General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsScrew the ACA
#1. It's not health care, it's insurance
#2. It's expensive
#3. Last year I qualified under Federal guidelines for Medicaid, but my State didn't expand so I couldn't receive it and went uninsured
#4. I probably will go uninsured for 2015, last week I viewed plans and the cheapest would cost me $3600 for the premium plus another $3000 deductible, so $6600 I give the insurance company before it pays for anything, that's about 25% of my gross income and about 40% of my net income.
#5. The ACA website pages aren't loading.
I don't want insurance, I want health care. I want what my 84 year old mom has, Medicare. I want a one payer system for everyone under 65. You shouldn't have to qualify for health care based on income, age, sex and pre-existing conditions. I have seen a few plans out there asking the question(s) about health issues.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Screw 'em?
You want single payer health care?
Good luck getting that through the next Congress. Maybe the Republicans will have a change of heart.
tooeyeten
(1,074 posts)Republicans have a change of heart? First they must have one, they don't.
Daemonaquila
(1,712 posts)Oh, sure - they can get a plan. But if the only plan they can afford is one with such high deductibles that they might as well be paying out of pocket, it does them no good at all. This is the reality in my state, and many other where there was no medicaid expansion. People are staying uninsured and relying on charity clinics just like they were before because they can't afford to pay out of pocket for medical care, and they sure as hell can't afford to pay out of pocket for medical care to meet an astronomical deductible AND pay premiums (even subsidized) for the privilege on top of that.
Wella
(1,827 posts)And still do.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Single payer was never a possibility.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)The ACA is something. Something is more than nothing, which is what we had before. But "something" does not mean the same thing as "enough."
If it's enough for you, hey fine, squat there and enjoy it. Just do me a favor and stop striving to get i nthe way of people who want something better to come from it, kay?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Sadly, as good as we are going to have for at least a decade, on a national level.
Real action is on the state level for improvements.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)When the new Congress is sworn in, let's make them make it better.
Let me know if you need Boehner and McConnell's email addresses. Surely they will strive to better the ACA....
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)we want America to graduate from High School at least, if not college. We cannot stop, however, ACA was seventh grade. As much as we would love to skip seventh grade, it is prgressto wards the goal.
Key words, towards the GOAL, not a ogal in and of itself, as no one wants our kids to graudaate with a 7th grade education.
Wella
(1,827 posts)It was a big wet kiss to the insurance industry. Period.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Blatant. Not a differing opinion. A lie.
Millions were covered under the Medicaid expansion.
http://kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/how-is-the-aca-impacting-medicaid-enrollment/
That fact alone makes your idiotic claim a Palin-level lie.
Please do not lie.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 17, 2014, 08:47 PM - Edit history (1)
[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]On Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:50 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
That is a blatant lie on your part.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5827968
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
I think we can discuss this without using personal attacks.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:59 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I think we can discuss this without using personal attacks.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: sometimes lies need to be exposed for what they are
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The poster is attacking the claim, not the person.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Edit:
[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]For the record, I was juror # 6[/font]
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Juror #5 summed it up nicely.
Wella
(1,827 posts)I am very aware of what the ACA was and wasn't.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
Cha
(297,123 posts)Cha
(297,123 posts)Cha
(297,123 posts)getting Health Insurance for the first time thanks to Obamacare.
And, there's No Denying Insurance for Pre-Existing Conditions.. no matter how many times the poster invokes a stupid "wet kiss".
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)Wanna tell us what republican governed state do you live in?
In my state over 600,000 now have expanded medicaid health insurance because of the ACA.
You sit there and spew bullshit about the ACA. What action did you take before the ACA became law.
What kind of choices did you have then? People like you make me ill... The ACA is a first small step in fixing a horrible situation but it is certainly better than anything that was available before Obamacare.. Because Republicans have backed For Profit Health Insurance Companies in a huge way for decades.. Perhaps you should vent your anger at them rather than going after a first step solution..
still_one
(92,122 posts)progressives or Democrats for that matter
While it may be his state legislatures fault, and the Supreme Court for allowing states to skip out of the Medicaid expansion, saying it is his fault is way out of line
If he didn't vote you might have a point, but we do not know that
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 17, 2014, 12:42 PM - Edit history (1)
just broke his promise to expand Medicaid unilaterally for 400,0000. Only 25,000 will be eligible. Of course, his promise was hugely publicized, but the reversal was quietly on the back pages.
Lots of Third Way Kabuki in Virginia. Lots of lies. DUers have been following and posting about his lies and betrayals for a long time.
Virginia was never going to get real Medicaid expansion with this DLC corporate snake in office. Those of us who have followed McAuliffe's career from the time he was the head of the DLC predicted exactly what he would do when he got into office. I said on the night he was elected that he would break his promises and the major expansion would never materialize. And I was right.
His campaign and term *began* with a bald-faced lie. He campaigned on very specific promises including pushing the expansion by writing it into his own budget. As soon as he got into office, he changed his mind and decided that a letter to Republicans, with a plea for them to work with him on legislation instead, would suffice. Yes, he lied.
And it has been Third Way Kabuki ever since:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/08/terry-mcauliffe-virginia-medicaid_n_5785640.html
Terry McAuliffe: 'If It's The Last Thing I Do,' I'm Going To Fight For Medicaid Expansion
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/15/terry-mcauliffe-virginia-medicaid-expansion_n_4971132.html
Regardless, Beverly, who said she's good at reading people, said she had her doubts about McAuliffe's pledge.
"Right now I'm reading that it's just a big show," she said.
Terry McAuliffe is a Third Way liar
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4184956
Yes, Terry McAuliffe has a sleazy as hell financial history.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023826799
Terry McAuliffe to VA GLBT: FU!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/04/1282164/-Terry-McAuliffe-to-VA-LGBT-F-U
Terry McAuliffe reappoints Mr. VA Mandatory Transvaginal Ultrasound
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024184917
With contrived nastiness perfectly typical of the Third Way messaging tactics on this board, you wrote, "People like you make me ill."
Well, what makes all of us ill is the trading away of people's futures and of democracy itself by corporate vipers who have purchased their way into the government of this nation.
The slimy use of propaganda-based manipulation of those they are exploiting is just the cherry on top.
A while back I would have mocked the talking points you are repeating here for "inadvertently" exposing the Third Way's contempt for Americans rather than defending the Third Way....but I now believe that the relentless campaign by corporate Democrats to insult and alienate the base and depress turnout for Democrats is wholly deliberate:We misunderstand corporate politicians when we assume winning is always their goal.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5824859
Bandit
(21,475 posts)I doubt he ever said he would expand Medicare. Medicare is for people over 65 years old. It is entirely Federal and no state Governor can expand it.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)No, not confused. Just very tired of Third Way lies.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)without the federl ACA mandate, how many insurance companies would permit kids to stay on their parents insurance until age 26? How many would die without insurance because of a preexisting condition? You don't consider those safety nets?
wow.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Before it, you were covered if you were very poor by Medicaid, or doing very well by health insurance if you could afford it.
Now if you make too much for Medicaid, but not enough to buy a policy or only a very high deductible, you can via the subsidies be taken care of as well as the rich or middle class and the very poor. At least in blue states that want it to work.
obxhead
(8,434 posts)Over 50 employees and your stuck with whatever shit insurance they offer, or paying the full premium on the exchange.
treestar
(82,383 posts)that's improvement, since then it's not tied to the job.
And not every employer has shitty coverage. We don't have to assume that. Most don't, or people would support the ACA a lot more.
Most people have good enough coverage through work that the ACA doesn't affect them, so they can "disapprove" of it easily.
TheKentuckian
(25,023 posts)at all cannot when they make the same because that is exactly what you declared.
treestar
(82,383 posts)adopted in the law, which they base on studies, just like they have studies for child support, etc. They determined if you could "afford it." A lot of people won't agree with that number because they want to spend money on other things. In a single payer system, they'd complain about the taxes, too.
It's a big benefit to untie health insurance from employment. Then people have more freedom to change jobs. COBRA is very expensive. And the option of self employment will be increased.
obxhead
(8,434 posts)Sadly, I can barely afford it, much less the full non subsidised better plans from the exchange.
Additionally using that shit insurance is nearly impossible with current finances.
Sure the aca has helped people, but not nearly enough of us and not nearly enough. It has tremendously helped the profits of the insurance giants though, but they wrote the damn thing for the most part.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And that employer's insurance was "shitty" before the ACA. If you really aren't allowed to use the ACA if your employer has insurance for you, blame the people so afraid of "change" that they couldn't stomach having to buy it on their own - they wanted things to stay the same. They felt safe against losing their job apparently. But at least if they do lose their job, they can go to the ACA rather than have to pay for the shitty plan via COBRA or go uncovered.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...and subsidizes these For Profit private vendors with BILLIONS from the Public Treasury
is NOT part of a Social Safety Net.
A National Non-Profit Public Option (or Medicare for All) would be part of a Social Safety net.
See the difference?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)30% of Medicare beneficiaries choose private insurance plans called Medicare Advantage. Most of the rest have some kind of supplement, again private insurance. Medicare for all would still be expensive, even if we get rid of insurance companies.
Insurance companies are a just part of the problem - until providers and consumers change, this stuff ain't gonna get much better. If you cut insurers out completely, you wouldn't save enough to cheer.
I do agree there are advantages to having just one payer to deal with, but it will take time to see the results.
Cha
(297,123 posts)They're not the only ones..
Sen. Bernie Sanders explained on MSNBC that Republicans are very nervous about the success of Obamacare, because the ACA proves their ideology that the government can’t help people wrong.
MOre
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/11/17/bernie-sanders-republicans-nervous-obamacare.html
Senator Sanders believes Obamacare/ACA is actually helping people.. oooops.
bravenak
(34,648 posts) geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)state's failure to expand Medicaid.
Note that Medicaid wasn't expanded everywhere because the Supreme Court rewrote the statute.
But hey, screw those people it is helping, right?
Wella
(1,827 posts)How scummy can you get?
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Millions of people are being helped by the ACA and you'd soon throw those people under the bus because your state didn't expand Medicaid. That's the definition of scummy. Hey, bud, instead of saying 'screw the ACA', how about focusing on the Supreme Court and your local government - who are the reason you don't qualify for Medicaid (it's not the ACA's fault).
mrmpa
(4,033 posts)the ACA is not affordable and it's not health care.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)If it's the latter, then you should qualify for a subsidy if not Medicaid.
Also, what is included in your deductible.
mrmpa
(4,033 posts)that's the cost after the subsidy.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)According to your numbers your tax rate is 38%. (25 % of gross and 40% of net means a tax rate of 37.5% )
How are you paying such a high tax rate on income of around $25K?
mrmpa
(4,033 posts)about 35% to pay state, federal and local taxes.
progressoid
(49,976 posts)And any insurance plan for that matter.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)My wife is an example. She makes too much to qualify for subsidies, and was uninsurable, so she couldn't change insurers. Before ACA, she paid $1000 per month for health insurance. After ACA she paid less than half that for an equivalent policy. She goes to the same doctors under the new policy.
Now, how did we pay that $1000/month? That ate up most of my Social Security payment. That's how. Now, we can pay her health insurance and our mortgage payment from my SS. It was a big boost for us.
Lex
(34,108 posts)compared to what I was paying for health insurance.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Stop with the broad brush statement. Jesus.
brush
(53,764 posts)The ACA is not what's affordable or not. It's an exchange of insurance plans offered FOR HEALTH CARE. There are differing levels of coverage by different companies. Subsidies are offered, paid for by the federal government, on many of the plans that make them quite AFFORDABLE.
The ACA also provides for expansion of Medicaid (actually a form of single-payer) for those with lower incomes in states where the state government accepts it (many red state governors stiffed their own citizens and didn't accept it in hopes that the ACA and Obama would fail).
Perhaps you're in one of those red states that have governors and state legislatures that would rather screw their on citizens than help them through supporting the Medicaid expansion provide for with the ACA.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the ACA didn't expand the social safety net.
You know, because that Medicaid thing is totally not part of the safety net.
Cha
(297,123 posts)Poor People. 
still_one
(92,122 posts)states were not obligated to expand Medicaid which is what caused the problem in the first place
Cha
(297,123 posts)Cha
(297,123 posts)political feelings.."?! Rofl They don't know geek very well.. he'll tell like it is.. no what party it is.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the social safety net.
Those people are probably working for the Koch brothers.
http://kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/how-is-the-aca-impacting-medicaid-enrollment/
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)why wouldn't it be equally scummy not to care about people now covered by the ACA and wish them back to their old situation, because a red state fails to cooperate?
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)Its a beginning and it has given insurance to millions who had no hope of any kind before Obama took action.
You’re not one of them so your attitude is ...It all sucks.. Very Helpful..
still_one
(92,122 posts)Medicaid. A team effort, so to speak, to screw those who need it the most
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Had your state not stood in the way, sounds like you would have full coverage under Medicaid, at very little cost to you.
With that said, I agree with single payer. But, it won't be cheap either.
Hope you find something that works for you, or your state suddenly starts caring about folks in your situation.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Well...why did your state vote for people that denied you Medicaid expansion?
There's the problem....right there.
Look in the mirror.
mrmpa
(4,033 posts)I did not vote for those in this state that did not expand Medicaid That's not the issue, the issue is that the ACA is not about health care, it's about expanding the coffers of insurance companies..
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)fictional characters?
treestar
(82,383 posts)that is a precedent to get more people to agree with it or the idea the government being involved is not a disaster.
Plus you are making this all about you. You live in a red state and so can't be helped so people in blue states shouldn't.
As to insurance companies, so what? In single payer it would be the government, and that's what is still hard to convince the voters in general to do. And then you'd be claiming the big corrupt government was doing it for the corporatists and the banksters, I'll bet. Somehow I'm sure it would never be enough, because it would be brought about by the Democrats.
mrmpa
(4,033 posts)I'm in a blue state
treestar
(82,383 posts)the ACA subsidy will mean you can get a policy with a lower deductible. It's the one area of the safety net where being not poor "enough" doesn't mean you are back to the wolves in the free market.
mrmpa
(4,033 posts)it's not affordable, The deductibles are on the bronze plans. You have to balance the cost of the deductibles with mortgage/rent, food, student loans, transportation, etc. WTF is one supposed to do. The costs of the deductibles need to be removed from these plans, that is what is making this expensive. If I have to pay about $6000 before the insurance pays for anything is this affordable, no it is not.
The cost is after my subsidy.
treestar
(82,383 posts)because the subsidy is what means you can covered whereas before you could not. Before the ACA I had a high deductible. So I paid the premiums plus the cost of going to the doctor. And even had the deductible been met, would've still paid 20%. It also included some type of dental plan where you got a break, and mail in prescriptions for $10 with a small deductible on that.
There was a screening for cancer program in the state that you could qualify if your deductible was some percentage of your income. It covered Mammograms, pap smears and colonoscopies. I guess if they found something, you were on your own with your high deductible, but at least they would find it for you on the state plan. I suppose other blue states may have had such things.
After the ACA I have a low deductible relatively. And a low out of pocket maximum, relatively. I went to the doctor with a small co pay and pay $10 for most prescriptions. I have the dental plan. I pay a bit less than I did for the high deductible non insurance of before. The deductible is such that I don't qualify for the screening plan.
I don't get what blue state would leave you in the same situation you were before.
It's based on federal studies, so unless you think the banksters are behind those, the amounts should be tentatively reasonable and we can assume WTF am I supposed to do is drive a cheaper car or rent a cheaper place, because health care is not something you forego for more expensive versions of those things. If the money you make is low enough to worry about that, the subsidy should make it better, especially in a blue state. It costs more than nothing you might pay by going uninsured, of course. But then you are uninsured and potentially have to declare bankruptcy in the case of a disaster. Or you go without monitoring things that have to be monitored.
brush
(53,764 posts)You make $25K a year and can get a subsidy? You need to go back to the exchange and look again.
Something if off with what you're saying. The ACA was designed for people with income levels like you claim to have to get affordable insurance.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)he doesn't get a subsidy. I don't know, could that be true?
brush
(53,764 posts)He needs to go back to the web site, since he says he's in a blue state, and re-apply. He might have tried it before all the bugs were worked out on the initial roll out.
I understand is working fine in this current enrollment period.
This poster just had a post in the LOUNGE hidden, lol. That's pretty hard to do!
brush
(53,764 posts)The details he/she describe doesn't ring true to me.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)also pay the extra 'self employment tax' on every IRS filing.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)of wage earners?
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)There are large tax deductions one takes for 'business expenses' for self employed. Even the short form method gives a 5k deduction with no need to itemize. I do not pay anywhere near 35% to the IRS.
Not sure if the poster is confused or has a special situation. when I go to the .gov ACA website and input 26k income, there are bronze lvl plans at no/extremely low premium costs. gold plans about 300-400 a month.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)do his or her taxes.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Was surprised to see when President Obama released his tax papers, for his book he used the same exact 'self-employment' IRS form I use! He made his first million off that good book 
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)You were so much better off negotiating with the For Profit Insurance Companies before the ACA.. Correct?
Bullshit..
mrmpa
(4,033 posts)being single, I never paid more than $250 a month for either a PPO or HMO. I had copays, no deductibles and that was over a 36 year period of employment.
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)Join the club sir: Now you have to deal with healthcare companies by your lonesome self who only have one interest.. To make a profit off your health needs.. Are you living in a bubble of some sort?
How come you’re not complaining about that.. The ACA is a very small step..Instead of bitching about it, how about supporting it’s intent... To get the profit motive out of Heathcare for our citizens..
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Because if you did, you wouldn't have assholes taking away your Medicaid expansion. Try harder next time.
treestar
(82,383 posts)
Oh wait, come to think of it, it's because Obama wasn't inspiring enough and didn't get single payer four years ago!
I mean if Obama couldn't get single payer in just two years, then he doesn't deserve the chance to do anything more than the ACA for the rest of his six years in the office! That'll show him!
still_one
(92,122 posts)fault for not "getting out the vote"?
First of all the only real control anyone has is over themselves as far as voting is concerned. No one can force someone to vote, or who to vote for
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)How could you communicate like that with someone who is upset they don't have access to health care and then BLAME them mostly (or even solely based on your statement) for having assholes in their state's legislature?
That is something that right wing assholes do -- blame the victim.
And, people that don't have access to health care because of right-wing asshole conservatives ARE the victim. They can not solely turn their entire state around.
Ridiculous and horrible comment you made. Have some empathy.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Par for the course.
displacedtexan
(15,696 posts)"Filling the coffers of insurance companies" is why republicans have tried 6 ways to Sunday to repeal the ACA.
You seem to have confused your talking points.
progressoid
(49,976 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Start with speaker John Boehner and new Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell.
Maybe they can pass bill to throw out the ACA and get single payer through once and for all. Perhaps they can succeed where the Democrats in Congress failed.
All hail the new Congress.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Medicare is a provider of insurance, not health care.
And I just loaded up healthcare.gov just fine.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)If you're on Medicare, you already know you have to buy a supplemental insurance plan. lol
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)But it is what it is, insurance.
And premium increases would be necessary too. No doubt about it. But there would be no more private health insurance premiums either.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)I have plain medicare and the drug plan(unless that is what you are talking about) but I do not have any of the supplemental plans(med avantage) because most doctors hate it. I pay my copay out of pocket.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)20 percent hospitalization that Medicare does not pay. If you are in the hospital for any length of time, that adds up.
bornskeptic
(1,330 posts)Medicare Advantage plans are a privately provided alternative to traditional Medicare. Supplemental (Medigap) plans provide additional coverage for people enrolled in traditional Medicare. Without a Medigap plan, a traditional Medicare enrollee has no limit on out of pocket expenses. I'm 65, but I'm still on my employer provided plan, in which out of pocket costs are limited to around $4000. I expect to retire and go onto Medicaid in three or four years. When I do, I will consider it absolutely essential to have a guaranteed limit on out of pocket costs, with either a Medicare Advantage plan or a Medigap policy.
mrmpa
(4,033 posts)is in a Medicare Advantage plan that unlike a supplemental is a 0 cost plan. She pays copays only, no deductibles. No copay is more than $35. If she's hospitalized as she was in June, she pays a copay of $300, and the hospital gives a discount of 10 or 15% if she pays the bill within 10 days. lol
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)I have had Medicare A and B for a year now. It is not a requirement to BUY a supplemental plan. Original Medicare satisfies the mandate, so even Part B is not required.
If a person chooses to buy more insurance from a private insurance company, that is their choice, and their choice alone. The Feds do not require it.
Autumn
(45,048 posts)it's a choice, a choice many can not afford. That's fucking irony for you.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)about 3% overhead versus 20%. And that despite only caring for the really old and sick.
LostInAnomie
(14,428 posts)Isn't that like saying "This is $5, not a foot long sandwich from Subway"?
simak
(116 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)and receive $300 worth of treatment, no more, no less, then no, health insurance is not to health care what $5 is to a foot-long sandwich from Subway. Could be better, could be worse, but is definitely not the same.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Last time I looked, HSA's were available on the Exchange.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Maybe I lack understanding, but it seems to me HSAs are savings accounts, not insurance.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Premiums are much much lower if one has an HSA...BUT, and as in my case with private insurance, the first $7000 in medical expenses is all out of pocket. The full cost of a dr visit, the full cost of all prescriptions etc.
I put money each month aside in an HSA account (payroll deduction) and it's tax free. The money is then spent on dr, dentist, Rx etc via a special VISA account it is tied to particula insurance program and the premiums are adjusted because of that HSA. The Feds have limited the items where they HSA funds can be spent and how much can be socked away in an HSA each year. The last 2 years, I have spent much less than 1/2 that $7000 deductable amount. Over the years I have built up a nest egg so the unused portion I get to keep for the one time I may have the full $7000 due because of an accident or catastrophic illness. i figured that will the lower premiums I am ahead of the game. But that is only because I and my family are relatively healthy. HSA would be tough if we had to meet the $7000 every year...hence my previous comment.
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)
America's Health Insurance Plans President and CEO Karen Ignagni
and the New Ambassador to China, Max Baucus
who had single payer advocates arrested at a hearing
Baucus’s Raucous Caucus: Doctors, Nurses and Activists Arrested Again for Protesting Exclusion of Single-Payer Advocates at Senate Hearing on Healthcare
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/13/baucus_raucus_caucus_doctors_nurses_and
Imagine if the Republicans had passed a law that required everyone to buy corporate insurance with no public option
Harry Reid pulls a gruber
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It's not like he had any effect on the possibility of single payer. 
treestar
(82,383 posts)I don't want it gone. I'd have to go back to a huge deductible. And due to the subsidies, I am paying a lot less for a much better deductible. Plus I have dental - in fact it's a little more expensive than the amount I pay for the medical.
It's ideal for self employed people not making a huge amount to pay for the value of the policy (I'm paying about a tenth of what it's worth). And being self employed is supposed to be so entrepreneurial and all-American.
It's for real and it has improved my situation. It's not a pipe dream, as it actually passed and became a law.
Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)With all the money I saved from getting affordable coverage.
elleng
(130,861 posts)minivan2
(214 posts)I'll alert the media, call the army, bring in torpedoes and sound the alarms.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I don't know why this bothers me so much, but it does, really: single payer is also just insurance reform.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Why do you think we advocate single payer?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's why I keep complaining.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)insurance industry profit involved. In the Netherlands, for example, the private insurance industry administers the health care program but the insurance industry is not allowed to profit from this.
Name a single payer system where private insurance companies play a large profitable role.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)gripe. I don't think that would change the OP.
And, I'm not convinced you'd even cut 10% because single payer - like Medicare - does very little to control cost other than cut provider payments.
We need a lot more changes than just eliminating insurance company profits, which is actually an aspect of the ACA.
Maybe you should look at the health care costs of Western European nations compared to those in the US.
A well designed single payer system would control costs. We shouldn't allow the pharmaceutical companies and the health care services industry to rip us off as they are.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)an MRI in every hospital and some doctors' offices.. I bet patients there don't demand the latest drug, even if it not much better than a cheaper alternative. I bet they do a lot of things to make the system efficient that providers and consumers would not accept here.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)What we would accept? Are you kidding? Look what we accept now.
Millions of American have been bankrupted due to medical costs. Hundreds of thousands have died because they were denied care by their insurance company, if they even had insurance. What would we accept........
tridim
(45,358 posts)For the first time in the history of this country.
Slipped your mind?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I am addressing single payer. Single payer completely eliminates corporate profit health care. And that should be the ultimate objective for all of us, including ACA supporters. I have been a vocal supporter of the ACA all along.
tridim
(45,358 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Which, on examination, mean nothing. Maybe they think single payer means no one will pay and doctors will work for free. It almost seems that way.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Single payer could drop the administration cost to 1 or 2 percent, monitors waste and fraud much better, it's debatable if this would be a good idea but it could eliminate deductibles and co-pays, and gets rid of networks and especially out-of-networks.
This is just a start, I could go on with much more. How about eliminating bankruptcy caused by medical expenses, choosing between food and medicine, emergency room costs, etc.
What is intangible but is very important to me is that single payer would end anyone profiting off the ill fortune of people. Also ended, as it has partially, would be discrimination for where you live, how old you are, previous health history, occupation, present health conditions, and yes it would end the death panels within the private insurance industry.
pnwmom
(108,974 posts)And no plan under the ACA can ask you about pre-existing conditions, or charge you more based on your gender. Your payment will only be based on your income and age (unless you are a smoker in which case you'll pay a higher premium.)
Also, you would immediately be able to receive the Essential Benefits, without having paid the deductible.
I agree with you that single-payer would be better, but if you think there's a chance the Rethugs will go along with that, you're wrong.
still_one
(92,122 posts)didn't want to
MoonchildCA
(1,301 posts)and my heart goes out to you. And though, I'm sure, most of us agree here that single-payer is the best option, you need to place the blame where it belongs: the Supreme Court and your governor. Under the ACA, as it was intended, you would have insurance.
My daughter currently has Medical, because of ACA, and I owe my life to it. I got on PCIP (Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan) 2 years ago, before the law was fully enacted, and received a life-saving surgery. My self-employed husband and I have insurance now for the first time in years.
I agree, there are many problems, and because of the republican governors refusing the expanded Medicaid coverage, many, like you, are left out in the cold, but that does not negate the millions, like myself, that it has helped.
It's not that expensive for those that receive it, and though the deductibles and co-pays can be high for some people, they will not financially devastate and bankrupt you like my $300,000 surgery would have us.
Hopefully, this will open the door for single-payer. May Vermont lead the way...
mrmpa
(4,033 posts)bankrupt me
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)with the ACA. Its value is relative depending on geography. It isn't your fault it's unaffordable for you, but some posters here are being awfully smug because they happen to live elsewhere and it is working for them.
This backward country desperately needs uniform single payer health care. The mishmash we have now is an improvement over what we had before, but it is clearly not working for everybody.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)for people like the OP who are being denied equal protection under the law due to the perfidy of their states' legislators and governors.
IANAL so this is purely speculation on my part.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)I think it's not quite correct that you will have all of that money out of pocket before you get any benefit.
I think various office visits will be covered, also certain tests. In fact, isn't basic coverage required under the ACA? The deductibles involve procedures that aren't already mandated, so you should be able to get a certain amount of health care anyway. Oh, and I think vaccinations are covered under the ACA.
And to reinforce what some others have already said, if your state didn't expand Medicaid, your problem is NOT with the ACA but with your state, so please stop blaming the ACA for what your state refuses to do.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)House and to progressive senators like Franken, Warren and Sanders. I'm on Medicare.
We should have had a public option. Thank (sarcasm) Baucus for the fact that we do not.
still_one
(92,122 posts)change anything for him in the next two years. In fact it may get worse for some depending on the supreme court which may take away subsidies for those in states that don't have exchanges.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Offhand, I can't think of one, although you say you live in one that didn't.
still_one
(92,122 posts)ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Although it's gone into the Democratic column for POTUS since 1984, it's been a perennial 'battleground' state. The GOP controls the legislature, re-elected a GOP governor, and 5 of it's 8 U.S. Representatives are Republicans.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)deciding NOT to expand ...... you are trying to imply they are NOT Republican?
grasping, it would seem.
still_one
(92,122 posts)Where did I even say it was republican or Democrat?
I simply indicated a traditionally blue state didn't expand. It was because of the republicans of course, but historically WI was blue especially in the presidential elections, until recently with the idiots in WI not reelecting feingild, and electing walker three frickn times. MI and Iowa have also been considered traditionally blue states, but with the midterm elections something must be in the water there because as of late they are electing right wing crazies
My intention was never to imply what you accused me of. The other responder to my post got what I was saying, and argued that even though WI goes blue in the presidential elections, he would consider it a purple state
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)if Republicans or Democrats were involved in making the decision to expand.
still_one
(92,122 posts)I have changed it the way I meant it
As far as the other point the question related to blue states not expanding Medicaid. I thought of WI as blue, because it had been before walker
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)It's a very deep purple.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)A presidential vote doesn't make a state 'blue', any more than having a tail makes everything with a tail a dog.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)My point is that the way in which a state votes for POTUS is not a reliable indicator of whether or not the state is blue, purple or red.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)
Brigid
(17,621 posts)When I went to a sign-up event and came away with nothing. I had the temerity to say so, and was attacked just like this -- for living in the wrong state or something. If you benefit from ACA, then good for you -- but don't bother cheerleading it to those who don't. At least stop attacking us.
still_one
(92,122 posts)because of his state refusing to expand Medicaid, but that isn't the OPs fault. It is also the fault of the Supreme Court for saying states did not have to expand Medicaid if they want to.
The evil of those state legislatures which refused to expand Medicaid is as bad as they come. The expansion of Medicaid through the ACA actually brings money into the state from the feds, and not expanding Medicaid actually costs those states more money. Adding that to the human toll of actually going out of their way so people can't afford insurance points how totally vile they are.
still_one
(92,122 posts)and the Supreme Court you should be upset with for not being part of the expanded Medicaid program which is part of the ACA. It is because of your state and the supreme court why you are falling into that hole where you have a lot of company.
As an aside, You do know that Medicare Part B costs about 100 dollars a month, and most people under Medicare get a supplemental policy to cover what Part B doesn't, and that costs. The costs are more reasonable if they choose a Medicare Advantage plan, but it still costs.
If your premium exceed 8% of your income for the bronze plan you are exempted from the mandate, but that doesn't get you insurance. When you say 3600, you mean 300 dollars a month, and that is unaffordable based on your figures above.
Based on your situation if you want insurance in your state from your figures above, it looks like you need to earn about 3000 a year more. Because of your state refusing to expand Medicaid the ACA didn't account for that situation, again thanks to the supreme court, and you are left without insurance.
One more quick point, even with the deductibles you mentioned, there are some things that you are covered for and the deductibles do not apply. A yearly physical, vaccinations, and a couple of other things but it really isn't enough.
All the issues you bring up about single-payer, Medicare for all, etc. are what it should be, but because of the blue dog democrats, and all the republicans, the only thing that could be had at the time was the ACA, and frankly after the last election it isn't going to get better, unless your state expands Medicaid. If they do that, you should not need worry about an open enrollment, and you should be able to sign up right away. Unfortunately, Most of the states that refused to expand Medicaid do not look like they will change based on the republican wins that have occurred.
Other than making a little more money to qualify for the subsidy, changing jobs to a company that pays for health insurance, or going to another state which has expanded Medicaid, unfortunately you will be uninsured.
Sorry for your situation. Try to eat properly, exercise, and get plenty of rest so you don't get sick, and hope things change.
One thing you might consider is getting a flu shot. Yes, That will cost you a little, it should NOT cost more than 25 dollars, you can shop around a various drug stores which offer them now.
Good luck, and really sorry for your situation
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)So it's their fault for living in those states. If they don't qualify for ACA they also don't make enough money to move to another state either.
still_one
(92,122 posts)Ironically the states involved by not expanding Medicaid are actually losing money, which only highlights how evil the republicans in those states are. They are hurting their own states finances, and poor, because they cannot stomach that what they consider "the help" was elected TWICE, and just like Romney who keeps doing interviews bashing the president, they have such animosity and hate they won't even help the most needy
I suspect they also call themselves good christians
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)The people who need it are the ones that don't qualify for ACA and need Medicare in its place. So those who's income is more than poverty level and in Florida less than 16k are fucked and by that 50% I mean those states that won't supply Medicaid. Basically a hell of a lot of poor people get left out while we all praise Obama for ACA. That's not right no matter what the excuses are. Calling those people liars for speaking up about it is just third way sociopath psychobabble.
still_one
(92,122 posts)Consequences
I resent that you implied I called the op a liar. That is a lie, or you have a comprehension problem
I agreed with the op, laid out some possible suggestions, but not once did I accuse the op of lying
Read my posts in this group and educate me where I am attacking the OP
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)If not for ACA I wouldn't have that. Sorry you live in a state that is run by "morans". I live in Ca. It works GREAT for me, and I don't pay a dime. I'm not working and I'm 53. I got free dental too. I can now get some help without being a certain age, or have any children. Maybe you should either get out the vote in 2016, or move to a sane state.
still_one
(92,122 posts)state may not be doable
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)Misdirected anger doesn't help!
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)which is fraud and profiteering on the billing end - it's the amounts being charged, not the mechanics of compensation, which is the key issue. NO system can be sustained at these prices, no matter how otherwise perfect or imperfect it may be.
egduj
(805 posts)It's not bad for everyone.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... in providing care, except the low-level workers and primary care physicians.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)#2. It's expensive
#3. Last year I qualified under Federal guidelines for Medicaid, but my State didn't expand so I couldn't receive it and went uninsured
#4. I probably will go uninsured for 2015
Same here. I can't afford any insurance either or the deductibles that come with it. Full time 40 hour a week job, in my 50's, zero health insurance or dental for me my wife and step daughter.
What a fucked up BS total lie America is!
The rich 1% gets it ALL!
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Having to navigate to pick the "best" plan, having to deal with co-payments and deductibles, in-network, out-of-network, etc. and potentially having to change it every year. There is nothing keeping insurance companies from dropping out of the exchanges or jacking up the rates.
There is no way this is a sane system. I have good insurance (an 80/20 plan) I can't actually afford to use because the co-payments are too much. This doesn't even include the amount you might have to pay (the 20%), which is always an unknown quantity until you get the bill. Try to explain this "system" to anyone who has a single payer system (Canada or Britain) or even someone from a country that has strictly regulated insurance (France) and they think we're insane. Because we are.
It is so obvious to me that what we need is to pay for a system like Medicare for all (like Canada). In face we already have deductions from our paychecks for Medicare. Why not just raise that a bit, do away with private insurance altogether? What if we made the system completely transparent? X procedure costs X dollars no matter where you are. The government then pays the bills. You go to the doctor, it's paid for. Done. You don't have to worry about medical bankruptcy or avoiding the doctor because of the copayments. Everyone is in the same risk pool.
Everyone thinks we're insane for advocating this; it's not true, we're insane for keeping the system we have. Insurance companies are nothing but money-grubbing middlemen. They need to go.
And me the bullshit about how it can never happen here. It can and it should.
jpak
(41,757 posts)duh
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5828385
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)duh
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)the ones paying for it with our tax dollars. So, why not?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Autumn
(45,048 posts)Yep, the good old screw you.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... in the wrong direction.
Especially when the thing they attack, is saving millions of people (my niece included) and did nothing to make their situation worse than it was before.
Autumn
(45,048 posts)help is pointing the finger of blame ... How do you know that a fellow DUers situation ISN'T worse than what it was before? You don't and your remark was cruel, made even more cruel because no one here knows about your niece and no one has ever said "screw" your niece.
Bettie
(16,089 posts)I'd prefer single payer.
However, there are a few really good things in there too.
Being able to keep kids on insurance longer is one.
So, is the preexisting conditions bit.
Medicare expansion is really good, as long as you don't live in a state where the governor decided to screw over the poor.
I look at these pieces as a step forward. I hate the giveaway to the insurance companies but I have to give credit for the good too.
I'm sorry you are having such a hard time finding decent coverage for a reasonable price. My mother is in the same spot right now, she's simply hoping she doesn't get sick for another two years when she can get Medicare.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)I'm sure there may even be some accusations of hating Obama in this thread - possibly with the caveat of racism thrown in.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Might be another 600 post thread in the making.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Another huge thread of pros.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)It was a huge disappointment for those who believed the 2008 campaign, and it contributed mightily to the party's thrashing in 2010. I am happy for the relative handful who can now get something, but it is pretty bad for those of us who are footing the bill for the record insurance profits. Unfortunately I don't think the DC Dems ever had any intention of SP or even a PO. Part of the quid pro quo for the 2008 election was handing the 3 trillion dollar healthcare pie to profiteers, middlemen, and 1%ers.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Almost as though there was an emergency damage control meeting....
Meanwhile, the looting escalates...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025517310
Aetna Health Insurance will double Revenues to $100 billion by 2020 thanks to Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014670789
ObamaCare Enriches The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/10/01/obamacare-enriches-only-the-health-insurance-giants-and-their-shareholders/
So far in 2013 the value of the S& P health insurance index has gained 43%. Thats more than double the gains made in the broad stock market index, the S & P 500. The shares of CIGNA are up 63%, Wellpoint 47% and United Healthcare 28%.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)has been thoroughly laid out in two very recent previous threads. Nothing in this thread is putting effective lipstick on that corporate pig.
It's the MO of the Third Way to come back after a topic has devastated them and throw out all their disingenuous talking points in a new thread, again and again, until people are just tired of debunking their garbage.
The OP is over in the lounge talking about being "banged up" here. The only "banging" I see is of stale Third Way talking points that keep needing to be repeated in a new thread, because they've been thoroughly destroyed in previous ones...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025517310
Aetna Health Insurance will double Revenues to $100 billion by 2020 thanks to Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014670789
ObamaCare Enriches The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/10/01/obamacare-enriches-only-the-health-insurance-giants-and-their-shareholders/
So far in 2013 the value of the S& P health insurance index has gained 43%. Thats more than double the gains made in the broad stock market index, the S & P 500. The shares of CIGNA are up 63%, Wellpoint 47% and United Healthcare 28%.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Of course they accuse those who can't use ACA as being liars. That's about as pathetic as is gets.
I sit here in Florida with my permanently disabled wife on SSDI and I do not qualify for ACA and there's no Medicaid expansion here ....so according to the third way trolls it's our fault for living in Florida.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)after former DLC head Terry McAuliffe lied through his campaign about putting an expansion for 400,000 in his budget but then changed his mind.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1018&pid=690713
moriah
(8,311 posts)If they make $25,000 a year, they're eligible for a lot of help.
It looks like they're in Pennsylvania, which has a great Silver plan with a much cheaper deductible and copays for doctors visits so they may never have to touch the deductible, even for a 55 year old (and I have no idea what their age is)
The only explanation is if they keyed in something wrong, like saying they weren't going to file a tax return so they weren't eligible for a subsidy, or if they are a smoker.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 17, 2014, 08:24 PM - Edit history (1)
2015.
She posted the letter yet was still labeled a liar, fraud, hater.
Pathetic.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)It was her fault for being poor, disabled, and a widow. How dare she not be able to afford to receive care, she is too poor to pay the protection racket on purpose because ODS!
Luckily, the truly compassionate voices of the Heritage foundation arrived to care for what was truly important and defended their protection scheme's reputation from her with extreme prejudice and smote her most justly for her evil acts of health care need.
I wonder how many of them know they are working for a right wing think tank defending a right wing scheme designed specifically to monetize suffering?
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)moriah
(8,311 posts)I want to see the "family glitch" fixed. Desperately. That would open the ACA to so many middle-class folks who are currently struggling to pay for overpriced insurance through their companies.
But for my situation, as a disabled person not yet eligible for Medicare, it's allowed me to get maintenance treatment for my problems and not end up in the hospital again. Had been hospitalized four times in a year and a half prior to the ACA.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)I make 15k a yr and the wife is on SSDI.
moriah
(8,311 posts)Not Medicaid, but subsidized premiums.
I plugged in 15k plus what I get on SSDI, which is actually high for most, for two people at age 40 in Florida. (For just you, by yourself, it'd be even cheaper, if she has been on SSDI long enough to get Medicare.)
Based on the information you provided, your income is equal to 228% of the poverty level. This means you are likely eligible for financial help through the Health Insurance Marketplace. An estimate of your cost for coverage and amount of financial help in 2015 are provided below. To find out your actual amount of financial help and to get coverage, you must go to Healthcare.gov or your state’s Health Insurance Marketplace.
Estimated financial help: $457 per month ($5,488 per year)
as a premium tax credit. This covers 68% of the monthly costs. Your cost for a silver plan: $219 per month ($2,624 per year)
in premiums (which equals 7.32% of your household income). The most you have to pay for a silver plan: 7.32% of income for the second-lowest cost silver plan Without financial help, your silver plan would cost: $676 per month ($8,112 per year)
----
Now, you'll have to file a tax return, jointly, if you want to get coverage for both of you. Her income won't be taxable, but must be stated to get the premium tax credit.
But that's less than $110 per person per month for a Silver plan. It looks like Florida has really sucky Silver plans, though. I'd probably go for this one: UnitedHealthcare · United Healthcare Silver Compass 4000 -- while it has a $4000 deductible, your medications and doctors visits would be covered by copays, so you shouldn't have to touch your deductible except for lab work or emergency room visits. It'd be a little more than $219, it'd be $226 a month for the both of you (or $29 for just you from what I can see).
Of course, this is just me throwing things into the computer and seeing what comes up. If I were you, I would go work with a Navigator, either in-person or through the Helpline. If your wife already has Medicare, you might be able to enroll just on your income by yourself.
If that's still unaffordable, I'm very sorry, and I want the ACA to be improved to do more.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)yearly deductible would take me just 2k above poverty level. Right now by paying cash I get Medicare rates. Just got an MRI for $150, a CT scan for $388 and a ultra sound for $288. It's cheaper to pay cash unless its catastrophic. Now if I could get just catastrophic coverage only for $29 and no deductible I'd go for it.
moriah
(8,311 posts)That, and the fact that Arkansas Blue Cross, with the cost-sharing benefits for a Silver plan, gives me only a $500 deductible and a $1200 max out-of-pocket for $97 a month for 2015.
Still, trying to scrounge up $500 on SSDI, even though I draw more than your wife, is difficult. The fact that the only thing I had to have this year outside of copays on doctor's visits and medication was a blood draw to check my lithium levels, and since I'm at max out-of-pocket already, if I have another this year it'll be free.
But I see a therapist twice a month, a shrink once a month (so specialist copay), get about $200 of medications a month, then have to see my PCP every 3 months..... and my lung doctor every 6 months..... I hit out-of-pocket quickly.
moriah
(8,311 posts)The only "plan" that I've seen that asks about health issues, other than smoking, is my state's Private Option. If you have too complicated of a medical history, it routes you to straight Medicaid, if you have less issues it routes you to getting a Marketplace plan with zero premiums, deductibles, or copays.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Like me: the ACA IS THE ONLY REASON I AM EMPLOYED. Because of preexisting conditions, I was uninsurable prior to the ACA.
So you want to screw me out of my health care? Because of your individual experience? FFS. Broaden your horizons and see the lives of other people that are different than your own.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)input your zipcode & how much you make per year and show the page with $3600 in premium payments.
moriah
(8,311 posts).... of the doubt, I qualified for a plan this year that had a $500 deductible, $1200 max out of pocket, 1164 yearly premium.
I draw benefits that are the equivalent of making $10 an hour.
If you were Medicaid-eligible last year, you must have a nice job this year to be bitching about Exchange coverage being that high.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)The accusations that you are "lying" are, of course, way over the top, but I see those who accuse so readily are the same posters who spew their own little hatreds, every day, on this one wonderful forum ...
The fact that some people are getting insurance now under this pittance of a medical plan apparently wipes away any concern for costs borne by those on limited incomes, like your self ....
Those DUers who condemn you here? ... mean mean ass people ... it's not going to get any better here ... the mean ass people are not going away ...
Indeed ....good luck ...
moriah
(8,311 posts)If they're making $24000 a year, which is what 6000 times 4 would be (they stated that $6000 was about 25% of their net income), the Kaiser Family website says the following (and I went ahead and rounded up, to 25000, and suggested they lived in Florida, a non-Medicad Expansion state where premiums went up quite a bit from last year):
Based on the information you provided, your income is equal to 214% of the poverty level. This means you are likely eligible for financial help through the Health Insurance Marketplace. An estimate of your cost for coverage and amount of financial help in 2015 are provided below. To find out your actual amount of financial help and to get coverage, you must go to Healthcare.gov or your state’s Health Insurance Marketplace.
Estimated financial help: $106 per month ($1,276 per year) as a premium tax credit. This covers 43% of the monthly costs.
Your cost for a silver plan: $143 per month ($1,710 per year) in premiums (which equals 6.84% of your household income). The most you have to pay for a silver plan: 6.84% of income for the second-lowest cost silver plan Without financial help, your silver plan would cost: $249 per month ($2,986 per year)
-----
Now, if the OP wants to detail their situation further, like including their age and state, maybe someone could help them find the best plan for them. But with a Silver plan and cost-sharing benefits, which they would get, I can't see how what they are posting is accurate, unless they did one of two things: Checked that they were a smoker, or checked that they would not be filing a tax return.
----
Edit: Since it seems likely the OP is in Pennsylvania, I checked what it'd be for a 55 year old non-smoker in Lebanon County, PA.
Their plan would run $129 a month for a $1500 deductible, $4500 max out of pocket PPO plan through a "Community Blue" plan, with $40 PCP visit, $60 specialist visit, and cheaper drug copays than I have.
mrmpa
(4,033 posts)very much. I've tried to answer a few, but they don't get it. Yes, yes it comes down to limited income. The ACA even with subsidies is not affordable for all, it wasn't last year, when I couldn't get a subsidy nor any type of insurance. It is not this year based on my limited income, which is needed for housing, food and bills. There is not enough left for me to put aside $6000 for health care costs.
It is not right nor fair that the bronze plans are not even affordable & have high deductibles.
moriah
(8,311 posts).... a smoker (unless you are, and if so, well, that's the problem, maybe you should quit like I did), or that you're not going to file a tax return (which eliminates your ability to get a subsidy).
I see a Silver plan for $129 a month for a 55-year-old in Lebanon County, PA (just took a random PA zip code) with a $1500 deductible and copays that would make it where you never had to touch the deductible. That'd be a $1548 premium a year, as compared to $3000, and would have a deductible you never had to touch except for lab work or hospitalizations.
Please, before you think that the ACA is unaffordable, make sure that you're looking at the correct information. If you want to PM me with your info so I can look it up for you, please feel free.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Martin Eden
(12,863 posts)... does not make health insurance affordable to everyone, and it falls far short of universal health care (which all advanced societies should have). But the ACA is a definite improvement over the previous status quo. It is saving lives and helping millions of Americans.
Let's remember that going forward we are not limited to either repealing the ACA (going back to the status quo) or keeping it unchanged and unimproved.
Ultimately the ACA may prove an inadequate platform to achieve universal affordable care. The main thing is for the American people to stay engaged to achieve that goal, and real progress requires putting real progressives in office to represent the interests of the 99%.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)siphoning of wealth upward.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I want to put a stop to these idiotic arguments that ACA is insurance, not health care. Medicare and Medicaid aren't health care either. They're insurance. If you want to talk about the difference in public and private insurance, fine. But don't pretend that Medicare is health care. It's not. It's an insurance policy through the government. If you want health care, you have to go find a doctor or hospital.
The only "health care" system the government offers is the VA system. Very few countries in the world offer government "health care" (meaning the doctors are all employed by the state, and the hospitals are state-run).
mrmpa
(4,033 posts)is an insurance policy, but it guarantees her health care at reasonable costs. The ACA does not guarantee health care a reasonable cost.
moriah
(8,311 posts)It looks like you're in Pennsylvania, and I see a much cheaper Silver plan you're eligible for, with a much lower deductible and copays so you may not even touch the deductible.
mrmpa
(4,033 posts)and I'm single so I pay a high rate and that leads me to be a smoker.
moriah
(8,311 posts)If you accidentally clicked that button enrolling, it shows premiums without a subsidy.
I think it's the being a smoker that's eating your costs, hon.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)You will have to purchase a supplemental private insurance plan to cover what Medicare does not. And don't forget, people pay into the Medicare system for about 45 years of their adult lives (not that this is "your" personal money to recoup: it's money you pay into the system that pays for the health care of current Medicare users). You've paid tens of thousands of dollars into the system by the time you need to use that system. Also, not all drugs are covered, and some of these can be quite expensive.
I can't wait to get Medicare either (though I happen to have great employer-based insurance right now). But I realize it's not perfect.
mrmpa
(4,033 posts)been paying since I was 16
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)state to do so? The ACA would have required that your state expand Medicaid.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)what a bullshit post.
and fwiw, I have a decent job with an HSA, no Obamacare possible here. My out of pocket is $7500 before ANYTHING kicks in, co-pays etc...the whole crappinola comes out of my pocket....this is before any premiums. So cry me a river ok?
I get what you want, but fucking over ACA doesn't get anyone 'there'. Perhpas reading up a little on how Medicare and Social Security was implemented piecemeal and over the long term, may get you some adult perspective.
pa28
(6,145 posts)And guess what? They did!
If the bill had contained the promised (and necessary) public option I sincerely doubt you would be having this problem now.
As for me, while I watch my own costs go up and coverage go down I can't help wondering why I'm supposed to love the ACA so much. I'm sure millions of others around the country share your sense of frustration with this law.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)and the ten million people who now have insurance (and therefore easier access to health care) thanks to Obamacare don't matter at all.
I guess everyone in a state that did expand Medicaid should suffer because yours didn't.
Maybe you should consider moving to a less red state.