| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/22/2013 07:34:37 PM · #51 |
If it makes you feel any better, I don't think that big deductible is the government's fault. That's the way insurances generally are these days. My own is similar and I rarely see a patient without a multi-thousand dollar annual max.
Message edited by author 2013-10-22 19:34:49. |
|
|
|
10/22/2013 07:35:31 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If it makes you feel any better, I don't think that big deductible is the government's fault. That's the way insurances generally are these days. My own is similar and I rarely see a patient without a multi-thousand dollar annual max. |
.. So, it gets seven times larger the day that ACA goes live, and you don't think it's related to the ACA? Explain.
By the way, I'm finding the name "Affordable Care Act" to be just absolutely hilarious. There isn't a frickin thing 'affordable' about it. Should have been called the IEA - "Insurance Extortion Act"..
Message edited by author 2013-10-22 19:37:22. |
|
|
|
10/22/2013 07:52:08 PM · #53 |
You'll have to explain your scenario. You had private or work-related insurance before and now they've changed vendors and you find you have a very large annual max? You went from employer insurance but now need to find it on the exchange? I'm not sure what you are meaning.
Which ever the case, I'll tell you you aren't going from average insurance to suck insurance. You are going from extraordinary insurance to average insurance.
And just to make sure, you aren't confusing your deductible on one policy with your out of pocket max on the other, right?
Message edited by author 2013-10-22 19:53:08. |
|
|
|
10/22/2013 07:56:47 PM · #54 |
Then there's this.
What a relief! I was fully expecting a huge stack of 5.25in floppies! And they even included this high-tech ACA-Link device!
 |
|
|
|
10/22/2013 08:00:38 PM · #55 |
I like how NBC tries to spin this: Thousands get health insurance cancellation notices
Originally posted by NBC:
By all accounts, the new policies will offer consumers better coverage, in some cases, for comparable cost -- especially after the inclusion of federal subsidies for those who qualify. |
|
|
|
|
10/22/2013 08:07:58 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You'll have to explain your scenario. You had private or work-related insurance before and now they've changed vendors and you find you have a very large annual max? You went from employer insurance but now need to find it on the exchange? I'm not sure what you are meaning.
Which ever the case, I'll tell you you aren't going from average insurance to suck insurance. You are going from extraordinary insurance to average insurance.
And just to make sure, you aren't confusing your deductible on one policy with your out of pocket max on the other, right? |
I had private insurance with Humana.
Upon the arrival of ACA they sent me a letter saying they were leaving the state.
I have now looked at the healthcare.gov website, which redirects to bewellnm, and there I have now gotten a quote for a silver level package (at 50% more than my previous rate for a gold package), and basically I feel like I'm getting screwed without even the courtesy of vaseline or a reacharound, since everything is now way more expensive, and provides less value.
I'm pissed.
And no, not confusing the two.. Previously (currently in fact, for a bit longer) I had a stupid low deductible... Those are now between 300% and 1000% of my previous amounts.
..
I'd like to add that I had my clothes catch fire on Valentines day this year - suffered some pretty bad 3rd degree burns on my hand and leg. ER visit, etc.... Cost? $0.. Even the medication was only $20.. I mean, really - I spent way more on bandages than anything else. It looks like that would have been a few thousand dollars with the "affordable healthcare act" insurance.
Totally affordable.. Yeah, right. :(
Message edited by author 2013-10-22 20:11:34. |
|
|
|
10/22/2013 09:18:22 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You'll have to explain your scenario. You had private or work-related insurance before and now they've changed vendors and you find you have a very large annual max? You went from employer insurance but now need to find it on the exchange? I'm not sure what you are meaning.
Which ever the case, I'll tell you you aren't going from average insurance to suck insurance. You are going from extraordinary insurance to average insurance.
And just to make sure, you aren't confusing your deductible on one policy with your out of pocket max on the other, right? |
I had private insurance with Humana.
Upon the arrival of ACA they sent me a letter saying they were leaving the state.
I have now looked at the healthcare.gov website, which redirects to bewellnm, and there I have now gotten a quote for a silver level package (at 50% more than my previous rate for a gold package), and basically I feel like I'm getting screwed without even the courtesy of vaseline or a reacharound, since everything is now way more expensive, and provides less value.
I'm pissed.
And no, not confusing the two.. Previously (currently in fact, for a bit longer) I had a stupid low deductible... Those are now between 300% and 1000% of my previous amounts.
..
I'd like to add that I had my clothes catch fire on Valentines day this year - suffered some pretty bad 3rd degree burns on my hand and leg. ER visit, etc.... Cost? $0.. Even the medication was only $20.. I mean, really - I spent way more on bandages than anything else. It looks like that would have been a few thousand dollars with the "affordable healthcare act" insurance.
Totally affordable.. Yeah, right. :( |
welcome to the (un) affordable healthcare act...also known as Obamacare....It is way too expensive...If something happens to me I will have to take out a loan to pay for the deductible.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2013 10:00:15 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Does anybody out there disagree that the website rollout for the ACA is a feather in the cap of the "private sector is better than government" mentality? This morning NPR was, for a brief few minutes, sounding like the Wall Street Journal with interviews talking about how the website has been a pretty botched process. |
Wasn't the website built by private contractors, not the government itself?
If the States had take responsibility to create their own sites it wouldn't be up to the Federal site to have to sort out the eligibility of forty million applicants from 36 different states with 34 sets of plans and prices. Not to mention that when the administration asked for extra funding to help set up the site it was senied by the Republican-controlled House. Really, if you're going to sabotage someone else's project it's really unreasonable to assign them all the blame when it doesn't work ideally out of the box. |
|
|
|
10/22/2013 10:08:49 PM · #59 |
For those of you whose costs are going up, that's the way insurance works -- there's a pool from which you calculate the average premium required to cover admistrative costs, benefits, and profit. You premiums werre low because your company could refuse coverage to anyone they wanted and thereby enroll only you cheap-to-care-for healthy ones. When the pool includes everyone, some premiums will go up (for the previously-healthy) and some will go down (or become available at all). Your cheap rate was dependent on others being denied coverage/care at all.
Maybe you should opt-out altogether and join a registered "mutual-aid" society:
It's always been legal to opt-out of Obamacare
Originally posted by Dave Ross:
This whole shutdown was about people who felt forced into Obamacare. And yet, there has always been an exemption for anyone who wants it. "It isn't insurance, it's a nationwide network of Christians who save money by sharing each other's medical bills."
That's from an ad for a Health Care Cost-Sharing Ministry.
Jason Morris, pays about $370 a month to Samaritan Ministries - but instead of sending it to an insurance company - they send the money directly to other members on a list of approved medical needs.
"When I send my check I usually put a little sticky note on there that says I'm praying for you this month and you recognize that every dollar I send is going to go help that person who is experiencing that crisis right now.
And these groups, be they Christian, Muslim, or whatever, have always been exempt from Obamacare.
The challenge is that Obamacare premiums - thanks to government subsidies - are about 1/3rd of Samaritan Ministries charges.
But James Lansbury of Samaritan Ministries told Reason-TV he doesn't think Christians will jump ship just to save money.
"This is part of who we are, it's part of our DNA as the Christian church. I wanted to be part of something where the body of Christ was actually banding together doing what the Bible commanded in a more personal and real way."
But the point is, for anyone with a religious objection, or who doesn't believe in government subsidies, or who wants no part of contraception coverage, or who just wants out - there's a way to break free from Obamacare, and it's been there from the beginning. |
|
|
|
|
10/22/2013 10:37:26 PM · #60 |
Here is a nice article.
FORBES
|
|
|
|
10/23/2013 12:23:43 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Here is a nice article.
FORBES |
Another fine article from the Hoover institution. My favorite line was ". ACAâs new taxes will cost Boston Scientific more than $100 million a year, so they built a $35 million research center in Ireland instead of the U.S. and announced another $150 million site in China. Stryker of Michigan announced job cuts of 1,000 workers last November âin advance of the new Medical Device Excise Tax.â CEO Curt Hartman reiterated this month that the tax will force companies to move their operations overseas, eliminating American jobs." Of course both the counties they chose to build in already have a higher level of socilaised health care than we will have here after the ACA takes effect. |
|
|
|
10/23/2013 12:41:54 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Here is a nice article.
FORBES |
...and of course all of the financial malaise in the USA is attributable to the ACA right?
You might want to read this and it might enlighten you as to what the real reasons are:
//thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/04/19/159555/us-corporations-outsourced-americans/
Ray
Message edited by author 2013-10-23 00:43:12. |
|
|
|
10/23/2013 02:31:17 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Here is a nice article.
FORBES |
Another fine article from the Hoover institution. My favorite line was ". ACAâs new taxes will cost Boston Scientific more than $100 million a year, so they built a $35 million research center in Ireland instead of the U.S. and announced another $150 million site in China. Stryker of Michigan announced job cuts of 1,000 workers last November âin advance of the new Medical Device Excise Tax.â CEO Curt Hartman reiterated this month that the tax will force companies to move their operations overseas, eliminating American jobs." Of course both the counties they chose to build in already have a higher level of socilaised health care than we will have here after the ACA takes effect. |
But apparently LOWER taxes. |
|
|
|
10/23/2013 02:43:19 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
For those of you whose costs are going up, that's the way insurance works -- there's a pool from which you calculate the average premium required to cover admistrative costs, benefits, and profit. You premiums werre low because your company could refuse coverage to anyone they wanted and thereby enroll only you cheap-to-care-for healthy ones. When the pool includes everyone, some premiums will go up (for the previously-healthy) and some will go down (or become available at all). Your cheap rate was dependent on others being denied coverage/care at all.
Maybe you should opt-out altogether and join a registered "mutual-aid" society:
It's always been legal to opt-out of Obamacare
Originally posted by Dave Ross:
This whole shutdown was about people who felt forced into Obamacare. And yet, there has always been an exemption for anyone who wants it. "It isn't insurance, it's a nationwide network of Christians who save money by sharing each other's medical bills."
That's from an ad for a Health Care Cost-Sharing Ministry.
Jason Morris, pays about $370 a month to Samaritan Ministries - but instead of sending it to an insurance company - they send the money directly to other members on a list of approved medical needs.
"When I send my check I usually put a little sticky note on there that says I'm praying for you this month and you recognize that every dollar I send is going to go help that person who is experiencing that crisis right now.
And these groups, be they Christian, Muslim, or whatever, have always been exempt from Obamacare.
The challenge is that Obamacare premiums - thanks to government subsidies - are about 1/3rd of Samaritan Ministries charges.
But James Lansbury of Samaritan Ministries told Reason-TV he doesn't think Christians will jump ship just to save money.
"This is part of who we are, it's part of our DNA as the Christian church. I wanted to be part of something where the body of Christ was actually banding together doing what the Bible commanded in a more personal and real way."
But the point is, for anyone with a religious objection, or who doesn't believe in government subsidies, or who wants no part of contraception coverage, or who just wants out - there's a way to break free from Obamacare, and it's been there from the beginning. |
|
Ha! That'd make me a total hypocrite... Any options for the militant atheist? |
|
|
|
10/23/2013 10:30:41 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Here is a nice article.
FORBES |
Another fine article from the Hoover institution. My favorite line was ". ACAâs new taxes will cost Boston Scientific more than $100 million a year, so they built a $35 million research center in Ireland instead of the U.S. and announced another $150 million site in China. Stryker of Michigan announced job cuts of 1,000 workers last November âin advance of the new Medical Device Excise Tax.â CEO Curt Hartman reiterated this month that the tax will force companies to move their operations overseas, eliminating American jobs." Of course both the counties they chose to build in already have a higher level of socilaised health care than we will have here after the ACA takes effect. |
But apparently LOWER taxes. |
I am supposed to be working, and haven't had time to review the information provided, but This would seem to suggest otherwise.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/23/2013 12:00:40 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Does anybody out there disagree that the website rollout for the ACA is a feather in the cap of the "private sector is better than government" mentality? This morning NPR was, for a brief few minutes, sounding like the Wall Street Journal with interviews talking about how the website has been a pretty botched process. |
Wasn't the website built by private contractors, not the government itself?
If the States had take responsibility to create their own sites it wouldn't be up to the Federal site to have to sort out the eligibility of forty million applicants from 36 different states with 34 sets of plans and prices. Not to mention that when the administration asked for extra funding to help set up the site it was senied by the Republican-controlled House. Really, if you're going to sabotage someone else's project it's really unreasonable to assign them all the blame when it doesn't work ideally out of the box. |
1) I don't know. I was led to believe the government set it up themselves, but I'd be open to evidence to the contrary. Ultimately they were the ones making the decisions on what kind of a website they wanted and they lacked the market experience to know what would be most helpful to clients. NPR: Why HealthCare.gov isn't like a typical e-commerce site
2) "If the States had taken responsibility" is a pretty lame excuse, no? If success was dependent on states taking responsibility then the law should have ensured they took responsibility. You can't just "hope" your way to success. Not to mention it would just be one government agency versus another and there is no guarantee the states would have done any better.
3) "when the administration asked for extra funding" seems like bad news from the get-go. When the CBO said the ACA would save money, was that before we started asking for extra or after? If you can't judge how much money it costs to get a small piece like the website going, how do I have any faith that any of the other estimates are accurate? And I don't recall ever hearing that they asked for extra money meaning that even though I consider myself to be "paying attention", the actual financials of the ACA may have changed while I go on quoting the CBO saying it will save us billions of dollars. |
|
|
|
10/23/2013 12:46:44 PM · #67 |
Speaking of impressive spending.... Check this one out...
 |
|
|
|
10/23/2013 01:24:52 PM · #68 |
| Than NASA? Holy cow. LOL. That is a sorta random inclusion. Also, it's critical to realize that the vast amount of educational dollars are spent at the state and local level and not the federal level. I found a quote of $985 billion spent in the current year by non-federal sources for education alone. Over 5 years that is almost $5 trillion... |
|
|
|
10/23/2013 01:58:54 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Here is a nice article.
FORBES |
Another fine article from the Hoover institution. My favorite line was ". ACAâs new taxes will cost Boston Scientific more than $100 million a year, so they built a $35 million research center in Ireland instead of the U.S. and announced another $150 million site in China. Stryker of Michigan announced job cuts of 1,000 workers last November âin advance of the new Medical Device Excise Tax.â CEO Curt Hartman reiterated this month that the tax will force companies to move their operations overseas, eliminating American jobs." Of course both the counties they chose to build in already have a higher level of socilaised health care than we will have here after the ACA takes effect. |
The device excise tax applies to sales, and is completely unrelated as to where the device is designed or manufactured. Quite obviously they are firing Americans because they can get cheaper labor elsewhere. Shows the sad state we're in when Boston Science has no problem lying about it, and Forbes has no problem spreading the lie. |
|
|
|
10/23/2013 02:03:29 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Than NASA? Holy cow. LOL. That is a sorta random inclusion. Also, it's critical to realize that the vast amount of educational dollars are spent at the state and local level and not the federal level. I found a quote of $985 billion spent in the current year by non-federal sources for education alone. Over 5 years that is almost $5 trillion... |
I would have liked it better had they actually included all science funding.
Still, that's a rather big chunk of money. Nothing compared to the military spending of course, but I'm still rather impressed by the size of that number - wouldn't have expected it to be that high. |
|
|
|
10/23/2013 02:16:59 PM · #71 |
| Yes. Definitely high and probably higher than normal given the extension of unemployment insurance to next to forever as a stimulus during the recession. |
|
|
|
10/23/2013 02:29:23 PM · #72 |
Didn't we just borrow about a trillion dollars to ruin Iraq? Maybe spread over ten years, but still quite a chunk of change, especially considering we were/are unwilling to actually pay for it ...
Message edited by author 2013-10-23 14:30:14. |
|
|
|
10/23/2013 04:46:13 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Speaking of impressive spending.... |
Um, yeah... source: "Jeff Sessions' Republican staff calculation," as in, "not the official budget numbers already published by the government." They apparently calculated this by throwing darts or adding lucky numbers on fortune cookies. The ACTUAL GPO numbers total $2.2T for all welfare spending (including unemployment and workers compensation) over the past 5 years, while education, transportation and NASA(?!) add up to $1.1T over the same period. This ignores the distortion of unemployment benefits shifting from state to federal budgets, while education shifted from federal to state and local governments. Looks like those tax cuts for "job creators" that have been in effect the entire time weren't such a hot idea after all, and defense spending dwarfs all of the above combined. Still, it's easy to vilify entitlements and ignore the fact that over 90% of benefits go to elderly, disabled, or working households.
Two fun facts: 1. The U.S. has spent over $1 trillion on INTEREST servicing the debt over the past 5 years. 2. Pete Sessions voted against the bill that averted default on our debt, which would have raised the interest rate on those payments to nobody's benefit as a stand against a law that the CBO (and Paul Ryan's budget) says reduces deficits.
Message edited by author 2013-10-23 16:48:07. |
|
|
|
10/23/2013 05:14:57 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...a law that the CBO (and Paul Ryan's budget) says reduces deficits. |
See. I mentioned this before and we all say it, but is it actually still true? When the numbers get changed and people ask for more money for this and for that, does it all still add up? Who even knows? Does the CBO ever reassess things? |
|
|
|
10/23/2013 05:39:26 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
When the numbers get changed and people ask for more money for this and for that, does it all still add up? Who even knows? Does the CBO ever reassess things? |
Don't you think that people whose job is to assess costs and report on same would be constantly reassessing things as fast as possible, with better resources and fewer idealogues than any "outside" politically-oriented group (left- or right-leaning)?
Why insinuate that numbers cited by others are any less reliable than those proferred by those with obviously-vested interests, without citing some rationale?
One more from ...Originally posted by Dave Ross:
The latest employment numbers basically stink, but don't blame the shutdown, says business analyst Jill Schlesinger.
"The numbers for the shutdown will be reflected in the next report. So this is actually disheartening because it happened before the shutdown," she says.
So what is to blame? How about the artificial advantages given to people like this man - who said when answering the question, how much money do you have, "Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars."
That's Seattle venture capitalist Nick Hanauer, founder of many companies and a Capitalist heretic. He gave a TED talk which TED refuses to post on its website because it includes stuff like, "If it was true that lower taxes for the rich led to job creation, today we would be drowning in jobs."
Like Warren Buffet, he says the rich need to be taxed more. But unlike Warren Buffet, he is also convinced that the minimum wage needs to be raised, ideally to $22 to match the increase in worker productivity. But he'll settle for $15.
"If every worker made more, then every business would have more customers," Hanauer says.
Which is why Hanauer helped to organized last summer's fast food rallies for a $15 minimum wage. And why he's using his money to create a vast, left-wing conspiracy to boost wages - on the theory that ultimately, it's the only way people like him can get rich and stay rich.
"This is the craziest part, where you hear people squawk about raising the minimum wage - that it will destroy the economy," Hanauer says. "As if poor people getting richer could be bad for business? That's just nuts." |
Message edited by author 2013-10-23 17:39:57. |
|
