health insurance.

?????

Gov't takes over 1/6 of the economy, creates yet another huge bureaucracy, mandates people purchase a product, fines them if they don't ... and you sit there saying '**** you, I got mine'.

leftists are scum.

 

[healthmyths]

"factor in subsidies." Who pays the taxes that pay the subsidies???
Again.. there ain't no free lunch!!

There is for me. I just did the subsidy calculator and if I go with the silver program, my yearly premium is only $1021. If I elect to go with the bronze program, my yearly premium is $0. That's right, I pay zero dollars and have health insurance coverage.

Can't beat that!

"FREELOADER"!!!!!!!
YOU ARE EXACTLY WHAT PELOSI CALLED THE 18 MILLION THAT PAY THEIR OWN WAYS!!!

Pelosi's change in attitude towards the uninsured is a complete about-face from the rhetoric that she and the Democrats used in pushing for the massive legislation in 2009-10. Then, Democrats bombarded Americans with heart-wrenching stories--many of them false, particularly those told by President Barack Obama--about the 30, 40, or 50 million people without health insurance. Those who pointed to research that over 40 percent of the uninsured were "voluntary" were dismissed as heartless corporate shills or racists.

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, he's talking about the 16 million Americans who happen to have individual plans that can't be grandfathered in. Many of them will get cheaper plans on the exchanges, especially when you factor in subsidies.

and that's bad how???

I didn't say it was bad.

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, he's talking about the 16 million Americans who happen to have individual plans that can't be grandfathered in. Many of them will get cheaper plans on the exchanges, especially when you factor in subsidies.

and that's bad how???

"factor in subsidies." Who pays the taxes that pay the subsidies???
Again.. there ain't no free lunch!!

ha ha I get it. Very convenient. Bad if people pay less; bad if people pay more.

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keep in mind that many who supposedly are 'losing' their health insurance are going to the exchanges and finding out they actually qualify for Medicaid.

 

[auditor0007]

Back what up? That those over 60 are going to pay substantially more? I don't need links. I've compared rates in a number of states from existing plans to ones offered through the exchanges. I did this to confirm complaints from many people over 60 who are caught in this trap. It is one of the downsides of the plans that are offered through the exchanges.

If you want to check it out for yourself though, you can just check out the subsidy calculator.

Subsidy Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

If you use my example, you will see the big flaw in the way the subsidies work. I used the state of Ohio. For a couple aged 63 and 61 respectively, the estimated cost for a silver plan is $13134 per year. At an income level of $62,000, which is exactly 400% of poverty level, this hypothetical couple would receive a tax credit of $7244, making them responsible for $5890 to cover their premiums. Not a bad deal, right? Now change their income to $63,000. If you did this correctly what you will see is that this couple no longer qualifies for a tax credit and now must pay the full $13134 per year for their insurance. Their income is only $1000 higher but they will now have to pay an additional $7244 for their insurance. These people are going to get hammered.

Now as you will see, this comes to almost 21% or their income, so they actually could go without insurance and not be penalized because the cost of the insurance is over 9.5% of their income, but at age 60 plus, going without insurance is really not a very wise option. What I really wish Republicans had done is addressed issues like this, and pushed for changes that would have had a positive affect on those who will need to use these exchanges to purchase their insurance. Instead, they wasted everyone's time by trying to stop the whole thing which was never going to happen.

Each exchange, has about 35 different plans you could sign up with.

The only thing (public option) that would've guaranteed prices would go down, they took out of the bill.


I just did that "subsidy calculator" and my premium calc'd out to $1021 a yr.

That's pretty good! I like it! The ACA is good for me!

I never said it wasn't. I said it's a mixed bag and that some people will be in a bad situation because of it. Some will make out like bandits. I am supportive of the ACA and like the idea of the exchanges, but they need to do some more work with the numbers.

 

[auditor0007]

And just where is this happening?

Got any links to back that shit up?

Back what up? That those over 60 are going to pay substantially more? I don't need links. I've compared rates in a number of states from existing plans to ones offered through the exchanges. I did this to confirm complaints from many people over 60 who are caught in this trap. It is one of the downsides of the plans that are offered through the exchanges.

If you want to check it out for yourself though, you can just check out the subsidy calculator.

Subsidy Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

If you use my example, you will see the big flaw in the way the subsidies work. I used the state of Ohio. For a couple aged 63 and 61 respectively, the estimated cost for a silver plan is $13134 per year. At an income level of $62,000, which is exactly 400% of poverty level, this hypothetical couple would receive a tax credit of $7244, making them responsible for $5890 to cover their premiums. Not a bad deal, right? Now change their income to $63,000. If you did this correctly what you will see is that this couple no longer qualifies for a tax credit and now must pay the full $13134 per year for their insurance. Their income is only $1000 higher but they will now have to pay an additional $7244 for their insurance. These people are going to get hammered.

Now as you will see, this comes to almost 21% or their income, so they actually could go without insurance and not be penalized because the cost of the insurance is over 9.5% of their income, but at age 60 plus, going without insurance is really not a very wise option. What I really wish Republicans had done is addressed issues like this, and pushed for changes that would have had a positive affect on those who will need to use these exchanges to purchase their insurance. Instead, they wasted everyone's time by trying to stop the whole thing which was never going to happen.

I checked it out, and it shows we would pay in Michigan over $15,000 in premiums! That's for ages 60 & 61 with $75000 annual income....we get no subsidy either. Holy cow, where are people getting that this is affordable??? !!!!

This is a flaw in the plan. If you come in just under or right at 400% of the poverty level, your subsidy will cover more than half the cost. Earn one dollar too much and you get no help at all. I was not aware of this until recently. The thing that bothers me is that if Republicans hadn't been wasting all of their time frivolously trying to repeal the whole damn thing, they could have addressed issues like this.

 

[auditor0007]

lol, he's talking about the 16 million Americans who happen to have individual plans that can't be grandfathered in. Many of them will get cheaper plans on the exchanges, especially when you factor in subsidies.

The ones who are getting murdered financially here are those over 60 whose income is just above the 400% of poverty level. This is something that should be addressed.

 

[auditor0007]

Back what up? That those over 60 are going to pay substantially more? I don't need links. I've compared rates in a number of states from existing plans to ones offered through the exchanges. I did this to confirm complaints from many people over 60 who are caught in this trap. It is one of the downsides of the plans that are offered through the exchanges.

If you want to check it out for yourself though, you can just check out the subsidy calculator.

Subsidy Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

If you use my example, you will see the big flaw in the way the subsidies work. I used the state of Ohio. For a couple aged 63 and 61 respectively, the estimated cost for a silver plan is $13134 per year. At an income level of $62,000, which is exactly 400% of poverty level, this hypothetical couple would receive a tax credit of $7244, making them responsible for $5890 to cover their premiums. Not a bad deal, right? Now change their income to $63,000. If you did this correctly what you will see is that this couple no longer qualifies for a tax credit and now must pay the full $13134 per year for their insurance. Their income is only $1000 higher but they will now have to pay an additional $7244 for their insurance. These people are going to get hammered.

Now as you will see, this comes to almost 21% or their income, so they actually could go without insurance and not be penalized because the cost of the insurance is over 9.5% of their income, but at age 60 plus, going without insurance is really not a very wise option. What I really wish Republicans had done is addressed issues like this, and pushed for changes that would have had a positive affect on those who will need to use these exchanges to purchase their insurance. Instead, they wasted everyone's time by trying to stop the whole thing which was never going to happen.

I checked it out, and it shows we would pay in Michigan over $15,000 in premiums! That's for ages 60 & 61 with $75000 annual income....we get no subsidy either. Holy cow, where are people getting that this is affordable??? !!!!

where did you check it out???? whirlynutdaily ??? NOTnewsmax???? if you make 75,000 dollars a year and you can afford it... so you're trying to tell us that you can't afford 1250 a month ???? really !!!! you're trying to tell us you can't live on 5000 dollars a month??? really ???? you really want us to feel sorry for you cause you think you pay too much for your health care???

I'm glad that you are so excited about the ACA, but it has flaws, and this is the biggest one. That couple in their 60's earning $75,000 is going to pay 25% of their after tax income on health insurance. That doesn't include their deductible which could increase that to 33% of their disposable income. A lot of older people who were able to afford health insurance before will no longer be able to afford it, even with a very decent income. Unfortunately, the solution to this is not all that simple of a fix. The rates are much higher for older people in order to keep them lower for younger people. What most people do not understand is that isn't usually how it works with employer based insurance plans. Everyone, regardless of age, pretty much pays about the same amount because the rates are determined on the average age of the entire pool of employees.