Just got my new ins premiums under Obamacare

[fatdaddycool]

While Saint and I are never going to be confused as friends, but I would love to hear the Messiah's supporters take in this?

How is this "Affordable"?

PF,
I am a supporter of our President and I don't really have a take on it to be quite honest with you.

I do know that President Obama and several Presidents prior to him identified a problem with our nations health care. He committed himself and possibly his presidency to actually try to do something about the millions of people in this country, your country, that truly need this. Since it's inception he has gotten no help from a single republican other than the ones who originally penned the ACA calling it the "Heritage Foundation". The President got it passed and he busted his fucking ass to get it done and now, the very same party that penned the mother fucker are trying to use it as a weapon to vilify the man. For two years I have watched as Republicans have had vote after vote trying to repeal it yet not one fucking thing on how to make it better. Republicans keep talking that bullshit about how the President won't sit down and discuss it when they had years to discuss it with him. Fucking YEARS, and they chose not to. They claim to be the Christian right wing and yet the don't give a fuck about the health and welfare of the less fortunate or the needy. They gash Meals on Wheels, Medicaid and Medicare, Social Security, and on and on and on and not one itty bitty little drop of legislation was introduced to provide a reasonable fix or alternative to what they, the house republicans, are now complaining about. Then they, your guys, tie health care to a fucking budget bill and put millions of people behind the eight ball with furloughs and such and you still think this is Obama's fault. I just don't get how people can honestly believe for even a millisecond that the RNC is acting on behalf of anyone but themselves and their financiers. Every other country that we consider allies has free health care. Not affordable insurance, no, health fucking care and not one of them have the budget issues we do. What is the dollar worth now in Euros or yen or any other currency you want to compare it to? It's shit, that's what it is. Obstructing governance is not what they were elected to do yet that is all they have done. Personally, I hope and predict that this law will be the death or near death of the Republican party and I for one can't fucking wait. If Ted Cruz got shot in the fucking face right now, I would cheer.
Again bro, I don't think President Obama is a messiah. I think he is a President that had a vision and a commitment to himself and others to do something in his presidency other than send us to war time and again.
This shutdown was planned by the RNC for two years and they finally did it, of course they will still pay themselves and will probably vote in a raise for themselves as well and you say Obama is the messiah? Holy shit bro. Only the Republicans are feeding you shit and telling you it was water they turned into wine.


Hope this helps,
FDC




Still love ya brother!!!!!!!!:0008

 

[saint]

Fdc


So no response to the IRS link of the law of the land and OOP max of 12k for a family?

Your silence is deafening.

 

[Penguinfan]

FDC,

Again we sadly disagree. I almost have to laugh that people claim the Reps are against healthcare for everyone. NOBODY is against anyone getting the healthcare they need, NOBODY. Not me, not the people I voted for, not anyone. What I am against is me AGAIN paying for it.

Why can the President not find funding somewhere else? Eliminate one of the wasteful projects out there and pay for it out of that. I honestly don't care if someone gets something for free that I have to pay for, I really don't. I am not against the welfare crowd like I am accused of being. Yes, they get the same things for free that I have to use my money to buy, but I certainly would not want to trade places wit them. In no way shape or form do I think anyone should go without healthcare.

Where does my personal financial responsibility stop, though?

Enough is already way past enough. Don't I already pay higher healthcare premiums to subsidies the people who walk in with no insurance and can't be turned away and then don't pay? Hell yes I do.

Look at your auto insurance. Maybe this is not true for the entire country, but here in PA it is. You cannot drive without insurance yet I pay an additional premium for "uninsured motorists". WTF? Someone CHOOSES to drive illegally without insurance and I pay to protect myself from what is already a law? Isn't that what the Dems are touting here? "The ACA is already a law so quit fighting it". Well, driving without insurance is already a law and I still pay for that???

Seriously, this is not about denying healthcare to those I view less worthy of it, nothing could be further from the truth. BHO's supporters will be very quick to lash out at people who call him a socialist. Don't you find that odd when he continues to ask me to pay for something so someone else can have something I already pay for?

When is enough enough?

 

[Cie]

In that letter, they made some assertion on whether or not they offer affordable insurance. If they said that they do, then you're not going to get a better rate on the exchange (generally)

Just checked. Box checked saying they offer affordable insurance . Ain't life grand:toast:

 

[Cie]

Fdc


So no response to the IRS link of the law of the land and OOP max of 12k for a family?

Your silence is deafening.

I'd assume you'd be used to people tuning you out by now. It takes a man with a small set of balls to carry on a conversation with someone who is condescending him. It is one if the reasons hedgehog gets no respect around here. Make sense?

 

[fatdaddycool]

FDC,

Again we sadly disagree. I almost have to laugh that people claim the Reps are against healthcare for everyone. NOBODY is against anyone getting the healthcare they need, NOBODY. Not me, not the people I voted for, not anyone. What I am against is me AGAIN paying for it.

Why can the President not find funding somewhere else? Eliminate one of the wasteful projects out there and pay for it out of that. I honestly don't care if someone gets something for free that I have to pay for, I really don't. I am not against the welfare crowd like I am accused of being. Yes, they get the same things for free that I have to use my money to buy, but I certainly would not want to trade places wit them. In no way shape or form do I think anyone should go without healthcare.

Where does my personal financial responsibility stop, though?

Enough is already way past enough. Don't I already pay higher healthcare premiums to subsidies the people who walk in with no insurance and can't be turned away and then don't pay? Hell yes I do.

Look at your auto insurance. Maybe this is not true for the entire country, but here in PA it is. You cannot drive without insurance yet I pay an additional premium for "uninsured motorists". WTF? Someone CHOOSES to drive illegally without insurance and I pay to protect myself from what is already a law? Isn't that what the Dems are touting here? "The ACA is already a law so quit fighting it". Well, driving without insurance is already a law and I still pay for that???

Seriously, this is not about denying healthcare to those I view less worthy of it, nothing could be further from the truth. BHO's supporters will be very quick to lash out at people who call him a socialist. Don't you find that odd when he continues to ask me to pay for something so someone else can have something I already pay for?

When is enough enough?

I agree with you, insurance is way too costly and so is some health care. Why don't we just do away with insurance completely and just provide free health care with standard pricing? Because it would never pass. We have to have free market for it so the big insurance companies can jack up prices, deny claims, make outrageous profits, etc.... It is the Republican way.

Honestly PF, I truly don't know what the answer is or how we fix it. I just know that someone, maybe us, has to try. I believe in the human spirit man and I am sure you do to, I know you do. I believe in helping others that need help, I don't think that everyone that is on public assistance is a fat lazy crack headed black mother of 13. I don't believe that giving rich people more money will create jobs or spur the economy. I believe that everyone, and I mean everyone, deserves the right to be happy and free. Sometimes freedom comes at a price. I mean, we can't even fix the medical benefits for veterans. Do you know how long it takes just to get a physical at the VA. Over 90 days before you can get on the schedule and then it is an all day affair!?!? It's insane. Something has to be done and we can't even get an affordable insurance rate passed here. I am sorry we disagree my friend and that takes nothing away from the fact that I dig and respect you as a poster here.

 

[fatdaddycool]

Fdc


So no response to the IRS link of the law of the land and OOP max of 12k for a family?

Your silence is deafening.

I told you I wasn't going to respond because you were being a fucking dick. So no, no response. Not only that, but even if I did respond it still would have been silent. I am hundreds of miles away, you can't hear me anyway.
Have you ever heard the saying about more bees with honey and such? Notice I didn't call you a dipshit or anything else like that. Try not being a dick to others on here that aren't being a dick to you and you might get more responses. Fuck saint, did you even read my response? Do you ever fully read and comprehend things before you post statements concerning the content?


Hope this helps,
FDC

 

[Mags]

As posted by Mags in regards to a similar claim of such prices and I believe he is correct.

I call BS on this. Carriers cannot offer a deductible higher than $5000 on the exchange and out of pocket limits cannot be higher than $6350 (total of deductible and coinsurance). A deductible over $10k is not possible on any exchange.

FDC - this was a different scenario. Saint had a $5450 HDHP (HSA) plan. His max OOP for his family (presumably he and his wife) was $5400 per year, with the rest paid at $100.

That type of plan isn't allowed anymore (a family deductible of $5450). So, he likely choose a non HDHP plan, which would carry a $6,350 OOP maximum that would apply to both Saint and his wife. So yes, he could now be exposed to a max OOP of over $12K, versus the $5450 he had before.

On the flipside, the $5450 plan he had would not kick in until he hit $5450 in expenses - and the new plan likely pays benefits for both doctor office and Rx benefits well before that figure.

This stuff is complicated - and one really needs a strong background in health insurance (which I wouldn't recommend to anyone as it is not fun) to really understand the comparisons and ensuring they are "apples to apples".

 

[Penguinfan]

This stuff is complicated - and one really needs a strong background in health insurance (which I wouldn't recommend to anyone as it is not fun) to really understand the comparisons and ensuring they are "apples to apples".

Yep, but you know what I don't need a background in healthcare to figure out? I'll be paying much more in 2014 than in 2013 for LESS coverage.

Pretty easy to figure out. When our final benefits information came out there was a very clear note that read "a mandatory part of each policy holder's premium will go toward funding the Affordable Care Act".

Now, I work for corporate America and no surprise you can call them Republican supporters so that may have been worded like that to take a shot at BHO, I don't know nor do I care. What I know is I am paying more for less and paying for someone else s healthcare to boot.

Lose, lose, lose IMO.

 

[MadJack]

I'll be paying much more in 2014 than in 2013 for LESS coverage.

And this will be the first year that ever happened.

:0003

 

[fatdaddycool]

FDC - this was a different scenario. Saint had a $5450 HDHP (HSA) plan. His max OOP for his family (presumably he and his wife) was $5400 per year, with the rest paid at $100.

That type of plan isn't allowed anymore (a family deductible of $5450). So, he likely choose a non HDHP plan, which would carry a $6,350 OOP maximum that would apply to both Saint and his wife. So yes, he could now be exposed to a max OOP of over $12K, versus the $5450 he had before.

On the flipside, the $5450 plan he had would not kick in until he hit $5450 in expenses - and the new plan likely pays benefits for both doctor office and Rx benefits well before that figure.

This stuff is complicated - and one really needs a strong background in health insurance (which I wouldn't recommend to anyone as it is not fun) to really understand the comparisons and ensuring they are "apples to apples".

Well, clearly, I am not as educated as you are on the matter and did not mean to throw you into the fray by using your quote. I honestly thought it applied. Health Insurance is not something I want to learn about to the level that I could communicate it confidently like you can. While I still didn't like the whole Cliff Clavin comment :0008 I do generally understand when someone is more educated than I on a particular topic. Of course it doesn't mean I have to change my opinion on the topic but I do appreciate that some people know more than others about certain things.
What I don't know is how much of that proposed figure will actually be incurred by saint on a yearly basis and I certainly am not able to make the connection of his insurance issue to let's publicly hate on the POTUS. I know you think I blindly support POTUS but I do not support everything he does or says. What I really don't support is making hateful statements and railing on the guy, or making ridiculous statements like he got four Americans killed in Benghazi. It's stupid and irresponsible to do that when there are facts supporting the opposite and some just CHOOSE not to read or educate themselves on the facts.

I appreciate you taking the time to explain this to me and while I still can't honestly say I understand it, your explanation certainly helped and I appreciate it. I understand that not everyone can agree on everything and sometimes insults are hysterical but saint and I have been posting here a long time and there was absolutely zero reason for him to be such a cock loving machine about his posts to me. That's all.

Again, thanks Mags and cheers.


Hope this helps,
FDC

 

[Mags]

I agree with you, insurance is way too costly and so is some health care. Why don't we just do away with insurance completely and just provide free health care with standard pricing? Because it would never pass. We have to have free market for it so the big insurance companies can jack up prices, deny claims, make outrageous profits, etc.... It is the Republican way.

FDC - you are confusing insurance companies with what unions do to the cost of products (inflate the price).

So, insurance companies make 3-4% profit margin since 2010 (and not much higher, on average as an industry before). Is that too high of a profit margin?

Want to guess what Pharma makes? 35%
How about Apple - I think it is higher than 35%
What about hospital systems? Well over 10%
What about doctors?

OK, so health insurers take $3 out of every $100 in the system in profit. And they are the money grubbers? :mj07:

Can you imagine how much most of the products in our life would be with unions driving up the price of goods sold?

You bought into Obama's crap, about bastardizing the insurance companies just to get his crap health care bill passed.

Let me ask you this? How much significant legislation in our country passed without bi-partisan support?

Answer: 1 - The ACA. Which is exactly why this will be fought tooth and nail for many many years. You don't take a risk of screwing up 16% of the economy without both parties being involved.

Did we end Slavery on a party line basis? No, some Dems actually voted to end slavery (although they were the party of slavery and the KKK).

What about Medicare? Nope, bi-partisan.

What about Social Security? Nope, bi-partisan.

OK, Medicare Part D? Again bi-partisan.

That was Obama's huge mistake. The ACA can never be successful when there is so much opposition to it, and there is no buyin on the other side of the aisle. Add in the fact that it really did nothing to reign in costs (other than on insurance companies), and expanded coverage greatly without FIRST cutting docs/hospitals/RX pay.

Just stupid by Obama. And then using reconcilation (which had never been used for large social legislation - basically, the nuclear option) - that IS what the set the stage for the gridlock we've had since.

The country, as a majority, didn't want this bill. Obama pushed it through via dubious means anyway. Then he pressured Roberts to uphold it - even though his initial vote was against it - and had Roberts reclassify the individual mandate as a tax - even though in the bill, it is always referred to as a penalty, the Dems and Obama always said it was not a tax, but a penalty.

The whole process that the Dems and Obama used has poisoned the parties - and the Reps are right to never go along with Obama again after that crap he pulled. There is a reason Obama is rated the most polarizing president in the history of our nation. The crap he pulled with the ACA is legendary and the fact that he did it will hurt our country for many, many years.

Personally, I like him. He is a nice guy. But I think Obama's zeal for having a "signature" legislative achievement put him in a zone to define his legacy at any cost possible, without any concern or thought of what it will do to the political environment in this country in the future.

Yes, he has his "achievement". But he has screwed up the political process forever - he really screwed Republicans (and the American people), and hopefully they will never forget this. Many American people will not - again, which is why Obama is the most devisive president in our history.

Which is especially ironic, as the big selling point on Obama was that he'd bring people together.

 

[Mags]

Yep, but you know what I don't need a background in healthcare to figure out? I'll be paying much more in 2014 than in 2013 for LESS coverage.

Pretty easy to figure out. When our final benefits information came out there was a very clear note that read "a mandatory part of each policy holder's premium will go toward funding the Affordable Care Act".

Now, I work for corporate America and no surprise you can call them Republican supporters so that may have been worded like that to take a shot at BHO, I don't know nor do I care. What I know is I am paying more for less and paying for someone else s healthcare to boot.

Lose, lose, lose IMO.

PF:

Keep in mind that the real purpose of the ACA was less to get people coverage - after all, 85% of folks had healthcare before the bill passed, and it is only projected to move to 92% with the bill. The actual intent was to create a massive income redistribution system. But that is where the Dems really screwed up.

Take a look at the groups: People under 100% of Federal Poverty Level (FPL) were on Medicaid and still will be.

The folks between 100% and 133% of FPL will now (in many states) have access to Medicaid - so a huge win for them. Doesn't help the Dems much, as these were Dem voters previously and aren't big campaign voters.

The Folks between 133% and 400% of the FPL - think $18K to $45K for a single person - get subsidies from people that make $45K or more via taxes and higher insurance premiums to pay for their subsidized coverage. A win there for the Dems.

But the middle class to upper middle class - those singles making $45K+ and families of 4 making $90K+ are getting hammered by this. They are ineligible for subsidies - yet their premium rates are skyrocketing in many areas (not all). So, if they were paying $4,000 a year, they very easily may be paying $8K to $10K a year. That is an extra $4-6K a year in insurance costs - and it's not like that group had a lot of extra cash to begin with.

The rich can absorb that additional cost - plus the additional taxes that they pay.

The middle class gets crushed.

So, would we be better off with 85% of the folks having coverage (and keep in mind, some of the 15% that weren't were not covered as they choose not to be, not that they couldn't get coverage) and those folks paying 1/2 of the premium rate today?

Or are we better off having 92% of people covered, with the middle class (which drives the majority of the tax dollars our government receives) paying premiums twice as high just to get 7% more people covered?

The math just doesn't add up.

 

[Cie]

Mags...you've received a ton of flak here for years, but I, for one, appreciate your recent healthcare posts, and have always been impressed that you limit personal attacks when making your points. There are several posters here who could benefit from following your lead in this regard. Cheers....

 

[saint]

Look, I came here with no agenda other than to post an illustration of what the new federal regulations are doing to my healthcare costs. And, to the costs of others as well. After posting over and over and over facts supported by numerous sources (including the gd IRS regulations) I lost my patience and resorted to personally calling FDC a dumbass. For that I apologize.

FDC, your refusal to believe what I was saying was based on your belief I had some sort of agenda. Honestly bud it doesn't matter to me what they do. I'm in the top 1% of the top 1%, the money is irrelevant. The increased premiums are but a blip on the radar for my family. I do however care about this country and believe the economy is being stimulated by the middle class.

Mags, thank you for pointing out and explaining what I already mentioned. Of course, FDC et al will now believe it because it came from your mouth. However, if anyone would care to go back and read post #26 by yours truly, I said exactly what Mags just wrote. This is going to hit the middle class extremely hard. 90k+ is middle class and this group will receive zero subsidies yet see astronomical increases in their rates.

That is not conjecture. That is not agenda. That is FACT.

Family OOP maximums can reach 12k. That is not agenda. That is not opinion. That is FACT.

I don't lean right, I don't lean left. I don't give a shit. They are all crooks and I'm okay with paying my share of taxes, which, believe me I do.

So, because this place is predictable, poon will probably quote me on the 1% line I posted above and the focus will be on that rather than the truth I speak in this entire post. I'm on your team fellas. I don't give a shit who the author of this plan was. I just completely disagree with why it's in place.

 

[saint]

Mags...you've received a ton of flak here for years, but I, for one, appreciate your recent healthcare posts, and have always been impressed that you limit personal attacks when making your points. There are several posters here who could benefit from following your lead in this regard. Cheers....

16 posts in this thread by me. One line of one of them where I "attacked" FDC calling him a dipshit, for which I just apologized.

Everything else I posted was truth. But, why let fact get in the way of opinions and perceptions, right.

 

[Mags]

Mags...you've received a ton of flak here for years, but I, for one, appreciate your recent healthcare posts, and have always been impressed that you limit personal attacks when making your points. There are several posters here who could benefit from following your lead in this regard. Cheers....

Thanks... as I remember, the flack was usually limited to personal attacks by Duff and Trampled....

I usually try to be reasonable and not attack people, but I guess just like anyone I can get fired up once in a while and stray from the high road.

Just trying to add info when I can, albeit from someone that admittedly has a conservative slant on things.

 

[Duff Miver]

But the middle class to upper middle class - those singles making $45K+ and families of 4 making $90K+ are getting hammered by this. They are ineligible for subsidies - yet their premium rates are skyrocketing in many areas (not all). So, if they were paying $4,000 a year, they very easily may be paying $8K to $10K a year. That is an extra $4-6K a year in insurance costs - and it's not like that group had a lot of extra cash to begin with.

The problem with you, Maggot, isn't just that you're stupid, it's that you're a liar.

The numbers you cite above have no basis in fact. None. Either you selected from some small atypical subset, or you just plain made them up.

Nobody, anywhere, who is now paying just $4k for the full cost of a bare-bones policy is going to pay 3X that for a bare-bones ACA policy.

Deny that? Okay, fine, let's see your sources.

Sources. Maggot, references.

Glen Beck and other liars don't count. Show us something from a respected actuary, economist, from the OMB. You can't because you're a liar.

Crawl back in your hole.

 

[saint]

FDC - you are confusing insurance companies with what unions do to the cost of products (inflate the price).

So, insurance companies make 3-4% profit margin since 2010 (and not much higher, on average as an industry before). Is that too high of a profit margin?

Want to guess what Pharma makes? 35%
How about Apple - I think it is higher than 35%
What about hospital systems? Well over 10%
What about doctors?

OK, so health insurers take $3 out of every $100 in the system in profit. And they are the money grubbers? :mj07:

Can you imagine how much most of the products in our life would be with unions driving up the price of goods sold?

You bought into Obama's crap, about bastardizing the insurance companies just to get his crap health care bill passed.

Let me ask you this? How much significant legislation in our country passed without bi-partisan support?

Answer: 1 - The ACA. Which is exactly why this will be fought tooth and nail for many many years. You don't take a risk of screwing up 16% of the economy without both parties being involved.

Did we end Slavery on a party line basis? No, some Dems actually voted to end slavery (although they were the party of slavery and the KKK).

What about Medicare? Nope, bi-partisan.

What about Social Security? Nope, bi-partisan.

OK, Medicare Part D? Again bi-partisan.

That was Obama's huge mistake. The ACA can never be successful when there is so much opposition to it, and there is no buyin on the other side of the aisle. Add in the fact that it really did nothing to reign in costs (other than on insurance companies), and expanded coverage greatly without FIRST cutting docs/hospitals/RX pay.

Just stupid by Obama. And then using reconcilation (which had never been used for large social legislation - basically, the nuclear option) - that IS what the set the stage for the gridlock we've had since.

The country, as a majority, didn't want this bill. Obama pushed it through via dubious means anyway. Then he pressured Roberts to uphold it - even though his initial vote was against it - and had Roberts reclassify the individual mandate as a tax - even though in the bill, it is always referred to as a penalty, the Dems and Obama always said it was not a tax, but a penalty.

The whole process that the Dems and Obama used has poisoned the parties - and the Reps are right to never go along with Obama again after that crap he pulled. There is a reason Obama is rated the most polarizing president in the history of our nation. The crap he pulled with the ACA is legendary and the fact that he did it will hurt our country for many, many years.

Personally, I like him. He is a nice guy. But I think Obama's zeal for having a "signature" legislative achievement put him in a zone to define his legacy at any cost possible, without any concern or thought of what it will do to the political environment in this country in the future.

Yes, he has his "achievement". But he has screwed up the political process forever - he really screwed Republicans (and the American people), and hopefully they will never forget this. Many American people will not - again, which is why Obama is the most devisive president in our history.

Which is especially ironic, as the big selling point on Obama was that he'd bring people together.

 

[saint]

The problem with you, Maggot, isn't just that you're stupid, it's that you're a liar.

The numbers you cite above have no basis in fact. None. Either you selected from some small atypical subset, or you just plain made them up.

Nobody, anywhere, who is now paying just $4k for the full cost of a bare-bones policy is going to pay 3X that for a bare-bones ACA policy.

Deny that? Okay, fine, let's see your sources.

Before I respond I would like to understand which you are referring to as false-

Are you denying the fact that income over 90k for a family disqualifies people from the subsidy?