Has the economy collapsed from Obamacare yet?
- Thread starter anon_xl72qcu5isp39
- Start date
Originally posted by 07pilt:
So will you just stop it with that? My wife's pre existing condition isn't costing anybody anything...except us.
It's a minor case of psoriasis. She doesn't even receive treatment for it. But we do indeed receive an $1100 per month screwing for it. And our same bronze level plan is going to be $1700 per month next year.
So will you just stop it with that? My wife's pre existing condition isn't costing anybody anything...except us.
Certainly Bush deserves blame, as much as any President does, for a recession that began under his watch. Blaming Bush at this point for much of anything through is just a failure of leadership on the part of our current President. Six years later the American people deserve solutions, not blame for who started it. In his defense, I haven't really heard Obama do that much lately, it's his supporters trying to make excuses for his failure to fix the problems.
Well what failures? Getting Bin Laden? Record stock market? Low energy costs? Tame inflation, lowering unemployment..... seems to me that everyone so upset with the economy needs to read their republican play book and pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get more enterprising.
And is the outlandishly priced policy through the exchange, or is it a private plan? So is it NOT. A good thing to regulate the insurers, or should we let them do what they're doing to you? Which is it? Sounds like to me like you need MORE federal intervention.
And is the outlandishly priced policy through the exchange, or is it a private plan? So is it NOT. A good thing to regulate the insurers, or should we let them do what they're doing to you? Which is it? Sounds like to me like you need MORE federal intervention.
The outlandishly priced policy is listed on healthcare.gov at the same outlandish price. It's the price on the exchange.
The cheapest priced bronze plan listed on healthcare.gov for my family is going to be $1400 per month next year.
Seriously. I'm not playing games. I can't spell it out any more clearly.
So do you want the prices to come down? Would it be better if the health care companies had zero regulation? Sounds to me like your complaint is there's not enough regulation. What are you calling for, a law that makes the insurers charge less, or just let them behave however they want?
You present a false choice. Or at least an incomplete range of options.
If Jonathan Gruber is correct and insurance companies are paying a 40% tax because of the Affordable Care Act, then wouldn't my premiums be that much lower without the law? Wouldn't repeal of the law become an attractive option to some?
Insurance companies are required to pay for more services now. There are no caps on coverage. Free mammograms or whatever. You can argue that this is an overall good for humanity. But to say that under this plan that the average family will save $2500 per year in premiums is not realistic to the point where it borders on an outright lie, IMO.
I saw a recent poll which indicates 58% of the public now view this law unfavorably. Count me as one of the 58%.
If Jonathan Gruber is correct and insurance companies are paying a 40% tax because of the Affordable Care Act, then wouldn't my premiums be that much lower without the law? Wouldn't repeal of the law become an attractive option to some?
Insurance companies are required to pay for more services now. There are no caps on coverage. Free mammograms or whatever. You can argue that this is an overall good for humanity. But to say that under this plan that the average family will save $2500 per year in premiums is not realistic to the point where it borders on an outright lie, IMO.
I saw a recent poll which indicates 58% of the public now view this law unfavorably. Count me as one of the 58%.
Agreed. Bush is responsible for the slump. Obama is responsible for the response. Only the truly dumb don't understand this distinction and see this as blaming Bush for everything.
BTW have you see the level of private sector job growth under Obama compared to Bush (I only include Bush as context as the 2000s didn't seem all that horrible)
No compare to government employment:
Doesn't really fit the narrative.
Deflecting.
I'm 52 and in excellent health. Wife is 48 and has a minor skin disorder. Children are 13 and 10.
Ancient.
I'm complaining that my premiums have not gone down by $2500 per year.
I'm complaining that my premiums have nearly doubled in the two years since this law took effect.
I'm complaining that I'm already paying over $13,000 per year for health insurance and that's just not enough.
Should I be a satisfied customer at this point? Am I just looking at the glass as being half-empty?
I'm complaining that my premiums have nearly doubled in the two years since this law took effect.
I'm complaining that I'm already paying over $13,000 per year for health insurance and that's just not enough.
Should I be a satisfied customer at this point? Am I just looking at the glass as being half-empty?
Apples to oranges? OK. A couple of years ago, I paid 850 apples per month for health insurance. A guy promised he would save me 2500 apples per year with his plan. His plan came to fruition. I now pay 1100 apples per month. If I keep my plan, it will be 1700 apples per month next year. The exchange has a plan that will cost 1400 apples per month. I'm running out of apples and I'm frustrated.
Is there a connection between the nearly doubling of apple expenditure since this law was enacted? An MIT economics professor famously stated that insurance companies are being taxed by the federal government at a 40% rate. Is it realistic to expect that my premiums would increase dramatically to offset this taxation?
Your $850 plan was shit and didn't cover pre-existing conditions and in the event of a health catastrophe it was at your insurers discretion whether you were screwed or not. That's the apple. Your new plan does cover pre-existing conditions, has no caps and is required by law not to screw you. That's the orange.
The 40% tax is on employer provided plans costing over $10K per person.
"Your $850 plan was shit and didn't cover pre-existing conditions and in the event of a health catastrophe it was at your insurers discretion whether you were screwed or not. That's the apple. Your new plan does cover pre-existing conditions, has no caps and is required by law not to screw you. That's the orange."
You seem to continue to mistakenly assume that I kept that coverage after finding out after the fact that my wife was excluded coverage for a red patch on her scalp. We didn't keep that plan (United Healthcare, not a shit company). We found another plan that was similar in price but did not exclude her. We switched companies. See? I don't need help shopping for insurance!
"The 40% tax is on employer provided plans costing over $10K per person."
I believe you to be an honest person, so OK. Do you believe that only employers bear the tax or do you believe that is spread out among all plan purchasers? Given that around 60% of Americans receive health insurance through their employer, I would be curious to know what the impact of this tax is.
As to your previous comment about my advanced age of 52 years, I ran the numbers on healthcare.gov to see what would happen for next year if I was 40. Turns out I would be paying what I am now: 1100 apples per month.
I can't speak for the rest of the world, but my costs have gone up dramatically under this law. That's just not arguable.
You seem to continue to mistakenly assume that I kept that coverage after finding out after the fact that my wife was excluded coverage for a red patch on her scalp. We didn't keep that plan (United Healthcare, not a shit company). We found another plan that was similar in price but did not exclude her. We switched companies. See? I don't need help shopping for insurance!
"The 40% tax is on employer provided plans costing over $10K per person."
I believe you to be an honest person, so OK. Do you believe that only employers bear the tax or do you believe that is spread out among all plan purchasers? Given that around 60% of Americans receive health insurance through their employer, I would be curious to know what the impact of this tax is.
As to your previous comment about my advanced age of 52 years, I ran the numbers on healthcare.gov to see what would happen for next year if I was 40. Turns out I would be paying what I am now: 1100 apples per month.
I can't speak for the rest of the world, but my costs have gone up dramatically under this law. That's just not arguable.
Your $850 a month plan was two years ago correct?
No no, insurance benefits are tax exempt. The rule put in place puts a cap on how much of that benefit can be received tax free. The person paying those taxes is the recipient of the benefits.
I didn't mean to call 52 years old. Just the only way to get $1400 plans for a couple in Wyoming is to be a couple years away from Medicare (not even to say someone that age is old, just that they are old relative to other health insurance consumbers.. Having Children clearly changes that equation.
This is why I ask what the appropriate amount for you to being paying and how you would change the ACA to both lower your cost and keep a functioning private insurance market.
Its possible that you have been benefiting from from a dysfunctional insurance market all this time, but it is because Wyomingosualum2's wife doesn't just have psoriasis, but breast cancer instead and flat out couldn't get coverage until a year ago.
Crap. I had a reply all typed out and now it is gone. I'll try to go for the nutshell this time. Sorry, but I'm just too tired to put much more effort into this.
Yes. The 850 plan was after the law went into effect. I remember being shocked because the company, the largest health care insurer in the country, excluded coverage and I didn't think they could do that. We paid our premium in advance when we signed up and then were notified after the fact of the exclusions. We bailed on it shortly thereafter.
If you're looking for a yardstick on what is an acceptable amount to pay for health insurance, I refer you to the law's biggest salesman: President Obama. Anything less than a $2500 annual decrease in premiums is a disappointment based upon the sales pitch.
I'm not sure there's anything you can say to make me love this. I'm thankful for good health. You are way more sold on this law than I am. That's not going to change based upon the amount of money this is costing me. If you or anybody else is happy with it, then I don't hold a grudge. But expecting me to be happy for the monthly kick in the balls isn't realistic.
Yes. The 850 plan was after the law went into effect. I remember being shocked because the company, the largest health care insurer in the country, excluded coverage and I didn't think they could do that. We paid our premium in advance when we signed up and then were notified after the fact of the exclusions. We bailed on it shortly thereafter.
If you're looking for a yardstick on what is an acceptable amount to pay for health insurance, I refer you to the law's biggest salesman: President Obama. Anything less than a $2500 annual decrease in premiums is a disappointment based upon the sales pitch.
I'm not sure there's anything you can say to make me love this. I'm thankful for good health. You are way more sold on this law than I am. That's not going to change based upon the amount of money this is costing me. If you or anybody else is happy with it, then I don't hold a grudge. But expecting me to be happy for the monthly kick in the balls isn't realistic.
Similar threads
