Obamacare success stories please

[ldoogie]

Well I have to agree that I fit into the "DIS demographic" being a nurse and having insurance through work. And one thing I have learned at the hospital is we spend millions every year on "charity care" as we call it. The number of people we see in the ER for non-emergent illness or conditions is a good 40% and most of those are there because they don't have insurance to go to a primary doctor. It will be quite a relief on those that are seeking emergency/urgent care to have 40% less people to wait behind. ER's are the most expensive care on the planet and the costs just get passed on to others. Allowing coverage for most people will reduce cost for everyone in the long run. I am very happy that so many people will now be able to get coverage. I think it is a good system on the whole and while it may not change my life too much, it will certainly help others immeasurably!

Very well said

 

[Robbi]

Well I have to agree that I fit into the "DIS demographic" being a nurse and having insurance through work. And one thing I have learned at the hospital is we spend millions every year on "charity care" as we call it. The number of people we see in the ER for non-emergent illness or conditions is a good 40% and most of those are there because they don't have insurance to go to a primary doctor. It will be quite a relief on those that are seeking emergency/urgent care to have 40% less people to wait behind. ER's are the most expensive care on the planet and the costs just get passed on to others. Allowing coverage for most people will reduce cost for everyone in the long run. I am very happy that so many people will now be able to get coverage. I think it is a good system on the whole and while it may not change my life too much, it will certainly help others immeasurably!

Good luck with that. There are several charity hospitals and a ton of clinics in our state yet people still choose the ER for primary care.

 

[eyes4eeyore]

Whether the pool got larger or not, the risk was increased enough that people who were previously rated at one dollar amount now have to pony up extra cash to cover a risk that was not previously present. A rate increase is still a rate increase.

I bit up on somebody else's boat analogy. My point was that sympathy goes both ways, and the "yeah" someone got got a life-vest should be considered in light of the one that was taken from someone else. The vests do not drop out of the sky. I highly doubt most of us in the boat were born into deck chairs and drinking lemonade, which the underlying envy of your comment suggests. We work and struggle too. There is a long stretch from offering compassion to your fellow man and having money confiscated to be handed out as though it grows on trees. Are my labors worth less than yours? No doubt there are people worse off then you...how much of what you make should you forced to surrender to help them out?

We will never be able to create true equality of outcome and I fear if we continue to try eventually wherever the line is drawn between the "winners" and "losers" we will find people unwilling to continue to risk/fight/struggle when they can simply cross the line and then where will we be? I, personally, am back at the drawing board to figure out how to rearrange my budget to accommodate the increased costs. I dream of a day when someone will let me know how much of my wages to which society "deserves" so I can plan [which is what most responsible people try to do] and just live my life.

Thank you! Well said.

 

[dansamy]

Maybe Disney could use the same excuse for their sad IT failures?
Depending upon how his company handles the insurance, I told my husband we should just take the penalty which would be $2767.00

This is how the plan would work for our family:

Results

Because your income is more than 4 times the poverty level, you would not qualify for subsidized exchange coverage. The information below is about unsubsidized exchange coverage.

Household income in 2014:
1274% of poverty level
Unsubsidized annual health insurance premium in 2014:
$14,527
Maximum % of income you have to pay for the non-tobacco premium, if eligible for a subsidy:
None
Amount you pay for the premium:
$14,527 per year
(which equals 4.84% of your household income and covers 100% of the overall premium)
You could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to:
$0
(which covers 0% of the overall premium)

Bronze Plan

The premium amounts above are based on a Silver plan. You could purchase other levels of coverage, such as a Gold plan (which would be more comprehensive) or a Bronze plan (which would be less comprehensive).

For example, you could enroll in a Bronze plan for about $12,040 per year (which is 4.01% of your household income). For most people, the Bronze plan represents the minimum level of coverage required under health reform. Although you would pay less in premiums by enrolling in a Bronze plan, you will face higher out-of-pocket costs than if you enrolled in a Silver plan.
Out of Pocket Costs

Your out-of-pocket maximum for a Silver plan (not including the premium) can be no more than $12,700. Whether you reach this maximum level will depend on the amount of health care services you use. Currently, about one in four people use no health care services in any given year.

A Silver plan has an actuarial value of 70%. This means that for all enrollees in a typical population, the plan will pay for 70% of expenses in total for covered benefits, with enrollees responsible for the rest. If you choose to enroll in a Bronze plan, the actuarial value will be 60%, meaning your out-of-pocket costs when you use services will likely be higher. Regardless of which level of coverage you choose, deductibles and copayments will vary from plan to plan, and out-of-pocket costs will depend on your health care expenses. Preventive services will be covered with no cost sharing required.
Other Coverage Options

Children and young adults under age 30 are eligible to purchase catastrophic coverage. With a catastrophic plan, you would pay out-of-pocket for most health services until you reach the annual limit on cost sharing ($12,700 in 2014). However, preventive services are covered with no cost sharing required.

I'm pretty sure that making $300k/year, you probably could pay the penalty and routine medical expenses OOP and still be quite comfortable, barring any catastrophic expenses.

 

[Robbi]

I'm pretty sure that making $300k/year, you probably could pay the penalty and routine medical expenses OOP and still be quite comfortable, barring any catastrophic expenses.

Yes, we probably could. We do have children and help to support another family, including sending their children to college. For the past 10 years, my daughter and I have been taking kids to Disney World who may not otherwise have been able to go. These things are expensive but my husband and I try to give back.
It's usually best not to guess how much disposable income people have because, in reality, it may not be as much as you think.

 

[dansamy]

Yes, we probably could. We do have children and help to support another family, including sending their children to college. For the past 10 years, my daughter and I have been taking kids to Disney World who may not otherwise have been able to go. These things are expensive but my husband and I try to give back.
It's usually best not to guess how much disposable income people have because, in reality, it may not be as much as you think.

I didn't address your disposable income, just your household income total. An income in that range certainly does afford your family a level of comfort & opportunity not enjoyed by very many. And you certainly aren't in need of governmental subsidies and assistance for your basic needs. (Food, shelter, clothing, physical well being)

The ACA will make some changes to the landscape of our health care systems. Some will say too much. Others, not enough. I like some things about it. Other parts, not so much. It will help some people and hurt others.

 

[stitchlovestink]

Good luck with that. There are several charity hospitals and a ton of clinics in our state yet people still choose the ER for primary care.

couldn't agree more!

Whether the pool got larger or not, the risk was increased enough that people who were previously rated at one dollar amount now have to pony up extra cash to cover a risk that was not previously present. A rate increase is still a rate increase.

I bit up on somebody else's boat analogy. My point was that sympathy goes both ways, and the "yeah" someone got got a life-vest should be considered in light of the one that was taken from someone else. The vests do not drop out of the sky. I highly doubt most of us in the boat were born into deck chairs and drinking lemonade, which the underlying envy of your comment suggests. We work and struggle too. There is a long stretch from offering compassion to your fellow man and having money confiscated to be handed out as though it grows on trees. Are my labors worth less than yours? No doubt there are people worse off then you...how much of what you make should you forced to surrender to help them out?

We will never be able to create true equality of outcome and I fear if we continue to try eventually wherever the line is drawn between the "winners" and "losers" we will find people unwilling to continue to risk/fight/struggle when they can simply cross the line and then where will we be? I, personally, am back at the drawing board to figure out how to rearrange my budget to accommodate the increased costs. I dream of a day when someone will let me know how much of my wages to which society "deserves" so I can plan [which is what most responsible people try to do] and just live my life.

I agree, at a certain point you lose the incentive to work because your wages keep getting taken from you and given to others who may not even be working at all!! It's a seriously flawed system!!

 

[Robbi]

I didn't address your disposable income, just your household income total. An income in that range certainly does afford your family a level of comfort & opportunity not enjoyed by very many. And you certainly aren't in need of governmental subsidies and assistance for your basic needs. (Food, shelter, clothing, physical well being)

The ACA will make some changes to the landscape of our health care systems. Some will say too much. Others, not enough. I like some things about it. Other parts, not so much. It will help some people and hurt others.

Yes we do have a nice life-love that capitalism!
I don't recall ever saying that I expected or even wanted any type of subsidy. Disposable income comes from total household income.
Disposable income-personal income that remains after taxes and expenses are paid.

 

[dansamy]

Disposable income comes from total household income.
Disposable income-personal income that remains after taxes and expenses are paid.

Condescending and superior much? Thanks for the explanation, but I know what disposable income is. Expenses include the cost of caring for your health. Insurance, copays, etc. Your family has choices that other families do not by virtue of your well above median income. That is a blessing for which your family should be thankful. If your healthcare costs are increasing, due to ACA or other factors, then your disposable income will naturally decrease. That means your family will make choices about what discretionary spending to continue and what will need to be reduced or eliminated.

Many families work with budgets of less than $50k/year. And there's just not as much room in those budgets for higher costs. If you're trying to raise 2-3 kids on $50k/year, your basic necessities already eat up a good part of that. There's very little disposable income in the first place. Some people, depending on family size, state and income, will benefit from new, expanded Medicaid eligibility rules. Some will be in the horrible gap between their state's unexpanded Medicaid and the federal subsidies. They'll make too much for Medicaid in their state but not enough for the federal subsidy. And healthcare will still be out of their reach.

 

[Robbi]

Condescending and superior much? Thanks for the explanation, but I know what disposable income is. Expenses include the cost of caring for your health. Insurance, copays, etc. Your family has choices that other families do not by virtue of your well above median income. That is a blessing for which your family should be thankful. If your healthcare costs are increasing, due to ACA or other factors, then your disposable income will naturally decrease. That means your family will make choices about what discretionary spending to continue and what will need to be reduced or eliminated.

Many families work with budgets of less than $50k/year. And there's just not as much room in those budgets for higher costs. If you're trying to raise 2-3 kids on $50k/year, your basic necessities already eat up a good part of that. There's very little disposable income in the first place. Some people, depending on family size, state and income, will benefit from new, expanded Medicaid eligibility rules. Some will be in the horrible gap between their state's unexpanded Medicaid and the federal subsidies. They'll make too much for Medicaid in their state but not enough for the federal subsidy. And healthcare will still be out of their reach.

Sorry if I came across that way. I was annoyed. It irked me that someone who knows nothing about us decided that because we have a certain income that they know how much disposable income we have. We are blessed and I give thanks every day.

I do feel for people who have trouble getting insurance. It just seems overboard to force people into a system they don't want by threatening them with penalties. If money was spent more wisely and not given to every Tom, Dick, and Harry country overseas, we could afford healthcare in this country for those who can't purchase it themselves. I've felt that way since the 1970s and the comment is not made about any particular administration because it's been done for decades. I'd be willing to bet that if it were put to a vote, the majority of citizens would rather see the money spent here to help their fellow Americans.

 

[dansamy]

Sorry if I came across that way. I was annoyed. It irked me that someone who knows nothing about us decided that because we have a certain income that they know how much disposable income we have. We are blessed and I give thanks every day.

I do feel for people who have trouble getting insurance. It just seems overboard to force people into a system they don't want by threatening them with penalties. If money was spent more wisely and not given to every Tom, Dick, and Harry country overseas, we could afford healthcare in this country for those who can't purchase it themselves. I've felt that way since the 1970s and the comment is not made about any particular administration because it's been done for decades. I'd be willing to bet that if it were put to a vote, the majority of citizens would rather see the money spent here to help their fellow Americans.

I still haven't made any assumptions about your family's disposable income. I only know an approximate household income from the information you shared. I have no idea what expenses your household has, which includes healthcare insurance and expenditures. Taking care of your physical body's health is a need, not a want. Therefore, it's not a disposable income expenditure. It's a household expense. And if your living expenses, including the cost of healthcare or water or food or transportation, etc, go up, then your disposable income goes down. And you evaluate the wants in your budget & adjust them. And the same is true for EVERY family in America. Whether they make $50k/year or $500k/year.

 

[lauradis]

Sorry if I came across that way. I was annoyed. It irked me that someone who knows nothing about us decided that because we have a certain income that they know how much disposable income we have. We are blessed and I give thanks every day.

I do feel for people who have trouble getting insurance. It just seems overboard to force people into a system they don't want by threatening them with penalties. If money was spent more wisely and not given to every Tom, Dick, and Harry country overseas, we could afford healthcare in this country for those who can't purchase it themselves. I've felt that way since the 1970s and the comment is not made about any particular administration because it's been done for decades. I'd be willing to bet that if it were put to a vote, the majority of citizens would rather see the money spent here to help their fellow Americans.

Amen, sister.

The question no one will answer is how much is enough 10,20,30,40,50,60,70 percent of ones income?

 

[dansamy]

Amen, sister.

The question no one will answer is how much is enough 10,20,30,40,50,60,70 percent of ones income?

We have a lot of regressive tax policies in our country. Sales taxes on food come to mind. They disproportionately affect families living on low wage jobs. However, that's the tax that everyone brings up when talking about some form of flat tax. Another popular choice bandied is a flat rate income tax, with no or very limited deductions. Again, this needs to be tempered because families below certain thresholds simply don't have enough to meet basic needs.

 

[lauradis]

We have a lot of regressive tax policies in our country. Sales taxes on food come to mind. They disproportionately affect families living on low wage jobs. However, that's the tax that everyone brings up when talking about some form of flat tax. Another popular choice bandied is a flat rate income tax, with no or very limited deductions. Again, this needs to be tempered because families below certain thresholds simply don't have enough to meet basic needs.

Thats still not answer how much is enough, lets just us 300k make should the people be given 50k.

Sounds like you haven't hit the point that you have to write the IRS checks.

You should print out 1040 and put 300k as the income make up some deduction that you think someone of that income bracket would have.

open your eyes and explore. you will be shocked. then take that percentage of tax and apply it to your income.

Yes everyone in this county should pay flat tax. skin in the game. no more of this takers and givers junk.

 

[lauradis]

We have a lot of regressive tax policies in our country. Sales taxes on food come to mind. They disproportionately affect families living on low wage jobs. However, that's the tax that everyone brings up when talking about some form of flat tax. Another popular choice bandied is a flat rate income tax, with no or very limited deductions. Again, this needs to be tempered because families below certain thresholds simply don't have enough to meet basic needs.

sales tax on food comes from state we are taking about federal tax, federal ACA

 

[dansamy]

And you haven't seen people who make $1/year over the limit for food stamps try to feed three children.

To whom much is given, much shall be required. A flat rate with no deductions hurts people who already live on the edge. Sales taxes on basic needs hurts people making the lowest incomes who already struggle to meet basic needs. Let's just push them over, why don't we?

My own family, while not making $300k, has gone from $0 tax liability and a full EITC and food stamps and WIC to paying thousands in taxes. Yes, I've had to send the guvmint my money. They turned right around and sent it to someone else, I'm sure.

We're getting rather dangerously off topic though.

 

[dansamy]

sales tax on food comes from state we are taking about federal tax, federal ACA

A federal sales tax is often suggested when people talk about federal tax reforms.

 

[susquehannaretriever]

I have been following this post out of interest to see what the overall consensus was. I have to just add my 2 cents for what it's worth; some of you may think not much but here goes.
I work for gov't in a public welfare office. I see this from that level. There is a tremendous amt. of confusion and unknown even now with the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, ACA. Most people that I see think all they have to do is just come on down, fill out an application and bingo they have health care. The people that I deal with on a day to day basis don't consider, and don't care, who's paying; they just want "their goodies." I know this is health care, not cash assistance. Still feels the same though, when you consider those on here that are saying that they would pay more or are not eligible. Why would many be paying more? To cover those who don't have it.
Most use the ER as a doctor's office, even if they have a doctor. Most of my clients have been on benefits most of their lives and again don't care about anything but when the next check or food stamp payment is coming. If it isn't there, "where the heck" (and no that's not the word they use) "is it?!"

We had 2 days of training to cover this huge piece of legislation. We had to "pass this law to see what's in it." We are getting what you could call "on the job training." I do think there are EXCELLENT parts of this health care law, i.e. allowing kids on parent's insurance to age 26, covering those w/ pre-existing conditions. And I am honestly trying to stay neutral, maintain an open mind, to and for this act, but seeing and hearing what I am hearing each and every day, it's hard. I am not sure this country can afford this at this time.
Anyhow I will shut up (that's usually what my wife tells me to do on these subjects, LOL). Just had to give everyone a view from someone that works in a career field that deals with this and other subjects along these lines, every day.

 

[dansamy]

Welfare reform (for able-bodied individuals) is a whole other ball of wax. There are many social welfare programs that need reform. I'm not saying we don't need fairer tax structures and welfare reform. There's a few ideas bandied about solely to "punish" people for being "lazy". (Regressive tax policies)

 

[Marionnette]

I have been following this post out of interest to see what the overall consensus was. I have to just add my 2 cents for what it's worth; some of you may think not much but here goes. I work for gov't in a public welfare office. I see this from that level. There is a tremendous amt. of confusion and unknown even now with the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, ACA. Most people that I see think all they have to do is just come on down, fill out an application and bingo they have health care. The people that I deal with on a day to day basis don't consider, and don't care, who's paying; they just want "their goodies." I know this is health care, not cash assistance. Still feels the same though, when you consider those on here that are saying that they would pay more or are not eligible. Why would many be paying more? To cover those who don't have it. Most use the ER as a doctor's office, even if they have a doctor. Most of my clients have been on benefits most of their lives and again don't care about anything but when the next check or food stamp payment is coming. If it isn't there, "where the heck" (and no that's not the word they use) "is it?!" We had 2 days of training to cover this huge piece of legislation. We had to "pass this law to see what's in it." We are getting what you could call "on the job training." I do think there are EXCELLENT parts of this health care law, i.e. allowing kids on parent's insurance to age 26, covering those w/ pre-existing conditions. And I am honestly trying to stay neutral, maintain an open mind, to and for this act, but seeing and hearing what I am hearing each and every day, it's hard. I am not sure this country can afford this at this time. Anyhow I will shut up (that's usually what my wife tells me to do on these subjects, LOL). Just had to give everyone a view from someone that works in a career field that deals with this and other subjects along these lines, every day.

The problem, as I see it, is that the exchanges rely on people like myself to pay more for our coverage in order to subsidize those who cannot afford to pay for theirs. The flaw with this logic is that I can obtain better coverage for less money on the private market. So while it is a great benefit for low income families, it isn't sustainable without those who have more income settling for less bang for their bucks. I refuse to sacrifice my own family's healthcare coverage in order to provide for someone else's.