Healthcare Quote

• rydawg5

  I am covered through my employer at $293/month - familiy plan, 70% co-pay, $1,500 deductible.
  
  Finally got my Obama Quote:
  
  
  
  
  but wait! If you act now, the price is dropped to 3 easy payments of $39.95! lol!!!
  
  WOW
• believer

  

  rydawg5;1514105 wrote:I am covered through my employer at $293/month - familiy plan, 70% co-pay, $1,500 deductible.
  
  Finally got my Obama Quote:
  
  
  
  
  but wait! If you act now, the price is dropped to 3 easy payments of $39.95! lol!!!
  
  WOW

  Sounds affordable to me.
• gut

  ccrunner609;1514119 wrote:why are people surprised? This law will be repealed within a year

  Maybe that's why Dems don't want to delay it...that way they can all run on replacing it with single payer.
  
  Can't be a wedge issue if the Dems all agree it sucks/fails, too.
• gut

  rydawg5;1514105 wrote:I am covered through my employer at $293/month - familiy plan, 70% co-pay, $1,500 deductible.

  While those options do seem high, the bronze/silver seem a little out of whack vs. the gold when you factor in the deductible.
  
  But are you sure you plan is the full cost of $293 a month? Or is that just YOUR subsidized cost (meaning your employer is picking up part of the tab)?
• believer

  

  gut;1514172 wrote:But are you sure you plan is the full cost of $293 a month? Or is that just YOUR subsidized cost (meaning your employer is picking up part of the tab)?

  You're probably right. Generally employer plans pick up at least 50% of the monthly premium which would make his actual monthly premium close to $600.
  
  I used to think my employer plan sucked until I saw the chart above. I guess by Obamakare standards I have a Platinum Plus plan. :RpS_blink:
  
  Does anyone doubt that the ultimate goal of Obamakare is single payer?
• cruiser_96

  

  What is so hard about FREE health care!?!?!?!?!?!?! It's FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• LJ

  

  gut;1514172 wrote:While those options do seem high, the bronze/silver seem a little out of whack vs. the gold when you factor in the deductible.
  
  But are you sure you plan is the full cost of $293 a month? Or is that just YOUR subsidized cost (meaning your employer is picking up part of the tab)?

  Yeah most people don't understand that their employer is picking up a large chunk of the plan cost. You can request a breakdown through HR that will show what the employer pays vs what you pay. A lot of the larger companies, the employer is picking up over 75% of the cost. The giant employers also have such a large pool, that basically they can get together with insurance companies and craft policies based on what they want to pay.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  LJ;1514215 wrote:Yeah most people don't understand that their employer is picking up a large chunk of the plan cost. You can request a breakdown through HR that will show what the employer pays vs what you pay. A lot of the larger companies, the employer is picking up over 75% of the cost. The giant employers also have such a large pool, that basically they can get together with insurance companies and craft policies based on what they want to pay.

  This. As a public employee, we have a very large consortium, that serves a ton of schools in our area. I laugh when fellow employees bitch about having to pay $30ish/month for a "single" plan, stating they want the school to pay for it fully. One of the things that makes me despise union mentality.
• sleeper

  

  "Affordable" Care Act LOL
• QuakerOats

  Just one of the many lies used by obama to force this disaster upon us.
  
  Along with these whoppers:
  
  
  "Premiums will go down $2,500": LIE
  
  "You can keep your current plan": LIE
  
  "ACA will not add to the deficits": LIE
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• dlazz

  sMH OSAMA IN THE WHIT EHOUSE RUNNING THIS PLACE INTO THE GROUND SOON HE WILL TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS MOFO
• Devils Advocate

  

  
• QuakerOats

  http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacares-winners-and-losers-bay-area
  
  "I was laughing at Boehner -- until the mail came today,"
  
  Waschura said, referring to House Speaker John Boehner, who is leading the Republican charge to defund Obamacare. "I really don't like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family's pocket each year, that's otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy."
  
  
  
  obamaKare: nothing more than redistribution of wealth, with the side 'benefit' of ruining the best health care in the world.
  
  
  Change we can believe in ....
• I Wear Pants

  believer;1514180 wrote:You're probably right. Generally employer plans pick up at least 50% of the monthly premium which would make his actual monthly premium close to $600.
  
  I used to think my employer plan sucked until I saw the chart above. I guess by Obamakare standards I have a Platinum Plus plan. :RpS_blink:
  
  Does anyone doubt that the ultimate goal of Obamakare is single payer?

  I doubt that. I think the goal of ACA was to have some sort of coverage for the people who don't have it. I don't understand why Conservatives are upset about making people who otherwise would just go to the ER and have taxpayers pick up the tab select from a group of private insurance plans so they pay for their healthcare rather than taxpayers. I'm confused as to the mouth-foaming anger that's had at a market based solution.
  
  I would very much prefer a single payer plan because I disagree that healthcare is a normal good wherein people are able to make rational decisions about what hospital to go to, what doctor to use, what procedures, and what medicines. When you're dying or sick you just do whatever the doctors say and that's reasonable because I can't intelligently choose the course of action for a heart condition right now let alone if I was having one. But that means that it isn't like my box of mashed potatoes where I can way the options as far as brands or sizes or flavors or maybe I want to buy potatoes and make my own, and what store do I want to go to, etc. It's not a normal good.
  

  QuakerOats;1514303 wrote:Just one of the many lies used by obama to force this disaster upon us.
  
  Along with these whoppers:
  
  
  "Premiums will go down $2,500": LIE
  
  "You can keep your current plan": LIE
  
  "ACA will not add to the deficits": LIE
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Um, you definitely can keep your current plan.
  
  
  As for OP's post. This isn't surprising really, ACA is mostly about getting people who do not have insurance through their employers or don't have insurance at all a better way to purchase plans and at costs that aren't insane. Not about changing people who have insurance through their jobs to different plans. Some will probably do that but that wasn't even close to a focal point of the bill.
• QuakerOats

  You cannot keep your current plan if your employer decides, because of obamaKare, to either change or eliminate your current plan. And, if you have an individual policy, you may no longer be able to keep it because it has now become unaffordable due to the addition of certain minimum level benefits that you do not need nor want.
  
  Lastly, these exchanges are not really 'market-based', thus the bashing of them, and the concept in general, is not bad mouthing free markets. We have posted untold numbers of links discrediting the notion that these are true markets.
  
  Not sure where you have been lately.
• gut

  Actually, you can only keep you current plan if it is already conforming, otherwise your current plan has to change to become qualified.
  So forget about insurance policies tailored specifically to you and your family, you will have one of the "12 sizes fits all" Obamakare coverages.
• rydawg5

  I Wear Pants;1514871 wrote:I doubt that. I think the goal of ACA was to have some sort of coverage for the people who don't have it. I don't understand why Conservatives are upset about making people who otherwise would just go to the ER and have taxpayers pick up the tab select from a group of private insurance plans so they pay for their healthcare rather than taxpayers. I'm confused as to the mouth-foaming anger that's had at a market based solution.
  
  I would very much prefer a single payer plan because I disagree that healthcare is a normal good wherein people are able to make rational decisions about what hospital to go to, what doctor to use, what procedures, and what medicines. When you're dying or sick you just do whatever the doctors say and that's reasonable because I can't intelligently choose the course of action for a heart condition right now let alone if I was having one. But that means that it isn't like my box of mashed potatoes where I can way the options as far as brands or sizes or flavors or maybe I want to buy potatoes and make my own, and what store do I want to go to, etc. It's not a normal good.
  
  
  Um, you definitely can keep your current plan.
  
  
  As for OP's post. This isn't surprising really, ACA is mostly about getting people who do not have insurance through their employers or don't have insurance at all a better way to purchase plans and at costs that aren't insane. Not about changing people who have insurance through their jobs to different plans. Some will probably do that but that wasn't even close to a focal point of the bill.

  
  A couple years ago I didn't have insurance. The insurance plans I found online before Obamacare rivaled in price what I currently have. They'd be like $330/month with 3,500 deductible.
  
  Now that Obamacare has taken over, it appears like $800/month plans with 5k deductibles will be the norm OR pay that x% of their income tax penalty.
  
  I think the intention of Obamacare is to bitch-slap the middle class with a plan they can't afford knowing they will pay the tax which will be x% of their income. What better way to get 5-6k more out of the middle class than to give them a false choice of a $9,000 year health coverage or a $5,000 opt out
• gut

  rydawg5;1515101 wrote: I think the intention of Obamacare is to bitch-slap the middle class with a plan they can't afford knowing they will pay the tax which will be x% of their income. What better way to get 5-6k more out of the middle class than to give them a false choice of a $9,000 year health coverage or a $5,000 opt out

  But it collapses if too many people pay the penalty. Because the insurance companies will still be paying the expensive procedures/treatments while collecting a small fraction of the premiums to support that. So it would either collapse, or the govt has to print money to pay a giant subsidy to the insurance companies to offset the loss of premiums and keep everything "affordable".
  
  I'll have to do my homework, but I will seriously consider having insurance a few months, get all my doctor visits out of the way, and then drop coverage and just pay the penalty. I'll save at least half the cost of carrying insurance full-time. Destroying the foundation for Obamakare will merely be an added bonus.
• sleeper

  

  gut;1515108 wrote:But it collapses if too many people pay the penalty. Because the insurance companies will still be paying the expensive procedures/treatments while collecting a small fraction of the premiums to support that. So it would either collapse, or the govt has to print money to pay a giant subsidy to the insurance companies to offset the loss of premiums and keep everything "affordable".
  
  I'll have to do my homework, but I will seriously consider having insurance a few months, get all my doctor visits out of the way, and then drop coverage and just pay the penalty. I'll save at least half the cost of carrying insurance full-time. Destroying the foundation for Obamakare will merely be an added bonus.

  The delusional part is thinking a bunch of young healthy people are going to want to drop $500 a month on health insurance when they barely can afford their student loan payments at their part time job. Yeah I know, subsidies for poor people, however really any additional burden on young health people who can afford to take the risk of not having health insurance are now being subject to additional cost.
  
  These people aren't going to sign up and you can take that to the bank.
• gut

  sleeper;1515237 wrote: These people aren't going to sign up and you can take that to the bank.

  I tend to agree. And it's not like it's even difficult economics or number crunching - if they weren't going to spend $100 a month with worries of future coverage or pre-existing conditions, they aren't going to spend double or triple that now they can get the insurance they potentially would need at any time.
  
  Nor can I really see where the cost savings was going to come from - you have all these uninsured that will get subsidies (so we pay for their coverage just like we were before, but maybe avoiding the ER will save a few bucks)...and then you have all the uninsurable who's exhorbitant costs must now be spread across the system.
  
  They are now saying like $1T+ over 10 years for this new entitlement, and you can bet your bottom dollar the real number will probably be at least twice that.
  
  And even single payer is potentially dangerous territory. What is going to happen to R&D when their margins in the US go to shit like everywhere else? Sure, it sucks that the US subsidizes the global pharma/medical sector, but what happens when you remove that subsidy?
• I Wear Pants

  rydawg5;1515101 wrote:A couple years ago I didn't have insurance. The insurance plans I found online before Obamacare rivaled in price what I currently have. They'd be like $330/month with 3,500 deductible.
  
  Now that Obamacare has taken over, it appears like $800/month plans with 5k deductibles will be the norm OR pay that x% of their income tax penalty.
  
  I think the intention of Obamacare is to bitch-slap the middle class with a plan they can't afford knowing they will pay the tax which will be x% of their income. What better way to get 5-6k more out of the middle class than to give them a false choice of a $9,000 year health coverage or a $5,000 opt out

  $5k opt out? Are you high?
• believer

  

  gut;1515276 wrote:And even single payer is potentially dangerous territory. What is going to happen to R&D when their margins in the US go to shit like everywhere else? Sure, it sucks that the US subsidizes the global pharma/medical sector, but what happens when you remove that subsidy?

  
  The Feds will step in and subsidize? That's always a winner.
• Devils Advocate

  

  believer;1515292 wrote:The Feds will step in and subsidize? That's always a winner.

  Yes, Just ask the oil companies, drug companies, and the farmers....
• BGFalcons82

  

  Devils Advocate;1515297 wrote:Yes, Just ask the oil companies, drug companies, and the farmers....

  $17,000,000,000,000 in debt and more subsidies have no consequences, eh? If spending trillions and subsidizing anything is the way to make the world a utopia, then no one should have to pay $1 in taxes. If the feds are going to treat it like Monopoly money, then we should have the same standing.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  I'm actually (literally) starting to get scared of the direction in which our country (government) is heading. The only true answer, in my opinion, is to wipe 100% of the white house, senate, house, and all federal staffers out of office, and make them all campaign for re-election. Give the states full control to govern their own while this is taking place.