With the implementation of the Affordable Healthcare Act what are your reasons for not getting the government mandated insurance?
Not eligible and I don't trust the government anyway.
Well one huge reason is that it is not affordable for everyone just those with extra money each month which I am one of the ones with no extra money each month. Also I don't like being given demands when i am supposed to be living in a free couontry not a dictatorship. I will not be told that I have to do anything. lets see what they try and do to me. I will not pay that fee charged either it is against our freedom of rights to be forced to do something against our free will. It is not legal or ethical.
Same here - I've not completed it yet, but more and more it looks like if I give my limited health care budget to an insurance company there will be nothing left for any actual care. Which means I cannot purchase even the little doctor's time that I could before the "affordable" care act.
I am about in the same boat. Being self employed in the construction industry I cannot determine what my income can be accounted week to week let alone month to month. If I give the exchange one number then I am responsible to make the payments based on that number. But as with most in this industry we live from paycheck to paycheck and next months check is not usually there. Besides how is it that they determine what portion of your income should go towards healthcare? Is there a magic formula that meets all standards and thereby they should force all to pay under this edict? I am sorry to say that the ACA is not affordable for me and I will just have to pay the penalty fee that by the way has been determined by the same people who decided the healthcare formulas as well.
We are self-employed also.
We used our 2012 tax return. The number they are looking for is gross adjusted income -- there is a certain line on the return.
I don't know what kind of income bracket you are in, but you may be eligible for government subsidy.
I strongly, strongly suggest you contact a broker to help you do your application.
There are lists of "resources" on the website. Put in your zipcode. You should get a decent sized list of people who have been specially trained in ACA and the exchanges.
Let them handle your application, seriously.
It costs you nothing and you don't have to wonder if you're "doing it right."
As to whether the costs quoted are for an individual or a family, if you put in you have a household of 2 or 4, it will be based on 2 or 4. You will also put in the age of each person you want to cover so your rate will be based on those factors and where you live.
A word of caution.
If you file joint taxes with your spouse, the system will default to family coverage for you both.
It cannot deal with each of you applying for individual coverage.
I don't know if this is true of the national website or if it is a glitch in Covered California.
Anyway, thusfar is it is my biggest complaint with the system.
Yes, Obama broke his promise to me, too. He said "If you like your doctor you get to keep your doctor." That is not happening here. I have had Kaiser and the same wonderful team of doctors for years. But because the system can't let me have Kaiser and my husband Blue Shield, I will be giving up Kaiser and going with Blue Shield also.
I'm not happy about this.
But I am grateful to have healthcare at all.
So I put in for a family of 2. The cost is per month for 2 people, the deductible is for a family and the maximum out of pocket is for the family. The reason I ask is that both I and the wife showed a big subsidy, but the price only seems to take one into effect.
I tried, via the chat feature, to get an answer to this but the idiot on the other didn't have any idea and told me to call the hot line.
Do you know if there is a separate deductible and out of pocket for just one of the two people? Every other policy I've ever had had separate deductibles per person and family.
I have tried the various options and the exchange in Maryland and still find it a horrible confusing disaster. The bottom line when all is said and done is that I cannot afford the alternatives they have offered nor do I wish to get free healthcare. I hope that if I should get some sort of catastrophic health issue that it should take me down quickly and mercifully. Other than that I will have a fight on my hands to get those around me to let me go so that I may not be a burden to others financially or emotionally. I have put do not resuscitate and right to die matters in effect but other than that I have very few options.
Wow, all this talk about freedom to chose health care boggles my little Canadian mind. You have the freedom to say no, but don't have the freedom to see any doctor you wish. You do have the freedom to drive down any road you wish, but you have to pay for that freedom that the government provides with taxes. You have the freedom to sell your house or live in it, but you have to pay your property taxes or the government will take that freedom away. Freedom to see any doctor you wish needs to come with a price as well, but not a the price of making a bunch of Insurance companies rich.
The Canadian system is far from perfect, to make it perfect we'd need to spend closer to what Americans spend per person. The cost of our health care comes from taxes, where the rich pay more and the poor pay less, but it's for the good of the nation.
It always is, isn't? "Good for the nation" that some support others?
At least as long as you're on the taking side; being on the "giving" side isn't so neat...
Why not? Almost everyone pays taxes of some kind. You would expect someone who makes $500,000 a year pay the same tax as someone who makes $12,000 would you?
Do they benefit more from the extra taxes? If not, how is it fair they pay for someone else to enjoy the benefits?
Yes they benefit from paying more taxes than the poor. They strengthen the nation. If we all payed a flat rate, some people would give there entire pay check to the government and still owe taxes every year and the people making $500,000 would keep $480,000 of it. One could argue that high income people work hard for it, but it can also be said that low income people work hard as well. Not everyone is born with an IQ of 150 and with parents that can pay for an expensive education. Isn't it best for the society to ensure that everyone is well feed and educated? People generally don't mind paying for the education of children in grade and high school with taxes. We pay taxes for the good of society, right. So what's wrong with the guy making $500,000 a year paying more to help the less fortunate put food on the table and educate their children?
Of course they benefit - the question was do they benefit more than the person paying 1/10th the tax?
Understand that rich people will have more left - does having more left innately mean they get more for their taxes?
Does having a high IQ mean they get more for their taxes? Does feeding people that won't/can't work (can't or won't produce anything of value) improve the country as a whole? If yes, please explain how not producing anything of value improves the country.
Finally, you misunderstand. I did not say it was unnecessary - I said it was unfair. It IS necessary that the rich pay more and life IS unfair. The problem, ethically, comes about when society continually increases the "share" of the rich solely to benefit someone else and decides that it's OK to do so. Because...because...well, because they want something but don't want to pay for it and therefore the rich should foot the bill.
We have corporations who make millions and billions for their shareholders while paying their employees minimum wage. Some of these employees need to rely on charity to feed their families. Anything wrong with that picture?
As for those who won't work that a whole other matter. I know a few people personally/relatives who refuse to work and rely on the government for support. How they can afford data plans and tattoos is beyond my comprehension, however, do we allow their children to starve because the parents are incapable? Some are not just lazy and are incapable of work, I would like to think we can judge a nation by how we treat the poorest among us.
So, it's not a matter of how much bang we get for our tax bucks it's what we do with the whole of the taxes that's important. We feed and educate and in some places we supply health care because after all we are all humans.
You are attempting the normal liberal action of changing the topic from forcibly taking possessions from a person to one of the necessity of charity.
The topic is excessive high taxation required of the rich. Taxes for which they receive no more than anyone paying a much smaller amount. That children starve, that workers cannot feed their family, that we educate some people but not others; none of that is a reason to think that taxing the rich more than anyone else is "fair". It may be necessary (and is if we wish the country to survive), but it is NOT "fair".
Requiring someone else to feed your children is not fair. Requiring them to educate your children is not fair. Requiring them to feed you AND build the road you drive on while you contribute nothing to either one is not fair. And all of the "share the wealth" plans, all of the "YOU WANT LITTLE CHILDREN TO DIE" screams, all the rationalization in the world will not make it so any more than it will make playing Robin Hood ethical or moral.
When you bow to the necessities of stealing from one to support another, stand up and accept that it is not ethical. And keep it to the absolute minimum necessary for survival; stop the nonsense of rationalizing that the rich are responsible somehow for supplying luxuries to the rest of the country.
Fair? Life isn't fair.
Do you always call taxation stealing? Is property tax stealing? Is it Fair that one would pay the same tax on a 1000 s/f house as one would one a 10,000 s/f $4 million house?
What is this fair thing your talking about? Is it fair that walmart makes billions and pay it's employees minimum wage?
What is the fair thing you are talking about?
Is it fair that any child goes without food?
Right now, I'm trying to figure out if I can afford it. The chat people can't tell me what the prices on the exchange reflect - whether the premiums are for one person or two.
If one, I shall purchase and hope I don't use it because there is no money left to buy actual care rather than insurance. If two, I shall pay the fine and go without insurance as I cannot afford the cost.
The question is "why don't you have healthcare?"
I DO have healthcare and always have.
Since 2002 when I started working for myself I have paid my own. I have seen the premium rise every year.
This past year I paid $885 for one person -- me.
For 2014 they did not cancel my insurance. But they raised the premium to $955 a month.
That is truly unaffordable for me in any economy!
But, I considered myself lucky to still have the insurance given the number of preexisting conditions I have. Prior to ACA if I had had to apply for insurance I would be denied.
My husband had not had insurance for many years. He also had preexisting conditions.
(Newsflash -- the list of pre-existing conditions an insurer used to be able to deny you for is as long as my arm. Many of them really petty).
Because of the Affordable Care Act we were able to get him insurance in 2012. He got the government's Pre-existing Conditions Plan (PCIP). Better than nothing!
We were paying $505 a month for his plan.
So $505 plus $885 -- $1,390 a month for the two of us.
As those of you who are regulars on these forums know, I have been a big champion of ACA. It's not perfect, but a big step forward.
We are now going to get insurance through the healthcare exchange. The two of us will be paying $180 per month in premiums. For two. A savings of $1,210 per month in premiums.
That is what I call AFFORDABLE.
As long as someone else picks up the bill, anything is affordable. I'm not sure that simply shunting costs onto other people, while increasing the cost to the country, is a step forward. Socialism at it's best, with a very good chance it will bankrupt the country if left as is; neither is desirable and neither is a step forward.
But that shunting the bill onto someone else is how it's been working anyway.
Those without insurance and getting care from hospitals are not getting "free" care.
Somebody is paying for that.
Some of the cost gets absorbed by the hospital, yes.
But the hospitals recoup what they can from those who have insurance or who are private pay.
To a point, you are correct. So we should then make it wholesale, with a specific group targeted to pay for the others? And run up the cost as we do so by giving insurance companies a profit on what hospitals used to pass on? And make the poorer people, just starting out in life, pick up the majority of the burden?
I don't like it.
To wilderness on question of premiums, deductibles and OOP max.
The premium is per family -- the amount quoted would be for both of you.
Yes, the deductible is per person. Unless you are getting I think it's a gold plan. Then there is no deductible (?)
Each person has an OOP. The family OOP max is essentially twice the individual OOP.
I hear your frustration and agree -- the process of even evaluating plans let alone enrolling SUCKS. I cannot and will not argue with that. And you may quote me!
MM admits the system is FLAWED!!
(MM is actually in shock -- and not in a good way -- about having to switch providers. NOT happy.)
I wouldn't trust chat either.
I tried to talk to someone at the Colorado exchange for my son. He was useless.
Our broker here has been tirelessly working on this issue of "family vs. two individuals" for weeks now. She kept getting different answers from different people at Covered California.
That would still be my recommendation -- a broker.
The reason is the broker sells health insurance for a living. They are already familiar with health insurance and the insurers and have had extensive training in the offerings of the exchange, too. They are PROFESSIONALS. Who knows who you are getting on chat??
OK. From memory, cost is down from $900+ to $250, with a $700 subsidy for each of us (Silver plan). That doesn't make sense.
Deductible is $5,000, with a note to the effect it is for the group, but will be $10,000 for the group.
OOP is listed as $10,000, $20,000 for the family. Do I have this all right?
That's really neat - if I pay $3000+ for insurance and have medical bills even to the point of meeting the deductible I'm bankrupt. While I could pay the care bills off in a couple of years I could not pay $13,000 of care + insurance bills in any reasonable time frame. And to hit the OOP for the family would put me in debtors prison the first month! Can anyone explain why I should pay the $3,000 yearly for insurance when any significant health bills will bankrupt me with or without insurance?
Please excuse my complete ignorance. But I have a question that to most may look ignorant and for good reason, but I'm Canadian and would like to understand.
If you've paid the $3000 yearly for insurance why would you be getting any health bills at all, isn't that what you paid the insurance for?
The one I'm considering requires that I pay the first $5,000 (whether individual or family I'm not positive) whereupon the insurance will begin to pay 70% of each bill. When I have paid $10,000 out of my pocket it will begin to pay all the bills.
Rather typical of American insurance although the deductible ($5,000) and out of pocket limit ($10,000) are higher than I've ever seen. More typical, in my experience was $500 and $2,000, with both being on the high end.
A ten thousand dollar deductible? Unbelievable. I'm not a fan of insurance companies and don't think they should not be involved in basic health care. They are simply there to make a profit and have lawyers sitting there waiting to examine any large claim. Extended health care sure, but not basic health care.
Thanks for that.
For proper terminology, no. A $10,000 Out-Of-Pocket - the most I will pay in any given year for health care. Not insurance, the care itself. Designed, I think, to prevent catastrophic costs from ruining a person.
Deductible refers to an amount I must pay before insurance pays anything, just as the insurance on my car or home does. Designed, I think, to prevent unnecessary visits for the sniffles or something. As most people never meet their deductible, all visits are still paid for by the insured.
Oh man, you've got to move up here. That sounds like the insurance only covers big stuff. It sounds like those finding it difficult to meet ends would forgo a trip to the doctor.
Correct on both counts. Which is what insurance should do, as opposed to simply providing cheap/free health care.
This way people might not complain about supporting businesses with additional billions in profits, at least until the totality of the bill becomes apparent. Of course, there will be people - I suspect a great number - that are just like me and caught being able to provide those profits to the insurance companies OR pay for most of their health care. Not both. Or they can choose between paying the fine for not buying insurance or paying for some of their care.
by Judy Specht13 months 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...
by Jesusjohn7820 months ago
Everyone hates the "rich" and I do not understand why. I was always under the impression the American dream was to become successful and stay successful? SO why are we always trying to punish the...
by ElSeductor4 years ago
Why are some people so eager to take away healthcare for people with pre-existing conditions?
by Dr Billy Kidd5 years ago
The Affordable Healthcare Act works toward everybody in the U.S. having healthcare insurance. Most Republicans are running on a platform of taking that away. Senator McConnell said there is no replacement on the agenda...
by Mike Russo4 years ago
I have been retired for five years and since Obama Care has been in effect, I have realized significant changes in my medicare plan. My out of pocket drug costs are much lower now. The donut hole is closing and...
by ptosis3 weeks ago
federal income tax rates history, During the eight years of the Eisenhower presidency, from 1953 to 1961, the top marginal rate was 91 percent. (It was 92 percent the year he came into office.)What does it mean, though?...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.