Obamacare success stories please

[ZoeBell]

Too bad the law doesn't say that if you choose to go without insurance, you are then stuck with ALL medical expenses. No filing bankruptcy, having the medical professional/hospital write them off...If they knew that they would be responsible for the expense they might think twice about choosing to go without insurance.

Exactly and that's my whole point. Those that are stomping their feet for whatever reason on getting insurance don't want to pay the premiums and would rather pay the fine. But they would be running to the nearest medicaid office if they needed to pay for a large bill. Basically they don't want to pay the premiums.

 

[ZoeBell]

all they have to do is pay a fine. What do you think that they will do?

And now I hear that the fine will come out of income tax refunds only. So all they have to do is not have a refund (if they make a decent salary). And if they make a low salary, it is only $95 or1 percent, whichever is greater. Sounds like a win win to me (well until that goes up in a few years or someone deems that part of the law needs to be rewritten).

I expect them to buy insurance. Or don't come running to the state agency if and when they want the state to buy for their cancer bill or injuries from a car accident.

If you choose not to buy insurance willing to pay the fine, then you should be willing to pay the bill if something should happen during the year without insurance.
Why should "everyone else" have to pay for the party who refused to buy insurance? I'm not talking about those eligible for medicaid. That's whole different ball game. I'm specifically talking about those who are refusing to buy insurance and instead pay the fine.

 

[Robbi]

Too bad the law doesn't say that if you choose to go without insurance, you are then stuck with ALL medical expenses. No filing bankruptcy, having the medical professional/hospital write them off...If they knew that they would be responsible for the expense they might think twice about choosing to go without insurance.

We've had insurance for 33 years. I refuse to pay higher rates with a higher deductible for less coverage.

Exactly and that's my whole point. Those that are stomping their feet for whatever reason on getting insurance don't want to pay the premiums and would rather pay the fine. But they would be running to the nearest medicaid office if the needed to pay for a large bill. Basically they don't want to pay the premiums.

You're darn right I'm stomping my feet and we don't need Medicaid. My anger comes from an entity trying to coerce me into buying something.
It's the principal.

 

[Ofinn]

Exactly and that's my whole point. Those that are stomping their feet for whatever reason on getting insurance don't want to pay the premiums and would rather pay the fine. But they would be running to the nearest medicaid office if they needed to pay for a large bill. Basically they don't want to pay the premiums.

I don't know anyone with a good paying job that doesn't have health insurance. Most people that don't have health insurance can't afford it, and there not going to be able to afford Obamacare either. There are a lot of poor people in this country.

 

[AndyLL]

I don't know anyone with a good paying job that doesn't have health insurance. Most people that don't have health insurance can't afford it, and there not going to be able to afford Obamacare either. There are a lot of poor people in this country.

Those people receive subsidies.

 

[davedmaine]

They will do what the uninsured have always done: put off routine care, go to the ER for non-emergency care, pay what they can and stick the rest of us with their bills through higher premiums.

Pretty uneducated and borderline ignorant response. My family does not have insurance. I am a small business owner and therefore must seek out health insurance on my own. Here in Maine we are very limited as to what choices we have and those we do have are extremely expensive. Based on a year's worth of premiums and our family deductible, we'd have to shell out more than $30,000 before the policy would kick in. Therefore I choose not to purchase it although I would certainly have the money to do so. I find it cheaper to simply pay our check-up bills, emergency room visits, etc. So please don't assume everyone without insurance is a dead-beat..

 

[Judyat]

My husband and I both retired with our health insurance paid. My brother is retired and not rich. He pays over $700 right now for coverage. With the ACA healthcare exchanges he can get a good policy that won't drop him if he gets sick or has a pre-existing condition. Many people are self employed and can now get good affordable coverage. Some people change jobs and need health care insurance for a short time. This allows it to be easy and affordable. No more questions to disqualify you. Do not assume that people without healthcare insurance can't afford it. There's medicaid for the very poor but many states have outrageous prices for health insurance if you are an individual right now. As of January 1 The healthcare exchanges do more than help people pay for coverage. In most cases they offer a good variety for affordable prices. And if you make under certain amounts ($46,000 for individuals and around $92,000 for family of 4.) Keeping your adult kids on your policy until age 26 is another nice plus. The list goes on and on. This is suppose to be about success stories not pointing fingers. It's a step in the right direction. Medicare for all would be better but this is a good start.

 

[robinb]

Pretty uneducated and borderline ignorant response. My family does not have insurance. I am a small business owner and therefore must seek out health insurance on my own. Here in Maine we are very limited as to what choices we have and those we do have are extremely expensive. Based on a year's worth of premiums and our family deductible, we'd have to shell out more than $30,000 before the policy would kick in. Therefore I choose not to purchase it although I would certainly have the money to do so. I find it cheaper to simply pay our check-up bills, emergency room visits, etc. So please don't assume everyone without insurance is a dead-beat..

What part of "pay what they can" did you miss? You obviously pay what you can for your current medical needs.

FWIW, you do know that the #1 reason why people declare bankruptcy is medical bills, don't you? And most of THOSE people have insurance. You are one bad accident or serious illness away from losing your business and everything you worked for by refusing to purchase health insurance. If you or one of your family ends up in the hospital those medical bills will suck you dry. Call me ignorant and uneducated but at least my family had health insurance when I was diagnosed with breast cancer this year. For that I am eternally grateful ... we are only out $10,000 in deductibles and co-pays instead of $50,000 (so far, that number is increasing weekly).

 

[robinb]

The list goes on and on. This is suppose to be about success stories not pointing fingers. It's a step in the right direction. Medicare for all would be better but this is a good start.

Sorry to derail the thread . I wish we had single payer too.

 

[daughtersrus]

We've had insurance for 33 years. I refuse to pay higher rates with a higher deductible for less coverage.



You're darn right I'm stomping my feet and we don't need Medicaid. My anger comes from an entity trying to coerce me into buying something.
It's the principal.

So who do you think will be paying the bills if you choose not to pay for insurance and then end up with huge medical bills?

 

[Robbi]

So who do you think will be paying the bills if you choose not to pay for insurance and then end up with huge medical bills?

We will.

 

[Colleen27]

The point is that if the insurance that they are forced to buy is something they think they do not need, they will not spend money on it. Exactly what is going on today.

Why do people not have insurance today? More important things to spend money on.

I agree. Just because the insurance is available does not mean that some people will prioritize it as something they want to spend their money on.

This assumes that most people who don't have insurance could afford it but choose to spend their money elsewhere. While I'm sure that's true for some - I'd even put myself in that category, because we could afford it if we stopped traveling, pulled our kids out of their private school, quit saving for college, and scaled back on the retirement contributions - I think the issue for more people is that they can't afford it at all, not while covering other basic living expenses like rent, groceries, and utilities. We couldn't have kept up our plan for as long as we did if we still had a mortgage to pay.

unfortunately, less than half the states took the Medicaid money including my own state. I still don't understand why those states would not take federal money to help insure their residents.

Because those states are led by ambitious men and women who knew that they had to fall in behind the right positions on this issue if they ever hope to advance to national office.

Sorry to derail the thread . I wish we had single payer too.

Me too. I waffle on Obamacare. On one hand, it benefits us immensely so of course I have a positive view. But on the other, I realize it is essentially a bailout of an industry that has continued to post unsustainable price increases for an extended period of time, and worry that the subsidy structure just enables a broken system to continue past where it would otherwise have collapsed under its own weight.

Single payer, with or without private supplement plans, would be so much more efficient and require so much less in administration and compliance costs. But sadly, the current state of our government is such that nothing can really get past the lobbyists for the more powerful industries, so single payer is a non-starter on Capitol Hill.

 

[Judyat]

Well as a medicare recipient I am proud to say that the government does a great job for those of us 65 and over. As a proud parent of a son and daughter who went to Ivy league schools I am also proud of our education system.

 

[Robbi]

Well as a medicare recipient I am proud to say that the government does a great job for those of us 65 and over. As a proud parent of a son and daughter who went to Ivy league schools I am also proud of our education system.

Happy it worked for you. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for a lot of other people, including my 74 year old parents and 89 year old MIL.


The US ranked 16th out of 23 countries in literacy proficiency, 14th in problem solving in tech environments and 21st in numeracy proficiency.

 

[mhsjax]

Well as a medicare recipient I am proud to say that the government does a great job for those of us 65 and over. As a proud parent of a son and daughter who went to Ivy league schools I am also proud of our education system.

Well Ivy Leagues are private so we can't applaud the Govt for that one, Oh and it is nice that they got in, but education as a whole in the US is subpar, so they are comparing students from subpar schools all over the US. I bet if the kids were competing against a multitude of students from other countries, then our kids probably wouldn't make the cut.

ALso if the Govt continues, they won't be doing a great job, there won't be any money to fund Medicare.

 

[chobie]

Well Ivy Leagues are private so we can't applaud the Govt for that one, Oh and it is nice that they got in, but education as a whole in the US is subpar, so they are comparing students from subpar schools all over the US. I bet if the kids were competing against a multitude of students from other countries, then our kids probably wouldn't make the cut.

ALso if the Govt continues, they won't be doing a great job, there won't be any money to fund Medicare.

I think she's applauding the public school system that got her kids into the Ivy League?

 

[chobie]

I understand that. But they were competing against other "public schools" some private and I bet even they are way beneath the education level of other countries. So really if you take the cream of the crop in a system that is way below other countries, they are still below the standards of other countries.

Yes, but if her kids went to public schools and got onto Ivy League schools then she can applaud the government for that.

 

[badcramps]

Both my in-laws and my parents are excited about the ACA giving helping them in the post-retirement, pre-medicare years. My in-laws are about 63 I believe and newly retired. Neither has any serious health problems, so they've been able to get a plan thus far (pre-ACA), paying about $1000-1500 a month in premiums I believe and then a deductible (I believe $1000+) and then a %. They say they will be able to get something cheaper with the same or better coverage (with a subsidy, I am sure, given they have little income). They see pretty happy with what they will be able to get.

My parents aren't at the point of using the exchanges yet. My dad is 61 and would like to retire at 63. He does skilled laborer factory work and has basically ruined his body over the years. He is in chronic pain everyday and has had back issues for decades. He will probably finally have back surgery after he retires, but he is too afraid to risk getting the surgery while still working in case the recovery took too long (can't afford to take unpaid leave for any substantial length of time) or that something would go wrong with the recovery and he'd end up having to go on disability. Really there's no doubt he would qualify for disability right now given his issues, but he is worried about that financially too, so he just keeps working. (I think the issue is that by going onto ss-disability before one begins receiving ss, one ends up receiving a lower payment when one hits 65. At least I think that is what he explained to me. )

Anyway, the big impediment to him being able to retire at 63 (or earlier ideally) is paying for health insurance before medicare kicks in for him and for my mom who is 4 years younger. (My mom works 50 hour a week as an independent contractor, makes very little money, and receives no benefits.) She has had a ton of medical problems--cancer, etc.--so they fully expect that she would be shut out of buying a private plan.) Cobra to keep the plan they have through my dad would be something like $13,000 a year in premiums alone (on what will maybe be a $40,000 a year income including my mom's income and 401k/ira distributions--so about 33% of their income.) And that would only work for, what, a year an half anyway. According to the Kaiser Foundation's calculator, even without the subsidy they would have lower premiums (for a silver plan) than with their current cobra option. With a subsidy they should end up being able to purchase a silver plan for more like $3300 a year in premiums--or 8% of their income.) Much more doable.

 

[badcramps]

We will.

You have hundreds of thousands of dollars sitting around such that if something catastrophic happened illness or accident-wise you could pay those bills without bankrupting yourself, losing your house, etc?

In that case yeah I see no real need (prudentially or in terms of not sticking everyone else with the bill) for you to buy health insurance. Unfortunately I'm sure the vast majority of people who could afford to buy health insurance through the exchanges but choose not to won't be able to hand over such vast sums of money and so it will be a problem for everyone else when whatever percentage of them end up having unforeseen serious accidents and illnesses pop up.

I am confused about one thing though. I sat and read this entire thread yesterday and today while breastfeeding (can't do much else but read or watch netflix during bfing) and didn't you say earlier that your max cost through the ACA for premiums would be 4% of your income? And another 4% max for OOP? I have no idea what page this was and maybe I'm misremembering, but this stuck out to me because these %s seem so reasonable given what %s most people are paying at much lower incomes, yet you seemed outraged by them. And now it sounds like you are actually so well-off such that you don't need to worry even about hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills if you go without insurance. I guess its hard for me to understand why 8% of a very high income seems so outlandish then.

Like I said in my last post, my parents doing cobra would pay 33% of their income--of $40,000--in premiums alone. Now that is outrageous! Assuming I am still home with the baby, we will make about $80,000 next year and pay just about 8% of our income in premiums for insurance for my wife, the baby, and I through her employer (no deductible and no co-insurance, just copays, for in-network) and I consider that GOOD insurance. Last year while I was working we each got insurance through our own employer. I made less than $40,000 and paid just over 3% of my income in premiums and then my max OOP (which I basically hit having a baby) was just under 8% of my income. Again, I considered that pretty GOOD insurance.

 

[Robbi]

You have hundreds of thousands of dollars sitting around such that if something catastrophic happened illness or accident-wise you could pay those bills without bankrupting yourself, losing your house, etc?

In that case yeah I see no real need (prudentially or in terms of not sticking everyone else with the bill) for you to buy health insurance. Unfortunately I'm sure the vast majority of people who could afford to buy health insurance through the exchanges but choose not to won't be able to hand over such vast sums of money and so it will be a problem for everyone else when whatever percentage of them end up having unforeseen serious accidents and illnesses pop up.

I am confused about one thing though. I sat and read this entire thread yesterday and today while breastfeeding (can't do much else but read or watch netflix during bfing) and didn't you say earlier that your max cost through the ACA for premiums would be 4% of your income? And another 4% max for OOP? I have no idea what page this was and maybe I'm misremembering, but this stuck out to me because these %s seem so reasonable given what %s most people are paying at much lower incomes, yet you seemed outraged by them. And now it sounds like you are actually so well-off such that you don't need to worry even about hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills if you go without insurance. I guess its hard for me to understand why 8% of a very high income seems so outlandish then.

Like I said in my last post, my parents doing cobra would pay 33% of their income--of $40,000--in premiums alone. Now that is outrageous! Assuming I am still home with the baby, we will make about $80,000 next year and pay just about 8% of our income in premiums for insurance for my wife, the baby, and I through her employer (no deductible and no co-insurance, just copays, for in-network) and I consider that GOOD insurance. Last year while I was working we each got insurance through our own employer. I made less than $40,000 and paid just over 3% of my income in premiums and then my max OOP (which I basically hit having a baby) was just under 8% of my income. Again, I considered that pretty GOOD insurance.

Don't know if it was this thread or another one. I posted that I feel coerced and I don't like it. I might be the only one who feels this way but I do. So, on principal, I will refuse ACA. I also found out that since we never have refunds, we won't have to pay the penalty because the only way they can take penalty money is by withholding money from tax refunds.