Will you be shopping for health insurance in your state's exchange?
If you are insured through your employer, the answer is no.
If you are an individual or small business owner, please share your thoughts.
Did you know there will be online health care insurance marketplaces (exchanges) in every state?
Is your state running its own exchange ...
...or is it letting the federal government run it?
check out www.healthcare.gov for details.Hehe, I tried to create an account, and it just gave me a generic error. Our government is just incapable, there's no excuse for this. This should have all been tested prior to launch.
there is no way I will be a sheeple. You go ahead because we already know your political bent.
What on earth has this got to do with the question? Either you will get insurance there, or you have it somewhere else, or you will die/go bankrupt if you get seriously ill, or you are a millionaire. Which is it?
I am currently blessed to be b) but I used to be c).I agree with you Frog Prince. This is ridiculous, it's so clearly an infringement upon the rights of citizens. The Government is trying to own us all, lock stock and barrel. All they had to do was to keep the good programs like we already have (Social Security, medicare, medicaid, etc.) instead of TAKING from those programs to fund "Obama-uncaring". He's only out to make a name for himself; he doesn't give a whit about people, poor or rich.
The information below I pulled up from the site.
Are you ready to tell Mr. O where to go? I am.
These are the fees listed for people who don't have insurance and who don't take the great O's mandatory insurance policies------------------
"The fee in 2014 is 1% of your yearly income or $95 per person for the year, whichever is higher. The fee increases every year. In 2016 it is 2.5% of income or $695 per person, whichever is higher.
In 2014 the fee for uninsured children is $47.50 per child. The most a family would have to pay in 2014 is $285.
It's important to remember that someone who pays the fee won't get any health insurance coverage. They still will be responsible for 100% of the cost of their medical care.
After open enrollment ends on March 31, 2014, they won't be able to get health coverage through the Marketplace until the next annual enrollment period, unless they have a qualifying life event."
I'm wondering.....just when the great O will tell us how much the fees will increase in 2017, 2018, etc...........it says they increase every year. From 2014 to 2016 it more than doubles.
AND I wonder what he has in mind as punishment for people who don't carry insurance and refuse his oh-so-benign offer?.........................let's see.......tax 'em to death, and if they don't pay their taxes, then send 'em to prison? I do wonder............
And I'm not clear yet on what this all means..................is the "Marketplace" the only place to buy insurance? I mean........aren't insurance companies gonna let people buy insurance on their own if they wish without going by the "open enrollment period" of Obamacare?
All very confusing.
But hey, I guess we just gotta JUMP IN AND COMPLY before we even know what's in the Bill, as Inane-cy Pelosi said.
Obama already took over the Census, pushed his horrid non-morals onto citizens, threatens to push this Bill on us even if Congress votes it down, and now of course I see how brilliant he is.........like a shiny snake in the grass......
Yep, I'm sooo ready to let Obama rule my finances and my life! NOT.I just watched Jerry Maguire again recently. The line "You had me at hello..." (meaning she stopped listening to everything he said after that first word) applies.
Brenda, here is what you said:
"The Government is trying to own us all, lock stock and barrel. All they had to do was to keep the good programs like we already have (Social Security, medicare, medicaid, etc.) instead of TAKING from those programs to fund "Obama-uncaring"."
Hello?
The "good programs" you mention are government programs.
You are also aware, I assume, that Medicare and Medicaid are government HEALTHCARE programs for specific segments of the populaation: seniors and low-income and disabled, respectively.
Was the govrenment trying to "own us all" lock stock and barrel when these programs were implemented?
You are advocating keeping them and that they are good.
For the record (and I do wonder why I waste my breath)
1. No money has been taken from Social Security for anything. Totally separate program.
2. Obamacare does not take money out of Medicare, either
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/medicares-piggy-bank/
3. As to Medicaid, Obamacare vastly EXPANDS Medicaid. Makes many, many more people eligible for this program but relaxing the income requirements.
Governors that have refused, for political reasons, to expand Medicaid in their states are hurting their own citizens and forfeiting millions of dollars in federal money.
I don't know what state you live in, but you might want to check out your state's healthcare exchange and get the straight scoop on what they are offering.Read my post above. That'll answer your questions.
Any President who FINES people if they don't do what he wants in cases like this, is a bad President, is a tyrant.
Having car insurance is different. When we get in a vehicle, there's a lot of danger that we may accidentally hurt or kill someone else, or be hurt or killed. So it makes sense to mandate having car insurance (for DRIVERS, that is! lol).
But what Obama's disaster of a Bill does is force people to pay for something that's really nobody else's business! But IF even that was his motivation----to actually help people in need, I could buy that idea. But his intent is plainly political; that's been proven by the fact that his Bill removes personal choice from many aspects of many people's lives, both individual and groups.
All the issues you mentioned were already covered by Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those programs were working well. Whoever first tried to instill fear in people by saying those programs were doomed....was a scaredy-cat or a propogandist. And if those programs were to stop being feasible as they were, they could've been tweaked and re-funded as needed. Instead, what we have now is a huge Bill that's being put in force BY FORCE and with HUGE costs in addition to those programs that were already valid and good.
It's like Obama's Administration are all rich kids selling candy on the streets. They push and push just to see if they can get people to buy their stuff; it's a game to them. And I'd be willing to bet they privately mock the sheeples who buy into their carp, including those who are forced to buy into it.
And........I can see where he's going with all this.
If he or his same-thinking Democrats are in Office long enough or keep having clout in the political arena, there will be another huge civil right that they'll take away as a result of us peons being handed out "free" healthcare. 'Cause "free" healthcare is what they're shooting for, ya know, "universal heathcare". They were so peeved that America didn't go for that, that they cooked up this huge Bill that will lead up to it. They've actually said so publicly, that their goal is universal healthcare, and that they WILL have it.
So...when us citizens get that "free" stuff, we will be required to pay for that too with a civil right. I know what that right most likely is. But I'm not saying for now. Heck, enough rights have already been snatched away from us.Brenda, I agree having car insurance is different, but not in the way you suggest. It's different because if you crash your Porsche by making a bad decision, there is no societal expectation that other people should help you repair it. On the other hand, if you are lying unconscious and bleeding at the side of the road there is a societal expectation that others should help you, even if you are in that state because you deliberately got drunk. This common societal value is an aspect of living in civilized society, as opposed to a survival-of-the-fittest, dog-eat-dog, every-man-for-himself society.
You are not required to buy insurance to fix your car should you wreck it. Or even to repair damage to your body. Only to make other people you have damaged whole again, whether property or bodily harm. Please, keep it apples to apples; if you're going to compare reasons for being forced to buy insurance, keep it to what that insurance is for.
But if you don't like that expectation you mention, don't fulfill it. Thinking that someone else is responsibility for your care is NOT a mark of civilization, no matter how many times the statement is repeated, neither is asking for that care and certainly not legislating it.It's about the expectation. There is no societal expectation that I should help repair your car. There is a societal expectation that I should help repair you. So I'm agreeing with Brenda that insuring cars is different, but as I said not for the same reasons. But I confess, this is not my example. It's the example used by the Heritage Foundation when they where pushing for an individual mandate for health care insurance in 1989. It was considered to be part of an individual taking responsibility for themselves. Unfortunately when Obama adopted the same idea, they stopped liking it rather quickly (how strange).
I don't think it's good enough to suggest we simply ignore societal expectations we don't like. Living in any society means observing common values and expectations. Assisting someone who is ill (regardless of why they are ill) is one such common value. Human beings have developed to the point where our behavior no longer needs to be dictated by biological imperatives, but can instead be driven by reason. Reason tells us that a healthy society makes for a happier, more productive society, which benefits everyone. And I think being able to move some way beyond survival of the fittest and dog eat do, is very much a mark of a civilized society.Cannot agree. That any person thinks I am responsible for supporting them (I have no kids) means very little to me. I am NOT responsible for them; THEY are and need to step up to the plate and do it. Should they choose not to do that I am still not responsible for them. I personally find it quite offensive that anyone can claim that a stranger they've never met is responsible for their care and support.
That doesn't mean we should not do it, though, for I also believe it is the right thing to do. No conflict - it is wrong to demand someone else take care of you, it is wrong to let someone in need go without it if we can help. They are not the same thing.
But we cannot afford Obamacare. We cannot help, at least not this way. As it stands, I will be subsidized for my insurance, but any major problem will still bankrupt me. Just as it would before the program. The net result, then, is that the insurance companies will have more profits and a few more people will have a job shuffling papers. Not good.
We could afford minimal care for everyone, but not by paying the insurance companies to oversee it. And we cannot even come close to providing the care that people think they will be getting from Obamacare.If you are a member of society, then there are expectations placed upon you. That is the cost you pay for the benefits associated with being a member of that society. One of the expectations within American society is that you will take responsibility for yourself, e.g. by ensuring you have adequate health insurance. However there is also an expectation that you will not be left to suffer and die because you have not been able to do that for some reason. That expectation is not new. It was codified through the creation of medicaid and medicare in the 60s, and it has been further codified through the ACA.
I don't agree with your assessment of Obamacare. I think everyone, even it's critics, should be doing everything in their power to make it work. The most desirable outcome is for it to be a success, right? Then it can be reviewed in a few years time, and we can make informed decisions on what is working and what isn't based on real data. Then if necessary changes can be made accordingly. I believe that's the most sensible approach.Place all the expectations you wish: I will agree to and fulfill the ones I want to.
That does not include assigning your personal morality to me. If you want me to have health insurance, and I don't want it, that is my choice. Not yours.
I do not doubt that running ACA as is for a few years IS your idea of what is right. But that's because you don't really care what it costs the nation; all the money will come from the rich people that stole it anyway and don't deserve to keep it. You're hiding your head in the sand, pretending it's affordable as is, and doing so for 5-10 years will bankrupt this country as surely as if Obama got two more terms to spend as he wished.
Except it isn't working that way you think it will. The majority of the cost is going to come from the people that can least afford it, people that the Great God of DC has decided are "expected" to pay for health care with money they don't have. And I'm sorry, Don, but that is just wrong. Expect all you want, but until you fund it yourself don't expect everyone else to simply fall in line with what you've decided is right.Of course you may choose which societal expectations you adhere to, but you will face whatever consequences society deems appropriate for those who behave contrary to societal expectations. That isn't tyranny. It's a fundamental mechanism that allows society to function in an orderly way.
Whether you get health insurance is not solely a personal choice, because it affects me and the rest of society. Society will have to pay for you when you become ill, because common social values do not deem it acceptable to allow someone to die for lack of health insurance, regardless of why you are in that position. If you cannot get health insurance because of circumstances beyond your control, then I accept this burden as part of the cost of living in a civilized society (and who knows when I may need the same help). If you have the means to get health insurance, then I think it is right for you to be encouraged to do so, and discouraged from not doing so. Getting health insurance is a responsible thing to do, and I think it's good to encourage individual responsibility.
All I can say to your pessimistic predictions is wait and see. In the meantime though I do think people should be doing everything they can to make sure this works, not trying to sabotage it as some have. In who's interest is it for the ACA to fail? I'm certain it's not yours and mine.I'm sorry, but this thing about I have to buy insurance, dictated by you, because when I get sick you choose to heal me, just doesn't make it. That reasoning can (and is) used for everything from wearing seat belts and motorcycle helmets to the size of soft drink I can buy. Anything that you think is in my best interests I must do because otherwise you feel like you have to pay the cost of it not being done. No.
I categorically reject that I must do what you say because it makes you feel bad if I don't. I capitulate to the whole seat belt, helmet, soft drink, health insurance thing because you have the power and force to make me do it, not because of any false ethical concerns that you have the right to determine my life choices for me so as to limit your own hard ethical choices. I am an adult, competent to make my own decisions, and responsible for myself. You have no right to take that competency or responsibility onto yourself while declaring that I have neither.
As far as pessimistic predictions - my only hope is that the do gooders won't hide their head in the sand too long, that they won't simply ignore the negative results that are already coming in, that they WILL be honest and look hard at what the plan is producing and what it is costing. And make the changes that will keep it in the black, whether those changes are to tweak it or end it.
I'm just skeptical that they'll do that. It isn't PC to admit you're wrong - it's embarrassing (especially when it was obvious right from the get go but you didn't read the plan before instituting it). It's sad that we can't give the poor whatever they need, and we feel really bad about it and don't want to hear it, especially when it's some little kid. Reality isn't always fun, but it IS always real. So I'm skeptical and predict an economic collapse within 5-10 years, directly attributable to the most expensive law ever made, and one that no one read or discussed before voting for. One that was passed because it felt good to help people in need, and without a care as to actual results whether medically, ethically, financially or economically.I believe you missed the point. I can't speak for all leftists but the view I take and that the ACA takes is not the same view as seat belt laws or Soda can laws (I disagree with both btw).
The PPACA's aim is not to force you to have insurance it's to force you to help pay for everyone having insurance who wants it but can't afford it, whether that be by paying for maternal care in your insurance plan or by fining you if you don't buy insurance.
You can absolutely refuse to have insurance and the fine will then be used to give it to others.
Get a do not treat order and you get a bracelet you can wear, then if you injure yourself driving without a seat belt doctors won't help you.
Conservatives keep talking about these supposed failings but support for the law is rising (just as we said it would once it launched) and the reports from actual reliable sources like the CBO are lower than expected premiums.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165548/appro … nches.aspx
It's not even true that most Americans disapprove of the ACA anymore.I really think it's a futile argument, but I'll disagree anyway. The "tax" (what great spin!), down the road, is far too great to be simply to force you to help others buy insurance. The tax code does that very well and is already being used to do so.
So no, the thrust is to force everyone to have insurance. Not that it matters; eventually the fine will be great enough only an idiot would pay it.
Which does put it back square into the same pigeon hole as motorcycle helmets; they are required because people without them get hurt more and society has to pay for their medical bills. Or so the argument goes, anyway - the same argument Don is using for insurance.
"It's not even true that most Americans disapprove of the ACA anymore."
Talk about splitting hairs with spin and insinuation! While you would love to give the impression that most DO approve, the truth from your own link is that 56% either disapprove or have no opinion. With exactly 50% disapproving and still climbing. Not "most", unless the actual figure is 50.000001 I suppose, but far from what you'd like to have me read into that innocuous statement. That's beneath you, Josak.No the taxes we had did not cover medical treatment, They covered ER treatment big difference.
No the thrust is to make sure everyone can have insurance. For what it's worth I think it should be OK for you to simply pay an additional tax to cover others and a get a do not treat order for yourself so you have the right to take whatever personal risk you desire. I am fine with that.
Nope I never said most people do approve it was an indicator of the changing opinion polls, what I said was completely true and posted directly beneath the link with the full info, not misleading.There is just one wee problem with that argument, at least if the plan, people and government are even semi rational.
I am a net loss to the system; subsidized, I will cost more than I pay in. So the ONLY way I can help pay for anyone else to have insurance is to opt out and pay the fine. Arguing that the whole reason I must opt IN is to help pay for others (and thus the fine if I fail to do so) doesn't quite cut it. Not to the rational person, anyway.
I really think it's a futile argument, but I'll disagree anyway. The "tax" (what great spin!), down the road, is far too great to simply force you to help others buy insurance. The tax code does that very well and is already being used to do so.
So no, the thrust is to force everyone to have insurance. Not that it matters; eventually the fine will be great enough only an idiot would pay it.
Which does put it back square into the same pigeon hole as motorcycle helmets; they are required because people without them get hurt more and society has to pay for their medical bills. Or so the argument goes, anyway - the same argument Don is using for insurance.
"It's not even true that most Americans disapprove of the ACA anymore."
Talk about splitting hairs with spin and insinuation! While you would love to give the impression that most DO approve, the truth from your own link is that 56% either disapprove or have no opinion. With exactly 50% disapproving and climbing. Not "most", unless the actual figure is 50.000001 I suppose, but far from what you'd like to have me read into that innocuous statement. That's beneath you, Josak.
It is in my best interest for ACA tor fail. Why should I be paying for someone else's health care when I have no control what you do to your body, smoking, drinking. Now if I had some say, then I might agree with what you said, but I don't, so I cant agree.
Insurance companies and the PPACA already make provisions for smoking etc. people who do those things get charged more.
Also... just occasionally... you might want to look past your personal benefit in legislation that affects the whole country.I don't think that is quite true; the "etc." part, as far as I know, does not exist. Drunks, needing a new liver, don't pay more. Hard core drug addicts pay no more. Severely obese people pay no more. Only smokers, because it is PC to stomp them as hard as possible. Other vices are all right, but not smoking.
Or it could be that when used moderately, alcohol is safe to ingest. When used moderately, cigarettes still cause health issues.
Do you think that will make a difference to the rabid right wing theists, who insist that because their god says it's wrong that no one can smoke? We tried prohibition once, you know, and the drive to rid the nation of that evil is still going, although weak.
Now it's the smoking. My friend uses one of those tobacco less gizmos; water vapor is all it puts out. Nevertheless he was jumped all over for using it in a public park. Signs (and laws) that one can not smoke in a park around here (don't ya know that smoke filtered through a set of lungs and set to drifting and dissipating for 100 yards is far more deadly than a cigarette in the hand!), but nothing about a product with no tobacco. Didn't matter; get rid of it.
So no, I don't think it's about the harm one does one's self. It's all about the nanny state taking care of the American public, a public that is far too stupid and incompetent to take care of itself. Just like Obamacare is.
Its only possible when it comes to military funding....
A sixty-four year old man's medical costs are six times greater than an eighteen year old man's costs, on average. Prior to Obamacare, insurance companies were allowed, by government regulations, to charge a sixty-four year old man up to seven times more than an eighteen year old man. In other words, insurance companies could overcharge the older man. We should have rectified this by allowing the insurance companies only six times the premium. This would have been the fair thing to do, and it would have made insurance premiums less expensive for older people. Instead, Obamacare limited it to three times, so if you're older, your premiums probably don't cover your medical costs. Young people are paying half of the premium for older people; the same is true about pre-existing conditions. That's not right.
Sorry Josak, I believe one should care for themselves before caring for thy neighbor. If you've flown you will have heard the safety talk, and one line goes "as the oxygen masks drop put yours on before helping the person next to you" now that statement applies here, because if I am not taken care of how do you expect me to help others?
Looks like I will be one of those forced to spend money I don't have to buy something I can't afford. Not real sure where the money to buy that "affordable" health care will come from - maybe God will provide by dropping gold like He did manna. For sure Obama isn't going to pick up the cost!
Although the sites aren't up yet, early indications from the govt. site and news organizations are that it will take nearly all my meager SS check to buy health care for two people. Oh well, I didn't need to eat anyway.Do you have medicare coverage?
Anyone on Medicare can ignore the fuss. Nothing changes about how you pick a plan or buy a supplemental policy.
Yet keep your guard up, or tell your parents to. In July, the Federal Trade Commission warned that identity thieves are already calling seniors and claiming, under the guise of Obamacare, that they must confirm personal information such as Social Security numbers or bank accounts.Nope - no medicare for another 2 years. Or 7 for the wife. So it's insurance for a health care plan that I can't possibly pay for, all in the guise of an "Affordable Care Act".
Oh will - it will help pad the insurance companies pocket if nothing else.How it affects you personally is unfortunate (hope that doesn't sound patronizing. it's not meant to be) but you are in the minority. More people will benefit, and most are covered by existing employer insurance:
It's not patronizing, it's reality.
But it is not rare. Most of the poorer people are going to find themselves in the same boat - able to buy the insurance but unable to pay the copays and deductibles for anything but the most minor of needed care. A serious accident or illness and they will still be bankrupt.
And neither will there be more employer plans. That's a pipe dream and reality is already raising it's ugly head as employers cancel out of any insurance at all. More part time help is the most common method, but there are other ways, too, including reducing work force. When the "bennies" become too expensive, people WILL be laid off.
Don, these pretty pictures and rosy predictions just aren't matching up with reality. A reality that is already coming to be months before the plan takes affect. A reality that is a far better predictor of the future than all the democratic studies in the world.How can you say it's reality? What is that based on? Your own experience? As I said before anecdotes are not the best way to determine public health policy. There was an example (can't find the link now) of a woman who went on some of the talk shows complaining how the cost of her insurance had gone up etc. When someone looked into her situation, they found that the cost had gone up marginally, but based on the deductibles etc. she was getting a much better deal, and would be much better of if she fell ill. This is why we can't rely on anecdotes alone.
The 80% are not"largely" uneffected when their premiums are raised or deleted. Ours went up 40 dollars or 9% starting in Jan, compared to 10 dollars this past year
I just stumbled across this. It gives at least a general idea of what one can expect in premiums for each state. This is for those under 65. And does not factor in whatever one's tax rebates might be.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/50-states … 18311.htmlI won't be buying from odumbocare, and they owe me a refund any way. The dumb liberals just want our money, don't sign up and don't pay the penalty. Go to Jail? Sure then I get free medicare AND three squares a day....Shruggs
Now there's a mature reaction.
Go to jail rather than take personal responsibility.
I have a better idea. Run for Congress. You'd fit right in.
Wow. Who are the real sheeple. the ones that reply to what OP is askign about, or the ones that bleat the same tune whenever a keyword is mentioned.
If any of the bleaters are uninsured and in need of this care, I would be amazed. More like they don't want to bear the slightest inconvenience to help people in need.- no not when they themselves are prohibited from helping themselves. Or when they forced to help others through government mandate.
Well, the wonderful old system refused to sell me health insurance at any price because I am diabetic.
Now, that evil dictator Obama has made it possible for me to buy my own health insurance at a good price.
Damn him, now I might even be able to afford to go to a doctor. Before Obamacare I had to go to the emergency room and hope for charity to pay the bill. Now with insurance I will have to contribute to pay my own way instead of depending on other people's charity, taxes and insurance payments.
Obamacare is so unpopular that the website had about 3 million hits on its first day causing it to crash, people must be staying away in droves.
I must be one of the "Sheeple" !Not sure if you are one who has already gotten coverage from PCIP plan or will be getting for the first time as of 2014.
Congratulations.
And congratulations on being a responsible citizen and doing the responsible thing in taking responsibility for your own health care!
If you were unable to get onto the website today, give it a week or two until the hubbub dies down.
Enrollment will still be happening...You don't understand.
Yes, the "pre-existing condition" aspect is good. And there are a few other good things to the Bill. But the bad outweighs the good.
I too was turned down by a major insurance company when I became ill. They flat-out denied me coverage, but they covered my husband because he wasn't sick. They referred me to a State-run program (which I wasn't eligible for and couldn't afford anyway), and to another program I wasn't eligible for.
So we paid cash for my care at first, including the specialist I had to see. What my husband did was immediately look for a job that would cover me in group insurance. It took several months, but he found it. He switched jobs to that, and I've been insured now for a couple years; they didn't refuse me because of my pre-existing condition. That insurance was was reasonable through his work. Now get this----------a few months ago, the company switched insurance companies from that company to another insurance company which I won't name right now (a major one, though) and it happend to be the same company that had turned me down individually! So now I'm covered by the company that turned me down. BUT we recently got news from his work about the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), and a notice that they're gonna review the eligibility of dependents again (we just GOT the insurance, so that's irritating!).
What's gonna happen? I dunno! They're either being very picky, or else they're trying to tempt me to take "Obamacare" so they don't have to insure me. No matter what, "Obamacare" is setting the tone and the rules for ALL insurance companies, apparently. And they'll probably all be pushed out of business or else forced to charge even higher premiums or give less coverage. Guess I'll find out, huh?
Anyway, what I'm saying is this-------there were problems before, but now "Obamacare" is simply adding to the pile of red tape and carp.
All the issues could've been addressed and fixed, legally even, without forcing the huge horrid Bill upon people and making it criminal if we don't pay up.
The points that needed fixed could've been fixed by a Bill that required insurance companies to ease off on their requirements, covered people with pre-existing conditions, probably for just a few more dollars of premiums. Any other points could've been fixed that way too.
But what happened was that Obama had his own agenda to insert into it. He put things in there forcing religious groups to pay for things they didn't morally want to cover; he put the individual mandate in there FORCING people to comply or else be fined (and the Supreme Court bought that! AMAZING! That's how I know the Supreme Court is corrupt.....well, that, and the abortion approval from years ago; both things are unConstitutional, yet they legalized them.)
And there are more of his agenda points that he inserted there, just because HE wants certain things done and thinks we should believe HE knows what's best for EVERYONE. Well, he is wrong. He USED people's need for insurance to promote his own personal agenda. He doesn't care about me or you nor what our health is like! He uses the plight of citizens to push his personal desires onto us all, to make a name for himself. He perceives himself as some sort of knight in shining armor, or at least that's what he wants YOU to see him as.
You're being "had". And the worst part is that you don't realize it. That's how trickery and tyranny works at first.
- PrettyPantherposted 10 years ago
0Hmmm, I'm willing to bet that some people on here are paying for internet service, cell phones, dinners out, and other non-necessities but claim they can't afford health insurance. Yet, what happens if they become catastrophically ill? They will receive health care even if they don't have insurance and even if they can't afford to pay for it. Moochers.
And some of these are the same people who complain about food stamp recipients. Hypocrites.Some, probably. Others complaining of the cost, no.
I know I can afford the insurance (with a tax subsidy) but cannot possibly afford the doctor bills that come with it in a far less than "catastrophic" illness/injuries. Dropping my isp (paid for 4 times over by HP), my $10/ month cell phone, the bi-yearly meal out and the once a year movie will not cover my out of pocket expenses. Might as well bite the bullet and go bankrupt, which was what would happen pre-obamacare anyway.
Alright, as you see it the business that may stop paying for your insurance is good but the Obamacare that allows me to buy your own insurance is bad.
Interesting idea!
My Endocrinologist wants me to take a drug that costs close to $400.00 a month to control my diabetes, I can't afford to pay that much so I do without. Under Obamacare, insurance has a plan that will let me get the same drug for a $30.00 copay. I've obviously been had! Perhaps I should insist that they let me pay extra.
I may be crying "Woe is me" when I get medical care but I am glad to "Be had" since Obamacare allows me to avoid bankruptcy and receive medical care.
If your husband's employer stops covering you, you still have the option to refuse to buy your own insurance and pay a small fine as a matter of principle. Damned Obama wants you to be able to buy insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions, what a calamity! Then, depending on your income you may even receive a subsidy to help with the cost, another calamity!
Your screed is replete with "I wasn't eligible for", "What's gonna happen? I dunno!" and "Guess I'll find out, huh?".
I suggest you look into Obamacare before you condemn it, you may find you can buy your own policy without being beholden to your husband's employer.I don't think you're getting the point. You are able to "buy" your own insurance only because someone else is paying for most of it. Still the same charity you mentioned before when you went to a hospital - you have no more money now to pay for your health care than you did before.
And that brings up another point; insurance is not a free ticket to healthcare. That care is still paid for by someone and you can bet it isn't the insurance company! In this case, a great deal of it will be paid for by people forced to buy insurance, younger healthy people that don't want it and won't use it. People that will now subsidize your health care (care, not insurance costs) plus pay the overhead costs and profit margin of the insurance company for themselves and for you.So you are suggesting that I go without insurance, hope for charity and die soon?
Yeah, someone is paying some of my way, IF I have to use the insurance. If I have no catastrophe I will be paying someone else's way, the way insurance is designed. As for young people, are they immune to accidents and diseases? When an uninsured young person needs medical care they get it at an emergency room and someone else pays for their care. If they buy so called un-needed insurance they will have some coverage and put less strain on the rest of society.
I have a friend who was in the position of needing emergency medical care as a teenager. He Didn't need and didn't have insurance, yet he racked up medical bill over a million dollars, paid for by tax payers and insurance buyers.For him his care was free the rest of us paid his bill.
The Affordable Care Act is a way of forcing everybody to take some amount of responsibility for themselves. When you look into the cost with subsidy you might even find out it is not as big a burden as you think, the other option is to hope for charity.No, I suggest you collect just as much charity - govt. subsidy - as you can get and buy insurance. The same thing I'm going to do.
Then pray that you don't need any care, because if it's more than minor you will be bankrupt, just as if you hadn't spent your tiny entertainment budget for insurance.
If you want young people to have insurance (no argument there) then charge them an amount commensurate with their expected care costs. Not triple or quadruple what the group is expected to cost, as another unwilling source for the charity for the likes of you and I, to subsidize the insurance we're forced to buy but will not help at all in reducing our costs.I think you make a good case for Medicare for all, no more profit motive!
As for charging according to age and smoking, the ACA already does that, what they don't do is charge more for pre-existing conditions. A diabetic like me can get coverage like anyone else in my age group. As to young people, paying while they.are young just means they will still have insurance when they are old like you and I. If young people avoid paying now the system will fail. As much as this will delight the right wingers, those young people will someday get old and need insurance.
As to not helping with reducing costs, the different plans will cover from 60 to 90 percent of costs after deductible. That is a far better deal than being refused care by a for profit hospital. If you receive care at a for profit hospital they re willing to sue to the point that you lose everything.
When I has a problem last year (unrelated to diabetes) I went to the local university hospital for emergency surgery. They excused my entire bill because my income is so low, that wouldn't happen at a profit hospital. Taxes and other people's insurance paid my way. Under ACA, the hospital would have received some payment from insurance even if it was not completely covered. This would have shifted less cost to taxpayers and other people's insurance companies*shrug* It all boils down to the question of do you think it reasonable to require someone else to pay for your care? If so, Obama care is a start - medicare for everyone is the ultimate goal. If not, if you think people should be responsible for themselves, then Obamacare is an abomination.
The young people concept: yes, it will work just as you say. You will require them to subsidize you, and in return they can require someone else to subsidize them when the time comes. It's all about becoming more and more socialist, "sharing the wealth"; something that a great many people greet with open arms. Others not so much.
I figured you would come up with the idea that insurance companies are going to cover health care costs sooner later. Let me clue you - they are NOT. Insurance companies cannot pay for health care for the country, can ONLY add to the cost of that care, can NEVER reduce the cost of the care (at least not without reducing the care itself, as happens with review boards).I wish there were thumbs up or down for these post, because you need a 1000 thumbs up in is an abomination and will remain so, we young folks need to take care of ourselves not others who were not forward thinking and failed to plan ahead.
Ah, but the new socialist America requires anyone with anything beyond mere existence to support other people that don't like working.
Unfortunate, but that's where the liberal socialists want to take us and are successfully doing so.Well, I guess it's true that such words as liberal, conservative, right or left have different meanings in different political climates.
What would you call a socialist in the US? A conservative, wishing the maintain the status quo and promoting the idea that people are responsible for themselves?OK. Let's just leave all the labels off - it makes communication much easier.
So i guess someday when you get sick and have to go to the hospital to get treatment you are going to pay your own bill no matter how much. Or are you ok with the rest of us tax payers paying pick up the cost of your unpaid bills. You claim you could not afford it, well get a second job to pay for it. I would bet all those less government types out their have been pretty happy with the government when they needed a hospital to give them treatment before given the bill. Especially those who are fine with with having no insurance.
- PrettyPantherposted 10 years ago0
I live in Missouri, where fearful, ignorant rural politicians have made sure that Missouri will not be doing their own exchange and further, have made it illegal for state agencies to cooperate with the feds in the creation of the exchange in Missouri. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Smart, Why would you want the Government to operate anything that has to do with your health?
Why would I want to pay a for-profit middleman to take my money and then deny treatments when I get sick?
PP you might not have the best plan, did you look? Do you seriously believe the government can provide something better? They cant even get the website up and running, nope sorry I dont trust this government as they are taking all our freedoms away one by one. I have never been denied coverage or services ever and I am disabled and no I am not on medicare or medicaid.
Some people think Obamacare is so great that they want to be exempt:
Completely false, no one is exempt from the PPACA as from next year. Some groups got a one year extension because until 2013 their current plan was better than the PPACA one because certain aspects of the PPACA had not been rolled out yet.
Why do you lie so much?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac … obamacare/What is your problem? Take a Prozac and stop calling people names. We can debate civilly.
You proved your point. I need to retract my original post. I was wrong.
I'd like an extension too; my current healthcare is better.
UPDATE:
It appears that I may have retracted my statement too early. There are some additional sources that indicate that there was/is a presidential intent to avoid participation in Obamacare for Congress and/or President Obama.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/10/16/ … ress-85333
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 … -john-fundNope that is not what the Vitter amendment is:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/d … html?hp=f1
Really? Members of congress and certain other federal employees are becoming a part of ACA? They are going to have to pay the huge fees for having a "cadillac" plan from their employer (Uncle Sam)?
I don't think so...Congress already has a federal health plan, it's actually not a Cadillac plan and there have been alterations to ensure it meets the ACA so yes.
Looks like you are right this time, all except Obama. And I at least do not have a problem with any and all the free care available for the position of President. Better a high cost President than a Vice stepping into the job.
Just one of many http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/10/06/v … gulations/
I'll add my two cents...
Kentucky has it's own health exchange and expanded Medicaid.
If you have assets and low monthly income, you'll be automatically directed to Medicaid, at no cost.
The rules for qualifying have changed so anyone with homes,cars,money but lower than $15750 a yr income, gets free insurance.
Incredible!
PPACA goes against the core beliefs of our nation. We need to maintain our democratic republic to ensure autonomy for all. PPACA is attemting to bring about the social democracy which is so desired (by…?) for the purpose of giving the people less control over their own lives. We must continue to fight Obama Scare and we must vote out socialists and/or believers in Utopia.
It's a no brainer.
PS thank Goodness for the Sequester.
PSS I would never take Government Insurance. It makes my stomach turn just thinking about it. (So, I can't even afford to think about it.)
Related Discussions
- 21
Can anyone explain the Affordable Care Act to me?
by Eric Seidel 6 years ago
Can anyone explain the Affordable Care Act to me?I was honestly going to make a Hub about this, asking this very question, and I had written 800 something words on the subject. Ok actually it's more like a mild rant, but I think this would be better as a Hubpages question rather than a Hub that no...
- 33
Obamacare will save Medicare $200 billion by 2016
by Stacie L 11 years ago
Obamacare will save Medicare $200 billion by 2016by Joan McCarterFollow The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services actuary reports: "We have achieved significant tangible savings that have been passed on to beneficiaries," said Jonathan Blum, director of the Center for...
- 75
Obama Care and State Exchanges
by Mike Russo 10 years ago
How is your state doing with Obama Care State Exchanges? Read this article about how the California State Exchange is going to help lower premium costs.http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/05 … ng-points/
- 22
What are the 6 ways Obama"care" is a total waste of time, energy, and money wher
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
What are the 6 ways Obama"care" is a total waste of time, energy, and money where there arehospitals and/or other medical facilities that offer very low cost and/or free health care?The "purpose" that President Obama "intended" for his to be implemented...
- 152
Obamacare increase the avability of healthcare in what ways?
by Judy Specht 7 years ago
I have been listening to how the government has a billion dollars for getting people to sign up for the Affordable Healthcare Act. Would that money have been better spent training more doctors and building new hospitals? New Jersey has closed how many community hospitals in the last few...
- 59
The train wreck that is ObamaCare
by Alexander A. Villarasa 10 years ago
What does one expect of a piece of legislation that was voted on, and passed both by the Senate and Congress, signed into law by Pres. Obama, and certified by the Supreme Court as being constitutional? High Hopes of course, but in the case of the Affordabe Health Care Act (popularly...