Obamacare success stories please

[mikek]

Oh that's easy. It's called out of control insurance companies.

First of all Barkley you can't make a correlation to price and legislation, to legislation that hasn't even gone into effect. Only 2 key components have become law. 1. being that kids can stay on parents policys until 26 and the other being the can't kick people with pre existing conditions off. So basically you're blaming legislation for greedy insurance companies. How about blaming the people who are jacking your rates up for no reason (I know novel idea).

Now I totally agree "average" mean some folks will be higher, some folks will be lower but doesn't change the results.

The fact is healthcare rates have been raising double digit percentage wise since the 1990's. Hillary Clinton tried to address it and every screamed about socialism back then, and promptly did ABSOLUTELY nothing.

Now you want to stick your head in the sand and say "oh now I have to pay for the poor lazy people". gimme a break LOL.

Now whether or not all the other doom day prophecies happened, we will have to wait and see but health insurance premiums and health insurance cost have been skyrocketing for decades now.
If it makes you feel better to blame the poor and this bill, that's cool. but it does not make that the reality.

I dont want to be negative but i really don't think that the big bad insurance companies account for ALL or even the bulk of the cost issues we have. Too be clear they are NOT ANGELS- but i think the problem is much bigger than just private insurance companies.

example #1- Blue Cross Blue Shield. In almost all states (including here in our state of NJ) BCBS is a non-profit. They make no profit. In NJ we've had limits for years on how much non-medical costs insurance could cover (I got rebates from insurers over 5 years ago for "making too much"). Yet BCBS rates in NJ (straight off my policy) have gone up 19%, 17%, 15% & 16% the past 4 years. I'm SURE there is a load of waste at their big office building in Newark. I'm sure their CEO gets paid a disgusting amount (how about you fire him/her and tell the 10 people below them to split the work. Then every rate payer could probably get 5 bucks off each month). But still the actual cost of providing care in this country is sky rocketing. A nurse earlier in this thread made a great point about if people don't use ER's for primary care that may reduce costs over time. I hope that is true, but it's hard to imagine there's not going to be drastic 15-20% a year cost savings anytime soon.

example #2- a little thing called medicare. Someone posted that Kaiser Family foundation seems to be a decent unbiased source of info (not sure myself honestly so take it with a grain of salt). check out this link there http://kff.org/medicare/fact-sheet/medicare-spending-and-financing-fact-sheet/ scroll down and look at the second bar graph that shows average groth per capita in spending over the past decade. Compare the private spending rate to medicare. BOTH are exactly 6.9% over the period.

The costs to provide care are/have been going up no matter who pays the bills. Hopefully chucking another 10 or so million more people into the currently broken system helps contain costs. But who really knows. We'll probably have to wait 10 years to see if the growth rate is better controlled now.

 

[gray52]

It has caused a problem here. My wife and her coworkers were called into a meeting Wednesday morning-the announcement was that all of them are out of work soon. There were 2 teams, the first will be eliminated by Dec 31, the second will stay on until June 30, 2014 to clean things up. She is in the second. She is in the healthcare field. The problem stems with low reimbursements and estimated non payments skyrocketing in 2014. The issue is that while folks are buying new insurance, their expenses rise. In addition, the deductibles are so high the chance of collecting payment has decreased, thus healthcare companies nationwide are laying off due to decreased revenues-even with anticipated volume increases. The advanced notice is good as she will be able to find other employment in 8 months, but the safety of working in healthcare is no longer there.

This is not a problem caused by the ACA.... This is a problem caused by profiteers.

Sent from my iPad using DISBoards

 

[tinker&belle]

is that the actual plan is cheaper? Or after subsidy it's cheaper?

It does include a subsidy. The reason her employer (which is a very large well known corporation) dropped these people was because they would qualify for the subsidy. It is less expensive for the company and for her. I was angry at first about it until we could get on the exchange and see what she was getting. Even taking the subsidy off ( it shows the non-subsidy price) the plan looks cheaper than anything she could have gotten before privately.

For a plan that is comparable to her old plan's deductible and OOP the plans are less than how much her employer and her were paying even without the subsidy. So it is going to save her money and her employer money.

For anyone who honestly wanted a success story I would say this is one.

 

[eliza61]

is that the actual plan is cheaper?

Or after subsidy it's cheaper?

Really, then let me ask a question, there have been many poster who say they are tired of paying for "some one" else? Exactly what is that a reference to?

The people who will benefit from the ACA are working people who pay taxes and pay a premium. So exactly who do you mean when its been said snidely about having to pay for others.

Pardon my cynicism but it's imo a veiled reference to the same ole budget board mantra. "I work while my _____ fill in the blank, is on food stamps and goes to Disney and gets her nails done"

 

[lauradis]

Really, then let me ask a question, there have been many poster who say they are tired of paying for "some one" else? Exactly what is that a reference to?

The people who will benefit from the ACA are working people who pay taxes and pay a premium. So exactly who do you mean when its been said snidely about having to pay for others.

Pardon my cynicism but it's imo a veiled reference to the same ole budget board mantra. "I work while my _____ fill in the blank, is on food stamps and goes to Disney and gets her nails done"

Last part is just rude.

It comes to the point where you start asking yourself after you write checks to the IRS. Why I'm I forced to pay 15-30 percent of my income, while others pay taxes and then get refunds over the amount they paid in.

It makes you jaded.

I would love to see flat federal sales tax. That might create more of a feeling of fairness.


Tell me why some people should pay nothing or negitive %?

ACA didn't make my insurance cheaper!

That why I love hearing the sucess stories.

we the true taxpayers want to make sure you the non taxpayers are getting something out of it.

 

[lauradis]

It does include a subsidy. The reason her employer (which is a very large well known corporation) dropped these people was because they would qualify for the subsidy. It is less expensive for the company and for her. I was angry at first about it until we could get on the exchange and see what she was getting. Even taking the subsidy off ( it shows the non-subsidy price) the plan looks cheaper than anything she could have gotten before privately.

For a plan that is comparable to her old plan's deductible and OOP the plans are less than how much her employer and her were paying even without the subsidy. So it is going to save her money and her employer money.

For anyone who honestly wanted a success story I would say this is one.

Happy it worked out for your mom

Hope she never has to use the policy.

 

[Colleen27]

Easily said when its the OTHER GUY getting the short end of the stick. Why are the people who are stuck with the bill less deserving of compassion then the people who had a situation that put them out? Is one person's pity worthy of a complete upending of the financial system even if it devastates someone else? Who decides who is worthy? If its simply 51% of the vote then we have instituted mob rule and heaven help us all....

My point is the "happy story" is an illusion. In order to provide the happily ever after for one person, another person gets to take the hit. All we did was shuffle the deck chairs....no real net gain. There can't be a gain, as the Government is not capable of producing the funds to make party A happy without taking it from party B by force of law. By your analogy of being in the same boat, there are not enough life jackets to go around, someone is going to be without one...you seem to be asking the people who had a life jacket to be jumping for joy at having to hand theirs over to someone else.

That isn't true though. The 80/20 rule did more than shuffle the deck chairs between subscribers; insurance companies are now required to spend most of what they take in on providing the service they sell. And there's also an economy of scale you're failing to take into account; the ACA means risk is spread over a larger pool of insured, rather than limited by excluding those who are more likely to make claims. Net costs should also come down as providers no longer have to build in the "deadbeat" cushion they need now to account for those who cannot afford care but who seek it anyway (though I'll admit to skepticism on this point; I think when operating costs fall prices generally stay the same while profits increase).

To go back to the lifeboat analogy, those of us who have been treading water are supposed to be sympathetic that others will have to give up some leg room and squeeze together a bit to make room for the rest of us in the boat. Yes, their situation is going to be less comfortable and that isn't lost on anyone, but they're doing it to keep other people from being one medical issue away from sinking.

 

[johde]

heavens, I would love to fall into this demographic. I (and many of my friends, family and neighbors-different states/different types of employment from public to private, retirees to active employees) haven't fallen within these rates for YEARS. for some of us we can't opt out of employer sponsored insurance ("condition of employment absent proof of EXSISTING/IN EFFECT insurance coverage"-yeah, check out labor laws), and while premiums have risen-it has been NOTHING compared to what we are experiencing now.

your chart shows the average as $15,745 for a "family", well myself and many tens of thousands of others employed/retirees from my former employer will be paying $21,6000 so long as we only have 2 "family members", in the event we have additional family members add another $4000 or so per year (and we don't qualify for tax credits because the insurance companies made sure that they compared numbers with our employers such that the 'employee only' share is JUST below the 9.5% federal requirement).

While on the other hand, those numbers look horrible to me. I pay $177 a month ($2,100 a year) for me. I have a $2,500 deductible then it pay's 100% after that. I pay about an extra $10 a month over what's currently listed online because of my weight. I currently live in a state that has a low level of mandates on the insurance industry. A nearly identical plan in California would cost $288 a month.

Oh that's easy. It's called out of control insurance companies.

First of all Barkley you can't make a correlation to price and legislation, to legislation that hasn't even gone into effect. Only 2 key components have become law. 1. being that kids can stay on parents policys until 26 and the other being the can't kick people with pre existing conditions off. So basically you're blaming legislation for greedy insurance companies. How about blaming the people who are jacking your rates up for no reason (I know novel idea).

You forgot the first round on "Free" preventative health measures. The money for all those wellness checks, vaccines, etc have to come from somewhere. If the government required car insurance companies to provide free oil change and wiper blades every year and new tires every 3 years as preventative measures against accidents, car insurance would go up until it was proved that accident costs go down.

So in your mind, I can't put any of the price increases I've had over the past several years on the ACA. Not even the 28% increase in premium in June 2011 when the "average" has been 9-10%. Can I put any of the 160% increase in premiums for 2014 on the ACA.

Yesterday, I called to see what my premium was going to be next year. They couldn't tell me that, I would need to wait for my early renewal letter. They could quote me for their most comparable plan in the change. A plan with a $2,000 deductible (instead of $2,500 now) has a premium of $463 (instead of $177). In full disclosure, I do qualify for a subsidy and based on this years income, my share of the premium would be $250 and the American tax payer (which I'm included in) pays the other $213.

On the other hand, I don't know if this qualifies as a "success story" but if my projected Modified Adjusted Gross Income comes in $2,000 lower I will qualify for a "silver 87" plan. Plans that most people here would love to have. $500-$750 deductibles 90/10 after that, the one with the higher deductible has $30 office visits and $10 generic prescriptions before deductible, and $2,250 out of pocket maximum per year, for $120-140 a month depending on exact plan and coverage. $110 less a month in premiums is $1320, taxes could go down by $500 - $750 depending on how I lower my income between federal, state, local, and STRS. All I need to do is make sure front page income on 1040 in 2013 dollars under $22,980.

 

[crisi]

I dont want to be negative but i really don't think that the big bad insurance companies account for ALL or even the bulk of the cost issues we have. Too be clear they are NOT ANGELS- but i think the problem is much bigger than just private insurance companies.

example #1- Blue Cross Blue Shield. In almost all states (including here in our state of NJ) BCBS is a non-profit. They make no profit. In NJ we've had limits for years on how much non-medical costs insurance could cover (I got rebates from insurers over 5 years ago for "making too much"). Yet BCBS rates in NJ (straight off my policy) have gone up 19%, 17%, 15% & 16% the past 4 years. I'm SURE there is a load of waste at their big office building in Newark. I'm sure their CEO gets paid a disgusting amount (how about you fire him/her and tell the 10 people below them to split the work. Then every rate payer could probably get 5 bucks off each month). But still the actual cost of providing care in this country is sky rocketing. A nurse earlier in this thread made a great point about if people don't use ER's for primary care that may reduce costs over time. I hope that is true, but it's hard to imagine there's not going to be drastic 15-20% a year cost savings anytime soon.

example #2- a little thing called medicare. Someone posted that Kaiser Family foundation seems to be a decent unbiased source of info (not sure myself honestly so take it with a grain of salt). check out this link there http://kff.org/medicare/fact-sheet/medicare-spending-and-financing-fact-sheet/ scroll down and look at the second bar graph that shows average groth per capita in spending over the past decade. Compare the private spending rate to medicare. BOTH are exactly 6.9% over the period.

The costs to provide care are/have been going up no matter who pays the bills. Hopefully chucking another 10 or so million more people into the currently broken system helps contain costs. But who really knows. We'll probably have to wait 10 years to see if the growth rate is better controlled now.

I've said this in other threads, but healthcare and education are two of the big fields that are subject to Baumol's Cost Disease - they WILL go up faster than inflation because of that. Healthcare has additional inflationary pressures in that technology increases costs - in most industries it starts by increasing costs, but eventually decreases them - healthcare doesn't work that way. AND more people expect to live longer, pain free, healthy lives - twenty years ago how many people did you know with a CPAP who had gotten a (not cheap) sleep study done? How many today?

If we were happy with the quality of care in the 1980s, if we didn't want better chemotherapy drugs and vaccines for chicken pox or digital mammograms. If you want depression treated by tricyclics without SSRIs, If you wanted to only have a few MRIs in a state, and only have them used diagnostically rarely (MRIs weren't commercially released until 1980), if you want TWICE the infant mortality we have today - all that and much, much more, you would still have health care costs in excess of what they were in 1980 dollars because of the cost disease. But in addition to inflationary pressure in excess of what is normal, we have had huge technology advances in that time as well, many of them wrapped into the costs you see in your insurance and medical bills.

I picked 1980 because I graduated from high school around there, it was the point at which I started to be aware of anything regarding how health care worked. Back in 1980 we hadn't named AIDS, it was a rare condition yet, not understood. To someone who lived through the 90s, that seems so odd, and yet, AIDS today seems odd to someone who lived through the 90s. We didn't have MRSA...maybe it existed, but it wasn't a huge deal requiring extensive hospital protocols (one of the hospitals here has MOVED their burn unit three times over ten years trying to escape MRSA. It isn't cheap to move a burn unit).

 

[daughtersrus]

Really, then let me ask a question, there have been many poster who say they are tired of paying for "some one" else? Exactly what is that a reference to?

The people who will benefit from the ACA are working people who pay taxes and pay a premium. So exactly who do you mean when its been said snidely about having to pay for others.
"

We all pay for someone else - even when that person is getting their insurance from their employer. The employer has adjusted the cost of the service or product that they supply to cover the cost of benefits for their workers.

 

[Colleen27]

example #1- Blue Cross Blue Shield. In almost all states (including here in our state of NJ) BCBS is a non-profit. They make no profit.

Non-profit doesn't mean the money is going to care, though. For example, executive compensation... 12mil in '12, 16mil in '13 for the CEO. $93mil in total executive compensation, $40mil of that in bonuses for lower claims and higher enrollment. Non-profit doesn't mean charity, it just means they're playing the same game for their own pocket books instead of for their (and others') stock values.

I would love to see flat federal sales tax. That might create more of a feeling of fairness.

"Fair" meaning "better for you", right? Because under a sales tax, people living at a subsistence level are the ones who pay the highest effective tax rates, while those well-off enough to have investments and savings enjoy no taxation at all on much of their income.

 

[lauradis]

"Fair" meaning "better for you", right? Because under a sales tax, people living at a subsistence level are the ones who pay the highest effective tax rates, while those well-off enough to have investments and savings enjoy no taxation at all on much of their income.

Whats wrong with that, right now because I have been "lucky" enough to work hard and smart and learned to invest and delay my wants and lower my needs.

Whats wrong with a flat tax, oh wait that means you have skin in the game for all citizens.

Perfect example is "lucky" people spend more money so they will pay more tax.

cars, houses, food, everything tax it all. No more shell games of takers and givers.

 

[johde]

To go back to the lifeboat analogy, those of us who have been treading water are supposed to be sympathetic that others will have to give up some leg room and squeeze together a bit to make room for the rest of us in the boat. Yes, their situation is going to be less comfortable and that isn't lost on anyone, but they're doing it to keep other people from being one medical issue away from sinking.

The trouble with your life boat analogy is there aren't just people inside the lifeboat and treading water, there are people in the water with an arm over the side of the boat. They have insurance, it's not as good as they "need", and it's more expensive then they would like. One medical issue isn't going to drowned them but their going to be swallowing some water because of it.
Some of the people treading water are getting plucked out and put in the boat. But in putting these people in the boat some people in the boat are going to get knocked over the side and now there just hoping to grab onto the side and not end up treading water themselves. And some of the people who had an arm over the side have either completely been shoved out, or not only have a hand hold.

There is a large group of people who aren't poor enough, or sick enough, to get helped by this law, who also aren't rich enough for the increases to "not matter". People where this law is making their finances significantly worse.

 

[robinb]

Whats wrong with that, right now because I have been "lucky" enough to work hard and smart and learned to invest and delay my wants and lower my needs. Whats wrong with a flat tax, oh wait that means you have skin in the game for all citizens. Perfect example is "lucky" people spend more money so they will pay more tax. cars, houses, food, everything tax it all. No more shell games of takers and givers.

*yawn* That argument was stale on the 'Bash Obamacare' thread.

 

[Mommy2Corinne]

Really, then let me ask a question, there have been many poster who say they are tired of paying for "some one" else? Exactly what is that a reference to?

The people who will benefit from the ACA are working people who pay taxes and pay a premium. So exactly who do you mean when its been said snidely about having to pay for others.

Pardon my cynicism but it's imo a veiled reference to the same ole budget board mantra. "I work while my _____ fill in the blank, is on food stamps and goes to Disney and gets her nails done"

No, it's not the same ole mantra IMO. This goes way beyond that. The way the subsidies are currently set up under Obamacare is flat out redistribution of wealth on an unprecedented scale.

Who is that a reference to, you ask? Well, the subsidies are not just for "poor people" on food stamps. (That would actually make the overall concept a bit more palatable to me, TBH.)

The subsidies compensate people making up to 400% of the poverty level. For example, 400% of the poverty level for a family of 4 is $94,200!! That family of 4 would only be required to pay 9.5% of their income towards healthcare costs...the rest would be refunded to them in the form of a *significant* tax credit, depending on where they live and what plan they choose.

On the other hand, a family of 4 making slightly more than 400% of the poverty level gets NO subsidy whatsoever under the ACA.

So in practice, only *some* of the hard working people who pay taxes and pay a premium "benefit" from the ACA. The others are *subsidizing* people who are perfectly capable of providing for themselves and are clearly far from living in "poverty."

My family of 5 making more (but not much more) than 400% of the federal poverty level (I promise you, we are FAR from rolling around in our piles of money, lol) happens to be one of the subsidizers. So no, I'm not thrilled about redistributing even more of our very hard earned money to "some one else" who is making very little less than we are and who should be responsible for paying for their "own" healthcare costs.

Play around on the calculator and see for yourself. http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

For example, in my state/county, a family of 5 making:

$111,000 (403% of poverty level) --- eligible for $0 government tax credit subsidy

$110,000 (399% of poverty level) --- eligible for $2,734 government tax credit subsidy

$105,000 (381% of poverty level) --- eligible for $3,209 government tax credit subsidy

$90,000 (326% of poverty level) --- eligible for $4,634 government tax credit subsidy

$85,000 (308% of poverty level) --- eligible for $5,109 government tax credit

I could keep going, but you get the idea.

$5,109!!!! That's about what we paid for our recent trip to Disney to stay at AKL Club Level with a dining plan!!!! I guess what you're saying is that I should be glad that I'll be helping to subsidize "some one else's" Disney trip next year?

I promise you...someone making $85,000 in my area is doing just fine. They are perfectly capable of providing for their family of 5 on that amount. (If they are not, then they are doing something wrong, and that's not my problem.) Why that family "deserves" a healthcare subsidy of $5,109 for healthcare over a family of 5 making $111,000 is beyond my understanding If you can help enlighten me, I'd be glad to listen.

(((And for the record, I'm not suggesting that I'm angry just because I don't qualify for the subsidy. I don't want it. We are perfectly capable of working hard, budgeting, saving, and appropriately allocating funds for our own family's healthcare costs. However, other families living well above the poverty level are too though! It's called personal responsibility. I'm not sure what has happened to that concept. )))

 

[barkley]

The trouble with your life boat analogy is there aren't just people inside the lifeboat and treading water, there are people in the water with an arm over the side of the boat. They have insurance, it's not as good as they "need", and it's more expensive then they would like. One medical issue isn't going to drowned them but their going to be swallowing some water because of it.
Some of the people treading water are getting plucked out and put in the boat. But in putting these people in the boat some people in the boat are going to get knocked over the side and now there just hoping to grab onto the side and not end up treading water themselves. And some of the people who had an arm over the side have either completely been shoved out, or not only have a hand hold.

There is a large group of people who aren't poor enough, or sick enough, to get helped by this law, who also aren't rich enough for the increases to "not matter". People where this law is making their finances significantly worse.

excellent point.


i'm already hearing people voice concerns over how they will not be able to utilize their medical insurance as much in the coming year. people in the 'large group' you speak of who are in grandfathered plans that are exempt from the free preventative care appointments and many other provisions of the legislation. they look to their deductible double or tripling, and with several hundreds of dollars a month in additional premium charges they are rushing to make all the appointments they can reasonably anticipate needing for themselves/their kids within the next few months before the new year hits.
people who take multiple medications and are supposed to go in for monitoring every 3 months are calling to make appointments for December to get their new scrips and beg their doctors to make those out for 6 months so they can figure out how to find the money to cover that appointment.

 

[crisi]

Whats wrong with that, right now because I have been "lucky" enough to work hard and smart and learned to invest and delay my wants and lower my needs.

Whats wrong with a flat tax, oh wait that means you have skin in the game for all citizens.

Perfect example is "lucky" people spend more money so they will pay more tax.

cars, houses, food, everything tax it all. No more shell games of takers and givers.

You won't though. Because any flat tax proposal offers a rebate for those that are poorest because we want them to be able to put shoes on their kids feet. Or exempts necessities - which is most of what the truly poor buy.

Works great for me - we make mid-six figures and save half of it - with a federal sales tax in place, I'd save more - which is pretty easy to do when you make mid-six figures. When my share of the tax burden that I won't be paying (which, my federal tax burden is six figures) is spread out between the six DISers who make median incomes, they'll scream. Because in the proposals I've seen, my tax burden based off what I've spent goes down about 50% - so someone's goes up. Colleen - you'll take all that extra I've been paying on, right. Cause that will be fair. My family can go to Disney three times a year, and you'll never see it again. Because my husband and I have worked hard and lived beneath our income, and I know you have been lazy and a spendthrift

 

[johde]

Play around on the calculator and see for yourself. http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

For example, in my state/county, a family of 5 making:

$111,000 (403% of poverty level) --- eligible for $0 government tax credit subsidy

$110,000 (399% of poverty level) --- eligible for $2,734 government tax credit subsidy

$105,000 (381% of poverty level) --- eligible for $3,209 government tax credit subsidy

$90,000 (326% of poverty level) --- eligible for $4,634 government tax credit subsidy

$85,000 (308% of poverty level) --- eligible for $5,109 government tax credit

I could keep going, but you get the idea.

$5,109!!!! That's about what we paid for our recent trip to Disney to stay at AKL Club Level with a dining plan!!!! I guess what you're saying is that I should be glad that I'll be helping to subsidize "some one else's" Disney trip next year?

I promise you...someone making $85,000 in my area is doing just fine. They are perfectly capable of providing for their family of 5 on that amount. (If they are not, then they are doing something wrong, and that's not my problem.) Why that family "deserves" a healthcare subsidy of $5,109 for healthcare over a family of 5 making $111,000 is beyond my understanding If you can help enlighten me, I'd be glad to listen.

The problem in your example is for the most part not the person getting $85,000 getting the tax credit, it's the person making $111,000 getting nothing.

Under the current tax laws, money employers pay towards employees health benefits are exempt from federal, state, local, and FICA taxes. They are essentially a tax free benefit. For the part time employee, the the money they used to pay their health insurance premium has already had federal, state, local, and FICA taxes taken out of it, although some states allow their own deduction for health insurance premiums. So, while the size of the credit may be large, at least part of his credit is putting him on an even footing with his counterparts getting insurance through their employers. In fairness, the person making $111,000 should be able to at least deduct their health insurance premiums on the front of the 1040. But, that has never been the case, and this law doesn't change that.

 

[crisi]

The problem in your example is for the most part not the person getting $85,000 getting the tax credit, it's the person making $111,000 getting nothing.

Under the current tax laws, money employers pay towards employees health benefits are exempt from federal, state, local, and FICA taxes. They are essentially a tax free benefit. For the part time employee, the the money they used to pay their health insurance premium has already had federal, state, local, and FICA taxes taken out of it, although some states allow their own deduction for health insurance premiums. So, while the size of the credit may be large, at least part of his credit is putting him on an even footing with his counterparts getting insurance through their employers. In fairness, the person making $111,000 should be able to at least deduct their health insurance premiums on the front of the 1040. But, that has never been the case, and this law doesn't change that.

thanks for looking out for the wealthy, but at $110k a year, you really shouldn't need government subsidies to help pay for your insurance. If we want to go that direction, we need to just socialize the whole darn system - give everyone healthcare out of our tax dollars - that is the way we started with this - but the wealthy (by and large) fought it tooth an nail. Apparently, we don't want it.

(I think socialized health care would be a good thing, but that isn't what we ended up with, and frankly, it wasn't what 'we the people' asked for).

 

[mikek]

is that the actual plan is cheaper?

Or after subsidy it's cheaper?

It does include a subsidy. The reason her employer (which is a very large well known corporation) dropped these people was because they would qualify for the subsidy. It is less expensive for the company and for her. I was angry at first about it until we could get on the exchange and see what she was getting. Even taking the subsidy off ( it shows the non-subsidy price) the plan looks cheaper than anything she could have gotten before privately.

For a plan that is comparable to her old plan's deductible and OOP the plans are less than how much her employer and her were paying even without the subsidy. So it is going to save her money and her employer money.

For anyone who honestly wanted a success story I would say this is one.

in reply to:

is that the actual plan is cheaper?

Or after subsidy it's cheaper?

which prompted this ATTACK:

Really, then let me ask a question, there have been many poster who say they are tired of paying for "some one" else? Exactly what is that a reference to?

The people who will benefit from the ACA are working people who pay taxes and pay a premium. So exactly who do you mean when its been said snidely about having to pay for others.

Pardon my cynicism but it's imo a veiled reference to the same ole budget board mantra. "I work while my _____ fill in the blank, is on food stamps and goes to Disney and gets her nails done"

get up on the wrong side of the bed that you feel you need to attack me for asking a question?

It's tough to read people's intent on the internet so I'll give you a pass- but in a nut shell I was to assure your OVERTLY nasty self that i WAS CURIOUS. This isnt't the thread to have arguments in. (at least not in my head). But now I apparently have to defend myself from a driveby- lol.

Anyway-

my curiosity mostly revolves around COST. as i posted in the other depressing/argument thread- i consider my family fortunate and DO NOT MIND PAYING MY FAIR SHARE which i don't consider to be the same amount or even the same percentage as everyone else (meaning i'm FINE with a progressive system even though i happen to pay "more").

I was looking for a ray of hope that costs are actually going down.

my fear is that besides shifting the burden around (WHICH AGAIN I'M NOT GENERALLY AVERSE) the actual costs are going to go up. AND THAT BENEFITS NO ONE- not even the folks who get subsidized because over time what the have to pay will also go up. If what one person pays goes down but the actual cost per person goes up and healthcare takes a larger and larger share of GDP then i think (and most i assume would agree) that is not sustainable long term.

The other thread is full of depressing stories of policy costs going up large percentages for less benefits. I'm hoping that's just an anomaly and it doesn't work out to be a generalization.