# Healthcare renewal premium thread



## Nevada

I just got notification about my 2015 health care renewal premium through the healthcare exchange. I'm curious about what others are experiencing.

My overall premium will be increased from $550/month to $557/month, with no change in the policy itself. Assuming that my subsidy stays the same, my share of the premium will go from $53/month to $60/month.

The overall premium increase is only about 1.2%, which is small. I don't know for sure if it's an increase in premium or just an adjustment because I'm a year older. I'll only have this policy for 8 months of 2015, since I turn 65 during the year and will go on Medicare.


----------



## Old Vet

Nevada said:


> I just got notification about my 2015 health care renewal premium through the healthcare exchange. I'm curious about what others are experiencing.
> 
> My overall premium will be increased from $550/month to $557/month, with no change in the policy itself. Assuming that my subsidy stays the same, my share of the premium will go from $53/month to $60/month.
> 
> The overall premium increase is only about 1.2%, which is small. I don't know for sure if it's an increase in premium or just an adjustment because I'm a year older. I'll only have this policy for 8 months of 2015, since I turn 65 during the year and will go on Medicare.


Lets see if your premium is going to increase by 7 dollars and you only pay $60 instead of the $53 who is going to pay the rest? The answer is the tax payers included me. Thanks a lot.


----------



## no really

No increase here, but than no insurance either.


----------



## Nevada

Old Vet said:


> Lets see if your premium is going to increase by 7 dollars and you only pay $60 instead of the $53 who is going to pay the rest? The answer is the tax payers included me. Thanks a lot.


What I'm interested in is whether the conservative prediction that premiums and copays will skyrocket in 2015 comes true.


----------



## arabian knight

Last year around this time Obama raided the Advantage Medicare program I believe it was 300 billion, and now in 2015 my premium goes up 27%. Nice going. He Hates the poor, and here I thought the "Other' side was always accused of that.
Sure it isn't as much as he did the Medicare itself at 700 billion but less old folks have Advantage than just plain Medicare with a Medigap added on.


----------



## no really

IMHO by the time I am old enough for Medicare it will be so small as to be meaningless, the gap insurance will be the predominant payer. So I am trying to plan accordingly by not wasting a dime when it comes to being past the ability to work.


----------



## Wendy

I have no insurance either, so no change for me.


----------



## Guest

I have no insurance. When ObummerCare kicked in, my work dropped my policy, shoved me on another policy that made it no longer affordable. After taxes and insurances, my take home pay wasn't enough to cover gas and food... 
I had some surgery, and after my FMLA ran out, they didn't renew my annual contract. No job & no insurance - DOUBLE Impact.

Oh, and the insurance would never cover fixing my back anyway, so my surgery was CASH. All they would approve was fusion, which is not a fix - its a harmful procedure. 

Sure am glad I paid those insurance premiums for six years!


----------



## Tricky Grama

arabian knight said:


> Last year around this time Obama raided the Advantage Medicare program I believe it was 300 billion, and now in 2015 my premium goes up 27%. Nice going. He Hates the poor, and here I thought the "Other' side was always accused of that.
> Sure it isn't as much as he did the Medicare itself at 700 billion but less old folks have Advantage than just plain Medicare with a Medigap added on.


No. It was over 750 bill.


----------



## happycat47111

With open enrollment coming here this month, we're debating on whether or not to try to get insurance. I just want major medical to cover major events. I don't care about doctor copays and carp. I'll do that out of pocket and save money. But I don't know if it's going to be feasible or not. And we're in KY, which is practically the flagship for Obamacare. Problem is, we work. And we're not in that upper echelon range where we don't have to worry about premiums. 

So no increase here&#8230; but no coverage, either. *shrugs*


----------



## JeffreyD

Anthem is seeking a 30% increase to cover all the illegals that aren't supposed to be covered!


----------



## MO_cows

My individual policy, which we pay out of pocket, has been cancelled, it is non compliant. It goes away Dec. 31. The same company will roll me over to another policy for $75 more a month. I haven't done the side by side comparisons yet, I was going to check out the exchange at healthcare dot gov and compare all my options at once, but it doesn't open until Nov. 15th this year. To join DHs plan thru his employer would be $900 a month, not happening. 

Friend of mine works for one of the biggest health care co's. She says there are increases for 2015 across the board. She also reports that a lot of doctors, as they renew their contracts for 2015, are staying in the co. network but dropping out of Medicare.


----------



## Nevada

happycat47111 said:


> I just want major medical to cover major events. I don't care about doctor copays and carp. I'll do that out of pocket and save money.


Sure. You should be able to find a low-end bronze plan like that.


----------



## puddlejumper007

my daughter found out wed. her cost went up to $10200, per month plus the deductable will to 1500 per person... they go by your age,,older person pays more. they have two daughters on her policy... husbands ins comes up for renewal in aug. but if she switches to his, she still has to pay the whole year for the one she is one now?? yeah thanks obuma realy helping the working class a lot...if you choose to not carry ins, you are fined?


----------



## unregistered353870

I have no healthcare "insurance." Don't want it. Won't buy it. I'm paying too much for other people's premiums, though.


----------



## Guest

I am sure I will be fined. I hear the first year the fine is something like $500... Which is the annual fine. Where adding me to DH's insurance would be $800 a MONTH. My math is poor, but with the increasing annual fines, we can save money for at least three years before the fines overtake the premium. I'm going with that for now.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

We've been covered at my wife's work, although we're both eligible to Medicare. Last week the company announced the "out of pocket" increases from $1500 to $6000, prescriptions - generics still $8, but non-generic we pay full boat. On the bright side, the premium only went up $80/month. Overall an increase of $5460/year. You see, they have to cover lots of things they never even had to consider before.

Thanks obamacare! Oh, and you're welcome Nevada!


----------



## Scott SW Ohio

I have Anthem family coverage through by my employer. This year my share of the premium stayed the same at $58.79 weekly, but the per-person annual deductible rose from $700 to $760. No change to dental, which costs me $7.54 per week for family coverage.


----------



## Belfrybat

puddlejumper007 said:


> my daughter found out wed. her cost went up to $10200, per month plus the deductable will to 1500 per person... they go by your age,,older person pays more. they have two daughters on her policy... husbands ins comes up for renewal in aug. but if she switches to his, she still has to pay the whole year for the one she is one now?? yeah thanks obuma realy helping the working class a lot...if you choose to not carry ins, you are fined?


Over 10 grand a month for insurance? That's insane -- she needs to change plans quickly. 

I'm on a 0 pay Medicare Advantage program, but the benefits are changing some this year. There will be a $320.00 deductible for 3rd tier meds and doctor visits co-pays are going up by $5.00. But I'm OK with that as long as it continues to be free (except for the part B Medicare that is taken out of SS).


----------



## ErinP

That has to be a typo. _ No one_ pays $10,200 per month for health insurance. Not even with a fairly cheap deductible like $1500.

And even if it's $1020, it is past time to go shopping. There's no reason to pay that much. Even in the insurance desert of Kansas, where there's no competition, we "only" paid $680 for the baseline BC/BS family plan. (Minus the $50 subsidy)
Unless she's a chronic who is at the doc's all the time, younger adults need to max out their deductibles to minimize their premiums.


----------



## mmoetc

ErinP said:


> That has to be a typo. _ No one_ pays $10,200 per month for health insurance. Not even with a fairly cheap deductible like $1500.
> 
> And even if it's $1020, it is past time to go shopping. There's no reason to pay that much. Even in the insurance desert of Kansas, where there's no competition, we "only" paid $680 for the baseline BC/BS family plan. (Minus the $50 subsidy)
> Unless she's a chronic who is at the doc's all the time, younger adults need to max out their deductibles to minimize their premiums.


I figured she left out the decimal. If that's the case I'm not sure what the complaint is. It sounds very affordable for an adult and two children.


----------



## Nevada

Ozarks Tom said:


> We've been covered at my wife's work, although we're both eligible to Medicare. Last week the company announced the "out of pocket" increases from $1500 to $6000, prescriptions - generics still $8, but non-generic we pay full boat. On the bright side, the premium only went up $80/month. Overall an increase of $5460/year. You see, they have to cover lots of things they never even had to consider before.
> 
> Thanks obamacare! Oh, and you're welcome Nevada!


Are you going to switch to Medicare? Sounds like you'll save a bundle if you do.


----------



## arabian knight

Yes I am sure it was meant to be $1,050.00 a month which is not that bad for a family plan,
especially with a $1,500 dollar deductible. that is really low. Heck even when I was working I had excellent insurance and a $3,000 deductible.
A higher deductible would bring down the monthly premium I would think, so that could be done to get into a more affordable monthly payment.


----------



## Debbie in Wa

I remember when I was a kid, there was no thing as insurance. If you got sick, you paid, that was that. Move to now, and you have insurances battling medical care, and prices sky rocket so high no one can afford to get sick. First off, I don't think an insurance company should have to pay all of your bill. I hear so many times that people have two insurances, so that they will not have to foot a bill when it comes due. To me, that is why insurance is so high to begin with. 
What do you think would happen if every person in our country was on an 80/20 plan? It would be just like medicare for everyone. Let's say you are a family of four and your premiums for all is around $460 a month. Would you take this plan? Of course you would have to then find a plan for your prescriptions. Oh and there would have to be a increase in premiums for those of you who make over the $80k a year.

What do you think would happen with our medical situation in our country then? Would the insurance companies change their tune about cost or would they just go away. I would hope that after all of this that our medical charges would be different too.
I know this sounds like socialized medicine, but would we as a general be better off.


----------



## Nevada

Debbie in Wa said:


> I remember when I was a kid, there was no thing as insurance. If you got sick, you paid, that was that.


I remember insurance being called major medical, or hospitalization. That's because insurance in the 50s & 60s only covered major illness or injury. I don't recall any insurance covering doctor visits or prescriptions until HMOs were introduced in the 1970s.


----------



## Guest

For many years, I and my children were uninsured. We survived.

When my daughter broke her arm, we went to the local Burger King Drive-Thru Medical Clinic, got a basic xRay confirming it was broken and a sling and brace to hold us until Monday, for $100 or so. (I still have these items, 12 years later, for future use.)

Come Monday, we went to a pediatric ortho doc, had a good xRay ordered, and had it set. I told the Doc up front that I was a cash customer and would appreciate consideration for that. He agreed, and gave her meds from his free big pharma samples.

When I was leaving, and speaking to the cashier, she tells me $2,400 - to which I am taken aback, and ask for the Doc... He whispers in her ear, and suddenly the bill becomes $600 "because there will be no going back and forth haggling with the insurance company over codes and services and waiting months on end for payment!"

They allowed me to pay half then, and the remainder on the next pay day. Done deal for them; well-set arm for us!

It really makes one wonder, doesn't it?

Many times we had this kind of experience...


----------



## Nevada

TraciInTexas said:


> For many years, I and my children were uninsured. We survived.


I got by for many years without insurance also. But the odds aren't with everyone. While I remained healthy, many uninsured didn't beat the odds. Some had $400,000 heart attacks that the taxpayers had to pick up the tab for.

The ACA is about getting people to contribute more towards their healthcare so the government doesn't have to pick up the tab as often. If republicans looked at it that way they might like the idea more.


----------



## Guest

Nevada said:


> I got by for many years without insurance also. But the odds aren't with everyone. While I remained healthy, many uninsured didn't beat the odds. Some had $400,000 heart attacks that the taxpayers had to pick up the tab for.
> 
> The ACA is about getting people to contribute more towards their healthcare so the government doesn't have to pick up the tab as often. If republicans looked at it that way they might like the idea more.



Agree. We are of relatively healthy stock... No maintenance-type issues. Luckily. So far. 

We also invest in our good health by eating well. I never really was one to purchase sodas, HoHos, cookies, or even bake cakes or pies...

Some of it is genetics, some of it is effort.


----------



## Nevada

TraciInTexas said:


> Agree. We are of relatively healthy stock... No maintenance-type issues. Luckily. So far.
> 
> We also invest in our good health by eating well. I never really was one to purchase sodas, HoHos, cookies, or even bake cakes or pies...
> 
> Some of it is genetics, some of it is effort.


Most of it - luck.

Eat whatever you like, you can find yourself in an unavoidable major accident in the blink of an eye. It's going to happen to a certain number of us.

At the end of the day it's always better to be insured than not to be insured.


----------



## Guest

Nevada said:


> Most of it - luck.
> 
> Eat whatever you like, you can find yourself in an unavoidable major accident in the blink of an eye. It's going to happen to a certain number of us.
> 
> At the end of the day it's always better to be insured than not to be insured.



Until your choices become: electricity & food vs. insurance.


----------



## mmoetc

TraciInTexas said:


> Until your choices become: electricity & food vs. insurance.


My DD and her husband are still sorting through the $500,000+ bill for my dear departed granddaughter's six week hospitalization last spring. That included me pulling out a credit card and calling a lab in Atlanta to pay for a test that may not have been "medically neccessary" according to some. There were some great doctors who I know didn't bill all their time and visits. Good luck handling something like that on the payment plan.


----------



## arabian knight

Nevada said:


> I remember insurance being called major medical, or hospitalization. That's because insurance in the 50s & 60s only covered major illness or injury. I don't recall any insurance covering doctor visits or prescriptions until HMOs were introduced in the 1970s.


 Well there most certainly was. I had coverage back in the early 70's that not only covered a doctors visit, but even covered going to a chiropractor. i REALLY liked that and used it it every once in awhile.


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> Well there most certainly was. I had coverage back in the early 70's that not only covered a doctors visit, but even covered going to a chiropractor. i REALLY liked that and used it it every once in awhile.


I said I started seeing insurance like that in the 1970s.


----------



## partndn

Nevada said:


> What I'm interested in is whether the conservative prediction that premiums and copays will skyrocket in 2015 comes true.


I don't know if you would accept the truthful answers if given enough to prove it.

Are you also interested in what this circus does to business owners? I can tell you the company I work for is having to figure add-on costs to pass to our clients. 

We are a staffing company. We sometimes hire people to work a 1 week assignment, or a 30 day assignment, or a seasonal assignment that could last for months, or a temp to direct hire opportunity for a job with longevity. There is no consideration for the staffing industry, and I wonder how it will survive. 

Do you have any sympathy for the hundreds of people my company may have employed, even temporarily, and their loss of an outlet to gain income?
No, it's okay, the gov will have a program to take care of everyone. 

Also, what of the clients who have to pay increased costs? If there is no increase in their sales, how do they pass on the loss? Less profits, and ultimately, failures, are the outcome for several aspects of people just trying to do business in the USA.

Our cost of doing business just went up in several ways..

*Pay the fine for not offering coverage (hundreds of thousands)
*Pay for coverage not previously offered (can't be determined until some guidelines come out later in November)
*Employ extra resources to maintain a flat level of business (equals loss)
*Employ 3rd party service to track and record the myriad documents and timelines necessary to try to comply (equals loss)

There is a domino effect that ultimately hurts everyone economically, regardless of covering a few who formerly were not subsidized in this way.

It is a "feel good" fantasy of everyone will have better coverage and better health. No consideration for the peripheral effects. 

And this doesn't even touch the medical quality aspect. People who had decades long relationships with their trusted physicians, now start over with who knows. Health care is very personal, and should remain so. It's not a "valueless" commodity to be intruded upon by anyone, much less the idiots who passed this joke. Your insurance plan, not your treatment, should be the commodity you shop for, IF you CHOOSE to have one.


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> I got by for many years without insurance also. But the odds aren't with everyone. While I remained healthy, many uninsured didn't beat the odds. Some had $400,000 heart attacks that the taxpayers had to pick up the tab for.
> 
> The ACA is about getting people to contribute more towards their healthcare so the government doesn't have to pick up the tab as often. If republicans looked at it that way they might like the idea more.


The only time the government picks up the tab, is when people are on Medicaid. And now, the subsidized policies. The other uninsured, unpaid ER visits and such, the hospitals and Drs. either play hardball to collect it or they eat it. That's one reason for the high price of health care, everyone who pays is covering the losses from the ones who don't. 

Everyone is contributing more towards their health care all right, everyone is paying more for it under O'Care! 

There are still just as many uninsured. So on top of all the extras that ACA added to the basic cost of health care, like no limits, no denials, no catastrophic policies, everyone who has insurance or pays out of pocket is still covering the losses from the uninsured.

If democrats would look at the facts instead of sucking in the party spin, they might see what people are complaining about. The Rs have egg on their face, too, because they ignored the issue and that caused O'Care to be created in the first place. But the complaints about it are legit, it's a lousy program.


----------



## Nevada

MO_cows said:


> The only time the government picks up the tab, is when people are on Medicaid. And now, the subsidized policies. The other uninsured, unpaid ER visits and such, the hospitals and Drs. either play hardball to collect it or they eat it.


They don't exactly eat it. They write it off as a bad debt. That's why they normally bill 3 times what they'll accept for cash settlements.

You see, if you go to the ER and have a bill for $10,000, they will accept about $3,000 as settlement from you or an insurance company. The reason they do that is if the bill never gets paid they can turn the entire $10,000 over to the IRS as a bad debt. If they are in a 30% tax bracket, they'll get a $3,000 tax credit for the $10,000 write off. So you see that either way they get their $3,000.

But the IRS collects $3,000 less, which puts the burden on taxpayers.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> I got by for many years without insurance also. But the odds aren't with everyone. While I remained healthy, many uninsured didn't beat the odds. Some had $400,000 heart attacks that the taxpayers had to pick up the tab for.
> 
> The ACA is about getting people to contribute more towards their healthcare so the government doesn't have to pick up the tab as often. If republicans looked at it that way they might like the idea more.


Nobody has EVER had a $400,000 heart attack. Heart attacks are free. It's the treatment that can be expensive. And the taxpayers don't have to pick up the tab. Currently they do it, but that doesn't mean it ever had to be that way or that it has to stay that way.


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> They don't exactly eat it. They write it off as a bad debt. That's why they normally bill 3 times what they'll accept for cash settlements.
> 
> You see, if you go to the ER and have a bill for $10,000, they will accept about $3,000 as settlement from you or an insurance company. The reason they do that is if the bill never gets paid they can turn the entire $10,000 over to the IRS as a bad debt. If they are in a 30% tax bracket, they'll get a $3,000 tax credit for the $10,000 write off. So you see that either way they get their $3,000.
> 
> But the IRS collects $3,000 less, which puts the burden on taxpayers.


Or they might just rather garnish your wages and take the cash. Friend of mine lost her house when a hospital did that, she had insurance but it sucks and she ended up with a big bill after surgery. 

The hospital doesn't get a "tax credit", their taxable income is reduced and that lowers their tax bill. A tax credit is a special reduction in the amount of tax, like the energy tax credit, earned income credit and such. Which I think you already knew, you just like to parrot the spin from your party communiques.


----------



## Nevada

MO_cows said:


> Or they might just rather garnish your wages and take the cash. Friend of mine lost her house when a hospital did that, she had insurance but it sucks and she ended up with a big bill after surgery.


Medical debt is difficult to collect on. I don't know the particulars of your friend's situation, but stories like that are rare. Judges typically have sympathy for medical debtors, since they didn't take on debt deliberately the way credit card debt is incurred. If her home was really in danger I'm wondering why she didn't file for bankruptcy protection.

If it was me they couldn't garnish my wages or take my house. They can't take my car either. Most states have homestead laws that prevent that. If I had a $400,000 heart attack without insurance the hospital would have to eat it.


----------



## happycat47111

TraciInTexas said:


> For many years, I and my children were uninsured. We survived.
> 
> When my daughter broke her arm, we went to the local Burger King Drive-Thru Medical Clinic, got a basic xRay confirming it was broken and a sling and brace to hold us until Monday, for $100 or so. (I still have these items, 12 years later, for future use.)
> 
> Come Monday, we went to a pediatric ortho doc, had a good xRay ordered, and had it set. I told the Doc up front that I was a cash customer and would appreciate consideration for that. He agreed, and gave her meds from his free big pharma samples.
> 
> When I was leaving, and speaking to the cashier, she tells me $2,400 - to which I am taken aback, and ask for the Doc... He whispers in her ear, and suddenly the bill becomes $600 "because there will be no going back and forth haggling with the insurance company over codes and services and waiting months on end for payment!"
> 
> They allowed me to pay half then, and the remainder on the next pay day. Done deal for them; well-set arm for us!
> 
> It really makes one wonder, doesn't it?
> 
> Many times we had this kind of experience...


Now that's a good doctor. Our guy in Indiana would cut us a deal because we were paying cash. Here in Eastern KY? You tell someone you're paying cash, they look at you like you have three eyes. I can't tell you how many times someone has tried to sign me up for Obamacare. "But you might qualify for the income. Let's try it and see." My response is to tell them how much we make. We do pretty well, all things considered. Their response? Blink-blink. "Oh. You probably don't qualify." But then again, we don't make enough to cover premiums without feeling the pinch. 

Did you know the people at the doctors' offices and sign-up desks for O'care have a quota? And if they don't meet that quota, they don't get paid? Ahhhâ¦ yeah. Okay. At least that's how it is in KY.

It's just so rare here for someone to not have insurance now. The area we're in, at least 50% of the people here have their hand out. Not talking about the people who are retired or legit disabled, either. You work here, they look at you like something's wrong with you. :facepalm:


----------



## mmoetc

Nevada said:


> Medical debt is difficult to collect on. I don't know the particulars of your friend's situation, but stories like that are rare. Judges typically have sympathy for medical debtors, since they didn't take on debt deliberately the way credit card debt is incurred. If her home was really in danger I'm wondering why she didn't file for bankruptcy protection.
> 
> If it was me they couldn't garnish my wages or take my house. They can't take my car either. Most states have homestead laws that prevent that. If I had a $400,000 heart attack without insurance the hospital would have to eat it.


Not as rare as you think. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/


----------



## Nevada

mmoetc said:


> Not as rare as you think. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/


I know that medical bankruptcy is (at least was) common. But the woman in the story lost her home. The Home is the first thing to be protected in a bankruptcy.


----------



## mmoetc

Nevada said:


> I know that medical bankruptcy is (at least was) common. But the woman in the story lost her home. The Home is the first thing to be protected in a bankruptcy.


Not always. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/home-chapter-7-bankruptcy-32498.html


----------



## MO_cows

The hospital didn't take the house. They garnished her wages, which caused her to get behind on the payments, which caused the foreclosure. A domino effect but the first domino was the hospital. They were ruthless.


----------



## Nevada

MO_cows said:


> The hospital didn't take the house. They garnished her wages, which caused her to get behind on the payments, which caused the foreclosure. A domino effect but the first domino was the hospital. They were ruthless.


Why didn't she file for bankruptcy protection?


----------



## Nevada

mmoetc said:


> Not always. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/home-chapter-7-bankruptcy-32498.html


As I said, judges are sympathetic towards medical debt. Medical bills are often discharged in bankruptcy.


----------



## mmoetc

Nevada said:


> As I said, judges are sympathetic towards medical debt. Medical bills are often discharged in bankruptcy.


It's not a matter of sympathy. Bankruptcy judges are required to follow bankruptcy law. Sometimes, as my link showed, houses can be lost even with homestead exemptions. The bottom line is that even with insurance high medical bills can adversely affect personal finances.


----------



## JeffreyD

mmoetc said:


> It's not a matter of sympathy. Bankruptcy judges are required to follow bankruptcy law. Sometimes, as my link showed, houses can be lost even with homestead exemptions. The bottom line is that even with insurance high medical bills can adversely affect personal finances.


Personal choices can be tough!


----------



## Beemer

Nevada said:


> They don't exactly eat it. They write it off as a bad debt. That's why they normally bill 3 times what they'll accept for cash settlements.
> 
> You see, if you go to the ER and have a bill for $10,000, they will accept about $3,000 as settlement from you or an insurance company. The reason they do that is if the bill never gets paid they can turn the entire $10,000 over to the IRS as a bad debt. If they are in a 30% tax bracket, they'll get a $3,000 tax credit for the $10,000 write off. So you see that either way they get their $3,000.
> 
> But the IRS collects $3,000 less, which puts the burden on taxpayers.


Have to correct yoy on the above -- doctors can not write off ANY unpaid amounts with the IRS. There is no tax credit - they DO eat it. They can only write off expenses.

My insurance rates will go up about 5% this year. The company is self insured and the big jump in deductible has slowed payout growth. Five years go, we had free insurance wthe $1000.00 deductible. Now we have $4000.00 deductible $678.00 premium, and only get generics for $25.00 co-pay. Pay the difference for other meds. That's with the employer paying 75%! 

If my math is right, we are paying about $8,000 to 12,000 a year more than 5 years ago. Thanks ACA.


----------



## painterswife

Beemer said:


> Have to correct yoy on the above -- doctors can not write off ANY unpaid amounts with the IRS. There is no tax credit - they DO eat it. They can only write off expenses.
> 
> My insurance rates will go up about 5% this year. The company is self insured and the big jump in deductible has slowed payout growth. Five years go, we had free insurance wthe $1000.00 deductible. Now we have $4000.00 deductible $678.00 premium, and only get generics for $25.00 co-pay. Pay the difference for other meds. That's with the employer paying 75%!
> 
> If my math is right, we are paying about $8,000 to 12,000 a year more than 5 years ago. Thanks ACA.


Bad debts is an expense. You claim the income the year you bill it, you claim the bad debt the year you admit you won't be able to collect it. It is a bit more technical but you were not correct.


----------



## kasilofhome

Bad debt written off IS taxable as income to the irs for which the debater owes taxes on to the irs how to avoid paying the taxes for your written off medical bills?.

Are homes protected then from the irs.


----------



## unregistered358967

Without revealing too much, I have a basic plan and it's gone up, like it has every year since I got it. Not a lot but I believe it's doubled since I've had to buy my own insurance back in 2010. I cringe everytime I see an envelope with that insurance co name on it.


----------



## kasilofhome

Have you looked into medishares in lieu of insurance?


----------



## unregistered358967

Is this it? I found this: https://mychristiancare.org/how_does_it_work.aspx I will read up on it, thank you! I currently have my own insurance through BCBS.

Uh oh...I'm out! "&#8226;Must not engage in sex outside of traditional Christian marriage "


----------



## arabian knight

kasilofhome said:


> Bad debt written off IS taxable as income to the irs for which the debater owes taxes on to the irs how to avoid paying the taxes for your written off medical bills?.
> 
> Are homes protected then from the irs.


All this talk about write off on their taxes, and bad debt etc.
But what about the Not-For-Profit hospitals? Many places including some of the biggest clinics in this country are nonprofit. No taxes because they are considered a charity~!


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> All this talk about write off on their taxes, and bad debt etc.
> But what about the Not-For-Profit hospitals? Many places including some of the biggest clinics in this country are nonprofit. No taxes because they are considered a charity~!


Non-profit hospitals contract a lot of their services to for-profit providers to avoid that problem. I know that our county hospital contracts out ER doctors to a service, and lab services to Quest.


----------



## kasilofhome

What I am saying is that when a business writes of bad debt they must give info to the IRS so that the bad debater pays income on the amount of the bad debt. So say you walk away from 40 g of debt in time it is written off to the it's and you get a form in the mail with the amount to add to your income. The government does have ways to make you pay. As money in the future can be doc... the government can cause he is the handyman who visits and takes it. He has his friends print it to.

LOOK at it this way instead of paying for medical bills some folks used money to hit the casinos. The services rendered never paid for is money spent else where. So it is taxed.


----------



## mmoetc

arabian knight said:


> All this talk about write off on their taxes, and bad debt etc.
> But what about the Not-For-Profit hospitals? Many places including some of the biggest clinics in this country are nonprofit. No taxes because they are considered a charity~!


Profits are being made. They're just not distributed the same way. You might want to check out the salaries of the top execs of some if those not for profits.


----------



## arabian knight

I don't care who makes what at the top, most of the posts have been about writing off bad debt on their taxes. And how that is causing more folks to pay higher taxes because of taxes being written off by bad debt. And that is not a problem with these nonprofit ones.
And that is what I posted about never mentioning who makes what, and on what rung of the ladder that person is on. All I care about is how Mayo Clinic Health systems saved my life, and I will continue to use them.


----------



## Nevada

kasilofhome said:


> What I am saying is that when a business writes of bad debt they must give info to the IRS so that the bad debater pays income on the amount of the bad debt. So say you walk away from 40 g of debt in time it is written off to the it's and you get a form in the mail with the amount to add to your income. The government does have ways to make you pay. As money in the future can be doc... the government can cause he is the handyman who visits and takes it. He has his friends print it to.
> 
> LOOK at it this way instead of paying for medical bills some folks used money to hit the casinos. The services rendered never paid for is money spent else where. So it is taxed.


You are talking about a 1099-C. That can happen, but a lot of creditors never file those. They only need to file if the creditor has agreed to settle the debt for at least $600 less than the original bill. The problem with doing that is that if the debtor's situation changes and has the ability to pay the creditor can't go after the bill, since it's legally settled. Most creditors prefer to sell the debt to a junk debt collector for a few bucks. If they sell the debt to a junk debt collector then the debt has not been settled and they can't file a 1099-C.

But the 1099-C isn't as big of a problem as it sounds. Most people getting a 1099-C don't owe taxes on it. The reason is that you only owe taxes on a 1099-C to the extent of your solvency BEFORE the debt was settled. Most people can demonstrate insolvency (debts are more than the worth of their assets) so they pay nothing.


----------



## Bubba1358

TraciInTexas said:


> I am sure I will be fined. I hear the first year the fine is something like $500... Which is the annual fine. Where adding me to DH's insurance would be $800 a MONTH. My math is poor, but with the increasing annual fines, we can save money for at least three years before the fines overtake the premium. I'm going with that for now.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the "fine" comes out of the federal tax refund. So if you don't get a refund, you don't get "taxed." But, the "tax" can carry over year to year, and you just play the refund game.

I think the short of it is that if you forego insurance altogether, you also forego your refund, or a chunk of it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ppens-if-you-dont-pay-obamacares-tax-penalty/


----------



## AngieM2

The fine should be only $95, if I remember correctly.

Also, remember to do your own information investigation and do not believe all experts on the internet. Their advice and statements may not be true in your situation.


----------



## arabian knight

AngieM2 said:


> The fine should be only $95, if I remember correctly.
> 
> Also, remember to do your own information investigation and do not believe all experts on the internet. Their advice and statements may not be true in your situation.


 Yes that is the amount, Unless the income is higher, then it is 1% of total household income. So that 95 is not a locked in amount for the first year either.but that is only for this year, it goes up every year after that.










http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-individual-mandate/


----------



## Brushy hogs

I hope she meant $102.00 per month! Jiminy! I was placed on Medicaid because of cancer... had to have blood work done last January. (Only thing I have used it for this year) Medicaid didn't pay. Not sure why they even have it any more. I am grateful it paid for all of my treatments through December of last year, though. First and only time I needed assistance, but when Obamacare came into play, our state did away with the breastcare cancer program. Because hubby has the only income, I had to put him in when they changed me to Medicaid. They put him on a fully paid BC/BS plan because of income. Haven't used it at all, but I was advised that when we file a tax return, the Fed Gov. will likely withhold any and all refunds to help cover the cost of premiums... has anyone else heard that?


----------



## Bubba1358

Nevada said:


> My overall premium will be increased from $550/month to $557/month, with no change in the policy itself. Assuming that my subsidy stays the same, my share of the premium will go from $53/month to $60/month.
> 
> The overall premium increase is only about 1.2%, which is small. I don't know for sure if it's an increase in premium or just an adjustment because I'm a year older. I'll only have this policy for 8 months of 2015, since I turn 65 during the year and will go on Medicare.


Consider yourself lucky:

http://blog.independent.org/2014/11...sed-dramatically-for-every-age-group-in-2014/


----------



## Forcast

TraciInTexas said:


> I have no insurance. When ObummerCare kicked in, my work dropped my policy, shoved me on another policy that made it no longer affordable. After taxes and insurances, my take home pay wasn't enough to cover gas and food...
> I had some surgery, and after my FMLA ran out, they didn't renew my annual contract. No job & no insurance - DOUBLE Impact.
> 
> Oh, and the insurance would never cover fixing my back anyway, so my surgery was CASH. All they would approve was fusion, which is not a fix - its a harmful procedure.
> 
> Sure am glad I paid those insurance premiums for six years!


I had neck fusion in 06 DONT make my mistake! Fusion is not a fix.


----------



## Forcast

Medicare will cost you money as well, you have to pay copays at docs, + part a and d it really adds up so you wind up not going to the doctors. If you are on disability now they will take that out of your check,and make you buy part a & d and take that out of your check as well, you can apply for mediaid for help but again you will have to have money to pay whats left. so no real coverage.


----------



## Nevada

Forcast said:


> Medicare will cost you money as well, you have to pay copays at docs, + part a and d it really adds up so you wind up not going to the doctors. If you are on disability now they will take that out of your check,and make you buy part a & d and take that out of your check as well, you can apply for mediaid for help but again you will have to have money to pay whats left. so no real coverage.


I won't pay anything for Part A hospital coverage because I paid into FICA for more than 10 years. I won't pay for Part D prescription coverage because it will be included in the Medicare Advantage program I'll be joining. I also won't be paying anything for the Medicare advantage program because they do it at no premium over regular Part B payments.

Finally, I'll join a HMO for my Medicare Advantage coverage. There is no copay to see my doctor, no copay to see a specialist, and no copay for hospital stays.

http://www.seniordimensions.com/documents/PlanOptions/2015_SD_SN_SB.pdf

I call that REAL coverage.


----------



## FarmerKat

Jax-mom said:


> Is this it? I found this: https://mychristiancare.org/how_does_it_work.aspx I will read up on it, thank you! I currently have my own insurance through BCBS.
> 
> Uh oh...I'm out! "â¢Must not engage in sex outside of traditional Christian marriage "


There are three Christian health sharing ministries that were grandfathered in Obamacare (you won't get penalized if you are a member but new ministries cannot be started - this part gets me worried that at some point they will try to shut them down). The one you found is one of them. There are also Samaritan Ministries and Christian Healthcare Ministries. Each is a little different but the basic principal is the same. 

All are exclusive to people of Christian faith (to be affirmed by your church) and are based on Biblical principals (won't pay for abortions, etc.). It is very affordable, very flexible (no network, you just go to any doctor you want as a cash paying patient) and very transparent. 

We are members of Christian Healthcare Ministries because they were the best fit for our situation. If there are things that would not normally be shared (like a pregnancy that started prior to membership), members still can (and do!) help pay off the medical bills. We get a list each month of members who need extra help, including specifics of their expenses and address and any member can voluntarily give to another. I have seen bills in tens of thousands of dollars get paid off by voluntary donations. It is not insurance, there is no contract but it works.

We joined after DH retired and we could not afford to keep the insurance we had (high deductible, high out of pocket and $1,300/month for family). The last 3 years DH was employed, our premium doubled each year - the last year it became unaffordable even with the employer paying a portion of the premium and we switched the to the high deductible/high out of pocket plan. Upon his retirement, we could have found something for around $800-$900 a month for family but the deductibles were in the $10,000 - $15,000 range. It was just totally ridiculous ... with CHM, family can join for $450/month and all bills over $500 are shared with others. And that is the most expensive option.


----------



## unregistered358967

Interesting and I like the idea about helping others but I'm not married and have no plans to at this point. Still, it's something other people might not have known about so hopefully this brought it to the forefront.


----------



## Randy Rooster

I have to laugh at the folks who are poo pooing those who buy health insurance or are taking advantage of the ACA. Once they or their loved ones have a catastrophic illness or bad accident who will be picking up the cost of their care? Do they think they are going to live forever and die healthy ? They wont be paying their hospital and doctor bills because they wont be able to afford them. The hospital/doctors will have to eat it and the rest of us with health insurance will see our premiums go up in order to pay for their short sightedness.


----------



## FarmerKat

Jax-mom said:


> Interesting and I like the idea about helping others but I'm not married and have no plans to at this point. Still, it's something other people might not have known about so hopefully this brought it to the forefront.


It certainly has to fit your lifestyle but it can be a great option for some. BTW, you do not have to be married to participate. Each ministry sets rules for membership. I just did not want people to think that the ministries only accept married couples.


----------



## ldc

To the original question, I have Blue X thru the ACA, and when I spoke with them today they said I'm looking at a 20% percent increase Jan 2015. My deductible is $800.Until this year, I had a hospitalization plan w Blue x only ($5k deductible), as couldn't afford the other parts in the last few years. Last month Blue Cross was awarded the ACA contract in LA and they switched me over to the ACA plan. Healthcare is not offered at my job, as I'm not full-time.


----------



## Nevada

Randy Rooster said:


> I have to laugh at the folks who are poo pooing those who buy health insurance or are taking advantage of the ACA. Once they or their loved ones have a catastrophic illness or bad accident who will be picking up the cost of their care? Do they think they are going to live forever and die healthy ? They wont be paying their hospital and doctor bills because they wont be able to afford them. The hospital/doctors will have to eat it and the rest of us with health insurance will see our premiums go up in order to pay for their short sightedness.


I expect conservatives to do the responsible thing and not carry any healthcare insurance at all.


----------



## partndn

Randy Rooster said:


> I have to laugh at the folks who are poo pooing those who buy health insurance or are taking advantage of the ACA. Once they or their loved ones have a catastrophic illness or bad accident who will be picking up the cost of their care? Do they think they are going to live forever and die healthy ? They wont be paying their hospital and doctor bills because they wont be able to afford them. The hospital/doctors will have to eat it and the rest of us with health insurance will see our premiums go up in order to pay for their short sightedness.


hmmmm..... It's kinda funny that you might not realize what you just said. "taking advantage" of the NotACA is exactly what you state as the problem. 

The premiums of the NotACA are subsidized by tax payers pool of funds to cover the bloated costs of health care, no differently than you feel you are covering those short sighted uninsured now or previously.

It's not funny to me that some people feel they should have choice, rather than an order. Believe it or not, there are uninsured people who pay their bill cash, even when something big happens. Some are on this forum. 

For others, the solution is as described by FarmerKat post 69 above. That's how people looked after each other before all this big money "care" industry got out of hand.


----------



## poppy

Nevada said:


> I expect conservatives to do the responsible thing and not carry any healthcare insurance at all.


And I expect liberals to do the irresponsible thing of milking the system for all they can and expecting others to pay for it while, at the same time, bragging about their system milking abilities on internet forums.


----------



## arabian knight

ldc said:


> To the original question, I have Blue X thru the ACA, and when I spoke with them today they said I'm looking at a 20% percent increase Jan 2015. My deductible is $800.Until this year, I had a hospitalization plan w Blue x only ($5k deductible), as couldn't afford the other parts in the last few years. Last month Blue Cross was awarded the ACA contract in LA and they switched me over to the ACA plan. Healthcare is not offered at my job, as I'm not full-time.


And just wait till 2018 when those companies that have Cadillac policies are Taxed for not having Government issued Obamacare to their workers, and may even apply to Individuals that hav policies Batter than Government issued obamaUncare. 
They will be some very ticked American people in the next coming years, and that is why Obama Pushed so many parts of the health care bill WAY into the future long after he is gone~!


----------



## partndn

arabian knight said:


> And just wait till 2018 when those companies that have Cadillac policies are Taxed for not having Government issued Obamacare to their workers, and may even apply to Individuals that hav policies Batter than Government issued obamaUncare.
> They will be some very ticked American people in the next coming years, and that is why Obama Pushed so many parts of the health care bill WAY into the future long after he is gone~!


Yes, the impacts on business are huge. And already causing great expense just to comply with the Jan. 2015 requirements.

It's not just costs to business. It will ripple effect to the worker too, in a negative way for everyone! 

Brings me back to the questions I asked way back in my post 34, that Nevada or nobody else has answered. 

I suppose it could be that Nevada has me on "ignore" eep: Idk..


----------



## Nevada

partndn said:


> I suppose it could be that Nevada has me on "ignore" eep: Idk..


I never use ignore. I want to hear what everyone has to say.

But I don't have an opinion about the corporate world. I'm retired, and I've worked for myself since the mid-1990s. It's not that I don't care, but I don't know a lot about it.


----------



## arabian knight

You don't know much about it because so much has been hidden, and so much of the Bad Stuff has been Pushed into the future and because of the media and the news departments that have Mandated reporters to Never report ANYTHING that is not flattering for this administration and mostly the president, that just came out today from a fired reporter from CBS. And if one of the MSM did this you bet bet your last dollar is was far reaching into all the others.


----------



## partndn

Okie doke. Thanks for that. 

Could you at least get aboard that the strain it puts on business does ultimately effect the everyday worker?? 

I mean, what good for unemployed or terribly under-employed worker gets his subsidized insurance product.....

when he could rather have had a more household sustaining level of pay job, or at least more opportunities at jobs because the economy and job market would be better if companies were not snuffed by this?


----------



## Nevada

partndn said:


> Could you at least get aboard that the strain it puts on business does ultimately effect the everyday worker??


Yeah, like the way big business cared about the strain on my business? They didn't care how profitable my business was, and I don't care how profitable their business is. That's their concern.


----------



## unregistered353870

Randy Rooster said:


> I have to laugh at the folks who are poo pooing those who buy health insurance or are taking advantage of the ACA. Once they or their loved ones have a catastrophic illness or bad accident who will be picking up the cost of their care? Do they think they are going to live forever and die healthy ? They wont be paying their hospital and doctor bills because they wont be able to afford them. The hospital/doctors will have to eat it and the rest of us with health insurance will see our premiums go up in order to pay for their short sightedness.


Nope. Nobody is or will be picking up the tab for me. I can pay for any healthcare I will receive. If I can't afford it, I won't have it.


----------



## Guest

Forcast said:


> I had neck fusion in 06 DONT make my mistake! Fusion is not a fix.



Oh, absolutely, it is a horrible procedure! I flat out refused. And that was all BC/BS would pay for... 





Bubba1358 said:


> ?..
> 
> 
> 
> I think the short of it is that if you forego insurance altogether, you also forego your refund, or a chunk of it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes. And we will have the fee deducted from our annual 1040 refund. We always make sure we get a smidge back instead of the surprise of having money due!

But the fee will still be significantly less than 12 months of outrageous insurance bills.


----------



## Randy Rooster

jtbrandt said:


> Nope. Nobody is or will be picking up the tab for me. I can pay for any healthcare I will receive. If I can't afford it, I won't have it.



That'll show em ! Better off dead than beholden.


You don't have kids do you ?


----------



## Tricky Grama

poppy said:


> And I expect liberals to do the irresponsible thing of milking the system for all they can and expecting others to pay for it while, at the same time, bragging about their system milking abilities on internet forums.


Post of the decade award.


----------



## kasilofhome

Randy Rooster said:


> That'll show em ! Better off dead than beholden.
> 
> 
> You don't have kids do you ?


I had a kid but he grew into a MAN, works, goes to school. I will die no matter what ....he knows where the gravesite is on the land. Some children grow up it was a goal of mine to leave a man to morn not boy.

Oh... fyi I paid for my cancer care I wanted three times.
My son took his self earn money his sophomore and junior year in high school and paid for medical care he chose that was out of net work. 

Just like every big bill work out a payment plan for honor sake if at all possible. Leave charity for those who truly need it. Do not calculate how to be bulletproof against paying bills as that is cutting off your nose....( deliberately lowering your opportunities to get out of personal responsibility) as not only are you protected from many consequences of debt but you limit what you can do in a shtf and your family and loved ones.


----------



## unregistered353870

Randy Rooster said:


> That'll show em ! Better off dead than beholden.
> 
> 
> You don't have kids do you ?


It's not about showing anybody anything. It's how I choose to live. Yes, better off dead...but that's also from a medical standpoint, not just financial.

I do have adult offspring...not sure why that's relevant.


----------



## Oxankle

It was once a point of honor and self-respect to pay one's own debts. 

Apparently not so today.
Ox


----------



## mnn2501

Mine is up 143%.
I suppose it's too much to expect you to thank me for paying for your health insurance?


----------



## happycat47111

Oxankle said:


> It was once a point of honor and self-respect to pay one's own debts.
> 
> Apparently not so today.
> Ox


Hard work and striving to succeed on your own without hand outs is frowned upon as well.


----------



## ErinP

mnn2501 said:


> Mine is up 143%.
> 
> I suppose it's too much to expect you to thank me for paying for your health insurance?



Wow. You don't qualify for a subsidy??
I don't know too many people, personally, who make so much that they top out of the subsidies...


----------



## partndn

People's incomes are nobody's business but their own.

The point is we are all robbed to pay the subsidies.


----------



## mnn2501

ErinP said:


> Wow. You don't qualify for a subsidy??
> I don't know too many people, personally, who make so much that they top out of the subsidies...


I work for a living, I don't get subsidies. That's what happens when you get an education and some training in your field, and work yourself up to a good paying job. In other words when you take responsibility for yourself and do what you have to to support your family in the manner you like. 
Sometimes that requires sacrifice: like moving halfway across the country twice, and not partying when you need to study.
And not retiring before you are able to support yourself without relying on still working peoples taxes to subsidize your lifestyle.


----------



## Nevada

mnn2501 said:


> I work for a living, I don't get subsidies.


Most working people get some kind of subsidy.


----------



## FarmerKat

I am lost here ... why would I want to accept a subsidy if all that means is that it is $$ taken away from another person? I am all for a safety net for people who truly need it but this is just wrong. 

I found a subsidy calculator online. We are a family of 4 so I used that and I kept changing the income in the calculator until it said no subsidy. Do you know that I got to $70,000 before the subsidy was gone? Well, at that point the subsidy was $10 a year. But at $65,000 a year the family would still be getting nearly $900 a year in subsidies. WHY??????????? 

These are numbers for our specific zip code. Based on US average, the subsidy does not go away until you get to $88,000. Again, why???????

Apparently we just like to send money to others so that they can afford the latest iphone, cable TV, etc. Because you certainly do not need to make $88,000 to cover the necessities. And by the way, this is more than the median income in EVERY SINGLE state.


----------



## Nevada

FarmerKat said:


> But at $65,000 a year the family would still be getting nearly $900 a year in subsidies. WHY???????????


To be sure everyone can afford healthcare insurance.


----------



## arabian knight

Low income POOR PEOPLE is what the ACA was for not everybody. Just those so called 50+ million that could NOT afford this. Which was a falsifies amount in the first place as we now are finding out. LOL
But somehow this administration MUST make everyone in the USA on a level playing field. THAT is NOT in the constitution at all. And this Nanny government is going to get this country is so much trouble it may never get out of this mindset that government knows better IT DON'T. People Know what is good for them and what they want to do with their lives.
LOW INCOME does not mean everyone in this county no matter how much they make. That is a Huge Problem here. They keep raising the bar up so high that it is taking in so many that don't NEED THIS HELP, and Should NOT have this help~!


----------



## DAVID In Wisconsin

FarmerKat said:


> But at $65,000 a year the family would still be getting nearly $900 a year in subsidies. WHY???????????


To spread the wealth and to encourage poor choices.


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> Low income POOR PEOPLE is what the ACA was for not everybody.


No, the idea was to get everyone insured, and even enforce it with an individual mandate. It's not really fair to force people to do something that they might be able to afford. That's why working class people get help.


----------



## ErinP

partndn said:


> People's incomes are nobody's business but their own.
> 
> The point is we are all robbed to pay the subsidies.



mnn, brought up the issue, not me. :shrug:
And I work for a living, too. As a household, we're making _well_ above average, yet we still qualify for insurance subsidies&#8230; They were very intended to be very generous as a way to drag the US closer to first-world health coverage. 

And no, really, we're not ALL "robbed." 
Approximately half of this country doesn't pay ANY income taxes because any tax burden they have is off-set by their credits. We're talking people _with_ jobs, btw. A family of four has to make around $50K before they pay a penny in taxes other than basic FICA.


----------



## grandma12703

Our insurance went up $3.00 a month. We have our ins. with my husbands work and were terrified about what it would do this year. $3.00 is awesome. They pay a % and we pay a %. We are happy and even adding the vision coverage with a little of the money we were expecting to have to pay additionally for my coverage.


----------



## Wendy

> Most working people get some kind of subsidy.


Not all of us!


----------



## 7thswan

ErinP said:


> mnn, brought up the issue, not me. :shrug:
> And I work for a living, too. As a household, we're making _well_ above average, yet we still qualify for insurance subsidiesâ¦ They were very intended to be very generous as a way to drag the US closer to first-world health coverage.
> 
> And no, really, we're not ALL "robbed."
> Approximately half of this country doesn't pay ANY income taxes because any tax burden they have is off-set by their credits. We're talking people _with_ jobs, btw. A family of four has to make around $50K before they pay a penny in taxes other than basic FICA.


Clue me in on the "First World" Country you are talking about, because it isn't the US anymore.


----------



## Nevada

grandma12703 said:


> Our insurance went up $3.00 a month. We have our ins. with my husbands work and were terrified about what it would do this year. $3.00 is awesome. They pay a % and we pay a %. We are happy and even adding the vision coverage with a little of the money we were expecting to have to pay additionally for my coverage.


I won't know for sure what my subsidy & premium will be for 5 days when open enrollment starts. It might be that the subsidy will also be adjusted.


----------



## ErinP

Wendy said:


> Not all of us!


Very good point. 
Some people got screwed by their states and are trapped where the expanded Medicaid should have caught them.


----------



## Nevada

ErinP said:


> Very good point.
> Some people got screwed by their states and are trapped where the expanded Medicaid should have caught them.


That concerns me too. I don't know how republicans will want to deal with that now that they control congress, or even if they'll deal with it at all.


----------



## MO_cows

What is this "first world health care"? You mean universal coverage? 

Medicaid was intended for the poorest of the poor, if we needed to expand Medicaid coverage then we must be doing something very wrong for our most impoverished population to be growing.


----------



## Nevada

MO_cows said:


> Medicaid was intended for the poorest of the poor, if we needed to expand Medicaid coverage then we must be doing something very wrong for our most impoverished population to be growing.


We're in a deep recession. Of course the impoverished population is growing.


----------



## happycat47111

Nevada said:


> We're in a deep recession. Of course the impoverished population is growing.


Absolutely it is. It's called the working middle class. Most of the people I know driving new cars aren't working. They're on the dole (or retired and that's the last car they'll ever buy). Used to be you could tell who the person was who was getting the guvmint assistance because they had cars that were a hundred years old, patched together with baling wire and duct tape. These days? It's the working class who drive that kind of car. The shiny new ones? That's the people we're "helping."


----------



## Nevada

happycat47111 said:


> Absolutely it is. It's called the working middle class. Most of the people I know driving new cars aren't working. They're on the dole (or retired and that's the last car they'll ever buy). Used to be you could tell who the person was who was getting the guvmint assistance because they had cars that were a hundred years old, patched together with baling wire and duct tape. These days? It's the working class who drive that kind of car. The shiny new ones? That's the people we're "helping."


That's just nonsense. The people I know who are on public assistance drive old beaters or take the bus.

As for me? I drive a 15 year old SUV.


----------



## Wendy

> Very good point.
> Some people got screwed by their states and are trapped where the expanded Medicaid should have caught them.


So we are left to pay cash like we have for the past 10 years. At least I get a cash discount. I really can't say that I WANT Medicaid. What I want is the AFFORDABLE healthcare that Obama promised. It's just not happening for a lot of people. $800 plus a month is not affordable for us. That's more than our mortgage payment!


----------



## happycat47111

Nevada said:


> That's just nonsense. The people I know who are on public assistance drive old beaters or take the bus.
> 
> As for me? I drive a 15 year old SUV.


Maybe it's nonsense in your neck of the woods. Here, where going on the draw is a way of life? It's fact. If you are very, very lucky, you have a new or newish vehicle. But these days more often than not, the people with the shiny vehicles are the ones permanently on the dole.


----------



## ErinP

MO_cows said:


> What is this "first world health care"? You mean universal coverage?



The US has the worst health coverage of any industrial nation. 
This is not news. :shrug:



> we must be doing something very wrong for our most impoverished population to be growing.


This isn't news, either&#8230; Though it's not so much "our most impoverished population" that's growing, but rather that the middle class is _shrinking_. People who used to be solid middle class are now impoverished.


----------



## Nevada

happycat47111 said:


> Maybe it's nonsense in your neck of the woods. Here, where going on the draw is a way of life? It's fact. If you are very, very lucky, you have a new or newish vehicle. But these days more often than not, the people with the shiny vehicles are the ones permanently on the dole.


_You may have assets up to $2,000. If at least one household member is 60 or disabled, then you can have $3,200 in assets. The following are some items that are not counted towards your household's asset limit: your house and lot, income producing property, personal effects such as jewelry, furnishings, clothes and household goods. The things that do count as resources or assets are vehicles, checking and savings accounts, and recreational vehicles._
http://www.foodstamps.org/nevada

So if you had a car that was worth anything to speak of, you would need to sell it before you would qualify for food stamps.


----------



## Nevada

ErinP said:


> People who used to be solid middle class are now impoverished.


I can't imagine someone not expecting that in a recession.


----------



## arabian knight

That is once again ONLY in Nevada Nevada. Look this is a whole huge country, things do not revolve around the State of Nevada. The State of Nevada is in another Zip Code compared to most if not all of the rest of the states.
Look at what other states are and it IS INCOME ONLY based for getting FS.


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> That is once again ONLY in Nevada Nevada. Look this is a whole huge country, things do not revolve around the State of Nevada. The State of Nevada is in another Zip Code compared to most if not all of the rest of the states.
> Look at what other states are and it IS INCOME ONLY based for getting FS.


Looks like Michigan has even tougher rules.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/food-stamp-eligibility-limits_n_1263592.html


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> _You may have assets up to $2,000. If at least one household member is 60 or disabled, then you can have $3,200 in assets. The following are some items that are not counted towards your household's asset limit: your house and lot, income producing property, personal effects such as jewelry, furnishings, clothes and household goods. The things that do count as resources or assets are vehicles, checking and savings accounts, and recreational vehicles._
> http://www.foodstamps.org/nevada
> 
> So if you had a car that was worth anything to speak of, you would need to sell it before you would qualify for food stamps.


You just put it in your kids name. Or a SO you are not married to. Fraud is rampant.


----------



## mmoetc

To get back on health insurance premiums. Healthcare.gov is currently showing rates and policies for the upcoming year. The policy I had this past year, silver level, $5000 deductible, went up $22/month. The interesting part is only one company offered plans in my area last year. This year there are three with a much greater number of options. Were I to stay in the ACA network I could find a plan slightly better than what I had last year for slightly cheaper before subsidies are applied.


----------



## happycat47111

Nevada said:


> _You may have assets up to $2,000. If at least one household member is 60 or disabled, then you can have $3,200 in assets. The following are some items that are not counted towards your household's asset limit: your house and lot, income producing property, personal effects such as jewelry, furnishings, clothes and household goods. The things that do count as resources or assets are vehicles, checking and savings accounts, and recreational vehicles._
> http://www.foodstamps.org/nevada
> 
> So if you had a car that was worth anything to speak of, you would need to sell it before you would qualify for food stamps.


Food stamps? That's a pittance compared to what I'm talking about. What about SSI and SSDI? THAT is where the majority of the fraud comes from in my neck of the woods (not that food stamp fraud isn't rampant because it is). The people who "hurt their backs" or have "bad nerves" (which only appear after they lose their jobs they've worked at for 10 years or so, by the way and they're faced with having to work fast food and two jobs until something else comes along.) Once you get that nice disability check or crazy check rolling in, you're set. And I know there are people out there who are legitimately in need. The sad thing is, they get pushed aside by the ones who know how to work the system. The people who need help the most oftentimes are the ones who can't get it. Maybe you don't have that problem in Nevada. We sure have it here. And we had it in Indiana, too. It will be everywhere soon.


----------



## Nevada

happycat47111 said:


> What about SSI and SSDI?


I've never applied for disability (or welfare, food stamps, or even unemployment). I didn't request Social Security until I was 62. I just applied online and deposits started showing up in my checking account.


----------



## unregistered353870

Guess what, Nevada...you're not the only person in the world.


----------



## FarmerKat

Just came across this YouTube video ... Jonathan Gruber (Obamacare architect) describes how the law was intentionally written so that the "stupid American voter" would like it. Enjoy!

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI[/ame]


----------



## mmoetc

http://cca.hawaii.gov/ins/files/2013/12/2014-Exchange-Premium-Comparisons-Version-121013.pdf

Here's a list of the plans and rates available in Hawaii.


----------



## arabian knight

I wonder how many feel ashamed now that they backed and some still back ObamaUncare when they were blatantly lied to and was done so that many of the hidden things inside aka would not be talked about? I wonder how they feel now that so much more is still to come out of this healthcare stuff that was held back and still is held back not to be enacted for years yet down the road intentionally for political gains?


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> I wonder how many feel ashamed now that they backed and some still back ObamaUncare when they were blatantly lied to and was done so that many of the hidden things inside aka would not be talked about? I wonder how they feel now that so much more is still to come out of this healthcare stuff that was held back and still is held back not to be enacted for years yet down the road intentionally for political gains?


There's nothing about the ACA that doesn't work for me. And as long as we're talking about lies, how about the lies I was told by the right? I was told in this forum that I wouldn't be able to afford Obamacare premiums, I wouldn't find a doctor who accepted Obamacare, I wouldn't be able to afford copays, and that I would face death panels. None of those came true. Is the right ashamed of those lies?


----------



## badlander

I haven't read all the posts and am really not interested in bickering at this point. Just an information only post.

I received notification yesterday that my plan cost was increasing and my co-pay was tripling. Yes, tripling. I called Anthem. The key is that you can renegotiate through them using your original application and get a plan that will cost you less than the increased amount. They told me to call them back after the 15th and not to call healthcare.gov. They would find a new plan for me. It might not be as good as the one I have but it will be cheaper. I like cheaper...I think.

I was glad since my first experience with healthcare.gov was basically a cluster you know what.

My physician is out of network, my pharmacy isn't. Am I happy with things? No, but that doesn't matter. I HAVE to have coverage or pay the price both from the IRS and from any medical facility that sees to my healthcare needs.

I go to the doctor only when I absolutely have to. Insurance has always been a safety net for me in place for severe injury or catastrophic accident.

The reason I have hated Obamacare from it's first whisper is that I am not an uninformed, ignorant voter. I have three and a half years till medicare and start SS next year and I'll probably be looking forward to making these annual calls to Anthem long after I'm 65.


----------



## happycat47111

Nevada said:


> There's nothing about the ACA that doesn't work for me. And as long as we're talking about lies, how about the lies I was told by the right? I was told in this forum that I wouldn't be able to afford Obamacare premiums, I wouldn't find a doctor who accepted Obamacare, I wouldn't be able to afford copays, and that I would face death panels. None of those came true. Is the right ashamed of those lies?


I'm moving to Nevada. Sounds like the promised land. Who's with me? :facepalm:


----------



## Nevada

badlander said:


> My physician is out of network, my pharmacy isn't.


Why are you staying with Anthem if your doctor isn't in their network? Have you looked to see if your doctor is in any other networks offered at your exchange?


----------



## badlander

Nevada said:


> Why are you staying with Anthem if your doctor isn't in their network? Have you looked to see if your doctor is in any other networks offered at your exchange?



Remember? I was PROMISED I could keep my physician if I liked them and wanted to stay with them. That is the catch, one of many with Obamacare. You can keep your physician only they may not be in network,and more than often are not. 

I like my healthcare provider, actually a PA and I will pay the out of network costs to see him. I feel better than I have in ages and why would I want to take the chances of changing?

I have a nurse friend who works in an office in a nearby city. She informs me that basically it's 'good luck' finding an in network physician nearby. Many doctors she has contact with are not accepting healthcare.gov sponsored plans.

So where are the promises made by the left? I won't list them but they are not coming to fruition either.

And now I am in the position that without the Anthem policy through healthcare.gov I am without health insurance. So now I am at their mercy and YES that is a form of a death panel all in itself. 

Like I said. Not bickering with you or anyone else. Not in the mood and if I say more I will probably get banned.


----------



## Nevada

badlander said:


> Remember? I was PROMISED I could keep my physician if I liked them and wanted to stay with them. That is the catch, one of many with Obamacare. You can keep your physician only they may not be in network,and more than often are not.
> 
> I like my healthcare provider, actually a PA and I will pay the out of network costs to see him. I feel better than I have in ages and why would I want to take the chances of changing?
> 
> I have a nurse friend who works in an office in a nearby city. She informs me that basically it's 'good luck' finding an in network physician nearby. Many doctors she has contact with are not accepting healthcare.gov sponsored plans.
> 
> So where are the promises made by the left? I won't list them but they are not coming to fruition either.
> 
> And now I am in the position that without the Anthem policy through healthcare.gov I am without health insurance. So now I am at their mercy and YES that is a form of a death panel all in itself.
> 
> Like I said. Not bickering with you or anyone else. Not in the mood and if I say more I will probably get banned.


I would still take the time to review other plans to see who might be included in their network providers.


----------



## hippygirl

Nevada said:


> That's just nonsense. The people I know who are on public assistance drive old beaters or take the bus.
> 
> As for me? I drive a 15 year old SUV.


Oh yeah? Then just drive by the projects and count the new vehicles in the parking lots!

When I worked in the grocery, I cannot even begin to tell you how many times I took buggies full of food bought with FS and loaded them into the back seats/trunks of new vehicles.


----------



## ErinP

Obviously I've missed something. How did we get from ACA to Food Stamps? 


People who qualify for Food Stamps _don't_ _qualify_ for ACA&#8230; They earn too much money. :shrug: 
Food Stamps are for people who are in varying levels of poverty. ACA is for the middle class, basically...


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> There's nothing about the ACA that doesn't work for me. And as long as we're talking about lies, how about the lies I was told by the right? I was told in this forum that I wouldn't be able to afford Obamacare premiums, I wouldn't find a doctor who accepted Obamacare, I wouldn't be able to afford copays, and that I would face death panels. None of those came true. Is the right ashamed of those lies?


A little selective memory going on there? Death panels, yes, those were discussed. 

The "not able to afford" part is referring to everyone else whose premiums went up, deductibles went up. The "can't find a doctor" discussions were about how many Drs limit how many Medicare patients they take, which is only getting worse because of the Medicare cuts to pay for O-care. There was also ONE thread, out of the zillion or so about Obamacare, where an article was posted and discussed that there were not any doctors, or at least not enough, in a certain area, so people who had acquired insurance with an Obamacare subsidized policy were still not able to see a Dr.

Nobody here has been lying to you. Sometimes people are mistaken, but I don't see where anyone intentionally lied. Except the guy who said over and over, if you like your policy you can keep it.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> There's nothing about the ACA that doesn't work for me. And as long as we're talking about lies, how about the lies I was told by the right? I was told in this forum that I wouldn't be able to afford Obamacare premiums, I wouldn't find a doctor who accepted Obamacare, I wouldn't be able to afford copays, and that I would face death panels. None of those came true. Is the right ashamed of those lies?


I didn't tell you any of those things, but I can tell you now that you're NOT paying your premiums! You're paying about 10% of them. Whether you could afford them or not might be debatable, but that would be a pointless debate.

And did you expect to face the death panel immediately? Why would they kill you off now? You're healthy. You're a cash cow! Now I'm not saying you will face a death panel at some point, but claiming it hasn't happened yet is certainly not proof that it was a lie.


----------



## ErinP

MO_cows said:


> Nobody here has been lying to you. Sometimes people are mistaken, but I don't see where anyone intentionally lied. Except the guy who said over and over, if you like your policy you can keep it.


Even that wasn't a lie. 
It shows a _complete_ lack of understanding how the insurance industry works, but it wasn't a deliberate lie. 

Also, subsidized policies through the ACA marketplaces still function like any other policy through that carrier. It's not Medicare/-caid. 
If your provider takes BC/BS, then the BC/BS policy you have through the marketplace will be accepted. Your _policy_ might have a different set of limitations, but that's really no different than any other differences you found amongst policies _before_ the marketplaces came online.


----------



## partndn

ErinP said:


> Obviously I've missed something. How did we get from ACA to Food Stamps?
> 
> 
> People who qualify for Food Stamps _don't_ _qualify_ for ACAâ¦ They earn too much money. :shrug:
> Food Stamps are for people who are in varying levels of poverty. ACA is for the middle class, basically...


Yeah, you did miss something. You missed that the NotACA forces our entire nation into a "welfare" state.. a term commonly used when referring to anyone who receives government dollars (read OUR dollars) for ANYTHING they claim is necessary for survival that they cannot afford on their own.

Like food, shelter, heat, etc. The emporer and minions decided purchased health care policies are to be one of the daily requirements for living in the U.S. 

It is NOT for the middle class. There isn't a real middle class anymore. If the gov cared about helping the near extinct middle class, they would not be imposing further costs on them, their employers, their businesses, etc.


----------



## MO_cows

ErinP said:


> Even that wasn't a lie.
> It shows a _complete_ lack of understanding how the insurance industry works, but it wasn't a deliberate lie.
> 
> Also, subsidized policies through the ACA marketplaces still function like any other policy through that carrier. It's not Medicare/-caid.
> If your provider takes BC/BS, then the BC/BS policy you have through the marketplace will be accepted. Your _policy_ might have a different set of limitations, but that's really no different than any other differences you found amongst policies _before_ the marketplaces came online.


You don't know if it was a deliberate lie or not. None of us really do, we just have our own opinions of how forthcoming and truthful that statement was. 

No different than before the marketplaces or exchanges? How about the most affordable policies, the catastrophic type, being taken off the market altogether? Treating people like little children and taking an option that worked well for many away from them. My own policy was not "catastrophic", there was coverage for a lot of preventive care/screenings and the deductibles were not extreme, but it's still not ACA compliant so now I am back to the drawing board looking for something else I can afford. I would rather get a root canal than sort thru all those policies again, thanks but no thanks Obamacare. And, it's going to cost more. The substitute policy offered by the same co. is $75 a month increase. That's an extra $900 for the year. So how about the irony of the "Affordable" care act raising the cost for everyone who isn't subsidized? Wasn't it a lie to even name it that?


----------



## partndn

ErinP said:


> Even that wasn't a lie.
> It shows a _complete_ lack of understanding how the insurance industry works, but it wasn't a deliberate lie.
> 
> Also, subsidized policies through the ACA marketplaces still function like any other policy through that carrier. It's not Medicare/-caid.
> If your provider takes BC/BS, then the BC/BS policy you have through the marketplace will be accepted. Your _policy_ might have a different set of limitations, but that's really no different than any other differences you found amongst policies _before_ the marketplaces came online.[/QUOTE
> 
> That's a pretty far stretch to go to show it wasn't a lie. Yes, sometimes, before all this mess, people's doctors would make a group or network change and have to decide if they really wanted to shop for insurance that would allow them to stay with the doc.
> 
> But the reality is the doofus who claimed it, knew exactly what he was hiding. Therefore, it's a lie.


----------



## badlander

MO_cowsI agree with you. 

I was lied to. I received a letter from my old carrier that my individual policy was not in compliance and was being cancelled. The price had been increasing steadily over the past ten years even with no major claims against it. When I talked to them they said I would have to go to the insurance market place as the policy they offered me was outlandishly priced. But then my old policy's cancellation was put on hold...I could keep it IF I was willing to pay an extra 150 dollars a month on what was basically a catastrophic health care plan. I had been paying for physician care out of pocket for years. It wasn't that expensive and the doctor treated us right. So NO I was not allowed to keep my insurance in the long run because A) It was being phased out eventually and B) It was priced out of what was reasonable for my budget. 

Washington did play the uninformed voter card with Obamacare and those of us who take the time to educate ourselves and be informed are the ones who are now spitting mad at the helpless position we have been put in.

As for the generational welfare set, don't get me started. I could tell you stories about families I dealt with professionally who had their health care handed to them on a silver platter....and bragged to us about the vacations to Australia they were taking.

I drive a 85 Mercedes diesel. DH an 86 Jetta. Every welfare patient I ever dealt with was driving a car that was under 5 years old.

I get tired of people making excuses for them and for the liberal left's talent for enabling the perpetuation of the lifestyle.


----------



## ErinP

Oh I forgot! 




Everything is a liberal conspiracy to "get" the little guy. My apologies. 
Carry on. :TFH:


----------



## partndn

badlander said:


> MO_cowsI agree with you.
> 
> I was lied to. I received a letter from my old carrier that my individual policy was not in compliance and was being cancelled. The price had been increasing steadily over the past ten years even with no major claims against it. When I talked to them they said I would have to go to the insurance market place as the policy they offered me was outlandishly priced. But then my old policy's cancellation was put on hold...I could keep it IF I was willing to pay an extra 150 dollars a month on what was basically a catastrophic health care plan. I had been paying for physician care out of pocket for years. It wasn't that expensive and the doctor treated us right. So NO I was not allowed to keep my insurance in the long run because A) It was being phased out eventually and B) It was priced out of what was reasonable for my budget.
> 
> Washington did play the uninformed voter card with Obamacare and those of us who take the time to educate ourselves and be informed are the ones who are now spitting mad at the helpless position we have been put in.
> 
> As for the generational welfare set, don't get me started. I could tell you stories about families I dealt with professionally who had their health care handed to them on a silver platter....and bragged to us about the vacations to Australia they were taking.
> 
> I drive a 85 Mercedes diesel. DH an 86 Jetta. Every welfare patient I ever dealt with was driving a car that was under 5 years old.
> 
> I get tired of people making excuses for them and for the liberal left's talent for *enabling the perpetuation of the lifestyle*.


the bolded above.. powerful words there. exactly what I've been trying to get some to see, and even realize they are now too, a part of that lifestyle..


----------



## willow_girl

> I get tired of people making excuses for them and for the liberal left's talent for *enabling the perpetuation of the lifestyle*.


I was posting in the comments section over at The Atlantic this morning ... someone had contended that if welfare were eliminated, people would starve or be on the streets. I replied that in fact most people on welfare already are working, albeit for cash or in illicit ways, such as selling their prescription medication. 

I explained that this is where people who don't know how the system works often go astray in their thinking. They see a well-dressed person paying for their groceries with food stamps, then getting into a late-model vehicle, and they think welfare provides a lavish lifestyle. It doesn't, in an of itself, but for most recipients, welfare is only one of their multiple income streams. 

Interestingly, within an hour of posting, my comment was deleted. I thought it was a glitch in the system, and I had saved the text, so I re-posted it. After my third attempt mysteriously vanished, I concluded that whoever is moderating the forum doesn't want that information getting out to the liberal readership. Imagine that !


----------



## unregistered353870

ErinP said:


> Oh I forgot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything is a liberal conspiracy to "get" the little guy. My apologies.
> Carry on. :TFH:


If only it were that simple. I believe most liberals really try to help the "little guy." Unfortunately, they are just REALLY REALLY BAD AT IT.


----------



## docholiday

My work does not offer health insurance.

We buy it ourselves directly from a very large provider in our area. We were paying about $200/month for very minimal coverage, with like a 15k or 20k deductible, for 2 adults and a 2 year old, all perfectly healthy. Basically it is an insurance to save us from getting hit with a major medical bill should something go bad, and it provides us each with 2 visits per year that are covered with a small co-pay. We got a letter saying our plan was no longer available with a list of the new plans for 2015. Now we will need to pay over $500 to get nearly the same coverage! Thanks a lot Obama. Im sure if I were a lazy person, or a "minority", or a person who made below the poverty line we'd be getting great coverage at no cost to us. Being that I'm a middle class white guy who works hard and got an education to make a slightly higher living than some, I get raped on insurance prices. Awesome.

Options now, try to get healthcare I cant really afford that is practically worthless unless someone comes down with a major illness or accident. Or I can just not get it, get taxed to death, and risk a huge hospital bill for if/when something goes wrong. Either way, I'm pretty much screwed, and will have to spend more 2-3x more money for the same coverage that I have now.


----------



## Nevada

docholiday said:


> Now we will need to pay over $500 to get nearly the same coverage! Thanks a lot Obama.


Is that $500 for 2 adults and a 2 year old?


----------



## partndn

Nevada said:


> Is that $500 for 2 adults and a 2 year old?


Please don't try to tell this guy 500 bucks is a good deal :hammer:

He just said nearly the same coverage was previously 200 for what he WANTED.


----------



## Nevada

partndn said:


> Please don't try to tell this guy 500 bucks is a good deal :hammer:
> 
> He just said nearly the same coverage was previously 200 for what he WANTED.


I was going to say it sounds about right. On top of that preventative care is free with no deductible or copay, and they can't be canceled. He might not be much worse off from where he was, particularly with the 2 year old.


----------



## docholiday

Nevada said:


> I was going to say it sounds about right. On top of that preventative care is free with no deductible or copay, and they can't be canceled. He might not be much worse off from where he was, particularly with the 2 year old.


I spoke with my wife last night, I was wrong it was not $200 we were paying it was about $140.

So now I need to pay around $500 for what I was paying $140 for, with pretty much the same coverage. How is that not much worse off. $360 more out of pocket for no practically no added benefit, how is that "affordable healthcare" compared t what I had before. :facepalm:


----------



## no really

I lost my insurance also, it wasn't compliant. The policies offered through my employer were to expensive they also were problematic when it came to out of network. I spend an average of 60 to 80% of my time travelling for my work. I can use the VA when necessary, hope I can avoid that. When home I will go to Mexico as the nearest VA is over 200 miles away.


----------



## Nevada

docholiday said:


> I spoke with my wife last night, I was wrong it was not $200 we were paying it was about $140.
> 
> So now I need to pay around $500 for what I was paying $140 for, with pretty much the same coverage. How is that not much worse off. $360 more out of pocket for no practically no added benefit, how is that "affordable healthcare" compared t what I had before. :facepalm:


$140/month for two adults and a 2 year old? That's pretty low, even for catastrophic insurance.


----------



## ErinP

docholiday said:


> I spoke with my wife last night, I was wrong it was not $200 we were paying it was about $140.
> 
> So now I need to pay around $500 for what I was paying $140 for, with pretty much the same coverage. How is that not much worse off. $360 more out of pocket for no practically no added benefit, how is that "affordable healthcare" compared t what I had before. :facepalm:



I agree with Nevada. $140 for a family policy is _extremely_ low. We were paying more than that for catastrophic 10 years ago! lol
But yeah, unfortunately, those of us who have incomes well above average got hit harder than those in the average to below average categories. 
I sympathize. We went from $300 to $610.

However, the ACA _did_ serve the purpose of getting more people insured who otherwise were shut out of the market.


----------



## docholiday

Keep in mind that was a 20k deductible, basically catastrophic coverage. Was $140 low for something we never used, maybe it was, but its not going to be that low now! Now I can pay $500 for that same coverage, so maybe the ACA is more A for some people, but surely not this middle class guy!


----------



## no really

Was reading about an insurance offered that is basically catastrophic coverage, it is only up to a year and not expensive. Of course it is not compliant with ocare, believe it's called einsurance.


----------



## MO_cows

ErinP said:


> I agree with Nevada. $140 for a family policy is _extremely_ low. We were paying more than that for catastrophic 10 years ago! lol
> But yeah, unfortunately, those of us who have incomes well above average got hit harder than those in the average to below average categories.
> I sympathize. We went from $300 to $610.
> 
> *However, the ACA did serve the purpose of getting more people insured who otherwise were shut out of the market.*


It seems to have failed in that regard too. It was published that 6 million people were losing their coverage from non-compliant policies. (6 million and one, you can count me in that group!) It was published that anywhere from 15 million to 45 million people were uninsured to begin with. Around 7 million signed up for a policy, many of whom didn't follow through and pay, didn't really qualify and other reasons to drop out. So, being generous, 1 million people gained coverage. Seriously? Turn one of the biggest industries topsy turvy, cut billions out of Medicare and all this other crap...for maybe 1 million people to gain a policy?!?!? Not even close to worth it, a dismal failure.


----------



## happycat47111

MO_cows said:


> It seems to have failed in that regard too. It was published that 6 million people were losing their coverage from non-compliant policies. (6 million and one, you can count me in that group!) It was published that anywhere from 15 million to 45 million people were uninsured to begin with. Around 7 million signed up for a policy, many of whom didn't follow through and pay, didn't really qualify and other reasons to drop out. So, being generous, 1 million people gained coverage. Seriously? Turn one of the biggest industries topsy turvy, cut billions out of Medicare and all this other crap...for maybe 1 million people to gain a policy?!?!? Not even close to worth it, a dismal failure.


Don't forget those subsidies the rest of us are paying for. We can't afford insurance but we're paying for everyone else's. :facepalm:


----------



## Nevada

docholiday said:


> Keep in mind that was a 20k deductible, basically catastrophic coverage. Was $140 low for something we never used, maybe it was, but its not going to be that low now! Now I can pay $500 for that same coverage, so maybe the ACA is more A for some people, but surely not this middle class guy!


But how affordable would it be if you had a serious illness or injury? If you can't afford $500/month for insurance, how could you afford a $20,000 deductible?


----------



## Wendy

> Is that $500 for 2 adults and a 2 year old?


Not sure about everyone else, but with the cost of everything going up & not my husband's wages, we can't afford an extra $50 a month, much less $500 plus for coverage that wouldn't cover most things anyway. This is in no way affordable. We are well below poverty level according to government standards, but do not qualify for any subsidies or Medicaid. How has it helped us?? How exactly has Obama fulfilled his promise of AFFORDABLE healthcare for everyone?

Answer: HE HASN'T! It has made it more of a nightmare for the average person than anything. This was by far the dumbest thing ever passed. It has not helped the average person at all & has put an even bigger strain on a lot of people. I guess we will continue to go without having insurance. If it is a choice between that & paying my house payment, which do you think it'll be? If I have to pick between health insurance & food, what do you think I'll pick? Or maybe I should just sign up for foodstamps & join the millions that think it is the government's job to take care of me.

They did not think at all about the people that fall through the cracks. The ones like us who work hard & try to pay our own way. They didn't think about the states that did not expand Medicaid & how that would affect a whole lot of people. 

I swear, I am going to start handing out shirts that say "I'M STUPID!!" to every person in Washington!


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> But how affordable would it be if you had a serious illness or injury? If you can't afford $500/month for insurance, how could you afford a $20,000 deductible?


What makes you so sure doc didn't have the $20k covered and just preferred keeping their month to month expenses low? 

Even if not, younger people tend to be healthy and so it's a gamble they would likely have won, if Obamacare hadn't come along. 

But it was their business, not the govts. to dictate to them what they "need".


----------



## ErinP

No doubt this is all part of the liberal conspiracy, but according the NYTimes a couple weeks ago, "_about *10 million more people* have insurance coverage this year as a result of the Affordable Care Act_"
From 16.4% of the population that was uninsured in 2013, it's down to 11.3% in 2014&#8230; Not as good as was hoped of course, but still statistically significant. 

Check out the article and accompanying maps. It's really interesting.


----------



## ErinP

Wendy, I honestly don't understand what your point is. 

I understand you got screwed by your state. I really do. Nebraska and Kansas did the exact, same thing to their residents. I have a good friend who doesn't claim all of the business expenses on her hair salon in order to bring her income UP just enough to qualify for the health marketplace, rather than getting dropped into the place where Nebraska's expanded Medicaid _isn't_. 

But I don't understand why you're so angry with Obamacare, politicians who put it through or anything else. 
How are you any worse off than you were before? 
Or are you actually upset because you WANTED the coverage but your _state_ didn't think you needed it?


----------



## arabian knight

But NOW lets get the REAL numbers as for How Many have PAID for said coverage. Signing UP is one thing. 
* PAYING for said coverage is another. * Don't forget you HAD to SIGN UP just to LOOK at the Health.Gov. WEB site. PAYING for Health coverage is another thing all together. LOL


----------



## Nevada

ErinP said:


> No doubt this is all part of the liberal conspiracy, but according the NYTimes a couple weeks ago, "_about *10 million more people* have insurance coverage this year as a result of the Affordable Care Act_"
> From 16.4% of the population that was uninsured in 2013, it's down to 11.3% in 2014â¦ Not as good as was hoped of course, but still statistically significant.
> 
> Check out the article and accompanying maps. It's really interesting.


That is an interesting map. It seems that there is a stubborn 10% of uninsured just about everywhere. That needs to be addressed.

I was particularly surprised that Texas did as well as it did, even without expanding Medicaid. Kentucky did really well also. I was also taken by how well rural areas of Nevada did, which are very republican/conservative areas. I thought rural Nevada would reject Obamacare, but they're really taking advantage of it.


----------



## Wendy

How am I worse off? Because I will have to pay a penalty now for not having it. Because of the Obamacare my kids can't see doctors they normally did. The kids are on the state Medicaid which is used for emergencies only. A lot of doctors in our town come out of Cincinnati to offices in our town. Well, Medicaid will no longer pay for these doctors because they are out of state. My daughter had a kidney stone & could not get anyone to see her in Cincinnati because she has Medicaid. She is blind & in college there. So she had to leave school & come back to Indiana to see a doctor. How stupid is that? I could not take my son to the orthopeadic surgeon he was seeing because of the same reason. I have several family members that had the same problem. Seeing doctors in Cincinnati & now their insurance will no longer cover those doctors because they are out of state. What happened to being able to keep your doctors? Why should we have to drive to Indy to see a specialist when Cincinnati is half the distance? 

So yes, I am angry. A lot of choices taken away including seeing the doctors we knew & were comfortable with. More inconvenience because we have to drive farther to see a specialist if needed when there are some right in town 6 miles away.

I am angry because like most, I would like to have coverage. Not Medicaid, but AFFORDABLE insurance we were promised. Promised we could keep our doctors. If our state didn't expand Medicaid, then why can't we get the subsidies like everyone else? Not that I expect anyone to pay for my insurance, but it is not the wonderful thing it was supposed to be for a lot of people. I do not know anyone locally that has had anything good to say about it. Most of my family have issues with losing their doctors, or their premiums going way higher, or not having coverage at all.

That is why I am upset. It was not well thought out because if it was, we would all have AFFORDABLE insurance.


----------



## kasilofhome

Some people are NOT stupid as an architecture of the Obama insurance with OUT care tax believed, some others, well, he got it right on.....and they even brag about......wow


Have some not heard from the course mouth that it was truly a scam to gain taxes....


----------



## docholiday

Nevada said:


> But how affordable would it be if you had a serious illness or injury? If you can't afford $500/month for insurance, how could you afford a $20,000 deductible?


Ever hear of a savings account? Maybe a retirement account? Or perhaps a personal loan from a bank or borrowing money from family? Is it possible that I might have a retirement/savings account that I've built over 15 years that if I had to drain to pay for a major medical expense I could, without that meaning I can afford a $500 monthly payment that would kill my monthly cash flow? 

I'm not saying that some people didn't benefit from this plan. I'm sure there are people who will, but I am definitely not in that category, and I am far from wealthy. I make about 50k a year pre tax, not that its any of your ---- business, but maybe that clears up how one could come up with a way of paying a 20k deductible over time in a medical emergency without being able to necessarily afford a $500 insurance payment every month. Not to mention that before it was my choice, now its not, and I'm taxed for my choice if it doesn't meet what the govt thinks I should be doing. 

I was responsible enough to pay for a catastrophic insurance plan for years, that I have really seen no benefit from, and that $130 a month I was paying is substantial to my monthly budget. Now I have to pay 3x what I was paying for no good reason, and if I don't I am taxed for it. Perhaps that is simple enough for your mind to wrap around?

Your obviously a big fan of the ACA, and seem to be a little hard headed as to why people like me, a hard working middle class guy who doesn't ask for handouts, would be upset by these new changes. That being said, I'm done commenting to you.


----------



## bowdonkey

All insurance, of any kind, is about a free ride should things go wrong. If you're not riding free, you're paying for it. Wait till the penalties for not having insurance has some real bite. Then you'll see rate hikes. The insurance companies must just love this captive audience.


----------



## happycat47111

kasilofhome said:


> Some people are NOT stupid as an architecture of the Obama insurance with OUT care tax believed, some others, well, he got it right on.....and they even brag about......wow
> 
> 
> Have some not heard from the course mouth that it was truly a scam to gain taxes....


Nope. MSM is not reporting it. Nor do they care. They got free insurance. They'd happily take the clothes from the backs and food from the mouths of working people because they're entitled to it. And anything else they can get. Want my car? How about my house? Okay. Why not? 

Sorry, I'm in a mood this morning.


----------



## sidepasser

Well here is a twist on health care that I never thought I would live to see. My DH and I both have insurance - We are both generally healthy although DH has been sick during the last year with an undiagnosed lung ailment that our primary care physician failed to admit she did not know what it was..so just pushed pills at him until he ended up in the hospital for a week. Now we have a lung specialist and a surgeon, and on "paper" we have the same primary care physician..just have no faith and do not want to go back.

so..long story short, I started looking for a new PCP. I called over 30 General Practitioners in our area and not one, not a single one, will accept new patients. I was told by one clinic that if we were under 50 they would take us. Well we aren't. 

Our lung specialist said we could see him until we find someone, but basically did not give us much hope at all of finding anyone on our own, so he is going to do some looking for us and come up with someone who accepts private insurance and older people.

I was also told that most doctors are "rated" by the insurance companies by how many "healthy patients that can be treated by the GP by himself" vs. patients that have to be referred to specialists. If the GP or PCP has too many patients that must be referred, they get a different "rating" and the reimbursement is less than those that can treat the patient in house. So that is why doctors do not want older patients..they may require a heart specialist, a lung specialist, a kidney or liver specialist, etc. and that raises the rating which reduces their reimbursement from the insurance company.

I was told this by a doctor in explanation for why I could not locate a PCP in our area. Doctors are now wanting young, in good health patients who only need a visit every now and again and basically don't require much care.


----------



## MO_cows

ErinP said:


> No doubt this is all part of the liberal conspiracy, but according the NYTimes a couple weeks ago, "_about *10 million more people* have insurance coverage this year as a result of the Affordable Care Act_"
> From 16.4% of the population that was uninsured in 2013, it's down to 11.3% in 2014â¦ Not as good as was hoped of course, but still statistically significant.
> 
> Check out the article and accompanying maps. It's really interesting.


I don't think their data is that solid, nor the analysis. How did they come up with numbers so vastly different than we were getting from HHS?

From the article:
_Over all, about 10 million Americans who had no insurance in 2013 signed up for it this year, according to the Enroll America/Civis model. The groups estimate that the national uninsured rate for adults under 65 fell to 11 percent from 16 percent. (Because of the federal Medicare program, which provides universal coverage to Americans over 65 who meet certain basic requirements, more than 98 percent of that group has health insurance.)_

_Other estimates, including those from Gallup and the health research group the Commonwealth Fund, show higher uninsured rates but a similar reduction in the number and percentage of Americans without insurance. Enrollâs data analysts said their survey appears to have undercounted the uninsured a bit in both years,..._

So, it appears that their 10 million gain does NOT factor in all the people who had coverage but then lost it to non compliant policies. Subtract 6 million. Then they admit in the next paragraph they undercounted the uninsured.

You can put all the lipstick on this pig you want to, it's still a pig.


----------



## FarmerKat

sidepasser said:


> Well here is a twist on health care that I never thought I would live to see. My DH and I both have insurance - We are both generally healthy although DH has been sick during the last year with an undiagnosed lung ailment that our primary care physician failed to admit she did not know what it was..so just pushed pills at him until he ended up in the hospital for a week. Now we have a lung specialist and a surgeon, and on "paper" we have the same primary care physician..just have no faith and do not want to go back.
> 
> so..long story short, I started looking for a new PCP. I called over 30 General Practitioners in our area and not one, not a single one, will accept new patients. I was told by one clinic that if we were under 50 they would take us. Well we aren't.
> 
> Our lung specialist said we could see him until we find someone, but basically did not give us much hope at all of finding anyone on our own, so he is going to do some looking for us and come up with someone who accepts private insurance and older people.
> 
> I was also told that most doctors are "rated" by the insurance companies by how many "healthy patients that can be treated by the GP by himself" vs. patients that have to be referred to specialists. If the GP or PCP has too many patients that must be referred, they get a different "rating" and the reimbursement is less than those that can treat the patient in house. So that is why doctors do not want older patients..they may require a heart specialist, a lung specialist, a kidney or liver specialist, etc. and that raises the rating which reduces their reimbursement from the insurance company.
> 
> I was told this by a doctor in explanation for why I could not locate a PCP in our area. Doctors are now wanting young, in good health patients who only need a visit every now and again and basically don't require much care.


I feel your pain. We moved a little over a year ago and it took us a whole year to find a PCP. I never expected to have such difficulty finding a doctor who will accept new patients.

I am sorry you are dealing with this.


----------



## partndn

docholiday said:


> Ever hear of a savings account? Maybe a retirement account? Or perhaps a personal loan from a bank or borrowing money from family? Is it possible that I might have a retirement/savings account that I've built over 15 years that if I had to drain to pay for a major medical expense I could, without that meaning I can afford a $500 monthly payment that would kill my monthly cash flow?
> 
> I'm not saying that some people didn't benefit from this plan. I'm sure there are people who will, but I am definitely not in that category, and I am far from wealthy. I make about 50k a year pre tax, not that its any of your ---- business, but maybe that clears up how one could come up with a way of paying a 20k deductible over time in a medical emergency without being able to necessarily afford a $500 insurance payment every month. Not to mention that before it was my choice, now its not, and I'm taxed for my choice if it doesn't meet what the govt thinks I should be doing.
> 
> I was responsible enough to pay for a catastrophic insurance plan for years, that I have really seen no benefit from, and that $130 a month I was paying is substantial to my monthly budget. Now I have to pay 3x what I was paying for no good reason, and if I don't I am taxed for it. Perhaps that is simple enough for your mind to wrap around?
> 
> Your obviously a big fan of the ACA, and seem to be a little hard headed as to why people like me, a hard working middle class guy who doesn't ask for handouts, would be upset by these new changes. That being said, I'm done commenting to you.


Amen that brother


----------



## Nevada

Wendy said:


> How am I worse off? Because I will have to pay a penalty now for not having it. Because of the Obamacare my kids can't see doctors they normally did. The kids are on the state Medicaid which is used for emergencies only. A lot of doctors in our town come out of Cincinnati to offices in our town. Well, Medicaid will no longer pay for these doctors because they are out of state. My daughter had a kidney stone & could not get anyone to see her in Cincinnati because she has Medicaid. She is blind & in college there. So she had to leave school & come back to Indiana to see a doctor. How stupid is that? I could not take my son to the orthopeadic surgeon he was seeing because of the same reason. I have several family members that had the same problem. Seeing doctors in Cincinnati & now their insurance will no longer cover those doctors because they are out of state. What happened to being able to keep your doctors? Why should we have to drive to Indy to see a specialist when Cincinnati is half the distance?
> 
> So yes, I am angry. A lot of choices taken away including seeing the doctors we knew & were comfortable with. More inconvenience because we have to drive farther to see a specialist if needed when there are some right in town 6 miles away.
> 
> I am angry because like most, I would like to have coverage. Not Medicaid, but AFFORDABLE insurance we were promised. Promised we could keep our doctors. If our state didn't expand Medicaid, then why can't we get the subsidies like everyone else? Not that I expect anyone to pay for my insurance, but it is not the wonderful thing it was supposed to be for a lot of people. I do not know anyone locally that has had anything good to say about it. Most of my family have issues with losing their doctors, or their premiums going way higher, or not having coverage at all.
> 
> That is why I am upset. It was not well thought out because if it was, we would all have AFFORDABLE insurance.


It seems that the things that are making you upset are the doing of republican state politicians refusing the expand Medicaid. That's the direction your anger should be pointed. I know that if a politician cut off healthcare for my family that I wouldn't be good with it, particularly if the objective was political gain.


----------



## no really

If you like your plan you can keep your plan.

If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.

There will be an average of 2500 savings in premiums.


----------



## Nevada

no really said:


> If you like your plan you can keep your plan.
> 
> If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.
> 
> There will be an average of 2500 savings in premiums.


I didn't have a plan, but I kept my doctor and saved $6,000 the first year.


----------



## partndn

Nevada said:


> It seems that the things that are making you upset are the doing of republican state politicians refusing the expand Medicaid. That's the direction your anger should be pointed. I know that if a politician cut off healthcare for my family that I wouldn't be good with it, particularly if the objective was political gain.


Yeah!! Expand medicaid and all is okay!!!! Take more money from everyone who is lucky enough to have a job, so budgets that government already waste can bulge even bigger!!

Why do you only read the part where handouts are mentioned? Because your thought process is so trained to answer any situation with some government program will solve all. :facepalm:

She specifically stated "pay a penalty" "choices taken away" "not expect anyone to pay my insurance" and "not AFFORDABE" 

NONE OF THESE THINGS WERE DUE TO REPUBLICANS

The answer to liberals' failure is NOT masking their lies and deceit with blame on people who feel humans should have some responsibility for their lives!

You better ask yourself how medicaid will even remain over the next year if O'NUTFACE tries to hand it to 4.5 million illegals with his pen and phone. 

Medicaid dollars will get pinched tighter, taxes on both state and fed level will increase to try to cover it, and the quality of medicaid healthcare will drop even further as a result. Happy? Nevermind, you are happy long as you have your free or low cost whatevers and don't seem to care who suffers for it.


----------



## partndn

Nevada said:


> I didn't have a plan, but I kept my doctor and saved $6,000 the first year.


If you had no plan, your $6000 savings is a really curious number. Math much?


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> It seems that there is a stubborn 10% of uninsured just about everywhere. That needs to be addressed.


As a part of that stubborn 10% I'm curious...how would you like it addressed?


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> It seems that the things that are making you upset are the doing of republican state politicians refusing the expand Medicaid. That's the direction your anger should be pointed. *I know that if a politician cut off healthcare for my family that I wouldn't be good with it, particularly if the objective was political gain*.


That is just exactly what happened to me and docholliday and many others who have posted here that our policies all of a sudden were non compliant and now we have to buy more expensive ones. Or go without any coverage and pay the fine. So, yes, your brand of politicians cut off our health care. And we are not good with it.

As far as Wendy's case, if her kids qualify for Medicaid, then Wendy and her husband should qualify for a subsidy. Apparently they don't, so there is a brand new hole in the coverage that the ACA has created. And they can't get an el cheapo catastrophic policy any more, also thanks to ACA.

But you all who think that any problem in the world can be solved by more money thrown at it, along with some govt intervention, you go right ahead and keep patting Wendy on the head and telling her how wrong she is about her own life situation. Sheesh.


----------



## Wendy

Maybe, just maybe my state realized that money doesn't just fall from the sky to pay for these programs. Indiana must not have a money tree at the capital like Washington does. Maybe hubby should just quit his job & we can go on the dole instead of trying to pay our own way. It seems to work for a lot of people.


----------



## happycat47111

Wendy said:


> Maybe, just maybe my state realized that money doesn't just fall from the sky to pay for these programs. Indiana must not have a money tree at the capital like Washington does. Maybe hubby should just quit his job & we can go on the dole instead of trying to pay our own way. It seems to work for a lot of people.


Doing the right thing these daysâ¦ I tell you what, it's enough to make a person think not twice, but four or five times about who the smart ones are and who the dumb ones are. Is it the people who are struggling to make ends meet so they can stay honest and do what's right, or is it the ones who never worry about anything because the schmucks working their assets off will take care of them? I'm afraid I know what the answer is, and it isn't the working crowd. :run:


----------



## Nevada

MO_cows said:


> As far as Wendy's case, if her kids qualify for Medicaid, then Wendy and her husband should qualify for a subsidy.


She could have gotten a subsidy, but the politicians in her state said no. If she moved to another state, like Nevada, then she would get it. And we have a republican governor.


----------



## Wendy

Sorry Nevada, I am not about to uproot my entire family & move to a state just so I can suck off the government teat like a lot of people. There is something called pride which seems to be in short supply these days. It used to be a shameful thing to take handouts if you were able to work & take care of yourself. Not anymore. Now it's almost like a badge of honor to see how much government handouts you can get without any care as to the hardworking people that are paying for it.


----------



## Nevada

Wendy said:


> Sorry Nevada, I am not about to uproot my entire family & move to a state just so I can suck off the government teat like a lot of people. There is something called pride which seems to be in short supply these days. It used to be a shameful thing to take handouts if you were able to work & take care of yourself. Not anymore. Now it's almost like a badge of honor to see how much government handouts you can get without any care as to the hardworking people that are paying for it.


If you're suggesting that I'm retired from a life of leisure, you are very much mistaken. I went to college and worked a full career, and will be eligible for Medicare in 10 months. I have nothing to be ashamed of.

If the ACA didn't pass congress I would have simply waited until I was 65 for insurance. My health is good. But it seemed that the responsible thing to do was to pay a monthly fee and carry insurance, just in case disaster strikes.

But I've paid my share of taxes over the years. Certainly enough that I'm not a freeloader.


----------



## AngieM2

Nevada, your method of rubbing it in the others members noses is very objectionable.

And most all of us have paid in and area still getting shafted on this; your glee at taking subsidies is the antithesis of the do for yourself homesteading spirit. It appears very much as if you don't care about anyone here as long as you get yours and can crow about it.

Maybe it's just your method of communicating but it's like dancing on a grave. Just because you are alive and the poor sap in the grave is not.

And maybe if the members here stopped responding to your posts boasting of what you are getting, it would be better.

But if you can work and are not, does not mean that it's better to crow to those that cannot do what you did and some of them are every bit as smart (most of them) as you, but seem to have a different moral standard.


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> If you're suggesting that I'm retired from a life of leisure, you are very much mistaken. I went to college and worked a full career, and will be eligible for Medicare in 10 months. I have nothing to be ashamed of.
> 
> If the ACA didn't pass congress I would have simply waited until I was 65 for insurance. My health is good. But it seemed that the responsible thing to do was to pay a monthly fee and carry insurance, just in case disaster strikes.
> 
> But I've paid my share of taxes over the years. Certainly enough that I'm not a freeloader.


Depends how long you live. You retired early, so you paid in less than a lot of people will. You are collecting benefits now via your subsidized insurance and will collect even more when you reach 65 and use Medicare. If you live to a ripe old age, you could easily take more out than you paid in.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> If you're suggesting that I'm retired from a life of leisure, you are very much mistaken. I went to college and worked a full career, and will be eligible for Medicare in 10 months. I have nothing to be ashamed of.
> 
> If the ACA didn't pass congress I would have simply waited until I was 65 for insurance. My health is good. But it seemed that the responsible thing to do was to pay a monthly fee and carry insurance, just in case disaster strikes.
> 
> But I've paid my share of taxes over the years. Certainly enough that I'm not a freeloader.


She didn't say anything about you...the man (you) doth protest too much, methinks.


----------



## Nevada

jtbrandt said:


> She didn't say anything about you...the man (you) doth protest too much, methinks.


Maybe so...


----------



## Becka03

just for the heck of it- I went to the Obamacare website- entered my zipcode- to get my same plan I have now- my premium would go up from 238$ a month (I have this plan via my job) to 682 dollars amonth- after the tax break- and the deductible from 2000$ to 6000$!!!!
Ackkk- thank the good Lord I have a job that offers healthcare! 

now- I did not try to put in the information for a lower salary- but I was basing it on if my job didn't offer healthcare


----------



## Nevada

Becka03 said:


> just for the heck of it- I went to the Obamacare website- entered my zipcode- to get my same plan I have now- my premium would go up from 238$ a month (I have this plan via my job) to 682 dollars amonth- after the tax break- and the deductible from 2000$ to 6000$!!!!
> Ackkk- thank the good Lord I have a job that offers healthcare!
> 
> now- I did not try to put in the information for a lower salary- but I was basing it on if my job didn't offer healthcare


$682? I'm 64 years old and on a silver HMO plan, and my premium is only $550. I know that prices vary from one place to another, but that's pretty high.

I'm searching for Harrisburg, PA and finding lots for myself at 64 under $600. In fact there a PPO for me with a $4,000 deductible for $451. Can you give me some metrics so I can search more specifically for you? PM if you wish to remain private about your age and zip code.


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> I didn't have a plan, but I kept my doctor and saved $6,000 the first year.


How did you save on costs you never had? 

So the ones not able to afford the affordable healthcare "gag" should just shut up and go away cause you got yours?


----------



## Nevada

no really said:


> How did you save on costs you never had?


Saved from premium payments.



no really said:


> So the ones not able to afford the affordable healthcare "gag" should just shut up and go away cause you got yours?


The problem I have with what I'm seeing is that conservatives are all having a negative experience with the ACA, while most democrats are having a more favorable experience. At least no conservative that's had a positive experience has stepped forward.

I can understand conservatives being fundamentally against the ACA, but their experience with premiums and deductibles should the about the same. Something's not right here.


----------



## no really

Look deeper, some see only what they want.


----------



## Becka03

Nevada said:


> $682? I'm 64 years old and on a silver HMO plan, and my premium is only $550. I know that prices vary from one place to another, but that's pretty high.
> 
> I'm searching for Harrisburg, PA and finding lots for myself at 64 under $600. In fact there a PPO for me with a $4,000 deductible for $451. Can you give me some metrics so I can search more specifically for you? PM if you wish to remain private about your age and zip code.


I searched for what I have now- which includes my DH and 2 sons- ages of us 42/48/12/18... nonsmokers- that could be the difference in your search- I searched with who I have covered now- 
We have good insurance I think thru work- I am glad it is offered- and grateful too- 
we pay 10 dollar copay- for normal DR visits- and 20 dollars for specialists- 
the one I saw was geisinger bronze with 10 dollar copay- and 50 for specialists


----------



## Nevada

Becka03 said:


> I searched for what I have now- which includes my DH and 2 sons- ages of us 42/48/12/18... nonsmokers- that could be the difference in your search- I searched with who I have covered now-
> We have good insurance I think thru work- I am glad it is offered- and grateful too-
> we pay 10 dollar copay- for normal DR visits- and 20 dollars for specialists-
> the one I saw was geisinger bronze with 10 dollar copay- and 50 for specialists


You found private insurance for two adults and two kids for $238 with a $2,000 deductible? I couldn't find insurance for just myself for that little 20 years ago.

Is the $238 policy through an employer?


----------



## Nevada

no really said:


> Look deeper, some see only what they want.


Which conservative had a positive experience with the ACA?


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> Which conservative had a positive experience with the ACA?


You say you are 64, why do I feel like I'm speaking to a child?


----------



## Becka03

Nevada said:


> You found private insurance for two adults and two kids for $238 with a $2,000 deductible? I couldn't find insurance for just myself for that little 20 years ago.
> 
> Is the $238 policy through an employer?


LOL- Yes Nevada!!! :hammer: ... 
it is thru work- I said that originally that I was grateful I have it thru my job


----------



## Becka03

Becka03 said:


> just for the heck of it- I went to the Obamacare website- entered my zipcode- to get my same plan I have now- my premium would go up from 238$ a month (I have this plan via my job) to 682 dollars amonth- after the tax break- and the deductible from 2000$ to 6000$!!!!
> Ackkk-_* thank the good Lord I have a job that offers healthcare! *_
> 
> now- I did not try to put in the information for a lower salary- but I was basing it on if my job didn't offer healthcare


I don't fault you for missing it- the thread seems to be slipping into arguing with you-


----------



## Nevada

Becka03 said:


> LOL- Yes Nevada!!! :hammer: ...
> it is thru work- I said that originally that I was grateful I have it thru my job


Oh, OK. That's makes sense. Your insurance is subsidized. You can't really compare an unsubsidized ACA policy with employer subsidized insurance.


----------



## painterswife

Becka03 said:


> LOL- Yes Nevada!!! :hammer: ...
> it is thru work- I said that originally that I was grateful I have it thru my job


How much does your boss pay? Sounds like he is paying a portion of the premiums.


----------



## Becka03

I know they pay a portion we have over 40 thousand employees- we have be called an economic powerhouse- I am not knocking my employer or this thread- *I was curious what paying for private insurance would cost me- you know so I am more grateful- so I can say- I am danged happy to work where I do- *

I do know that as the largest employer in the area- they have some pull- we will be forced in the next yr or 2 to switch to a different provider than Geisinger - which at first I was torked - but - my employer has a stake in another provider- Hershey- so we will get cheaper insurance by using them- they already have a walk-in clinic for us - regardless of the Dr we use- it is free- if you are an employee- and I normally go there cause it is closer than the family Dr- 3 miles compared to 15 miles away- and no copay-


----------



## Becka03

after reading more of the thread I would like to reiterate how blessed I am to have what I have thru my employer


----------



## painterswife

Becka03 said:


> I know they pay a portion we have over 40 thousand employees- we have be called an economic powerhouse- I am not knocking my employer or this thread- *I was curious what paying for private insurance would cost me- you know so I am more grateful- so I can say- I am danged happy to work where I do- *
> 
> I do know that as the largest employer in the area- they have some pull- we will be forced in the next yr or 2 to switch to a different provider than Geisinger - which at first I was torked - but - my employer has a stake in another provider- Hershey- so we will get cheaper insurance by using them- they already have a walk-in clinic for us - regardless of the Dr we use- it is free- if you are an employee- and I normally go there cause it is closer than the family Dr- 3 miles compared to 15 miles away- and no copay-


That means the actual cost of your policy could be more than what you can get on the exchange. Many people who get employer paid insurance are very surprised what their employers pay.


----------



## Becka03

I wasn't surprised my employer pays alot- I think they probably pay less- since there are so many employees- then again - we haven't been given COL raises in about 3 yrs-


----------



## painterswife

Becka03 said:


> I wasn't surprised my employer pays alot- I think they probably pay less- since there are so many employees- then again - we haven't been given COL raises in about 3 yrs-


Soon,you will know what they pay. It will be on your W2 if it was not this year.

Most policies through employers were always more expensive than personal policies because they could not disallow based on medical history.


----------



## Becka03

painterswife said:


> Soon,you will know what they pay. It will be on your W2 if it was not this year.
> 
> Most policies through employers were always more expensive than personal policies because they could not disallow based on medical history.


Really? I had no idea it would be on my W2- wow- now I am really curious- that is kinda cool-thanks for letting me know- should be interesting-


----------



## painterswife

Becka03 said:


> Really? I had no idea it would be on my W2- wow- now I am really curious- that is kinda cool-thanks for letting me know- should be interesting-


 I do the payroll at the company I work for. We put it on 2013's W2's.


----------



## Becka03

I didn't see it on ours this past yr- but I will certainly check this yrs! I wonder if that is across the board- every state?


----------



## painterswife

Becka03 said:


> I didn't see it on ours this past yr- but I will certainly check this yrs! I wonder if that is across the board- every state?


IRS requirement depending on size of company. You should see yours this year.


----------



## ErinP

Wendy said:


> How am I worse off? Because I will have to pay a penalty now for not having it.


Are you sure?? I thought those who were under the ACA limits, but over traditional Medicaid were the ones who had the fine waived. 
Ie, if you're trapped in that spot where your state's expanded Medicaid should have caught, you don't pay the tax. 



> Because of the Obamacare my kids can't see doctors they normally did. The kids are on the state Medicaid which is used for emergencies only. A lot of doctors in our town come out of Cincinnati to offices in our town. Well, Medicaid will no longer pay for these doctors because they are out of state. My daughter had a kidney stone & could not get anyone to see her in Cincinnati because she has Medicaid. She is blind & in college there. So she had to leave school & come back to Indiana to see a doctor. How stupid is that? I could not take my son to the orthopeadic surgeon he was seeing because of the same reason.


While I agree that this is indeed stupid, it's pretty standard practice that insurance companies limit who you can and can't see. And that can change by the year. 
This really isn't anything new due to Obamacare...



> I am angry because like most, I would like to have coverage. Not Medicaid, but AFFORDABLE insurance we were promised. Promised we could keep our doctors. If our state didn't expand Medicaid, then why can't we get the subsidies like everyone else?


Because the federal program was _designed_ to start at a minimum income level. Below that, individual states were supposed to do their parts. 
Yours didn't. Neither did mine. :shrug: (Don't like it? Don't vote Republican)


----------



## ErinP

docholiday said:


> I'm not saying that some people didn't benefit from this plan. I'm sure there are people who will, but I am definitely not in that category, and I am far from wealthy. I make about 50k a year pre tax


You _really_ should do some more shopping. 
If you're supporting a family of three on $50K, that means you should be getting around a $250+ subsidy. 
You can probably find a basic plan for less than $300 a month...


----------



## Wendy

> While I agree that this is indeed stupid, it's pretty standard practice that insurance companies limit who you can and can't see. And that can change by the year.
> This really isn't anything new due to Obamacare...


Funny how it has been like this for years & suddenly changed when the Obamacare went though. Coincidence?? I don't think so.


----------



## Nevada

Wendy said:


> Funny how it has been like this for years & suddenly changed when the Obamacare went though. Coincidence?? I don't think so.


Nonsense. HMOs & PPOs have always operated that way. That's the entire basis of their business model.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> The problem I have with what I'm seeing is that conservatives are all having a negative experience with the ACA, while most democrats are having a more favorable experience.


Well, this could explain it...I, as a conservative, am paying a portion of all those subsidies, while you, as a democrat, are receiving subsidies of around $500 per month. Receiving money is usually a more positive experience than having it taken from you.


----------



## Tricky Grama

MO_cows said:


> I don't think their data is that solid, nor the analysis. How did they come up with numbers so vastly different than we were getting from HHS?
> 
> From the article:
> _Over all, about 10 million Americans who had no insurance in 2013 signed up for it this year, according to the Enroll America/Civis model. The groups estimate that the national uninsured rate for adults under 65 fell to 11 percent from 16 percent. (Because of the federal Medicare program, which provides universal coverage to Americans over 65 who meet certain basic requirements, more than 98 percent of that group has health insurance.)_
> 
> _Other estimates, including those from Gallup and the health research group the Commonwealth Fund, show higher uninsured rates but a similar reduction in the number and percentage of Americans without insurance. Enrollâs data analysts said their survey appears to have undercounted the uninsured a bit in both years,..._
> 
> So, it appears that their 10 million gain does NOT factor in all the people who had coverage but then lost it to non compliant policies. Subtract 6 million. Then they admit in the next paragraph they undercounted the uninsured.
> 
> You can put all the lipstick on this pig you want to, it's still a pig.


This needs to be read again. Why is it that the supporters-few as they are! Refuse to count the 5.8 million (my DH is one) who LOST their ins. the end of '13? The non-conserves HERE on H.T. don't seem to care. They just want those folks to go on inefficient unsecure websites that have cost US the taxpayers billions & get on the gov't teat.
Count those 6.8 mill. in the actual 8 mill that are really signed up. Check your facts-MOST of those are medicaid!!

All this for a law that was passed by telling the voters a PACK OF LIES! 
We all knew this, the only "STUPID voters"-not MY words, the words of one of the ObummerUNcare architects-are you who fell for it.

Jonathan Gruber, who, btw, is being ostracized by most Ds now, Pelosi lies & says she doesn't know who he is but she's in a vid commending him as such a great consult, let the cat out of the bag. Now, if you progressives would bother to check it out, he's on tape FIVE different times telling us that the law was purposely set up so the stupid voters AND the CBC wouldn't understand it.

Only thing I don't understand is how ANYONE could support this lying cheating, arrogant party!


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> It seems that the things that are making you upset are the doing of republican state politicians refusing the expand Medicaid. That's the direction your anger should be pointed. I know that if a politician cut off healthcare for my family that I wouldn't be good with it, particularly if the objective was political gain.


You are oh so WRONG.
Why do you suppose there are now 32 "R" govs? B/c MOST of the US knows your party is a lying, cheating, arrogant party pushing marxist, socialist values that we do not want.
Thank the Lord for states that did not set up exchanges...this may be the biggest defeat yet for ObummerUNcare.


----------



## Tricky Grama

no really said:


> If you like your plan you can keep your plan.
> 
> If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.
> 
> There will be an average of 2500 savings in premiums.


Post of the decade award.

Along with: the law was written in such a convoluted manner so the CBC as well as the stupid voters would not see that its a huge distribution of wealth. Largest tax hike ever hoisted on the American people. Huge tax. Ds had to lie repeatedly & tell you that it was NOT A TAX. Til they had it go to the SCOTUS, who said: Hey, its a TAX!


----------



## bowdonkey

jtbrandt said:


> Well, this could explain it...I, as a conservative, am paying a portion of all those subsidies, while you, as a democrat, are receiving subsidies of around $500 per month. Receiving money is usually a more positive experience than having it taken from you.


I personally know alot of conservatives who are receiving money from the public trough. I will go out on a limb and say all of them are always seeking more because they believe they deserve it for one reason or another. It's not a party issue as to who receives or who pays, more of a personal issue of what an individual believes he deserves or what is owed to them. And then there are those who really need it. Just my honest opinion of what I see here.


----------



## Tricky Grama

ErinP said:


> I agree with Nevada. $140 for a family policy is _extremely_ low. We were paying more than that for catastrophic 10 years ago! lol
> But yeah, unfortunately, those of us who have incomes well above average got hit harder than those in the average to below average categories.
> I sympathize. We went from $300 to $610.
> 
> However, the ACA _did_ serve the purpose of getting more people insured who otherwise were shut out of the market.


You keep saying this: "more people insured" When nearly 6 million were kicked out of their plans-yes, they LIKED their insurance! how do you figure this boondoggle is helping? Go delve into the #s & see if you an do the math. There are more w/o ins now than b/4.


----------



## Tricky Grama

FarmerKat said:


> Just came across this YouTube video ... Jonathan Gruber (Obamacare architect) describes how the law was intentionally written so that the "stupid American voter" would like it. Enjoy!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI


Obviously the non-conserves here have not looked at this or they would not be saying "If you like your ins you can keep it" isn't a LIE.

Wow, HOW can anyone be so blind!? Those of you defending this lie should be so ashamed.

What conservatives have been yelling & trying to prove all along is right here, from the horses mouth. Lies, all lies from your lovely Ds. Even Ds lying to Ds! And there are no less-so far-than FIVE DIFFERENT videos of Gruber explaning how this law got thru.


----------



## Tricky Grama

For you who do not go to 'Politics' here's a quote from Gapeach's post in 'Obama's Foundation of Lies' in the politics section:

Jim Hoft
Gateway Pundit
November 14, 2014
On June 13, 2012, Obamacare Jonathan Gruber was interviewed by Frontline. He told them that the Cadillac tax issue was addressed in 2009. Obama knew it was going to be a problem, and they all agreed to lie about it.


I posted this on another thread but it bears repeating.
Worse than Nixon? By far......


----------



## Wendy

I guess I just need to change my code of morals & values. I was raised that taking handouts was a last resort, that a person should do everything they can to not take charity. My dad raised 11 kids & NEVER took a handout from anyone. He also never had any health insurance the whole time we were growing up & only now has Medicare since he is retired. He paid his own bills with money he earned. I admire him for this & many people should take a lesson from that generation. 

What we have now is a generation of takers. Let me have everything good while Joe down the street, who has morals & pride, works his butt off to pay for it. It doesn't matter that Joe struggles to pay his bills, as long as my hand is filled when I hold it out. People who don't work at all because they get more assistance if they don't. I have seen it. My dad, who raised us on very little money, eventually got a sawmill business going that is a very successful business now. Everyone that works there is family except one. Why, do you ask? Because no one wants to work. They have had several guys that would show up only when they wanted. Didn't want to work too much or they might lose their food stamps. They would love to find a couple of good, hard workers that would actually show up & work. 

That is the problem now. Not many want to actually work for what they have. There are help wanted signs all over town & I hear the same story all the time. They can't find anyone that actually shows up all the time. 

We as Americans need to turn this around. Pretty soon there will be so many government programs that there won't be enough Joes to fund them all. It is not the government's job to take care of us all. Money doesn't grow on a tree & they need to stop coming up with stupid ideas like this one. How about cutting a bunch of programs & make people actually work if they want food, shelter, healthcare, etc. ? Shoot, I could even get a "FREE" cell phone now. Wake up people! This stuff is not FREE! Someone, somewhere is paying for it. 

Of course the people that are benefiting from it think it's the best thing to come along since ice cream. Those of us that are getting shafted don't quite see it that way. We wish we could have just been left alone. If we wanted no insurance, our choice. If we wanted only catastrophic policies, our choice. If we don't want a policy that offers abortions, contraceptives, etc. our choice. Now we don't have a choice & that is why most people are mad. Some of us don't like having things shoved down our throat that we don't agree with or want. 

How would you like if your favorite food was taken away as a choice at the store because Michelle Obama decided that's what is good for you? That is basically what this healthcare bill has done. The government telling us what is good for us. Would everyone think it so wonderful if their beer & cigarettes were taken away? After all, they are bad for your health & we just want everyone to be healthy. 

I don't like my choices being taken away. I don't like being told that I HAVE to do something when I don't want to. This program has not benefited everyone like they said it would. It has been a huge headache for a lot of people & is only going to get worse. At least with no coverage I won't have to fight anyone to get a bill paid. I also won't have to get approval for any tests from someone sitting behind a desk somewhere that knows nothing about me. I'll just keep paying cash which gets me a discount anyway. 

OK, rant over. You may continue with your regularly scheduled program!


----------



## Ambereyes

Interesting.

*Medicaid Helps Hospitals Pay For Illegal Immigrants&#8217; Care*



http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/medicaid-illegal-immigrant-emergency-care/


Federal law generally bars illegal immigrants from being covered by Medicaid. But a little-known part of the state-federal health insurance program for the poor has long paid about $2 billion a year for emergency treatment for a group of patients who, according to hospitals, mostly comprise illegal immigrants. 



The lion&#8217;s share goes to reimburse hospitals for delivering babies for women who show up in their emergency rooms, according to interviews with hospital officials and studies.


----------



## no really

Ambereyes said:


> Interesting.
> 
> *Medicaid Helps Hospitals Pay For Illegal Immigrantsâ Care*
> 
> 
> 
> http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/medicaid-illegal-immigrant-emergency-care/
> 
> 
> Federal law generally bars illegal immigrants from being covered by Medicaid. But a little-known part of the state-federal health insurance program for the poor has long paid about $2 billion a year for emergency treatment for a group of patients who, according to hospitals, mostly comprise illegal immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> The lionâs share goes to reimburse hospitals for delivering babies for women who show up in their emergency rooms, according to interviews with hospital officials and studies.



Good to see you post, guess you found a bit of internet there.


----------



## Nevada

Ambereyes said:


> The lionâs share goes to reimburse hospitals for delivering babies for women who show up in their emergency rooms, according to interviews with hospital officials and studies.


That's not a product of the ACA. It's the product of law passed during the Reagan administration that guarantees that everyone receives emergency treatment.

But let's not forget that when an illegal alien goes into labor that there is a little US citizen being born who also needs emergency medical care.


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> That's not a product of the ACA. It's the product of law passed during the Reagan administration that guarantees that everyone receives emergency treatment.
> 
> But let's not forget that when an illegal alien goes into labor that there is a little US citizen being born who also needs emergency medical care.


Let's not forget that the reimbursement is not covering the costs so they get passed on. Let's not forget there is a limit to taxpayer money for Medicaid so some one else is going without.


----------



## happycat47111

Wendy said:


> I guess I just need to change my code of morals & values. I was raised that taking handouts was a last resort, that a person should do everything they can to not take charity. My dad raised 11 kids & NEVER took a handout from anyone. He also never had any health insurance the whole time we were growing up & only now has Medicare since he is retired. He paid his own bills with money he earned. I admire him for this & many people should take a lesson from that generation.
> 
> What we have now is a generation of takers. Let me have everything good while Joe down the street, who has morals & pride, works his butt off to pay for it. It doesn't matter that Joe struggles to pay his bills, as long as my hand is filled when I hold it out. People who don't work at all because they get more assistance if they don't. I have seen it. My dad, who raised us on very little money, eventually got a sawmill business going that is a very successful business now. Everyone that works there is family except one. Why, do you ask? Because no one wants to work. They have had several guys that would show up only when they wanted. Didn't want to work too much or they might lose their food stamps. They would love to find a couple of good, hard workers that would actually show up & work.
> 
> That is the problem now. Not many want to actually work for what they have. There are help wanted signs all over town & I hear the same story all the time. They can't find anyone that actually shows up all the time.
> 
> We as Americans need to turn this around. Pretty soon there will be so many government programs that there won't be enough Joes to fund them all. It is not the government's job to take care of us all. Money doesn't grow on a tree & they need to stop coming up with stupid ideas like this one. How about cutting a bunch of programs & make people actually work if they want food, shelter, healthcare, etc. ? Shoot, I could even get a "FREE" cell phone now. Wake up people! This stuff is not FREE! Someone, somewhere is paying for it.
> 
> Of course the people that are benefiting from it think it's the best thing to come along since ice cream. Those of us that are getting shafted don't quite see it that way. We wish we could have just been left alone. If we wanted no insurance, our choice. If we wanted only catastrophic policies, our choice. If we don't want a policy that offers abortions, contraceptives, etc. our choice. Now we don't have a choice & that is why most people are mad. Some of us don't like having things shoved down our throat that we don't agree with or want.
> 
> How would you like if your favorite food was taken away as a choice at the store because Michelle Obama decided that's what is good for you? That is basically what this healthcare bill has done. The government telling us what is good for us. Would everyone think it so wonderful if their beer & cigarettes were taken away? After all, they are bad for your health & we just want everyone to be healthy.
> 
> I don't like my choices being taken away. I don't like being told that I HAVE to do something when I don't want to. This program has not benefited everyone like they said it would. It has been a huge headache for a lot of people & is only going to get worse. At least with no coverage I won't have to fight anyone to get a bill paid. I also won't have to get approval for any tests from someone sitting behind a desk somewhere that knows nothing about me. I'll just keep paying cash which gets me a discount anyway.
> 
> OK, rant over. You may continue with your regularly scheduled program!


Wendy, I love you. I think you're beating your head against the wall because the takers don't get it, refuse to get it, and don't give a flying rat's behind because they got theirs and they don't CARE where the money comes from. They're entitled to it. But I agree with you one hundred percent.

Same thing here as far as jobs. They're out there. No one will work. We've tried to hire people and they won't work. They have no critical thinking skills. They can't think outside the box. They can only do what you told them to do. Think about Chumlee on Pawn Stars. Yeah. That attitude and lack of initiative they show him as having. That's the typical American worker these days, my experience. About a third of the people out there still "get it" and have work ethics.

We have people in our lives who've made snarky remarks because we've had a nice house in the past, nice things, etc. How'd we get that? Worked 80 and 100 hours a week. Well, these folks resented us. "I work all the time and I'm poor. It isn't fair that you have what you have when I don't." How many hours would it turn out they worked? Thirty-five or forty. My response would be "get another job."

Their response? "I have a life. I don't have time for that." Well then, that's why you don't have what I have.

That said, even working that hard, we're hurting right now. Not because our income has gone down but because cost for everything has gone up, up, up. Taxes have gone though the roof the last five or six years. We've given up on getting ahead and are satisfied, somewhat, with keeping our heads above water. It beats drowning, I suppose.


----------



## Nevada

Open enrollment started today. I tried to re-enroll in the same plan for 2015 by going to my insurance company website. I went through the questions, then clicked View Plans. I got this.










Of course if you call the 800 number a recording tells you that they're not there on weekends. Evidently the web developers left the website unfinished and went home for the weekend. I'll have to try again next week.

Sheesh!

These people don't seem to be very good at what they do.


----------



## Momo

I got my Obamacare renewal info in the mail yesterday. The premium went up 57% for me. That will more than take care of DH's less than 2% increase in social security retirement.


----------



## Nevada

Momo said:


> I got my Obamacare renewal info in the mail yesterday. The premium went up 57% for me. That will more than take care of DH's less than 2% increase in social security retirement.


You may be in for a pleasant surprise when you recalculate your subsidy. Mine seems to have increased a little.


----------



## unregistered353870

bowdonkey said:


> I personally know alot of conservatives who are receiving money from the public trough. I will go out on a limb and say all of them are always seeking more because they believe they deserve it for one reason or another. It's not a party issue as to who receives or who pays, more of a personal issue of what an individual believes he deserves or what is owed to them. And then there are those who really need it. Just my honest opinion of what I see here.


I agree...what I posted was really only the experiences of myself and Nevada (the HT member, not the state).


----------



## ErinP

bowdonkey said:


> I personally know alot of conservatives who are receiving money from the public trough. I will go out on a limb and say all of them are always seeking more because they believe they deserve it for one reason or another. It's not a party issue as to who receives or who pays, more of a personal issue of what an individual believes he deserves or what is owed to them. And then there are those who really need it. Just my honest opinion of what I see here.


I completely agree. 
For the simple fact of where I live (a rural part of a rural state), almost every, single person I know who is on the dole are self-professed _conservatives_. 

The only thing I find truly annoying about it, actually, is that they're usually the first ones sending around those stupid "I work for a living!" memes when you know darned well it's BS.


----------



## Pauline

Wendy i totally get where you are coming from as a widow with a low income I was told by the ACH site (Ocare) that i was not qualified for subsidies as I qualified for medicaid but my state did not expand as well so I and my older 2 are still without insurance and will pay the fine I have gotten my youngest on CHIP and pay each quarter to keep her on it and am very grateful that I can do that there seems to be a lot of people in the same boat as we are of falling through the cracks that this mess of a law has created and we all will do the best we can with what we have to deal with I'm sure


----------



## ldc

Pauline, Post #235, I couldn't afford what was offered in the beginning of this year, but now - for people in states where Medicaid was NOT expanded - there is a federal tax credit that may make health care possible for you. Here, in the newspaper, or, on-line at the HealthCare.gov site, there is a listing of "Navigators". These are the people trained to help others apply for both the health care and the tax credit, if their income warrants that.

Where I live, the Navigators are also in the Public Libraries for about a week, to reach the public.

Best wishes!


----------



## jwal10

Well, I found out I cannot continue with my catastrophic care insurance paid by me self. I have had this for 35 years. I have been told I need to go to Healthcare.gov and pick a plan. I did the minimal info part, state, zip code and income. I found that a silver plan is less than the subsidy I am entitled to. Now what. If I don't do this I will have to pay a fine for no insurance. What are my options now? I have always paid my own way but am not able to afford to pay for such a plan myself. $778.00/month for the 2 of us. $10.00 copay, $200.00 deductible, $0 out of pocket. Sounds too good to be true. I don't even want to put my info into the system, let alone sign up. How can I get my own insurance without becoming a user/taker. I was told by my former insurance agent that I have to go through the exchanges. Is this true?....James


----------



## Nevada

jwal10 said:


> How can I get my own insurance without becoming a user/taker. I was told by my former insurance agent that I have to go through the exchanges. Is this true?....James


No, that's not true. You can buy ACA compliant insurance on the open market, either from a local agent or at an internet site like ehealthinsurance.com. The only problem with not using the exchange is that you can only get your subsidy through the exchange. If you don't want the subsidy then you don't have to accept it.

Can you afford $778/month?


----------



## jwal10

They say you can only get catastrophic insurance if other insurance is more than 1% of your income. A new bronze plan is about 10 times what we were paying. No we cannot afford $778.00 a month. We are paying $300.00/month for Sweeties dental work for the next year. These bronze plans would do us no good as we use doctors very little. We get Sweeties prescriptions for $10.00 for 3 months at WalMart. These plans LET you get them for $10.00 for 1 months worth for generic, $25.00 if not generic, what is with that. $2500 deductible/ each and $12,500 out of pocket max. Less coverage than our catastrophic policy....James


----------



## Tricky Grama

Wendy said:


> I guess I just need to change my code of morals & values. I was raised that taking handouts was a last resort, that a person should do everything they can to not take charity. My dad raised 11 kids & NEVER took a handout from anyone. He also never had any health insurance the whole time we were growing up & only now has Medicare since he is retired. He paid his own bills with money he earned. I admire him for this & many people should take a lesson from that generation.
> 
> What we have now is a generation of takers. Let me have everything good while Joe down the street, who has morals & pride, works his butt off to pay for it. It doesn't matter that Joe struggles to pay his bills, as long as my hand is filled when I hold it out. People who don't work at all because they get more assistance if they don't. I have seen it. My dad, who raised us on very little money, eventually got a sawmill business going that is a very successful business now. Everyone that works there is family except one. Why, do you ask? Because no one wants to work. They have had several guys that would show up only when they wanted. Didn't want to work too much or they might lose their food stamps. They would love to find a couple of good, hard workers that would actually show up & work.
> 
> That is the problem now. Not many want to actually work for what they have. There are help wanted signs all over town & I hear the same story all the time. They can't find anyone that actually shows up all the time.
> 
> We as Americans need to turn this around. Pretty soon there will be so many government programs that there won't be enough Joes to fund them all. It is not the government's job to take care of us all. Money doesn't grow on a tree & they need to stop coming up with stupid ideas like this one. How about cutting a bunch of programs & make people actually work if they want food, shelter, healthcare, etc. ? Shoot, I could even get a "FREE" cell phone now. Wake up people! This stuff is not FREE! Someone, somewhere is paying for it.
> 
> Of course the people that are benefiting from it think it's the best thing to come along since ice cream. Those of us that are getting shafted don't quite see it that way. We wish we could have just been left alone. If we wanted no insurance, our choice. If we wanted only catastrophic policies, our choice. If we don't want a policy that offers abortions, contraceptives, etc. our choice. Now we don't have a choice & that is why most people are mad. Some of us don't like having things shoved down our throat that we don't agree with or want.
> 
> How would you like if your favorite food was taken away as a choice at the store because Michelle Obama decided that's what is good for you? That is basically what this healthcare bill has done. The government telling us what is good for us. Would everyone think it so wonderful if their beer & cigarettes were taken away? After all, they are bad for your health & we just want everyone to be healthy.
> 
> I don't like my choices being taken away. I don't like being told that I HAVE to do something when I don't want to. This program has not benefited everyone like they said it would. It has been a huge headache for a lot of people & is only going to get worse. At least with no coverage I won't have to fight anyone to get a bill paid. I also won't have to get approval for any tests from someone sitting behind a desk somewhere that knows nothing about me. I'll just keep paying cash which gets me a discount anyway.
> 
> OK, rant over. You may continue with your regularly scheduled program!


Post of the decade award.


----------



## painterswife

We looked at the exchange prices with out subsidies. The prices are very comparable to last years and there are more available plans.


----------



## Allen W

MO_cows said:


> That is just exactly what happened to me and docholliday and many others who have posted here that our policies all of a sudden were non compliant and now we have to buy more expensive ones. Or go without any coverage and pay the fine. So, yes, your brand of politicians cut off our health care. And we are not good with it.
> 
> As far as Wendy's case, if her kids qualify for Medicaid, then Wendy and her husband should qualify for a subsidy. Apparently they don't, so there is a brand new hole in the coverage that the ACA has created. And they can't get an el cheapo catastrophic policy any more, also thanks to ACA.
> 
> But you all who think that any problem in the world can be solved by more money thrown at it, along with some govt intervention, you go right ahead and keep patting Wendy on the head and telling her how wrong she is about her own life situation. Sheesh.


Add me to the list, more money for coverage which isn't any better and some cases worse.


----------



## Allen W

Wendy said:


> I guess I just need to change my code of morals & values. I was raised that taking handouts was a last resort, that a person should do everything they can to not take charity. My dad raised 11 kids & NEVER took a handout from anyone. He also never had any health insurance the whole time we were growing up & only now has Medicare since he is retired. He paid his own bills with money he earned. I admire him for this & many people should take a lesson from that generation.
> 
> OK, rant over. You may continue with your regularly scheduled program!


Grandpa's insurance plan was to sell a cow if he had to be in the hospital, even as high as cows are today that wouldn't pay for a day in the hospital. A cow might not even pay for an office call if very much lab work was involved.


----------



## Nevada

jwal10 said:


> They say you can only get catastrophic insurance if other insurance is more than 1% of your income.


Catastrophic insurance is only an acceptable plan to avoid penalty for persons under 30. You are also exempt from the penalty if you can't afford insurance, which is defined as the lowest cost bronze plan being more than 8% of your earnings.


----------



## kasilofhome

There are other ways not to turn to the liars ponzy plan.

Health care share plans
Against ones faith.....I wonder how it is that the government has placed its self into interpreting ones faith ....making some faith getting automatic passes.

I'm here is like 27 different reasons to be exempt.


----------



## ErinP

"Paying my own way" keeps coming up.

I'm just wondering if people who keep tossing this out also pay/paid for their own K-12 education, private law enforcement or fire departments, and eschew the public library&#8230;? 
Or are those also against morals and values?


----------



## no really

ErinP said:


> "Paying my own way" keeps coming up.
> 
> I'm just wondering if people who keep tossing this out also pay/paid for their own K-12 education, private law enforcement or fire departments, and eschew the public libraryâ¦?
> Or are those also against morals and values?


Taxes, taxes and more taxes.:hammer:


----------



## ErinP

Tricky Grama said:


> You keep saying this: "more people insured" When nearly 6 million were kicked out of their plans-yes, they LIKED their insurance! how do you figure this boondoggle is helping? Go delve into the #s & see if you an do the math. There are more w/o ins now than b/4.


I did. I even _posted_ one of the articles I've read. 


It says you're mistaken. And I see by the several "likes" you've gotten on your post, you're obviously not the only one who's confused on the facts. :shrug:
But popular doesn't mean "correct."


----------



## ErinP

no really said:


> Taxes, taxes and more taxes.:hammer:


Was this an answer to my question??

Is the public library, K-12 education or a police force against morals and values?


----------



## no really

ErinP said:


> Was this an answer to my question??
> 
> Is the public library, K-12 education or a police force against morals and values?


Yep, that was an answer. The morals and values comment makes no sense.


----------



## ErinP

It's not a comment, it's a _question_.

Why is this a matter of "morals and values" or "paying my own way" when it comes to health insurance, but it's not when it comes to police, fire, education or libraries? 

Or is it?
Are these same people also paying their own private educations, law enforcement or fire fighters??


----------



## kasilofhome

ErinP said:


> "Paying my own way" keeps coming up.
> 
> I'm just wondering if people who keep tossing this out also pay/paid for their own K-12 education, private law enforcement or fire departments, and eschew the public libraryâ¦?
> Or are those also against morals and values?


FYI
My body is mine it is not a community need 

I have a right to be secure in my person it is not a public issue.

Now, schools, police, library are covered as role of government .....Health care no. 

Police had another term verses police ...but it is clear that the government was to protect our rights.

Libraries were covered in the fourth ending of our constitution entry to

Education... left to the individual states government...


----------



## unregistered353870

ErinP said:


> It's not a comment, it's a _question_.
> 
> Why is this a matter of "morals and values" or "paying my own way" when it comes to health insurance, but it's not when it comes to police, fire, education or libraries?
> 
> Or is it?
> Are these same people also paying their own private educations, law enforcement or fire fighters??


You're lumping general welfare and specific welfare together. It's the only way you can justify taking from me and giving to another who did nothing to earn it.


----------



## happycat47111

ErinP said:


> It's not a comment, it's a _question_.
> 
> Why is this a matter of "morals and values" or "paying my own way" when it comes to health insurance, but it's not when it comes to police, fire, education or libraries?
> 
> Or is it?
> Are these same people also paying their own private educations, law enforcement or fire fighters??


I pay *property taxes* which include fees for law enforcement, fire services, and library support. Therefore, I pay for those services. As does everyone who pays property taxes. I'm simply using the services I pay for if I call a cop, a fireman, or go to the library. So yes, *still* paying my way there. 

If I decide to go back to school, I'll pay my own tuition and books. If I had kids, they'd be home schooled. You might also note that I'm *generous* enough to pay school taxes when I don't have kids. So I'll apply a little *extra credit* to the library, which I do use, and the police and fire departments.


----------



## ErinP

> You're lumping general welfare and specific welfare together. It's the only way you can justify taking from me and giving to another who did nothing to earn it.


ACA is for working people. Keep in mind, we're talking about people who are earning too much to qualify for Medicaid, or even expanded Medicaid, as previously discussed in this thread. They're just not lucky enough to have a job that comes with insurance. 
Also, this IS about the public welfare. I'm _tired_ of having to pick up the costs of the under- or un-insured.






> I pay property taxes which include fees for law enforcement, fire services, and library support. Therefore, I pay for those services. As does everyone who pays property taxes. I'm simply using the services I pay for if I call a cop, a fireman, or go to the library. So yes, *still* paying my way there.


Oh. 
OK

So only property owners should have education, fire protection, libraries, etc. etc. 
Renters should be SOL. 

Interesting idea&#8230; THAT should save some money!


----------



## unregistered353870

ErinP said:


> ACA is for working people. Keep in mind, we're talking about people who are earning too much to qualify for Medicaid. People who are earning more than Wendy&#8230;
> They're just not lucky enough to have a job that comes with insurance.
> Also, this IS about the public welfare. I'm _tired_ of having to pick up the costs of the under- or un-insured.


Working people? How is that relevant? They're not working for ME, so I shouldn't have to pay them.

As for paying for the uninsured, you're still picking up their costs (if you actually pay taxes). You're just paying for their insurance instead of the more indirect way it was before.

Very little has changed, except that I am now legally compelled to buy something I don't need or want. I'm not doing it, though, so I won't get too riled up by it.


----------



## ErinP

> As for paying for the uninsured, you're still picking up their costs (if you actually pay taxes). You're just paying for their insurance instead of the more indirect way it was before.


Of course. 
But by finally dragging the US into the _20th_ century, the costs (for those of us who actually pay income taxes) SHOULD end up lower&#8230;like they are in every other country on the planet.


----------



## Lookin4GoodLife

ErinP said:


> OK
> 
> So only property owners should have education, fire protection, libraries, etc. etc.
> Renters should be SOL.
> 
> Interesting ideaâ¦ THAT should save some money!


Renters pay taxes. Do you really think that is not passed along by the owner when he figures the rent he will charge? Some people enjoy arguing for the pure sport of it.


----------



## partndn

ErinP said:


> ACA is for working people. Keep in mind, we're talking about people who are earning too much to qualify for Medicaid, or even expanded Medicaid, as previously discussed in this thread. They're just not lucky enough to have a job that comes with insurance.
> Also, this IS about the public welfare. I'm _tired_ of having to pick up the costs of the under- or un-insured.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh.
> OK
> 
> So only property owners should have education, fire protection, libraries, etc. etc.
> Renters should be SOL.
> 
> Interesting ideaâ¦ THAT should save some money!


I'm _tired_ of gov in general, both parties yes, but more so libs, failing to see where the roots of problems come from. Rather than trace to the source of the problem, the fix is to steal from the masses, and they obviously do a good job of fooling a lot of the population into believing the LIE that it is for the public welfare.. as you call it. 

You are reaching into oblivion on the renter/property owner sarcasm. Any property owner figures the cost of property tax into their price for rent in one way or another. It doesn't matter who writes the check. "house for rent.. in the xxx school district" etc. is part of the competition for finding occupants. Geezzzzz



ErinP said:


> Of course.
> But by finally dragging the US into the _20th_ century, the costs (for those of us who actually pay income taxes) SHOULD end up lowerâ¦like they are in every other country on the planet.


And back to my point of not seeing the root of the problem. If big pharma, corp healthcare, or insurance companies need an adjustment to reign in their monopoly on the public, then address that. Or how 'bout addressing the sham of running the "programs" hm? 

I've seen estimates of fraud for medicaid and medicare from 48 BILLION up to 90 BILLION DOLLARS.... EACH!!! How genius are we to stand for that?? Instead of thinking gee, we must need a new healthcare system, especially for the poor or those who have retired.. DUH!!!!!!
Why not address the freakin problem of the fraud!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If a general family doc today was free to operate a business on his own merit, reputation, and customer service, without fear of frivolous lawsuit or God forbid, a paperwork error and fines, the average costs would never be where they are today. Maybe one guy just wants to give good care to a community without depending on the insurance and government payments. Leave the specialized care for those who choose a catastrophic plan, etc. (oh right, there's no choice for that now, not affordable anyway) 

The goal of the UnAffordableCarelessAct is being accomplished. It is not to improve the health or anything else of the working class. It is to crush and smash the people of this country into eternal servitude and obedience with as little resistance as recognizable. And so far, it is fairly successful.

Hey look at that! I actually found a way to say the ridiculous law of epic extortion is successful :drum:


----------



## Crisste

I believe that all services which are required for a civilization to thrive should be regulated. 

Power generation, law enforcement, education (including college), healthcare (including nutrition), military capabilities and infrastructure. Did I leave anything out?

Anything that is required and not a choice for a healthy population should be heavily regulated, monitored, and controlled by government. 

Of course, that only works if we also eliminate all corporate lobbying.

The fact is, when the government regulates an industry, even when they do a bad job of it, the results are usually better than what you'd get by letting the industry regulate itself. 
If you put a fox in charge of hen-house security, you're not going to get many eggs.

The greater vast majority of our health care problems are caused by the processed foods we eat. Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, hypertension, high blood pressure, and the list goes on and on.. Treat the sugar "Fructose" and any other sugars that contain Fructose (like common table sugar) as a tobacco product or controlled substance that requires a minimum age, and you will permanently fix 80% of our healthcare industry problems almost overnight and without any additional taxes or burden on the people.

Anything else that we do or talk about, including the subject of this discussion, is nothing more than a car spinning its tires in the mud and digging itself in deeper.


----------



## Tricky Grama

ErinP said:


> It's not a comment, it's a _question_.
> 
> Why is this a matter of "morals and values" or "paying my own way" when it comes to health insurance, but it's not when it comes to police, fire, education or libraries?
> 
> Or is it?
> Are these same people also paying their own private educations, law enforcement or fire fighters??


Maybe a copy of the constitution of the United States would help you.
Hint: Gov't is required to protect us.

I realize you've supplied articles regarding the ObummerUNhealthcare but you have'nt told us what happened to the 5.8 MILLION who lost their ins end of '13. IF they were ASSUMED to have gone to the non-working healthcare website & gotten ins...and if the majority of those who have done the same were already insured or those already on medicaid, how do you figure this is a success?
Please, let us know.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Since we ALL now know the UNhealthcare bill was based on LIES, lies, & more lies, what should be done?

Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...e-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/


----------



## Wendy

> ACA is for working people. Keep in mind, we're talking about people who are earning too much to qualify for Medicaid, or even expanded Medicaid, as previously discussed in this thread. They're just not lucky enough to have a job that comes with insurance.
> Also, this IS about the public welfare. I'm _tired_ of having to pick up the costs of the under- or un-insured.


So how is it helping those who qualify for Medicaid according to the site, but can't get Medicaid through their state? Just because our state happened to be smart enough to know they wouldn't be able to fund all of the extra people that would be qualified according to this law. I keep asking this & all I get is, too bad for you that your state didn't expand it or move to a state that did. How is that helping me? 

I am just trying to point out that it is not the wonderful thing a few of you think it is. It might be wonderful for you, but for a huge amount it is a nightmare that is actually costing them more than it did before.


----------



## painterswife

Wendy said:


> So how is it helping those who qualify for Medicaid according to the site, but can't get Medicaid through their state? Just because our state happened to be smart enough to know they wouldn't be able to fund all of the extra people that would be qualified according to this law. I keep asking this & all I get is, too bad for you that your state didn't expand it or move to a state that did. How is that helping me?
> 
> I am just trying to point out that it is not the wonderful thing a few of you think it is. It might be wonderful for you, but for a huge amount it is a nightmare that is actually costing them more than it did before.


You have said you had no insurance before. You have no insurance now. You should not have to pay a fine because you can't get insurance that is less then 8% of your income. You are no better off but also no worse off. Right now it has not helped you that is true.


----------



## Wendy

> The greater vast majority of our health care problems are caused by the processed foods we eat. Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity, hypertension, high blood pressure, and the list goes on and on.. Treat the sugar "Fructose" and any other sugars that contain Fructose (like common table sugar) as a tobacco product or controlled substance that requires a minimum age, and you will permanently fix 80% of our healthcare industry problems almost overnight and without any additional taxes or burden on the people.


I don't think it would be that easy. I do not eat much processed foods, eat out, drink soda, eat junk food, or eat a lot of sweets & I am type II diabetic. Despite what I eat & that I walk everyday. Same with my mom. I actually know a number of people like this. I cook from scratch, eat whole foods we grow here, & watch my carbs. I realize this may be a problem for a lot of people, but not everyone that is diabetic eats that stuff.


----------



## Wendy

> You have said you had no insurance before. You have no insurance now. You should not have to pay a fine because you can't get insurance that is less then 8% of your income. You are no better off but also no worse off. Right now it has not helped you that is true.


True, but I would like the affordable healthcare I was promised. I do not like not having insurance, but I have not found the affordable care we all were promised. I'm no worse off right now, but if I end up with a big hospital bill I will be. I won't have the promised coverage to help me pay for it. Seems it was only promised to certain people. The rest of us just have to suffer.


----------



## no really

Wendy said:


> So how is it helping those who qualify for Medicaid according to the site, but can't get Medicaid through their state? Just because our state happened to be smart enough to know they wouldn't be able to fund all of the extra people that would be qualified according to this law. I keep asking this & all I get is, too bad for you that your state didn't expand it or move to a state that did. How is that helping me?
> 
> I am just trying to point out that it is not the wonderful thing a few of you think it is. It might be wonderful for you, but for a huge amount it is a nightmare that is actually costing them more than it did before.


And for those of us that lost insurance because it wasn't compliant and got the wonderful news of much higher costs, with less useful coverage. I and many in I know travel a lot for work. If I had been dumb enough to buy the new insurance I would only have coverage about 35 to 40% of the year, also did not qualify for subsidies.


----------



## painterswife

Wendy said:


> True, but I would like the affordable healthcare I was promised. I do not like not having insurance, but I have not found the affordable care we all were promised. Seems it was only promised to certain people. The rest of us just have to suffer.


So you are blaming the the federal government for trying to implement a system that would give you a better chance at affordable insurance even though it was your State who put the kibosh on it.

So you would have been happy if you could have got on medicare? That would have been affordable.


----------



## MO_cows

ErinP said:


> "Paying my own way" keeps coming up.
> 
> I'm just wondering if people who keep tossing this out also pay/paid for their own K-12 education, private law enforcement or fire departments, and eschew the public libraryâ¦?
> Or are those also against morals and values?


Having public schools, police, fire dept. and libraries is not at all comparable with forcing someone to buy an individual health insurance policy, and also to pay for someone else's. EVERY resident, whether they are a taxpayer or not, can call the fire dept., send their kids to the schools, etc. Just like everybody can drive on the roads. But a health insurance policy is for one person only. 

Morals and values have nothing to do with it. It was a political coups...


----------



## bowdonkey

ACA has always been primarily about control. Of your wallet and whereabouts. I don't buy any of the govt line that it's about affordable care for everyone. Since when have TPTB cared about anything other than their own butts. Don't look for any releif from our polticians. Like the PA this is a great tool for surveillance and control. They're testing the waters with each piece of intrusive legislation. If ACA is so good, why is it mandatory?


----------



## partndn

painterswife said:


> So you are blaming the the federal government for trying to implement a system that would give you a better chance at affordable insurance even though it was your State who put the kibosh on it.
> 
> So you would have been happy if you could have got on medicare? That would have been affordable.


Probably blaming the federal gov for telling the lies about the affordable aspect, when they knew states' choices would have this impact.

And it looks silly to post questions in a thread that were answered, probably more than once, a couple pages ago.

All this has been answered and reasoned. Seems there just aren't reasonable eyes reading it.


----------



## Wendy

I don't ever remember hearing that I may have a better CHANCE at affordable healthcare. I remember hearing that EVERYONE would be able to get affordable healthcare, not lose their doctors, & not be penalized for pre-existing conditions. Am I the only one that heard this? I'm sorry, $800 plus a month is NOT affordable.


----------



## painterswife

Wendy said:


> I don't ever remember hearing that I may have a better CHANCE at affordable healthcare. I remember hearing that EVERYONE would be able to get affordable healthcare, not lose their doctors, & not be penalized for pre-existing conditions. Am I the only one that heard this? I'm sorry, $800 plus a month is NOT affordable.


There is no way that any health in a for profit system is ever really affordable for most of the population.


----------



## ErinP

Wendy said:


> So how is it helping those who qualify for Medicaid according to the site, but can't get Medicaid through their state? Just because our state happened to be smart enough to know they wouldn't be able to fund all of the extra people that would be qualified according to this law. I keep asking this & all I get is, too bad for you that your state didn't expand it or move to a state that did. How is that helping me?


Its not. But why do you care? 
You didn't want it anyway, and because your income is low enough, its not costing you anything either. It's a complete non-issue for you.
So why does it matter to you?


----------



## Nevada

Wendy said:


> I don't ever remember hearing that I may have a better CHANCE at affordable healthcare. I remember hearing that EVERYONE would be able to get affordable healthcare, not lose their doctors, & not be penalized for pre-existing conditions. Am I the only one that heard this? I'm sorry, $800 plus a month is NOT affordable.


As I keep saying, you really need to direct this at your state politicians. They made decisions that benefit them politically, while hurting you and your family. I wouldn't be ok with that.


----------



## ErinP

MO_cows said:


> Having public schools, police, fire dept. and libraries is not at all comparable with forcing someone to buy an individual health insurance policy, and also to pay for someone else's. EVERY resident, whether they are a taxpayer or not, can call the fire dept., send their kids to the schools, etc. Just like everybody can drive on the roads. But a health insurance policy is for one person only.
> 
> Morals and values have nothing to do with it. It was a political coups...


I didnt bring up morals and values. I think that was Wendy's...
And a K-12 education or a fire call is no more or less for one person than health care is. 
Why are you OK with one and not the other?


----------



## partndn

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLHZmVHSP7A[/ame]





:hrm:


----------



## Wendy

Actually, I did want affordable healthcare. I just didn't get it.


----------



## Crisste

MO_cows said:


> EVERY resident, whether they are a taxpayer or not, can call the fire dept., send their kids to the schools, etc. Just like everybody can drive on the roads. But a health insurance policy is for one person only.


While your statement may be true in the narrow context of singular reasoning (IE: Me Me Me Me Me), it is not true when you consider the broader scope of reality. 

The only people who work and have reliable insurance are those who work for others. People who are told when and where they will report for work.. People who have given up parts of their liberty and freedom for the illusion of stability based on the whims of some very rich and very powerful corporate leader. 
This is America, you have a right to do that.

But some people work for themselves and own small businesses that are being driven under by health care cost increases that ride double digits every year. Add to that the fact that the average insurance company will drop you the moment you need that insurance, and there's a problem.

Obamacare (IE: The ACA ) attempts to fix that problem. The fact is, regardless of whether its a good solution or not, its an attempt to change the system to something better. 

This seems to be were people miss the point. Everyone wants change for something better but no one seems to want to accept that progress and change for the better can come with some potholes and that it is basically impossible to fix a system of near infinite complexity without encountering some bumps.

The republicans do a lot of things better than the democrats. but change and progress is not one of them and it never has been. Republicans stick to the old ways, they don't like change even if their current system is broken.  

With double digit increases year after year for health care costs, something has to either break or change and if we break it trying to change it, that is just sometimes the way things progress. 

Oh, and for anyone who has bothered to look it up, those large annual heath care increases have been tempered down by the ACA. We are riding on historically low numbers. The ACA is working, just not as well or as broadly as was hoped. But it is certainly a step in the right direction.


----------



## MO_cows

ErinP said:


> I didnt bring up morals and values. I think that was Wendy's...
> And a K-12 education or a fire call is no more or less for one person than health care is.
> Why are you OK with one and not the other?


Yes, you did:


ErinP said:


> "Paying my own way" keeps coming up.
> 
> I'm just wondering if people who keep tossing this out also pay/paid for their own K-12 education, private law enforcement or fire departments, and eschew the public libraryâ¦?
> Or are those also against morals and values?


For one, fire, most roads, schools and such are LOCAL, not federal. So the city or county or state citizens vote to have taxes and fees to pay for these things. A whole lot different than imposing it down on them from the federal level. 

What the ACA did was take the worst of govt healthcare and private healthcare and roll them into one. If you want an example of purely govt managed healthcare, it's the VA. Some success stories there, but too many horror stories going back for years. Heaven forbid they try to take care of all of us! 

Totally private sector health care system hasn't existed since Medicare and Medicaid came along, but for most people it still worked out pretty well. 

There were a lot better ways to increase the levels of coverage by private insurance than the ACA. Now don't confuse me with some others here who just want to go back to the "good old days" before Obamacare, repeal it and be done. We did need to employ some strategies to get more people covered. And it is an epic failure on the part of the Rs that they ignored the problems for so long. But the ACA has caused more problems than it solved, and that's the very definition of a failure. The Ds got it wrong, too.


----------



## kasilofhome

Health care is a personal responsibility. 
Fire dept as a common pooled service goes back to our founding fathers and beyond. It was team work with the wealthy carrying the biggest bill.
Education ...well that was a parents role and some pooled resources and hired teachers ....and well wealthy shelled out bucks to build schools for the common good.

And libraries well once again look to the founding fathers 



Lawyers today often are in that field not for justice but for the buck that can float into their pockets. Lawsuits pushed to gain money has done much to destroy health care availability. 

Cost increased and doctors limit what they will do and who they will see.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Health care is a personal responsibility.
> Fire dept as a common pooled service goes back to our founding fathers and beyond. It was team work with the wealthy carrying the biggest bill.
> Education ...well that was a parents role and some pooled resources and hired teachers ....and well wealthy shelled out bucks to build schools for the common good.
> 
> And libraries well once again look to the founding fathers
> 
> 
> 
> Lawyers today often are in that field not for justice but for the buck that can float into their pockets. Lawsuits pushed to gain money has done much to destroy health care availability.
> 
> Cost increased and doctors limit what they will do and who they will see.


So if we pooled together to educate our citizens why can't we pool together to look to their health care?


----------



## Nevada

kasilofhome said:


> Health care is a personal responsibility.
> Fire dept as a common pooled service goes back to our founding fathers and beyond. It was team work with the wealthy carrying the biggest bill.
> Education ...well that was a parents role and some pooled resources and hired teachers ....and well wealthy shelled out bucks to build schools for the common good.
> 
> And libraries well once again look to the founding fathers


We call that kind of argument an appeal to tradition. That's a common logical fallacy that is assumed to be correct because it's a past or present tradition. But, of course, that also assumes that conditions are the same today as they were in the past. I don't think you can say that about medical costs.


----------



## Jane in southwest WI

My husband and I had a non-compliant plan that we were allowed to keep for 2 years after the start of Obamacare. Not a great plan, but better than nothing. However, this December the price is going up another $167 a month (after going up every year since we got on the plan in 2010). For a plan with a $10,000 per person deductible and that we never made any claims against, I decided I had to find an alternative. The premiums would have been over 8% of my income, so not affordable anyway.

I went on einsurance.com, looked at the compliant plans and nearly fainted when I saw the cost of the cheapest bronze plan - the cost would be over 10% of my income. I used a subsidy calculator, and we don't qualify (we're not making a lot over the amount to qualify, either).

While I'm glad I don't have to worry about a penalty for not buying outrageously-priced insurance since the cost is over 8% of our household income, I'm amazed at how unfair this Obamacare is for people like us. For years and years we had health insurance, either through an employer or buying it privately after getting laid off and only finding contract work. Now that we are older (but too young for Medicare), we are either forced to pay an exorbitant amount or go without insurance. Or, is there some other answer I'm overlooking? I am considering a healthsharing ministry (the only option I can think of now).


----------



## Nevada

Jane in southwest WI said:


> My husband and I had a non-compliant plan that we were allowed to keep for 2 years after the start of Obamacare. Not a great plan, but better than nothing. However, this December the price is going up another $167 a month (after going up every year since we got on the plan in 2010). For a plan with a $10,000 per person deductible and that we never made any claims against, I decided I had to find an alternative. The premiums would have been over 8% of my income, so not affordable anyway.
> 
> I went on einsurance.com, looked at the compliant plans and nearly fainted when I saw the cost of the cheapest bronze plan - the cost would be over 10% of my income. I used a subsidy calculator, and we don't qualify (we're not making a lot over the amount to qualify, either).
> 
> While I'm glad I don't have to worry about a penalty for not buying outrageously-priced insurance since the cost is over 8% of our household income, I'm amazed at how unfair this Obamacare is for people like us. For years and years we had health insurance, either through an employer or buying it privately after getting laid off and only finding contract work. Now that we are older (but too young for Medicare), we are either forced to pay an exorbitant amount or go without insurance. Or, is there some other answer I'm overlooking? I am considering a healthsharing ministry (the only option I can think of now).


I'm sorry you're in that position. You are one of the few who are legitimately falling through the cracks in the ACA. I hope congress fixes it soon, but I don't have a lot of hope for that left with the new republican congress.


----------



## no really

Democrats or Republicans their inability to "fix" things are epic.


----------



## partndn

painterswife said:


> So if we pooled together to educate our citizens why can't we pool together to look to their health care?


The pooling together kasilofhome referred to was voluntary, not robbery.

The pooling of the "aca" is not voluntary. It's the rattling of the giant chain of the massah' around us all, which seems to be a comforting sound to some.

So incredibly sad.


----------



## painterswife

partndn said:


> The pooling together kasilofhome referred to was voluntary, not robbery.
> 
> The pooling of the "aca" is not voluntary. It's the rattling of the giant chain of the massah' around us all, which seems to be a comforting sound to some.
> 
> So incredibly sad.


I was not responding to kasilofhome. Education taxes are not voluntary now.


----------



## Trainwrek

I used to have a plan for something like 500 per month. When Obamacare past it went up to 750. I really could not afford it at 500. Me and my wife combined make about 40k, so when the rate went up I dropped it.

Like Kasil, there are no plans available for less than 8% of our income and we dont qualify for the subsidy. This whole thing has hurt our family more than I can express. I ran out to the polls for the first time in a long time this past election. I just hope the republicans are able to undo this horrendous bill otherwise I'm just not sure what we will do.


----------



## ErinP

Why dont you qualify for the subsidy?


----------



## partndn

painterswife said:


> So if we pooled together to educate our citizens why can't we pool together to look to their health care?





painterswife said:


> I was not responding to kasilofhome. Education taxes are not voluntary now.



 Then what is the purpose of quoting kasilofhome in your post #282, directly followed by your comment? It's right there on this page..

If it weren't such a tragic subject, it would be comical the antics of the effort to sway common sense and self reliance to bondage mentality.


----------



## painterswife

partndn said:


> Then what is the purpose of quoting kasilofhome in your post #282, directly followed by your comment? It's right there on this page..


I tried to do two things at once and messed up. Is it still Monday?

I was quoting kalisofhome.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> I was not responding to kasilofhome. Education taxes are not voluntary now.


YES, EVEN IN THE YEAR 2014 tax for education is volunteer.

Stop voting for bonds
Move to Kasilof Alaska have a home less than 50,000. If under 65 after which build up to a 300,000dollar home.


----------



## Wendy

> You are one of the few who are legitimately falling through the cracks in the ACA


Sorry Nevada, there are more than just a few. There are many, many people I know that are in the same boat.


----------



## kasilofhome

I paid out of pocket for two rounds of cancer and my insurance paid for one round.

I have been paying out of pocket for all of my health care for years many of which was my paying for private insurance and out of pocket and deductibles. That is eye care and dental.

Now, I worked multi jobs saves and invested and waited to take on extra cost for a family. I went broke and dumpster dived, learned to live dirt cheap paid off my land and now I prepay for future medical care. Should I need it. I used use medical saving plans but that was removed with the present plan. 

Yep, I am against able bodied person ....that includes myself from living off others. Heck today I am learning to make socks ....it will keep me busy in the winter and use up free yarn I was willed from my late mother and save money. 

I seek out ways not to be a burden. While my husband is a charity case I being cognitive and fit should and do contribute to the next generation. The USA government spends too much and a lot of it is wasted. 

I found this site because I needed more tools....skills and knowledge to start over with what I had to deal with. If poverty is made uncomfortable only those with real needs will be poor. Standards maybe different but having the opportunity to change things and to achieve is better than a hand out. Training people that any need and want can be gotten with out work or effort teacher laziness.


----------



## Crisste

Jane in southwest WI said:


> My husband and I had a non-compliant plan that we were allowed to keep for 2 years after the start of Obamacare. Not a great plan, but better than nothing. However, this December the price is going up another $167 a month (after going up every year since we got on the plan in 2010). For a plan with a $10,000 per person deductible and that we never made any claims against, I decided I had to find an alternative. The premiums would have been over 8% of my income, so not affordable anyway.
> 
> I went on einsurance.com, looked at the compliant plans and nearly fainted when I saw the cost of the cheapest bronze plan - the cost would be over 10% of my income. I used a subsidy calculator, and we don't qualify (we're not making a lot over the amount to qualify, either).
> 
> While I'm glad I don't have to worry about a penalty for not buying outrageously-priced insurance since the cost is over 8% of our household income, I'm amazed at how unfair this Obamacare is for people like us. For years and years we had health insurance, either through an employer or buying it privately after getting laid off and only finding contract work. Now that we are older (but too young for Medicare), we are either forced to pay an exorbitant amount or go without insurance. Or, is there some other answer I'm overlooking? I am considering a healthsharing ministry (the only option I can think of now).


Your numbers don't make sense.. You must be leaving something out like "we are both smokers and have 20 children living at home under our insurance plan".. or some other important fact like that..

First issue: $10,000 deductible doesn't make sense.
Second: Don't qualify for any subsidies. That would mean you're rich!! But that doesn't make sense because you they say it would be over 8% of your income. 

But I'll leave it there..


----------



## no really

Dang, I'm to rich!!!! Wish somebody had told me that sooner!


----------



## Jane in southwest WI

Crisste said:


> Your numbers don't make sense.. You must be leaving something out like "we are both smokers and have 20 children living at home under our insurance plan".. or some other important fact like that..
> 
> First issue: $10,000 deductible doesn't make sense.
> Second: Don't qualify for any subsidies. That would mean you're rich!! But that doesn't make sense because you they say it would be over 8% of your income.
> 
> But I'll leave it there..


The cutoff for the Obamacare subsidy for 2 adults is a little over 60K. Not what I'd call rich. We live a frugal and healthy lifestyle. Non-smokers, no kids.

The cheapest Bronze plan in our area of Wisconsin for our ages (mid to late 50s) is $988. That's $11,856 a year. That is way over 8% of my annual income. 

Unless I'm missing something, I would either need to make a lot more money than I do, make a lot less, or move to a cheaper state for health insurance to be affordable for us.


----------



## Jane in southwest WI

Crisste said:


> Your numbers don't make sense.. You must be leaving something out like "we are both smokers and have 20 children living at home under our insurance plan".. or some other important fact like that..
> 
> First issue: $10,000 deductible doesn't make sense.
> Second: Don't qualify for any subsidies. That would mean you're rich!! But that doesn't make sense because you they say it would be over 8% of your income.
> 
> But I'll leave it there..


Forgot to answer on the 10K deductible - we started out with 5K, and as the insurer raised the premium, we went with a higher deductible to keep the premium down (until I decided it was getting insane to keep paying for the plan with such a high deductible).


----------



## kasilofhome

Jane will be pointed out as not being truthful......remember it is the president and his team that lied. 

Jane and many others are in the same boat ...it is wrong. More than than likely most of those in that boat do not even have time to get sick to use it. It is plain wrong. Jane can you check out medishare plans?


----------



## unregistered353870

ErinP said:


> I didnt bring up morals and values. I think that was Wendy's...
> And a K-12 education or a fire call is no more or less for one person than health care is.
> Why are you OK with one and not the other?


I'm not a big fan of free-loaders. That applies to healthcare, education and fire departments.


----------



## Crisste

Jane in southwest WI said:


> The cutoff for the Obamacare subsidy for 2 adults is a little over 60K. Not what I'd call rich. We live a frugal and healthy lifestyle. Non-smokers, no kids.
> 
> The cheapest Bronze plan in our area of Wisconsin for our ages (mid to late 50s) is $988. That's $11,856 a year. That is way over 8% of my annual income.
> 
> Unless I'm missing something, I would either need to make a lot more money than I do, make a lot less, or move to a cheaper state for health insurance to be affordable for us.


I plugged your numbers and a zip code from Wisconsin into healthcare.gov and came back with the same info.

Let me suggest that you open your own part time business and run it in the evening hours when you have time. Once you have a small business, you'd be amazed at the things you can write off from your income. 

My neighbor down the street has a small repair shop in his garage with an air compressor.. His air compressor has an "air dryer" on it to keep the water out of the air lines.. The air dryer works by passing the air through a roll of toilet paper!  He writes off every roll of toilet paper he buys.. (wink wink) any stationary, gas for his vehicle(s), repair for his vehicles, even part of his utility bills.. 

The wonder of owning a company is a two way street with both directions leading to benefits for the owner(s)... You're either making money, which is good, or you're writing it off to save money.. 

Anyone with a $60K to $70K income from a job could easily open their own business and write down $10K to $20K from their gross in business expenses and losses. 

You haven't really lost anything.. you just reclassified it...


----------



## kasilofhome

Crisste said:


> I plugged your numbers and a zip code from Wisconsin into healthcare.gov and came back with the same info.
> 
> Let me suggest that you open your own part time business and run it in the evening hours when you have time. Once you have a small business, you'd be amazed at the things you can write off from your income.
> 
> My neighbor down the street has a small repair shop in his garage with an air compressor.. His air compressor has an "air dryer" on it to keep the water out of the air lines.. The air dryer works by passing the air through a roll of toilet paper!  He writes off every roll of toilet paper he buys.. (wink wink) any stationary, gas for his vehicle(s), repair for his vehicles, even part of his utility bills..
> 
> The wonder of owning a company is a two way street with both directions leading to benefits for the owner(s)... You're either making money, which is good, or you're writing it off to save money..
> 
> Anyone with a $60K to $70K income from a job could easily open their own business and write down $10K to $20K from their gross in business expenses and losses.
> 
> You haven't really lost anything.. you just reclassified it...


Wink wink so my question is what is the elected democratic office you aspire to.

Medishare will not put her at risk of tax fraud. You know what, I heard meth makers make big bucks for a while....and many when the money goes away get free health care,housing food, ele,....but I would not wish that life style on anyone with a conscious.


----------



## Nevada

Jane in southwest WI said:


> The cutoff for the Obamacare subsidy for 2 adults is a little over 60K. Not what I'd call rich. We live a frugal and healthy lifestyle. Non-smokers, no kids.
> 
> The cheapest Bronze plan in our area of Wisconsin for our ages (mid to late 50s) is $988. That's $11,856 a year. That is way over 8% of my annual income.
> 
> Unless I'm missing something, I would either need to make a lot more money than I do, make a lot less, or move to a cheaper state for health insurance to be affordable for us.


Two persons living in Madison, WI aged 56 & 58 with a combined income of $40,000 will receive a $694/month subsidy. I see a bronze HMO (Unity Prime Bronze HSA - HMO) for $706, which will have a premium of $12 after the subsidy is applied.

Perhaps if you give me a zip code and exact ages I can get more accurate information. But at first glance it appears that you haven't fallen through the cracks at all.


----------



## kasilofhome

Ok, it seems that she stated in her post YOU quoted that 40grand is about 50percent off of her income.


----------



## Nevada

kasilofhome said:


> Ok, it seems that she stated in her post YOU quoted that 40grand is about 50percent off of her income.


They make $80,000? Then they need to rearrange their finances to make room for healthcare insurance.


----------



## partndn

:umno:

None of your business what they do with 80 grand, or 8 dollars, or 8 mil.
None at all..


----------



## kasilofhome

40k+ 50 percent of 40k =60k


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> They make $80,000? Then they need to rearrange their finances to make room for healthcare insurance.


Really? :facepalm:


----------



## Jane in southwest WI

Nevada said:


> Two persons living in Madison, WI aged 56 & 58 with a combined income of $40,000 will receive a $694/month subsidy. I see a bronze HMO (Unity Prime Bronze HSA - HMO) for $706, which will have a premium of $12 after the subsidy is applied.
> 
> Perhaps if you give me a zip code and exact ages I can get more accurate information. But at first glance it appears that you haven't fallen through the cracks at all.



Again, our MAGI is only a bit over the amount that a family of two can make to qualify for the subsidy. Without giving the entire internet my exact income and zip code, I will tell you that in my area of the state, rural southwest WI, that the cheapest bronze plan is $988. I already did the math, and we are falling through the cracks as far as Obamacare is concerned. The law states that premiums over 8% of your AGI is not affordable, and I agree. 

I will be looking into a healthsharing ministry.


----------



## Crisste

kasilofhome said:


> Wink wink so my question is what is the elected democratic office you aspire to.


I'm not a democrat or a republican. I'll vote either way for the candidate I believe will do the least amount of damage. I could care less what party they are a part of.



> Medishare will not put her at risk of tax fraud. You know what, I heard meth makers make big bucks for a while....and many when the money goes away get free health care,housing food, ele,....but I would not wish that life style on anyone with a conscious.


Tax fraud? meth makers? This part of your reply does not make sense to me.


----------



## Nevada

kasilofhome said:


> 40k+ 50 percent of 40k =60k


If they make $60,000 then they qualify for almost $500/month in subsidy.


----------



## sidepasser

ErinP said:


> "Paying my own way" keeps coming up.
> 
> I'm just wondering if people who keep tossing this out also pay/paid for their own K-12 education, private law enforcement or fire departments, and eschew the public libraryâ¦?
> Or are those also against morals and values?


I paid taxes for fire departments, law enforcement and public school. I also paid for private school out of my pocket because public school was so bad.

My DH and I still pay for fire protection in the form of taxes plus we donate a certain percentage of our income to the local volunteer fire department.

I pay a percentage for my health care, my employer pays the rest as part of my compensation package. My husband is retired military and we pay a fee for tricare each year. We cannot find a local family physician. I have called over 30 in the last two weeks, and spent a half day today calling. None are taking new patients. Some said they would only take patients under the age of 50 and none would accept Tricare Prime. I have BCBSA and still cannot find a physician.

So..yes I am paying for fire, police, education and healthcare. I have fire, police and I guess the locals are getting educated as my kids are grown. I have no physician and do have insurance. My husband's lung specialist gave me a script for my sinus infection and ear infection. As a favor. He suggested a physician and I called and was told "not accepting new patients".

Part of it is due to Ocare. Part is due to our age (over 50). Insurance Companies rate doctors on the patients that they have to refer to specialists and compensate them accordingly. We were told this by a physician. Hence..they only want young, healthy patients that do not require specialists as they are reimbursed at a higher rate for that. i.e. a visit by a patient once or twice a year that the GP can handle, no need for expensive tests or referrals. 

There are whole threads on city data.com - huntsville about the lack of medical care, can't find doctors, etc.

me, I plan to use the doc in the box..sure it costs more, but I can't find a GP to see me and I am healthy, just over the cutoff limit. Or I could just use the ER or I could use a boutique medical provider. At any rate, I have no GP and no hopes of finding one anytime soon.

And I have private insurance and can afford to pay my co-pay. I feel for those that don't.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> So you are blaming the the federal government for trying to implement a system that would give you a better chance at affordable insurance even though it was your State who put the kibosh on it.
> 
> So you would have been happy if you could have got on medicare? That would have been affordable.


I really think you know that obammacare caused this mess, I'm not sure why you won't admit it.
This law was enacted by FRAUD pure & simple and the latest tapes have proved it beyond a doubt. 
SCOTUS will rule on the states rights to NOT implement it and the feds will have to take down their websites. That little trickery of the Ds has backfired. They INTENTIONALLY put in the bill that ONLY the states can set up sites to enroll. 36 of 'em decided not to.


----------



## Tricky Grama

partndn said:


> Probably blaming the federal gov for telling the lies about the affordable aspect, when they knew states' choices would have this impact.
> 
> And it looks silly to post questions in a thread that were answered, probably more than once, a couple pages ago.
> 
> All this has been answered and reasoned. Seems there just aren't reasonable eyes reading it.


Gets old, doesn't it? I for one, am about out of crayons & puppets.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Crisste said:


> While your statement may be true in the narrow context of singular reasoning (IE: Me Me Me Me Me), it is not true when you consider the broader scope of reality.
> 
> The only people who work and have reliable insurance are those who work for others. People who are told when and where they will report for work.. People who have given up parts of their liberty and freedom for the illusion of stability based on the whims of some very rich and very powerful corporate leader.
> This is America, you have a right to do that.
> 
> But some people work for themselves and own small businesses that are being driven under by health care cost increases that ride double digits every year. Add to that the fact that the average insurance company will drop you the moment you need that insurance, and there's a problem.
> 
> Obamacare (IE: The ACA ) attempts to fix that problem. The fact is, regardless of whether its a good solution or not, its an attempt to change the system to something better.
> 
> This seems to be were people miss the point. Everyone wants change for something better but no one seems to want to accept that progress and change for the better can come with some potholes and that it is basically impossible to fix a system of near infinite complexity without encountering some bumps.
> 
> The republicans do a lot of things better than the democrats. but change and progress is not one of them and it never has been. Republicans stick to the old ways, they don't like change even if their current system is broken.
> 
> With double digit increases year after year for health care costs, something has to either break or change and if we break it trying to change it, that is just sometimes the way things progress.
> 
> Oh, and for anyone who has bothered to look it up, those large annual heath care increases have been tempered down by the ACA. We are riding on historically low numbers. The ACA is working, just not as well or as broadly as was hoped. But it is certainly a step in the right direction.


Oh, my, are you off base!
HC costs have skyrocketed since obummerUNhealthcare! Look it up!
This law was rammed down our throats by ONE party by fraud, deciet and lies.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> I'm sorry you're in that position. You are one of the few who are legitimately falling through the cracks in the ACA. I hope congress fixes it soon, but I don't have a lot of hope for that left with the new republican congress.


Millions are in the same position as this family.
Actually, I'm surprised you actually said you were sorry. That's a far cry from your usual "I got mine".


----------



## Nevada

Tricky Grama said:


> Millions are in the same position as this family.
> Actually, I'm surprised you actually said you were sorry. That's a far cry from your usual "I got mine".


That was before I knew they made $80,000. I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to carry insurance, if for no other reason than to protect assets.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Crisste said:


> I plugged your numbers and a zip code from Wisconsin into healthcare.gov and came back with the same info.
> 
> Let me suggest that you open your own part time business and run it in the evening hours when you have time. Once you have a small business, you'd be amazed at the things you can write off from your income.
> 
> My neighbor down the street has a small repair shop in his garage with an air compressor.. His air compressor has an "air dryer" on it to keep the water out of the air lines.. The air dryer works by passing the air through a roll of toilet paper!  He writes off every roll of toilet paper he buys.. (wink wink) any stationary, gas for his vehicle(s), repair for his vehicles, even part of his utility bills..
> 
> The wonder of owning a company is a two way street with both directions leading to benefits for the owner(s)... You're either making money, which is good, or you're writing it off to save money..
> 
> Anyone with a $60K to $70K income from a job could easily open their own business and write down $10K to $20K from their gross in business expenses and losses.
> 
> You haven't really lost anything.. you just reclassified it...


I honestly cannot believe this! I truly thought you were making a sick joke.
Yup, just start your own biz. My Lord, woman, think!

My DH lost his BC/BS ins end of '13 w/other 5.8 million. "They" are saying he didn't LOSE it b/c he was offered another plan! WHOOHOO!
So, for almost twice as much & higher deductibles, he COULD have ins. Free Maternity care & B.C pills! Just what he wanted!


----------



## partndn

pffffffftt

I knew you weren't sorry.


----------



## Nevada

Tricky Grama said:


> I honestly cannot believe this! I truly thought you were making a sick joke.
> Yup, just start your own biz. My Lord, woman, think!
> 
> My DH lost his BC/BS ins end of '13 w/other 5.8 million. "They" are saying he didn't LOSE it b/c he was offered another plan! WHOOHOO!
> So, for almost twice as much & higher deductibles, he COULD have ins. Free Maternity care & B.C pills! Just what he wanted!


I operated my own business for years, and all I can say is that I wish we had the ACA back then so I could have carried insurance.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> That was before I knew they made $80,000. I can't imagine why they wouldn't want to carry insurance, if for no other reason than to protect assets.


They never said they make $80k.


----------



## sunny225

Our premium - for the same plan we now have - went up $120.
We were offered a lower premium, higher out of pocket expenses and it will cost $85 more per month. :yuck:


----------



## Nevada

sunny225 said:


> Our premium - for the same plan we now have - went up $120.
> We were offered a lower premium, higher out of pocket expenses and it will cost $85 more per month. :yuck:


I'm still waiting for official conformation on my 2015 coverage. As I understand it, the premium went up a few dollars but the subsidy also went up a few dollars. I expect my share of the payments to be about the same.


----------



## Wendy

> That was before I knew they made $80,000.


That's because they don't. If you actually read the whole posts she has said twice already that they make $60,000.


----------



## Nevada

Wendy said:


> That's because they don't. If you actually read the whole posts she has said twice already that they make $60,000.


Good, then they qualify for a hefty subsidy of about $500/month.


----------



## Wendy

She's already done the checking in case you missed it. They just miss being able to get a subsidy.


----------



## Crisste

Tricky Grama said:


> I honestly cannot believe this! I truly thought you were making a sick joke.
> Yup, just start your own biz. My Lord, woman, think!


Would you elaborate on this? What is it about starting your own business that you find to be a sick joke or whatever?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Crisste said:


> Would you elaborate on this? What is it about starting your own business that you find to be a sick joke or whatever?


There are a ton of regs now if you want to start a biz. 
There used to be ways to have ins b/4 this boondoggle. 
There are MILLIONS of folks like Jane's family who were ins-AND THEY LIKED THEIR INSURANCE!!! But they could not keep it.
There are also few folks that have the abilities/resources/wherewithall to start a profitable biz. Then if they do-how will they get ins.? 
You might start another thread & ask folks who DO have a biz about their ins NOW that this obummerUNcare is law.

It won't be for too many more months, however. The clause that forbids the feds from setting up exchanges -just the states can- will be UPHELD & that will pretty much end it.
SCOTUS has the info that is out about Gruber & the Ds' lies, fraud, deceit & have no choice.


----------



## sidepasser

What good is insurance if you can't find a doctor to take it? Doesn't matter what type of insurance, if all you hear is "not taking new patients" or "going to conceirge service - pay me 1500-2,000 for the priviledge of being your doctor"..what good is the insurance?

Doctors by and large, are not in the profession just to break even or lose money. They want to make money. They have to pay bills, and also have to pay for insurance themselves in the form of health and malpractice insurance, staff payroll, rent, professional fees, etc. If they can't make money off patients..then they will choose only those patients that they can make money off of in the form of higher reimbursement rates.

Just wait, this is happening across many areas of the country..finding a doctor is becoming increasingly hard if you are sick, disabled, require specialists, or over the age of 50.

Insurance availability is only ONE part of the problem, _finding someone to accept that insurance is a whole nuther can of worms._


----------



## Nevada

sidepasser said:


> What good is insurance if you can't find a doctor to take it? Doesn't matter what type of insurance, if all you hear is "not taking new patients" or "going to conceirge service - pay me 1500-2,000 for the priviledge of being your doctor"..what good is the insurance?


My doctor accepts all insurance, and will see you for $45 if you have no insurance. She also accepts new patients. This is the same doctor who cared for Alma, so I've known her for years.

Provider access has never been an issue for me, either before or after Obamacare started.


----------



## jwal10

That is great, but how about us that can't. The little clinic here won't take any of the Obamacare insurances that .gov will allow me to get. I have checked all 62 of them. 38 are well above the subsidies and another 18 will never pay a dime for us as the deductible is so high, some are $12,700.00. Leaves 6 that are worth checking into and 4 of them have very high deductible, way more than my catastrophic policy was. 2 sound like they may work but I still pay 3 times my former cost. This is making me take Ocare, something that I do not want to do. Can I object and not have to pay the penalty and take my chances on not getting sick?

....James


----------



## Nevada

jwal10 said:


> That is great, but how about us that can't. The little clinic here won't take any of the Obamacare insurances that .gov will allow me to get. I have checked all 62 of them. 38 are well above the subsidies and another 18 will never pay a dime for us as the deductible is so high, some are $12,700.00. Leaves 6 that are worth checking into and 4 of them have very high deductible, way more than my catastrophic policy was. 2 sound like they may work but I still pay 3 times my former cost. This is making me take Ocare, something that I do not want to do. Can I object and not have to pay the penalty and take my chances on not getting sick?
> 
> ....James


There are no HMOs in all of those choices? HMO plans only have a deductible for major care, while routine care usually doesn't have any deductible at all. If you give me your zip code I can look for you.


----------



## Crisste

Tricky Grama said:


> There are a ton of regs now if you want to start a biz.


Starting a business is actually ridiculously easy. Our household has two businesses that are run from our home. One is quite profitable, although you wouldn't think it was by looking at the taxes, the other just sort of breaks even every now and then and usually loses money.. again, if you were looking at the taxes. 

Opening a business can be as easy as opening a bank account for a Sole Proprietorship. An S-Corporation takes an extra 20 minutes and maybe a bit more.
By far, the hardest part of opening a business is getting off one's rear end and driving to the stupid bank and waiting for someone to help you open a new account. 

The government side of things (Tax ID number, local or state registrations, etc) can all be done online in less time than it takes to each lunch. 

How you consider that to be difficult or cumbersome is beyond me. I guess everyone has different measuring sticks for this stuff. I just don't consider a 30 minute trip to a local bank and 20 minutes of filling out forms online to be difficult. And I have no idea what "regs" you are referring to. I was going to open a business making fireworks a few years back. Yes, making explosives! Now there's a business you'd think would have a lot of "regs". Nope. Just had to file with the ATF (Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms) folks and let them come to my property to make sure my storage shed was behind a dirt hill. 

So your idea that opening a business is somehow difficult is absolutely incorrect. In fact, it is the POLAR OPPOSITE that is true. 



> There used to be ways to have ins b/4 this boondoggle.
> There are MILLIONS of folks like Jane's family who were ins-AND THEY LIKED THEIR INSURANCE!!! But they could not keep it.


There are millions of people who smoke, eat toxic sugar loaded foods, and enjoy hours and hours of TV and video games sitting on their behinds. That doesn't mean it's good or healthy or affordable. 

Before the ACA, the insurance companies had a habit of collecting your monthly premiums and giving you insurance so long as you were healthy. The minute you got really sick, they would cancel your insurance. This was one of the leading forefront issues about the ACA and it stopped that practice cold. So, some Obamacare person out there is thinking that their old insurance was better and they are paying more for the new insurance and they hate it, but what they don't realize is that their old policy was nothing but smoke and mirrors enabling corporate profit via republican support. 



> There are also few folks that have the abilities/resources/wherewithall to start a profitable biz. Then if they do-how will they get ins.?
> You might start another thread & ask folks who DO have a biz about their ins NOW that this obummerUNcare is law.


Where or what has caused you to believe that there are huge obstacles between the average person and becoming an entrepreneur? 
See the website you're on right now? I'd bet you this website is run under a business name. It might just be a hobby, but I'd bet its not. I'd bet that the owner signed up with the forum software maker, got their hosting going, opened a bank account, filed a Tax ID, and started selling advertising spaces. All of a sudden, their internet connection becomes a business expense to write off, every business needs a phone, one more right off. Every business needs some office space with heat and lights, vehicles to pick up supplies, gas, maintenance......... see where this is going? Now, all of a sudden, you have $5000 to $10000 worth of "resources and assets" that you would had anyhow except now they're called business expenses and you can deduct them from your gross income.




> It won't be for too many more months, however. The clause that forbids the feds from setting up exchanges -just the states can- will be UPHELD & that will pretty much end it.
> SCOTUS has the info that is out about Gruber & the Ds' lies, fraud, deceit & have no choice.


Unfortunately, you might be correct..


----------



## no really

Have you been audited yet?


----------



## unregistered353870

Yeah, starting a business is easy. Running one is not.

In order to write off business expenses, you have to actually be trying to make a profit. You can't just write things off for years with no profit. That's called a hobby business and doesn't qualify. The IRS uses a simple test where you have to make a profit 3 out of 5 years to be legally a "real business" without question. If you lose money more than that, they're eventually going to come knocking and make you prove that you're really trying to make money and not just trying to dodge taxes.

Since the goal being expressed is to REDUCE your income, that by definition would not qualify as a real business. Have fun in tax court....


----------



## no really

Yep, you never know who is listening :facepalm:


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> My doctor accepts all insurance, and will see you for $45 if you have no insurance. She also accepts new patients. This is the same doctor who cared for Alma, so I've known her for years.
> 
> Provider access has never been an issue for me, either before or after Obamacare started.


I too found a great doc, but Nevada, you have to realize we live in a metro area. Those who do not, have it rough. I happened on a great doc who specializes in over 50 & I couldn't be happier. She's young so I won't have a doc who retires b/4 I die.

Also, dozens of hospitals just closed in non-metro areas. DUE TO this boondoggle law!


----------



## Tricky Grama

ErinP said:


> I didnt bring up morals and values. I think that was Wendy's...
> And a K-12 education or a fire call is no more or less for one person than health care is.
> Why are you OK with one and not the other?


I could be wrong b/c I wasn't there but I'll betcha the education system was not instituted & passed by lies/fraud/deceit like the Unhealthcare bill.


----------



## Crisste

Tricky Grama said:


> I could be wrong b/c I wasn't there but I'll betcha the education system was not instituted & passed by lies/fraud/deceit like the Unhealthcare bill.


That's an interesting point you bring up. Lets address that for what it is. 

Have you ever lied to a child to get them to do what you want them to do? Perhaps a little deceitful something in order to manipulate them for their own well being? 

A lot of parents think that lying to a child in order to get them to do what is in their own best interest is ok. So long as you're lying to them for the right reasons. (I'm not one of them)
Parents do this because they know that the child will probably not be able to comprehend or understand the consequences of their actions or lack of. 
In other words, the parent deceitfully manipulates the child for the child's own good. Heck, pretty much every parent pulls the tooth fairy or santa clause trick (albeit for different reasons, and again, I'm not one of them)

Well, perhaps the government sometimes needs to do the same thing to the American people. 
Lets face it folks, the educational system and average educational level in the USA is in incredibly poor shape. 
The National Science Foundation did a survey and found that greater than 25% (1 in 4) people in the USA don't even know that the Earth revolves around the Sun. 

Here's an interesting link to get a grip on the educational level of people:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ink-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says

Its alarming to say the least. 

I'm certainly not condoning the government deceit, but if they did indeed lie in some significant way, I can at least understand why.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Crisste said:


> That's an interesting point you bring up. Lets address that for what it is.
> 
> Have you ever lied to a child to get them to do what you want them to do? Perhaps a little deceitful something in order to manipulate them for their own well being?
> 
> A lot of parents think that lying to a child in order to get them to do what is in their own best interest is ok. So long as you're lying to them for the right reasons. (I'm not one of them)
> Parents do this because they know that the child will probably not be able to comprehend or understand the consequences of their actions or lack of.
> In other words, the parent deceitfully manipulates the child for the child's own good. Heck, pretty much every parent pulls the tooth fairy or santa clause trick (albeit for different reasons, and again, I'm not one of them)
> 
> Well, perhaps the government sometimes needs to do the same thing to the American people.
> Lets face it folks, the educational system and average educational level in the USA is in incredibly poor shape.
> The National Science Foundation did a survey and found that greater than 25% (1 in 4) people in the USA don't even know that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
> 
> Here's an interesting link to get a grip on the educational level of people:
> http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ink-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says
> 
> Its alarming to say the least.
> 
> I'm certainly not condoning the government deceit, but if they did indeed lie in some significant way, I can at least understand why.


If the dumb masses aren't educated, it's the govt's fault because it educates the children and has for decades. Why would you think they are smarter than us? They can't even teach the children!


----------



## Tricky Grama

Crisste said:


> That's an interesting point you bring up. Lets address that for what it is.
> 
> Have you ever lied to a child to get them to do what you want them to do? Perhaps a little deceitful something in order to manipulate them for their own well being?
> 
> A lot of parents think that lying to a child in order to get them to do what is in their own best interest is ok. So long as you're lying to them for the right reasons. (I'm not one of them)
> Parents do this because they know that the child will probably not be able to comprehend or understand the consequences of their actions or lack of.
> In other words, the parent deceitfully manipulates the child for the child's own good. Heck, pretty much every parent pulls the tooth fairy or santa clause trick (albeit for different reasons, and again, I'm not one of them)
> 
> Well, perhaps the government sometimes needs to do the same thing to the American people.
> Lets face it folks, the educational system and average educational level in the USA is in incredibly poor shape.
> The National Science Foundation did a survey and found that greater than 25% (1 in 4) people in the USA don't even know that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
> 
> Here's an interesting link to get a grip on the educational level of people:
> http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ink-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says
> 
> Its alarming to say the least.
> 
> I'm certainly not condoning the government deceit, but if they did indeed lie in some significant way, I can at least understand why.


Strange point. I, for one, don't like being lied to and don't like fraud. Never did it w/children either. I believe it is wrong for gov't to pass bills by deceit & fraud. Seems 2/3 of the populace do too & betcha its more when more find out. The voters are NOT children. And ONLY about 1/3 are STUPID! I'll let ya figure out which 1/3 that is.

Another point you make is our progressive-led education system is NOT working. This is what the "Ds' depend on. It was totally admitted in a few videos of one of the architechs of the law.
I'm appalled you think it was right. But I'm beginning to see why. Most socialists do.

But, there's still about a 1/3 of the population who DO like the bill. The rest of us are still-as ever-screaming for it to be gone.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Help.

I need health care insurance.
I was divorced in 06/2014
I am coming off ex health care plan at the end of this week.
I have a separated shoulder, that is not getting better.

I have gone to the ehealth care insurance site, where it plugs in a subsity based on my income, then shows me different policies.
I do not understand the language.

I just want a low decut. 2500 or less.
No more than 20% out of pocket AFTER deductible is met.
Low co pays.

I do not need well baby / maternity insurance.....

I don't understand this. It's like doing my own taxes.


----------



## no really

Tricky Grama said:


> Strange point. I, for one, don't like being lied to and don't like fraud. Never did it w/children either. I believe it is wrong for gov't to pass bills by deceit & fraud. Seems 2/3 of the populace do too & betcha its more when more find out. The voters are NOT children. And ONLY about 1/3 are STUPID! I'll let ya figure out which 1/3 that is.
> 
> Another point you make is our progressive-led education system is NOT working. This is what the "Ds' depend on. It was totally admitted in a few videos of one of the architechs of the law.
> I'm appalled you think it was right. But I'm beginning to see why. Most socialists do.
> 
> But, there's still about a 1/3 of the population who DO like the bill. The rest of us are still-as ever-screaming for it to be gone.



Looks like another the ends justify the means. It also appears that due to the ignorance of some of the populace they don't care that people like Gruber made millions off the lies or that major insurance companies will be hugely enriched.


----------



## kasilofhome

Justification the government lying is a problem. I will not respect any post you make. I am not angry I want to warn people that if poison is mislabeled as koolaid many would be tricked. So , now it is safe to boldly flat out inform we the people that we are yours......no we are not toys we are not slaves, the true war is not on women it is against we the people. 

Darling, I am a private person. I elect WHO IS TO SERVE ME. The government exist because we the people allow it to ......we are in charge. 

Treason is treason your posting sound like a MIT prof. I doubt that is you but you accept lying, you promote scamming to reduce taxes you state that we are stupid. All the while promoting the wrong path we are on.


----------



## kasilofhome

Laura check out med share ministries.


----------



## sidepasser

Nevada said:


> My doctor accepts all insurance, and will see you for $45 if you have no insurance. She also accepts new patients. This is the same doctor who cared for Alma, so I've known her for years.
> 
> Provider access has never been an issue for me, either before or after Obamacare started.





jwal10 said:


> That is great, but how about us that can't. The little clinic here won't take any of the Obamacare insurances that .gov will allow me to get. I have checked all 62 of them. 38 are well above the subsidies and another 18 will never pay a dime for us as the deductible is so high, some are $12,700.00. Leaves 6 that are worth checking into and 4 of them have very high deductible, way more than my catastrophic policy was. 2 sound like they may work but I still pay 3 times my former cost. This is making me take Ocare, something that I do not want to do. Can I object and not have to pay the penalty and take my chances on not getting sick?
> 
> ....James


I was reading this morning a few articles about why it is so hard to find a doctor even if a person does have insurance and found this one by USA Today:

_Now that many people finally have health insurance through the Affordable Care Act exchanges, some are running into a new problem: They can't find a doctor who will take them as patients._
_Because these exchange plans often have lower reimbursement rates, some doctors are limiting how many new patients they take with these policies, physician groups and other experts say._
_"The exchanges have become very much like Medicaid," says Andrew Kleinman, a plastic surgeon and president of the Medical Society of the State of New York. "Physicians who are in solo practices have to be careful to not take too many patients reimbursed at lower rates or they're not going to be in business very long."_

_Kleinman says his members complain rates can be 50% lower than commercial plans. Cigna and Aetna, however, say they pay doctors the same whether the plan is sold on an ACA network or not. United Healthcare spokeswoman Tracey Lempner says it's up to their physicians whether they want to be in the exchange plan networks, which have "rates that are above Medicaid." Medicaid rates are typically below those for Medicare, which in turn are generally lower than commercial insurance plans.To prevent discrimination against ACA policyholders, some insurance contracts require doctors to accept their exchange-plan patients along with those on commercial plans unless the doctors' practices are so full they simply can't treat any more people. But lower reimbursement rates make some physicians reluctant to sign on to some of these plans or accept too many of the patients once they are in the plans._
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-plans-lower-reimbursements-doctors/17747839/

Seems that the physician who told me about the reimbursement rates was correct; reimbursement rates are lower for those on exchanges; however I do not have insurance through the exchange. I have private insurance but again, it's my age that has me still searching for a doctor. I may have to put an ad in the local newspaper - lol..

So a bit more research was required for my particular problem as I have insurance through my employer and am in good health. Think I will call my insurance company and see what they have to say.


----------



## MO_cows

Crisste said:


> That's an interesting point you bring up. Lets address that for what it is.
> 
> Have you ever lied to a child to get them to do what you want them to do? Perhaps a little deceitful something in order to manipulate them for their own well being?
> 
> A lot of parents think that lying to a child in order to get them to do what is in their own best interest is ok. So long as you're lying to them for the right reasons. (I'm not one of them)
> Parents do this because they know that the child will probably not be able to comprehend or understand the consequences of their actions or lack of.
> In other words, the parent deceitfully manipulates the child for the child's own good. Heck, pretty much every parent pulls the tooth fairy or santa clause trick (albeit for different reasons, and again, I'm not one of them)
> 
> Well, perhaps the government sometimes needs to do the same thing to the American people.
> Lets face it folks, the educational system and average educational level in the USA is in incredibly poor shape.
> The National Science Foundation did a survey and found that greater than 25% (1 in 4) people in the USA don't even know that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
> 
> Here's an interesting link to get a grip on the educational level of people:
> http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ink-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says
> 
> Its alarming to say the least.
> 
> I'm certainly not condoning the government deceit, but if they did indeed lie in some significant way, I can at least understand why.


I could not disagree more. The government putting spin on everything and not having the backbone to deliver any bad news straight up is a huge part of why our country has run off the rails. Because when you treat people like helpless little children, that's how they will act. Our elected representatives have an obligation to tell us the truth, not a convoluted version to put themselves in a better light. 

There have always been uneducated and ignorant people in this country. And many of them have done quite well for themselves, Duck Dynasty comes to mind. It's not a "one size fits all" mold we need to fill in the first place. Of course there is room for improvement in public education but it's not "alarming". There's a difference between a problem and a crisis, and we get sold everything as a "crisis" to get our attention. 

And don't forget education is a "use it or lose it" thing. I have never had to use a lot of what I learned in school, so over the years it has been replaced by more practical knowledge that is relevant to my life. Doesn't mean I didn't get a decent education, means I didn't retain it all. Stop me on the street and ask me questions - cold, no chance to refresh or review, I might appear to be a dummy too but I'm really not.


----------



## Roadking

Back to the part time business...you better make enough profit to cover additional insurance coverages...liability, etc.
Matt


----------



## Roadking

Oh joy. Decided to contact my insurance company today as my plan is not offered for next year. No biggie, right?
Seems they are not offering ANY coverage in my zip code now! Got to find a new company.

Matt


----------



## Crisste

MO_cows said:


> I could not disagree more. The government putting spin on everything and not having the backbone to deliver any bad news straight up is a huge part of why our country has run off the rails. Because when you treat people like helpless little children, that's how they will act. Our elected representatives have an obligation to tell us the truth, not a convoluted version to put themselves in a better light.


Well, you're not wrong. 



> There have always been uneducated and ignorant people in this country. And many of them have done quite well for themselves, Duck Dynasty comes to mind. It's not a "one size fits all" mold we need to fill in the first place. Of course there is room for improvement in public education but it's not "alarming". There's a difference between a problem and a crisis, and we get sold everything as a "crisis" to get our attention.


The failure of our public education is absolutely alarming and I have multiple personal experiences that could be shared. Here's one: 
I went to Home Depot to get a case of flat black spray paint. I bought the whole case of 24 cans. Six across, four down in rows and columns. The cashier had to physically count them. One, two, three, four, five.. I interrupted her and said "There are six down and four across = 24 cans". She got upset that I interrupted her and that she lost count and she started counting again. The old man behind me in line (in his 70's) had this look on his face that I just can not describe. The girl was probably 18 to 20 years old.. not absolutely sure but that's my best guess. 
Even my closest friend's daughter is an idiot. She just doesn't comprehend basic things that should have been taught in basic grade school. She has no clue what a lepton is, or a quark or if oxygen is heavier than helium or that polar bears do not exist at "both poles". She certainly can't balance a checkbook. 
Our public schools have failed miserably and catastrophically. You can't sugar coat this, and it is indisputable. Only about 10% of the kids graduating from high schools actually have high school level intelligence. 



> And don't forget education is a "use it or lose it" thing. I have never had to use a lot of what I learned in school, so over the years it has been replaced by more practical knowledge that is relevant to my life. Doesn't mean I didn't get a decent education, means I didn't retain it all. Stop me on the street and ask me questions - cold, no chance to refresh or review, I might appear to be a dummy too but I'm really not.


I disagree. you might forget a few things requiring brute strength memory like formulas, or numerical designations and other abstract minutia, but education is more about comprehension than memorization. At least the important stuff is anyhow.

I don't disagree with your take on the government lying to us. as I said, I certainly don't condone it, but I do understand it. 

I don't condone someone blowing themselves up in a crowded shopping mall either, but if one digs into the reasons why they do it, there shouldn't be any major hurdles to understanding it.


----------



## Wendy

> what a lepton is, or a quark


Guess I'm stupid because I don't either. Can't say knowing if polar bears exist on both poles is really something you need to know either. Now balancing a checkbook is something you will need to know & actually something you will use. A lot of things taught in school are not necessary for living.


----------



## billinwv

Crisste, couldn't agree more with the lack of education our young people get. A lot of this has to do with what they should have learned at home also. In my previous business I hired a lot of young folks. A lot of them didn't know how to operate a washing machine/clothes dryer, change a vacuum bag, or even use a simple mop bucket! Showing up was all they thought they should do. Clock in-eat breakfast, spend 20 minutes in the rest room, and then text their friends. Drove me crazy!!


----------



## Nevada

Wendy said:


> what a lepton is, or a quark
> 
> 
> 
> Guess I'm stupid because I don't either. Can't say knowing if polar bears exist on both poles is really something you need to know either. Now balancing a checkbook is something you will need to know & actually something you will use. A lot of things taught in school are not necessary for living.
Click to expand...

They're both subatomic particle jargon. But neither term comes up in conversation very often, even among ChemEs. LOL


----------



## partndn

Wendy said:


> Guess I'm stupid because I don't either. Can't say knowing if polar bears exist on both poles is really something you need to know either. Now balancing a checkbook is something you will need to know & actually something you will use. A lot of things taught in school are not necessary for living.


A'ight!!! Raise your hand if you went to google. 


"me!"


must be terms we just didn't have in the 70's. Basically the family of terms for what we know as electrons, protons, and neurons, etc.


----------



## Crisste

Wendy said:


> Guess I'm stupid because I don't either. Can't say knowing if polar bears exist on both poles is really something you need to know either. Now balancing a checkbook is something you will need to know & actually something you will use. A lot of things taught in school are not necessary for living.


Well Wendy, the fact is, if you are younger than 20 to 25 years old, than you need to go back to school and figure out what you missed.

However, if you're older than around mid 30's than it is understandable that you have no concept of subatomic particles or the basic science that pertains to them. 
That said, even if you are in your late 40's and into the 50's, you should know the difference between oxygen and helium. 

If someone thinks that they should learn one basic educational facet over another because that's what they might use later in their life, than they have completely missed the entire philosophy behind education. 

Education and knowledge, any education and knowledge, is always at least an order of magnitude (or two) greater than the sum of its parts. 
You can't make that type of statement about a lot of things, but education and knowledge is one of them. 


People in the USA are more interested in sports teams and Hollywood than the things that surround them that make a real measurable difference in their lives. You can see the truth in this statement by simply sitting down in front of a TV for an evening and using the stupidity you see as a measuring stick.


Someone here made a comment that its only a small portion (25%) of Americans that don't realize the earth revolves around the sun and the other majority is smart than that. Its a skewed perspective because the solar system is such a basic thing as single digit addition or multiplication. 

Our society has become a bunch of lazy, fat, uneducated and self absorbed people. 

And you (we) wonder why the people in charge are lying to us?? 

Jack Nicholson said it here: "You can't handle the truth" 
The really sad fact is that most people wouldn't recognize or understand the truth if it was handed to them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9FnO3igOkOk#t=37


----------



## partndn

Crisste, how incredibly rude of you..

In your 22 little posts, you have leaped to a level that is not welcome here. I'm sure you will learn this, in future responses and reactions to your high and mighty tone.

People here disagree frequently, and have varied opinions. But there is a way to participate properly.

You are a toddler still poopin your pants at this stage. I hope you get trained sooner, rather than later, lest you get some gnarly RASH.

You can put _that_ in your volume of advice. :indif:


----------



## arabian knight

This ObamaUncare is the worst thing to happen to Americans and it sure goes against the US Constitution. There will be changes coming get ready, set, go.


----------



## MO_cows

billinwv said:


> Crisste, couldn't agree more with the lack of education our young people get. A lot of this has to do with what they should have learned at home also. In my previous business I hired a lot of young folks. A lot of them didn't know how to operate a washing machine/clothes dryer, change a vacuum bag, or even use a simple mop bucket! Showing up was all they thought they should do. Clock in-eat breakfast, spend 20 minutes in the rest room, and then text their friends. Drove me crazy!!


That is shame on the parents, not the schools! I can think of a few examples of younger people that are pretty much useless, too, but there are just as many if not more that are sharp cookies and will make you proud. If you look for evidence of our downfall, you can find it. But if you look for the positive, it's there too. Just like it always has been.


----------



## kasilofhome

partndn said:


> A'ight!!! Raise your hand if you went to google.
> 
> 
> "me!"
> 
> 
> must be terms we just didn't have in the 70's. Basically the family of terms for what we know as electrons, protons, and neurons, etc.


Situational reality impacts someone's base of knowledge. My living in Alaska I am exposed to the true NATURAL range of polar bears. 

Test that rank scores to determine the intelligence are false fallacies that we, for the most part, give way too much credence to.

When you think about it tests are simply a group of questions selected by a human flawed with biases as to what is important.

People who are fully able to successfully adapt to changes that happen and meet their basic needs are intelligent. A numerical expression of a test is simply a number it is not a good measure to define a human.

Lives filled with abundance of personal experiences and active involvement tend to roll with the cards dealt. 

Will your life be better knowing that polar bear roam the northern pole.

Many highly regarded people simply made their Mark via common sense.


----------



## kasilofhome

partndn said:


> Crisste, how incredibly rude of you..
> 
> In your 22 little posts, you have leaped to a level that is not welcome here. I'm sure you will learn this, in future responses and reactions to your high and mighty tone.
> 
> People here disagree frequently, and have varied opinions. But there is a way to participate properly.
> 
> You are a toddler still poopin your pants at this stage. I hope you get trained sooner, rather than later, lest you get some gnarly RASH.
> 
> You can put _that_ in your volume of advice. :indif:



Well, understand she is in a new environment and then there are teachers who failed her, do not forget her parents, and Emily post.


----------



## Wendy

You know, I could say that someone that doesn't know how to butcher a chicken, make soap, can, milk a goat, build a building, etc. are stupid too. These are all things I know how to do, but the majority of the people don't. Just because someone doesn't know certain things you think are important, doesn't mean they are stupid.

Stupid is as stupid does..........................


----------



## sidepasser

It is not what one knows, but how to find what one doesn't know. I may not know what string theory is, but I know how to find out what it is. Knowledge is all around us. Making use of that knowledge is what separates smart people from those more intellectually challenged. What is important to me may not be to you and vice versa. But the world would be a very dull place if we each knew exactly what everyone else knows.


----------



## Crisste

partndn said:


> Crisste, how incredibly rude of you..


Rude? I just went back to see if I possibly misspelled something or left out an all important word or something that changed the meaning of a sentence but I don't see it..

Point out the rudeness so I can see what you're referring to.


----------



## Wendy

:facepalm:


----------



## arabian knight

Oh my my my, that is all.


----------



## Danaus29

Out of curiosity I did some playing with the subsidy calculator. For 2 people and no children you could get a subsidy of $488 a month with an income of $62,900. Yet $100 more a year ($63,000) and you get no subsidy at all.


----------



## Danaus29

Quarks and leptons, what do I care. Right now I'm trying to learn Spanish since I live outside little Tijuana. And I am picking up a bit of Somali which is easier because the Somalis want to learn English. There is only so much room in my poor little head for useless facts and since quarks and leptons aren't useful to me I refuse to google them. 

I'm sure there are thousands of facts that I use frequently which you would have no clue to what they refer. Yet I am not suggesting you take a 3rd year entomology course just to further your education.


----------



## Crisste

Danaus29 said:


> Quarks and leptons, what do I care. Right now I'm trying to learn Spanish since I live outside little Tijuana. And I am picking up a bit of Somali which is easier because the Somalis want to learn English. There is only so much room in my poor little head for useless facts and since quarks and leptons aren't useful to me I refuse to google them.
> 
> I'm sure there are thousands of facts that I use frequently which you would have no clue to what they refer. Yet I am not suggesting you take a 3rd year entomology course just to further your education.


I just pulled leptons and quarks out of thin air as a way of making a point about the lack of basic knowledge these kids are exiting school with. I was talking to a kid the other day who said they were learning about them in science class. 

My point was that there's a huge number kids coming out of grade school without the basic knowledge base the school(s) are there to provide.


----------



## Crisste

MO_cows said:


> That is shame on the parents, not the schools! I can think of a few examples of younger people that are pretty much useless, too, but there are just as many if not more that are sharp cookies and will make you proud. If you look for evidence of our downfall, you can find it. But if you look for the positive, it's there too. Just like it always has been.


I don't know about that. Ever been to Russia, Ukraine, Poland, China, Japan or some of those other countries with modern educational systems? I have, and I have family ties in some of those places and I can tell you they have pulled FAR ahead of the USA.

Here you go, straight at the top of google:
http://thelearningcurve.pearson.com/index/index-ranking

You'll have to scroll down the list to find the USA at the lower levels.


----------



## CajunSunshine

It must pain you terribly to be here, among the unwashed masses, lol. 
gre::bouncy::buds::chicken::monkey::yuck:die: :viking:

Take courage, dear and don't be too pusillanimous. 

Quality education is important, but the uneducated are _not_ inferior human beings. As Mark Twain would say, they just haven't let schooling interfere with their education. Please do not refer to them as idiots. There are just as many highly intelligent uneducated people as there are educated. 

One would do well not to look down on anyone for any reason because carrying an air of superiority is just rude; others can clearly see through the smoke:_ rudeness is a small person's imitation of power. _

No matter how many paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt... That is where you will learn some of the more important things.


.


----------



## FarmerKat

In the interest of full disclosure ... I have not attended school in the US. I grew up in Eastern Europe and attended school there. I am the only one from my family in the US and have many school age nieces, nephews, cousins and friends there. The decline you are seeing in the US education is happening there as well. Why? Because it is not about education - it is about the decline of a family. The bottom line is that parents are responsible for their children's education. How they choose to accomplish this is their choice - public school, private school, homeschool, etc. - is up to them. Parents need to be involved regardless of where/how their kids are getting formally educated. 

Unfortunately, we are living in a day where culture pushes independence over family. Experts (teachers, social workers, government, etc.) supposedly know better what is best for your child. We are pulling children away of families at an early age. I don't mean actually removing children from parents but pushing for school attendance where kids leave home at 7 AM and come home at 5 PM. I am talking about programs pushing for all children to receive breakfast, lunch & dinner at school and not with family. How much time do parents actually get with their kids? And forget it if you have a special needs child - sure as a parent you cannot be capable of raising them. (Again, not talking about serious health conditions that require medical staff 24/7, talking about that child with ADHD, mild speech delay, high functioning autism, etc.) In this culture, parents are abdicating their responsibility to the school system (and are being pushed/encouraged to do so). On top of that, if a teacher attempts to discipline their child or gives them a lower grade, instead of sitting the child down and correcting the issue, parents run to school to complain about the teacher. I believe that most teachers are good and really try to give the best education to the children they serve but they cannot replace the parents.

As for what a lepton is ... I was wondering why it was important for someone to know a Greek monetary unit that has been replaced by the Euro anyway. But I guess my mind is limited to my professional background in the banking industry. So you got me there ...


----------



## Wendy

Yep, even us high school drop outs can raise some smart kids. My son is a freshman at MIT & gasp, he went to public school!


----------



## Tricky Grama

no really said:


> Looks like another the ends justify the means. It also appears that due to the ignorance of some of the populace they don't care that people like Gruber made millions off the lies or that major insurance companies will be hugely enriched.


Post of the decade award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

kasilofhome said:


> Justification the government lying is a problem. I will not respect any post you make. I am not angry I want to warn people that if poison is mislabeled as koolaid many would be tricked. So , now it is safe to boldly flat out inform we the people that we are yours......no we are not toys we are not slaves, the true war is not on women it is against we the people.
> 
> Darling, I am a private person. I elect WHO IS TO SERVE ME. The government exist because we the people allow it to ......we are in charge.
> 
> Treason is treason your posting sound like a MIT prof. I doubt that is you but you accept  lying, you promote scamming to reduce taxes you state that we are stupid. All the while promoting the wrong path we are on.


Post of the decade award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

MO_cows said:


> I could not disagree more. The government putting spin on everything and not having the backbone to deliver any bad news straight up is a huge part of why our country has run off the rails. Because when you treat people like helpless little children, that's how they will act. Our elected representatives have an obligation to tell us the truth, not a convoluted version to put themselves in a better light.
> 
> There have always been uneducated and ignorant people in this country. And many of them have done quite well for themselves, Duck Dynasty comes to mind. It's not a "one size fits all" mold we need to fill in the first place. Of course there is room for improvement in public education but it's not "alarming". There's a difference between a problem and a crisis, and we get sold everything as a "crisis" to get our attention.
> 
> And don't forget education is a "use it or lose it" thing. I have never had to use a lot of what I learned in school, so over the years it has been replaced by more practical knowledge that is relevant to my life. Doesn't mean I didn't get a decent education, means I didn't retain it all. Stop me on the street and ask me questions - cold, no chance to refresh or review, I might appear to be a dummy too but I'm really not.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Roadking said:


> Back to the part time business...you better make enough profit to cover additional insurance coverages...liability, etc.
> Matt


Exactly what I was thinking!! 2 biz from home, she says. I'm truly happy for the family...wondering if these make enuf to support them.


----------



## Tricky Grama

arabian knight said:


> This ObamaUncare is the worst thing to happen to Americans and it sure goes against the US Constitution. There will be changes coming get ready, set, go.


So true.
Might be really good for everyone IF the $$$ spent on it-from beginning to now-was dispersed amongst those who make less than ...say...300K/yr. Just think how great that would be! Why not? b/c its prolly agin' our Constitution.

BTW, Crissre, its THEN, not THAN. in post #356.


----------



## arabian knight

Tricky Grama said:


> BTW, Crissre, its THEN, not THAN. in post #356.


darn auto spell check. LOL


----------



## unregistered358967

Danaus29 said:


> Yet I am not suggesting you take a 3rd year entomology course just to further your education.


That sentence "bugs" me. :drum:


----------



## partndn

Crisste said:


> Rude? I just went back to see if I possibly misspelled something or left out an all important word or something that changed the meaning of a sentence but I don't see it..
> 
> Point out the rudeness so I can see what you're referring to.


I will try. But it's not necessarily a word, but a tone. Internet forums are often a difficult place to communicate. The text is the only thing there for readers to use in getting a poster's meaning and attitude. 

I think everyone here would agree with your frustration at the Home Depot kid who didn't seem to understand a visual multiplier. 

Most of us here would admit, or have admitted, that our public education system has issues, and they are closely related to how the government inserts itself into education. Most here would also agree that there is a generation of SOME parents now who have been conditioned to think it's the gov's job to educate, shirking their own procreation responsibility. 

We are all familiar with Jack Nicholson's "you can't handle the truth" rant. The way you included it in your post made it look like Jack was yelling at Wendy. And really, your whole post there looked like you were trying to preach to Wendy, not to share your opinion, but to demean and insult and instruct on how she should fulfill her lack of knowing something. 

She was just here expressing her experience with the health care nonsense (which is what this thread was about!). The debate had become - why is health care not the same as education? As in our taxes should fund health care in the same way it funds public education. Which is ridiculous, IMO. But a small number here were trying to compare school funding to the robbery that healthcare has become.

What I've put here is just a little bit. You have talked about reasons for government's deceit, starting a biz for purposes of fraud, and several other things that seemed a little out in left field. 

I was reading your posts, just trying to get to know you a little, before concluding any real judgement. But then I felt you became condescending and ugly. I have personally had to deal with a "condescending" turd in my job recently, and maybe am a tad touchy to it. But I don't like it.

Look, maybe you are just very passionate and extra eager to type your thoughts. We have ALL been guilty of that here. Best to take some time, stay on topic whenever possible, and think how strangers may perceive. And hold off on advising people so strongly until you get to know them. Allow people to be who they are, without telling them what all you think is wrong with them.

I'd rather you become a forum participant, rather than an unwelcome poster, even if we won't always agree. It's a diverse group here from all walks of life, experiences, and knowledge. That's why this is a valuable place for so many.


I don't know if that helps any, but we're SO off thread topic now. ugh


----------



## Tricky Grama

Tricky Grama said:


> Strange point. I, for one, don't like being lied to and don't like fraud. Never did it w/children either. I believe it is wrong for gov't to pass bills by deceit & fraud. Seems 2/3 of the populace do too & betcha its more when more find out. The voters are NOT children. And ONLY about 1/3 are STUPID! I'll let ya figure out which 1/3 that is.
> 
> Another point you make is our progressive-led education system is NOT working. This is what the "Ds' depend on. It was totally admitted in a few videos of one of the architechs of the law.
> I'm appalled you think it was right. But I'm beginning to see why. Most socialists do.
> 
> But, there's still about a 1/3 of the population who DO like the bill. The rest of us are still-as ever-screaming for it to be gone.


Just so y'all know what the conserves on here are talking about:

âThis bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies,â Gruber said in one of several videos recently uncovered of him explaining at forums and panels over the last several years how Obamacare was dishonestly sold to the public. 


http://joemiller.us/2014/11/dont-min...pvvBJbeRG4F.99

And a lilttle more-
âLack of transparency is a huge advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever. But basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.â

âEconomists have called for 40 years to get rid of the regressive, inefficient and expensive tax subsidy provided for employer provider health insurance,â Gruber said in another video, speaking at the Pioneer Institute in Boston in 2011.

âIt turns out politically itâs really hard to get rid of,â he went on. âAnd the only way we could get rid of it was first by mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people when we all know itâs a tax on people who hold those insurance plans.â

How many still think ObummerUNcare is constitutional?


----------



## Crisste

partndn said:


> I will try. But it's not necessarily a word, but a tone. Internet forums are often a difficult place to communicate. The text is the only thing there for readers to use in getting a poster's meaning and attitude.
> 
> I think everyone here would agree with your frustration at the Home Depot kid who didn't seem to understand a visual multiplier.
> 
> Most of us here would admit, or have admitted, that our public education system has issues, and they are closely related to how the government inserts itself into education. Most here would also agree that there is a generation of SOME parents now who have been conditioned to think it's the gov's job to educate, shirking their own procreation responsibility.
> 
> We are all familiar with Jack Nicholson's "you can't handle the truth" rant. The way you included it in your post made it look like Jack was yelling at Wendy. And really, your whole post there looked like you were trying to preach to Wendy, not to share your opinion, but to demean and insult and instruct on how she should fulfill her lack of knowing something.
> 
> She was just here expressing her experience with the health care nonsense (which is what this thread was about!). The debate had become - why is health care not the same as education? As in our taxes should fund health care in the same way it funds public education. Which is ridiculous, IMO. But a small number here were trying to compare school funding to the robbery that healthcare has become.
> 
> What I've put here is just a little bit. You have talked about reasons for government's deceit, starting a biz for purposes of fraud, and several other things that seemed a little out in left field.
> 
> I was reading your posts, just trying to get to know you a little, before concluding any real judgement. But then I felt you became condescending and ugly. I have personally had to deal with a "condescending" turd in my job recently, and maybe am a tad touchy to it. But I don't like it.
> 
> Look, maybe you are just very passionate and extra eager to type your thoughts. We have ALL been guilty of that here. Best to take some time, stay on topic whenever possible, and think how strangers may perceive. And hold off on advising people so strongly until you get to know them. Allow people to be who they are, without telling them what all you think is wrong with them.
> 
> I'd rather you become a forum participant, rather than an unwelcome poster, even if we won't always agree. It's a diverse group here from all walks of life, experiences, and knowledge. That's why this is a valuable place for so many.
> 
> 
> I don't know if that helps any, but we're SO off thread topic now. ugh


Ok. Message received.. I will make a note to review my postings in order to make sure they can not be interrupted as being directed at anyone in particular. 

You said one thing that I would like to bring forward for discussion however so I'm going to requote it:


> As in our taxes should fund health care in the same way it funds public education. Which is ridiculous, IMO.


You and I are on two different ends on this because I believe the exact opposite. I believe our healthcare system should absolutely be funded almost identically to public education. 

All basic healthcare should be free. That is to say that all illnesses and injuries beyond your own reasonable control should be free. 

Now, if someone wants to smoke or make themselves obese eating sugar, or race motorcycles, than those healthcare issues that result as a consequence of those activities would cost the individual personally. 
Those who want to partake in those activities would have the option of purchasing extra insurance.

But basic health care? That should be absolutely free for all.


----------



## Tricky Grama

My only answer would be to move to a socialist country. 
Some are just not cut out to be Americans. This is not the way our country was meant to be.


----------



## MO_cows

Crisste said:


> Ok. Message received.. I will make a note to review my postings in order to make sure they can not be interrupted as being directed at anyone in particular.
> 
> You said one thing that I would like to bring forward for discussion however so I'm going to requote it:
> 
> 
> You and I are on two different ends on this because I believe the exact opposite. I believe our healthcare system should absolutely be funded almost identically to public education.
> 
> All basic healthcare should be free. That is to say that all illnesses and injuries beyond your own reasonable control should be free.
> 
> Now, if someone wants to smoke or make themselves obese eating sugar, or race motorcycles, than those healthcare issues that result as a consequence of those activities would cost the individual personally.
> Those who want to partake in those activities would have the option of purchasing extra insurance.
> 
> But basic health care? That should be absolutely free for all.


How naive. You need to think that through a little farther. Nothing in this world is free! Even if you hunt and gather your food, so it's "free" -- but something still had to die in order for you to live. That isn't free, it came at a cost. That same concept applies to everything, it's a universal truth. Nothing is truly free, there is always a cost or a consequence. 

Illnesses and injuries beyond our reasonable control? You gotta be kidding. Some people have to take a risk every day just to do their job or live their life. And if everyone just tried to live a "safe" life, this would be a pretty dull and boring world. Why bother. Risk taking, whether foolish or calculated, is part of the human experience, it's in our DNA. Heaven forbid some bureaucrat would try to lay out the rules for who lives their life "safely" enough to get free health care. Nothing personal, but that sounds like something a child would come up with. 

Tobacco and sugar are the enemies of health, huh? Well if all you do is sit around and smoke and eat cake, you might not live long or well, but I also know people who smoked and had a sweet tooth and still lived a full life and made it to a ripe old age. Visit a few old folks homes and ask the 90-somethings about their lives. I'll bet they didn't live just to be "safe" and "healthy".


----------



## partndn

Crisste said:


> Ok. Message received.. I will make a note to review my postings in order to make sure they can not be interrupted as being directed at anyone in particular.
> 
> You said one thing that I would like to bring forward for discussion however so I'm going to requote it:
> 
> 
> You and I are on two different ends on this because I believe the exact opposite. I believe our healthcare system should absolutely be funded almost identically to public education.
> 
> All basic healthcare should be free. That is to say that all illnesses and injuries beyond your own reasonable control should be free.
> 
> Now, if someone wants to smoke or make themselves obese eating sugar, or race motorcycles, than those healthcare issues that result as a consequence of those activities would cost the individual personally.
> Those who want to partake in those activities would have the option of purchasing extra insurance.
> 
> But basic health care? That should be absolutely free for all.


Alright, we're sorta back on topic.

So, yeah we disagree on this. My opinion on the reason is this:
"should be free" There is no such thing as free. I know you know that, since you said healthcare should be funded the way public education is with taxes. So "free" is not exactly the right word.

I see a lot of obstacles with the type of healthcare you describe. How would citizens who don't work be getting care if they are never taxed? They would not have put into the system, so why should they be entitled? If a person can sustain their living without being employed in the traditional manner, why should they not have an option for healthcare?

My idea of "basic" and inconsequential needs will always be different than my neighbors. There would be eternal conflict on just what services should be basic. 

Nobody could define exact number of pounds you can weigh before considered obese and liable for your health issues. 

It would take about 2 seconds for someone to claim being a daredevil is in their dna, so they are not responsible for their career, hobby, or recreational actions.

Who would define the proper amount of alcohol one is to consume without being a risk to their health?

Who will decide if an herbal remedy is "basic" or "specialized" and begin taxing the amount of weeds in your yard so they get a piece of the cure profit?

See, it would go on for eternity. It's just not possible to define what is "best" for people when it comes to their body and health. Scientists and studies may speak to some results, but nothing is ever forever. For example, we've seen the changes in the last decades in what was thought to be best for cholesterol, then we get statin induced ALS, liver failure, and poison conditions that can't be reversed. 

I don't know the answer for getting health care costs in some reasonable range for all Americans. But I do believe that it might help if we didn't try to define being an American so expansively. Shouldn't we just scale back to having the freedom to scrape and fight for our own living, providing, and improvement by our own means? The stronger CHOOSE to help care for the weaker. Family takes care of family when possible. Communities look out for their own in the interest of their whole. 

A trained physician used to be a respected person, acting at their discretion, merit and ability. Now they are subjects, able only to act on the whims of big pharm, insurance limits, and gov reimbursements set by someone with no interest in the well being of anyone but theirselves and their lobbies. 

We can have all the compassion in the world for our fellow man, but that does not mean government should attempt to force humanity into whatever whole state of health is seen proper by the one in charge at any given time.

There has to be a middle somewhere, that allows people to be responsible and make their own choices, while still allowing for medical advancement and technology without money corrupting the process.

One might say "well what about the people that would die because they are not covered, or people that would suffer for not having the funds to pay for care they need?" Hey let's not fool ourselves.. that already happens even with cadillac insurance plans. There is corruption in everything that involves money. Insurance and pharma is business.. They operate on dollars and profit, whether they are private or government. You cannot legislate morals, nor change the fact that life will never be truly equal for anyone when it comes to health.

I'm so discouraged now, seeing there is no good solution, and also recognizing we are not headed in the best direction.


----------



## Crisste

MO_cows said:


> How naive. You need to think that through a little farther. Nothing in this world is free! Even if you hunt and gather your food, so it's "free" -- but something still had to die in order for you to live. That isn't free, it came at a cost. That same concept applies to everything, it's a universal truth. Nothing is truly free, there is always a cost or a consequence.


Now there's irony for you. An uninsured person gets treated at a hospital and then can't pay the bill. Who do you think is going to eventually pay that hospital bill? LOL. Interesting how your own reasoning just came full circle to bite you. 



> Illnesses and injuries beyond our reasonable control? You gotta be kidding. Some people have to take a risk every day just to do their job or live their life.


Well that's not really beyond reasonable control than is it? People have to repair their homes, cook meals, make a living, etc etc. They don't have to smoke or eat unhealthy poisonous food until they're barely able to walk, take illegal drugs, get into fights, and on and on the list goes. 

A better argument from your side of the fence would have been to use someone on vacation partaking in a recreational activity like skiing as an example. Or blur the line some other way instead of the black and white position you've taken.



> And if everyone just tried to live a "safe" life, this would be a pretty dull and boring world. Why bother. Risk taking, whether foolish or calculated, is part of the human experience, it's in our DNA. Heaven forbid some bureaucrat would try to lay out the rules for who lives their life "safely" enough to get free health care. Nothing personal, but that sounds like something a child would come up with.


Why have you injected the word "safe" into this? While safety is most certainly part of the conversation, you're treating it as the measuring stick that would be used to determine healthcare responsibility. 

Ever hear about "Personal Responsibility and accountability" ??? I'm a firm believer in it. If someone does something foolish or stupid, I don't want to end up paying for their healthcare. 

You want to hear something that sounds really crazy? And you're probably not even going to be able comprehend the ramifications without some research. But here it is: The entire healthcare mess has been caused by just two things in our society. Tobacco and a sugar molecule called Fructose. 

Tobacco causes cancer, Fructose causes obesity and those two are responsible for about 85% to 90% of all other chronic ailments (and the list is long) which are burdening our healthcare system. 

Eliminate those two things and you fix the entire healthcare industry literally overnight, albeit the measured effects will take at least 12 more months to start showing themselves in a significant way. 



> Tobacco and sugar are the enemies of health, huh? Well if all you do is sit around and smoke and eat cake, you might not live long or well, but I also know people who smoked and had a sweet tooth and still lived a full life and made it to a ripe old age.
> Visit a few old folks homes and ask the 90-somethings about their lives. I'll bet they didn't live just to be "safe" and "healthy".


I know people who have been drinking and driving for almost all their lives and they never got caught or got into an accident. Does that make it ok?

There's more irony. And you said I sound like a child? You're using an exception to the rule to justify a policy argument. Life, and good public policy doesn't work that way.


----------



## FarmerKat

Crisste said:


> You and I are on two different ends on this because I believe the exact opposite. I believe our healthcare system should absolutely be funded almost identically to public education.
> 
> All basic healthcare should be free. That is to say that all illnesses and injuries beyond your own reasonable control should be free.
> 
> Now, if someone wants to smoke or make themselves obese eating sugar, or race motorcycles, than those healthcare issues that result as a consequence of those activities would cost the individual personally.
> Those who want to partake in those activities would have the option of purchasing extra insurance.
> 
> But basic health care? That should be absolutely free for all.


You should try living in a country with "free" healthcare for a while and see what you think ...

I used to live in one and (like I mentioned in my post above) have family still living in a single payer environment.

The healthcare is funded via a tax (similar to the way we pay for Medicare). It is 13.5%. If you are employed, you pay 6.75%, employer pays the other 6.75%. If you are self-employed, you pay the whole thing. (By the way, social security tax is 29.2% - again shared equally by employer & employee - compare that to the SS tax in the US and see how you would like that.) 

The fees to go to the doctor are relatively small. For example, everyone pays $1.50 co-pay for a regular doctor visit. However, you have to take into account that income is much lower. To put that into perspective ... Average salary today in the country I am from is about $1,250/month. My mom (who is retired, has been physically disabled since age 3 due to polio and has worked from age 16 until retirement age) gets a pension of approx. $400/month. If you want a single room in the hospital, you have to pay $5/day extra. Otherwise, you will share a room with 5 other people. There is co-pay for prescription medications - varies by the medicine and some medications are not paid by insurance at all.

Yes, people receive sick leave pay from the government (funded via the social security tax mentioned above). But there are strings attached ... if you are on sick leave & receiving pay, you are basically under house arrest. My SIL was waiting for a surgery on her hand for 9 months (not enough doctors). Since she could not use her hand at all and could not do her job, she was on sick leave. For 9 months, she was allowed to leave her house only between 12 noon & 4 PM. The government has inspectors who generally show up at 11:55 AM or at 4:05 PM. If you are not home, you lose your pay. My SIL was not contagious, unable to walk, etc. She just could not perform her job because she could not use her hand. The hours were specific to her situation. The doctor gets to decide what hours (if any) you are allowed to leave your home. Do you want that in the US?

Another issue with the system is the availability of doctors. Doctors in the government health system are paid peanuts (a physician with 5 years of experience makes about $1,100/month). The good doctors leave to start a private cash only practice and make decent money. And the government health system is left with those who are not good enough to make it their own. Thus the quality of care is going down. (There is also a large number of doctors who are leaving to work abroad so that they can make a decent living.)

You will also find other extremely high taxes in countries like this. For example, the tax on food is 15%, all other items are taxed at 21%.

I could go on and on ... it is darn expensive to live there. I honestly have no idea how my mom or brother do it. But if you look from the outside, it seems that healthcare is free ....


----------



## partndn

FarmerKat great insight from someone who has really seen the experiment of "free" healthcare and its total failure.


----------



## Jim Bunton

Farmerkat interesting description of single payer health care. What country are you talking about? 
Jim


----------



## Crisste

FarmerKat,

I understand the flaws you're pointing out in those systems and I also recognize them for what they are and why its partially flawed.

My idea differs in that I would include a personal responsibility clause. Sure, the basic health care is free, even advanced health care if such requirements could not have been reasonably avoided. But I would not want to cover the medical payments for some idiot who over-doses on drugs or decides they want to jump off the 5th story of their hotel balcony into a 3 foot swimming pool, or the 400 lb morbidly obese person who just won't stop eating sugar, or the smoker, or........ etc etc etc. 

No matter what side of this healthcare fence anyone argues for, one thing is indisputable, and that is that so long as a hospital is obligated to treat a patent regardless of ability to pay, then some folks are going to get free healthcare. 
(Do not read into this statement beyond the factual points made as I am not advocating anything here, just pointing out a fact)


----------



## FarmerKat

Jim Bunton said:


> Farmerkat interesting description of single payer health care. What country are you talking about?
> Jim


Czech Republic


----------



## Wendy

> or make themselves obese eating sugar,


Who gets to define who is obese? I have already mentioned my brother who was told he is obese by the standards they have. Not a bit of flab on him, all muscle. Same with my BIL. If we go by the charts they have, then I bet everyone is obese. I know I am considered obese by their standards, yet I do not eat all of the junk you just said causes it. I watch what I eat & walk everyday. We are all not built the same. I have waaaaaayy more muscle than most women I know. I'd like to see the people who are not obese throw 50 lb feed bags around like I do. Also, sometimes obesity is genetic, caused by medications or other disabilities. It's kind of hard for some people to exercise if they have knee problems or other things that keep them from being able to work out. SO you see, it isn't as easy to label people as you think. You have no idea why they are the size they are & it is not your job or the government's to tell someone they can't have coverage because they are overweight. What's next? You can't have coverage if your ugly??


----------



## 7thswan

Personal responsibility and Government HC in the same Post.:facepalm:


----------



## MO_cows

Crisste said:


> Now there's irony for you. An uninsured person gets treated at a hospital and then can't pay the bill. Who do you think is going to eventually pay that hospital bill? LOL. Interesting how your own reasoning just came full circle to bite you.
> I don't know what kind of Alice in Wonderland logic you used there, but thanks anyway for confirming my point. Who pays for the deadbeats in health care? Anybody who is paying for health care. Why? Because nothing is truly free. There, we went full circle.
> 
> Well that's not really beyond reasonable control than is it? People have to repair their homes, cook meals, make a living, etc etc. They don't have to smoke or eat unhealthy poisonous food until they're barely able to walk, take illegal drugs, get into fights, and on and on the list goes.
> Who's to decide what is "unhealthy, poisonous" food? You can't even get doctors and dieticians to agree on that. This week, sugar is bad. Next week there will be some benefit.
> 
> A better argument from your side of the fence would have been to use someone on vacation partaking in a recreational activity like skiing as an example. Or blur the line some other way instead of the black and white position you've taken.
> 
> 
> Why have you injected the word "safe" into this? While safety is most certainly part of the conversation, you're treating it as the measuring stick that would be used to determine healthcare responsibility.
> You want to punish people who race motorcycles or take on any "risk". Well "safe" is the opposite of risk.
> Ever hear about "Personal Responsibility and accountability" ??? I'm a firm believer in it. If someone does something foolish or stupid, I don't want to end up paying for their healthcare.
> You FIRMLY believe in personal responsibility and accountability......and you also firmly believe everyone should get free health care. Alice is back down the rabbit hole...
> You want to hear something that sounds really crazy? And you're probably not even going to be able comprehend the ramifications without some research. But here it is: The entire healthcare mess has been caused by just two things in our society. Tobacco and a sugar molecule called Fructose.
> 
> Tobacco causes cancer, Fructose causes obesity and those two are responsible for about 85% to 90% of all other chronic ailments (and the list is long) which are burdening our healthcare system.
> 
> Eliminate those two things and you fix the entire healthcare industry literally overnight, albeit the measured effects will take at least 12 more months to start showing themselves in a significant way.
> Don't believe everything you read on the internet. You could go out into the real world and find many, many examples of people who defy those theories.
> 
> I know people who have been drinking and driving for almost all their lives and they never got caught or got into an accident. Does that make it ok?
> Red herring. Drinking and driving is an illegal act.
> There's more irony. And you said I sound like a child? You're using an exception to the rule to justify a policy argument. Life, and good public policy doesn't work that way.


You know *your* life doesn't work that way. Don't presume to know how everyone's life works.


----------



## Crisste

Wendy said:


> Who gets to define who is obese? I have already mentioned my brother who was told he is obese by the standards they have.


Medical science decides. Simply put, the ratio of fat to your body weight which can be easily measured accurately. 



> Not a bit of flab on him, all muscle. Same with my BIL. If we go by the charts they have, then I bet everyone is obese.


Yup, some of the older techniques which use the simple formula of height vs. weight are not accurate. They have much better ways now. 




> I know I am considered obese by their standards, yet I do not eat all of the junk you just said causes it. I watch what I eat & walk everyday.


I'm going to bet that you are wrong about what you think you are eating. Learn the different names for sugar, there are 54 of them but most are obvious, and start reading those ingredients lists! You will be alarmed to find that they put sugar into everything these days. It is astonishing how many foods you buy at the grocery store have sugar in them. Mustard, Ketchup, BBQ Sauce, coffee creamer, peanut butter, jelly (easy one!), tomato sauce (Seriously!), tomato paste (are you kidding?), most cereals (loaded!!), bread, crackers, etc etc....... 

Normally, the only sugar you need not concern yourself with is Glucose. Every cell in your body, even the bacteria, can burn glucose as fuel. The most dangerous and most toxic sugar is called "Fructose" because there is only one organ in your body that can metabolize the fructose molecule and that is your liver. Your liver is the only organ that can process it and it can only do one thing with Fructose and that is to turn it into VLDL (Very Low Density Lipids) cholesterol (the really bad stuff), and fat. So every calorie of Fructose you consume gets turned into fat first. You don't even get the opportunity to burn it.

The other thing Fructose does is to suppress two very important substances in your body. Leptin and Ghrelin are the hormones that control appetite and tell your brain that your stomach is full or that you no longer are hungry. 

Some people are more sensitive than others to this process. For some, they can ingest ten or twenty or more grams of Fructose before it affects them. For me, just one or two grams is enough to make me start eating non stop. 

Someone might say "What about fruit, that has Fructose, that's what fructose is, its fruit sugar". What we know is that the absorption of fructose into your body can be mitigated by the intake of large amounts of soluble and insoluble fiber, and as it happens, the toxic fructose sugar happens to come conveniently packaged with lots of fiber in the fruit we eat. 

But guess what? Even orange juice is toxic and bad for you!! Holly Cow Batman! How can that be? Its because you're getting the fructose without the fiber from the orange. Eat the whole orange and throw the orange juice away.

There you go. Trust me on what I am saying. Eat lots of fiber, no sugar and eat anything else you want and you'll lose weight fast. 




> We are all not built the same. I have waaaaaayy more muscle than most women I know. I'd like to see the people who are not obese throw 50 lb feed bags around like I do. Also, sometimes obesity is genetic, caused by medications or other disabilities.


That is absolutely true but the genetics of humans have not changed much in a very very long time. (think geological time). What has changed is the amount of sugar we ingest. 
The obesity epidemic we are seeing is not the result of a few genetically predisposed people, its the result of the food we eat. PERIOD. 




> It's kind of hard for some people to exercise if they have knee problems or other things that keep them from being able to work out. SO you see, it isn't as easy to label people as you think. You have no idea why they are the size they are & it is not your job or the government's to tell someone they can't have coverage because they are overweight. What's next? You can't have coverage if your ugly??


Oh how wrong you are. The human body is an amazingly efficient engine. Telling someone they're fat because they don't exercise enough is absurd! You would have to run about 10 miles every time you ate a single hamburger if exercise, or lack of, was the solution to obesity. A single cookie? Run 5 miles!! Ya right! Who's going to do that? 

Exercise is very important for several reasons but weight control is not among the top of them, or even in the middle. Excercise is important for cardiovascular health, stress relief, and things of that nature. And if you want your arteries to stay healthy, you have to raise your heart rate to 80% of its maximum safe rate (for your age), for 10 to 20 minutes five days a week or more. 

But to say that exercise is the cure for weight control is just wrong.

Eliminate sugar, get 40 to 60 grams of fiber daily, and do just a few minutes of intense activity daily and I promise you your life will change drastically if you're fat. You will start to see easily measurable effects in under two weeks. You don't have to diet or restrict your food intake, just eliminate the sugar (mostly fructose) and eat the fiber. Your brain will automatically adjust your food intake for you and you won't feel like your on any kind of diet at all. 

Simply put, the American people have been poisoned by the food industry.

Just try it for one month and I'll be your favorite person for giving you that info. Remember, NO FRUCTOSE.. (Sucrose (table sugar) is 50% fructose by the way)


----------



## Crisste

MO_cows said:


> You know *your* life doesn't work that way. Don't presume to know how everyone's life works.


Your replies in red above were very entertaining. Very wrong, but very entertaining. 

We can agree to disagree yes? 

Thanks !


----------



## Wendy

Well, it is so nice to see someone that knows it all!

I do know what I eat, you don't. I do not eat the sugar that you speak of because I do not buy processed stuff from the store. I drink water, some milk (raw goat milk), & sometimes sugar free lemonade. You can say whatever you want about what you think I might be eating. That is your problem. You are trying to put everyone into the same box. I also do not believe that if I eat a cookie once a week that is made from scratch that it is going to kill me. All things in moderation. I do that already. 


By the way, the tests done to my brother & BIL were just done a few weeks ago, so they are the most current tests available & they still say they are obese. Sorry, I don't believe anyone under 180 lbs should be considered obese unless they are 3 feet tall. He is 6'. 

You can rant all you want about the evil of certain foods that YOU think are unhealthy. It's not that easy. I have watched many people struggle with their weight even while counting calories & carbs & working out. It's just NOT that easy for some people. 

And sorry, but I doubt you will ever be my favorite person. Your know-it-all attitude & the way you come across in your posts is making you very unlikeable & I usually like everyone.


----------



## 7thswan

Crisste said:


> Your replies in red above were very entertaining. Very wrong, but very entertaining.
> 
> We can agree to disagree yes?
> 
> Thanks !


Why are you here? Just to insult people? Sheeze, you'll make a Wounderful MIL.


----------



## Ambereyes

Wendy said:


> Well, it is so nice to see someone that knows it all!
> 
> I do know what I eat, you don't. I do not eat the sugar that you speak of because I do not buy processed stuff from the store. I drink water, some milk (raw goat milk), & sometimes sugar free lemonade. You can say whatever you want about what you think I might be eating. That is your problem. You are trying to put everyone into the same box. I also do not believe that if I eat a cookie once a week that is made from scratch that it is going to kill me. All things in moderation. I do that already.
> 
> 
> By the way, the tests done to my brother & BIL were just done a few weeks ago, so they are the most current tests available & they still say they are obese. Sorry, I don't believe anyone under 180 lbs should be considered obese unless they are 3 feet tall. He is 6'.
> 
> You can rant all you want about the evil of certain foods that YOU think are unhealthy. It's not that easy. I have watched many people struggle with their weight even while counting calories & carbs & working out. It's just NOT that easy for some people.
> 
> And sorry, but I doubt you will ever be my favorite person. Your know-it-all attitude & the way you come across in your posts is making you very unlikeable & I usually like everyone.


She seems very young and naive, maybe a college kid. Doesn't seem to have many interpersonal skills.


----------



## MO_cows

Wendy, is the top of your head getting sore yet? There sure has been a lot of people patting you on the head and telling you how you just don't understand your own life here lately! Sorry, but it's cracking me up....


----------



## no really

MO_cows said:


> Wendy, is the top of your head getting sore yet? There sure has been a lot of people patting you on the head and telling you how you just don't understand your own life here lately! Sorry, but it's cracking me up....


It is kinda funny, sorry Wendy. :kiss:


----------



## BohemianWaxwing

I don't know about the naive part. I haven't laughed so hard in a while as some of Criss's posts have made me laugh...


----------



## MO_cows

Crisste said:


> Your replies in red above were very entertaining. Very wrong, but very entertaining.
> 
> We can agree to disagree yes?
> 
> Thanks !


That's the sweetest thing you have ever posted here. I think I need a tissue now...


----------



## Jim Bunton

Tricky Grama said:


> My only answer would be to move to a socialist country.
> Some are just not cut out to be Americans. This is not the way our country was meant to be.


The first govern mandated requirement to buy insurance by the U S government was in 1790 by the first congress. It required all ship owners to provide medical insurance for seamen; in 1798 it was expanded to collect money from ship owners "to provide for the temporary relief and maintenance of sick or disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutions now established"

At the time many of the founders were in congress. Washington signed the 1790 bill into law, John Adams signed the expansion into law. So maybe this is how this country was meant to be.
Jim


----------



## 7thswan

Jim Bunton said:


> The first govern mandated requirement to buy insurance by the U S government was in 1790 by the first congress. It required all ship owners to provide medical insurance for seamen; in 1798 it was expanded to collect money from ship owners "to provide for the temporary relief and maintenance of sick or disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutions now established"
> 
> At the time many of the founders were in congress. Washington signed the 1790 bill into law, John Adams signed the expansion into law. So maybe this is how this country was meant to be.
> Jim


No Way. We were never ment to be forced to buy a product. That smacks in the Face of Freedom.


----------



## partndn

I give..

I sincerely think I gave room for understanding back on page 20. But.. no go.

I too, am laughing some, shakin' my head, and feelin' kinda sick all at once.

Crisste, please.. it would be nice if you would start your own threads for discussion on obesity, socialized medicine, cooking your tax books, or even the origin of the planet you are on.

Some of us were getting a tiny bit of satisfaction, though momentary, from bashing the government UNhealthy care and sharing frustration. Once in a while, there was even some info shared that some of us didn't know, pertaining to options for cost savings.


----------



## Jim Bunton

Why was President Washington the first to sign such a law then? There 55 men considered to be the framers of the constitution 20 of them sat on the first congress that passed the bill requiring ship owners to purchase medical insurance for seamen?

Jim


----------



## Wendy

It's ok everyone, I have been laughing too.  I'm glad to know that obesity is so easily cured. Before long there will not be a fat person in the world! After that we can work on ugly!


----------



## Nevada

Wendy said:


> It's ok everyone, I have been laughing too.  I'm glad to know that obesity is so easily cured. Before long there will not be a fat person in the world! After that we can work on ugly!


I've always disliked the tactic of trying to make laughing stocks out of people who have different ideas than you. This is bullying in its purest sense.


----------



## no really

Nevada said:


> I've always disliked the tactic of trying to make laughing stocks out of people who have different ideas than you. This is bullying in its purest sense.


Seems like we are fat, stupid and bullies


----------



## BohemianWaxwing

Nevada said:


> I've always disliked the tactic of trying to make laughing stocks out of people who have different ideas than you. This is bullying in its purest sense.


 Could just play the racist and war on women cards on Wendy also, and then the deck would be finished...


----------



## Wendy

You know Nevada, her posts towards many of us have come across as condescending & rude. She can think what she wants, but when she tries to tell me what I am eating & what I am doing then she goes too far. She doesn't know me, or anything about me. Saying that obesity can be cured by not eating sugar is ridiculous. There are many reasons for obesity. If it were that simple there would be no obese people in the world. 

I am not trying to come across as a bully. I am trying to get her to see that everything is not so simple. There are many, many factors as to why people are built the way they are. To say cutting sugar out of people's diet will cure obesity is her opinion, it is not a fact.

I would also like to point out that I didn't say I was laughing at her. She might think it's that easy, but if I find it funny I have the right to laugh.


----------



## partndn

Nevada said:


> I've always disliked the tactic of trying to make laughing stocks out of people who have different ideas than you. This is bullying in its purest sense.



Oh grow up. You should be as ticked as anyone since this person took your own thread so far off the rails.

Saying we are laughing is a gift, rather than responding with stuff that we were thinking, that would've been deleted. There was mean and ugly at some, PRIOR to the laughing. Both can be hurtful. 

But don't just defend the ones that share your opinions. I truly tried to help before, knowing I had nothing in common with the person's opinion.


----------



## Wendy

In case you didn't notice, the  after my sentences means I am trying to lighten the mood here.


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> I've always disliked the tactic of trying to make laughing stocks out of people who have different ideas than you. This is bullying in its purest sense.


You wanna hear something really funny? YOU are one of the ones I was thinking of when I made the post about Wendy. 

Because you wanted to pat Wendy on the head and tell her what she didn't know about her own life situation on another health care thread. 

Is there a full moon tonight or what??


----------



## MO_cows

Jim Bunton said:


> Why was President Washington the first to sign such a law then? There 55 men considered to be the framers of the constitution 20 of them sat on the first congress that passed the bill requiring ship owners to purchase medical insurance for seamen?
> 
> Jim


It's been an embarrassingly loooooong time since I sat in American History class, so I don't remember why they found it necessary to provide for the health and welfare of the seamen. The logical assumption would be, the seamen were being used and abused by their captains and so they intervened on their behalf. 

But they were wrong to favor that one group over the farmers, the blacksmiths, the carpenters, and all the other occupations of the day. All of which had their own set of hazards too. Maybe that's why the concept of government mandated health care didn't catch on even way back then, huh?


----------



## Danaus29

Well if a cookie a week is going to kill me I might as well eat the whole box and wash it down with a 2 liter of Coke. After all, I'm going to die anyway. I'd rather enjoy my cookies and coke as long as possible.

As for free education and free health care, please define free. Because my kids never got a free education. Every single year I get a bill that has a line that says; _school tax_!


----------



## arabian knight

Nice bait and switch from the OP. That is what some do when they can't seem to stick to the OP and while others disagree with high degree of facts some just switch off and change the post into something that has nothing to do with the OP. Good one.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> I've always disliked the tactic of trying to make laughing stocks out of people who have different ideas than you. This is bullying in its purest sense.


Some people make themselves laughing stocks by saying things that are incredibly difficult to take seriously.


----------



## Tricky Grama

FarmerKat said:


> You should try living in a country with "free" healthcare for a while and see what you think ...
> 
> I used to live in one and (like I mentioned in my post above) have family still living in a single payer environment.
> 
> The healthcare is funded via a tax (similar to the way we pay for Medicare). It is 13.5%. If you are employed, you pay 6.75%, employer pays the other 6.75%. If you are self-employed, you pay the whole thing. (By the way, social security tax is 29.2% - again shared equally by employer & employee - compare that to the SS tax in the US and see how you would like that.)
> 
> The fees to go to the doctor are relatively small. For example, everyone pays $1.50 co-pay for a regular doctor visit. However, you have to take into account that income is much lower. To put that into perspective ... Average salary today in the country I am from is about $1,250/month. My mom (who is retired, has been physically disabled since age 3 due to polio and has worked from age 16 until retirement age) gets a pension of approx. $400/month. If you want a single room in the hospital, you have to pay $5/day extra. Otherwise, you will share a room with 5 other people. There is co-pay for prescription medications - varies by the medicine and some medications are not paid by insurance at all.
> 
> Yes, people receive sick leave pay from the government (funded via the social security tax mentioned above). But there are strings attached ... if you are on sick leave & receiving pay, you are basically under house arrest. My SIL was waiting for a surgery on her hand for 9 months (not enough doctors). Since she could not use her hand at all and could not do her job, she was on sick leave. For 9 months, she was allowed to leave her house only between 12 noon & 4 PM. The government has inspectors who generally show up at 11:55 AM or at 4:05 PM. If you are not home, you lose your pay. My SIL was not contagious, unable to walk, etc. She just could not perform her job because she could not use her hand. The hours were specific to her situation. The doctor gets to decide what hours (if any) you are allowed to leave your home. Do you want that in the US?
> 
> Another issue with the system is the availability of doctors. Doctors in the government health system are paid peanuts (a physician with 5 years of experience makes about $1,100/month). The good doctors leave to start a private cash only practice and make decent money. And the government health system is left with those who are not good enough to make it their own. Thus the quality of care is going down. (There is also a large number of doctors who are leaving to work abroad so that they can make a decent living.)
> 
> You will also find other extremely high taxes in countries like this. For example, the tax on food is 15%, all other items are taxed at 21%.
> 
> I could go on and on ... it is darn expensive to live there. I honestly have no idea how my mom or brother do it. But if you look from the outside, it seems that healthcare is free ....


Post of the day award.

Does everyone realize that England, for one, is looking at other ways for healthcare? Their socialist system is bankrupting them. 
Free, ya know.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Jim Bunton said:


> The first govern mandated requirement to buy insurance by the U S government was in 1790 by the first congress. It required all ship owners to provide medical insurance for seamen; in 1798 it was expanded to collect money from ship owners "to provide for the temporary relief and maintenance of sick or disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutions now established"
> 
> At the time many of the founders were in congress. Washington signed the 1790 bill into law, John Adams signed the expansion into law. So maybe this is how this country was meant to be.
> Jim


So the seamen were forced to buy ins.? Oh, no, I see.
I believe our military provides ins. too, or some form of it, if they can get an app't.
Seems military provide a drastic service to our country, a little different.

Methinks some posters would be smart to study Cuba's system...I think they're pretty much told what they can & cannot do.
3,000+ tried to come here just last year, risking death in the ocean.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Jim Bunton said:


> Why was President Washington the first to sign such a law then? There 55 men considered to be the framers of the constitution 20 of them sat on the first congress that passed the bill requiring ship owners to purchase medical insurance for seamen?
> 
> Jim


Military benefits, my Friend. Military who put their lives on the line for you & me. We OWE them.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> I've always disliked the tactic of trying to make laughing stocks out of people who have different ideas than you. This is bullying in its purest sense.


Somehow those who poo-poo our Constitution seem to ask for it...I defend any bullying but when WE are being bullied by socialists, the payback seems justified.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Crisste said:


> deleted post was quoted here.


Great. Prolly we all would agree that too much of ANYTHING is not a good idea.
How novel.
But did you follow the NYC commie ban on big cokes? The ACLU of all folks struck it down as unconstitutional.
But, hey, now you've got me hoping someone takes away your cookie. 
B/c you just CANNOT give gov't that much power!


----------



## Oxankle

First thing I learned when I got out of high school and started work was that there is a huge difference between ignorance (meaning un-schooled) and stupidity. Some of the most intelligent, decent, kind, hard working and worthwhile people I've known have been ignorant of simple things, but highly skilled and superbly well informed in their chosen work. These people never stop learning.

I've also known some over-educated nit wits who couldn't pour ammonia out of their own boots.


----------



## FarmerKat

Crisste said:


> I'm going to bet that you are wrong about what you think you are eating. Learn the different names for sugar, there are 54 of them but most are obvious, and start reading those ingredients lists! You will be alarmed to find that they put sugar into everything these days. It is astonishing how many foods you buy at the grocery store have sugar in them. Mustard, Ketchup, BBQ Sauce, coffee creamer, peanut butter, jelly (easy one!), tomato sauce (Seriously!), tomato paste (are you kidding?), most cereals (loaded!!), bread, crackers, etc etc.......


While I agree that over-consumption of sugar is bad ... what an odd thing to say on a homesteading board. In general, homesteaders produce a lot of the food they eat and therefore I would imagine that they know exactly what goes on the plate.


----------



## Wendy

Exactly my point!


----------



## arabian knight

I sure don't know where sugar eating and what not, has a thing to do with the OP about healthcare and there way the government is treating Americans now, which is not at all according to the constitution. Just a way for some to git off on a tangent that makes no sense, and not at all what the OP is about.


----------



## Tricky Grama

arabian knight said:


> I sure don't know where sugar eating and what not, has a thing to do with the OP about healthcare and there way the government is treating Americans now, which is not at all according to the constitution. Just a way for some to git off on a tangent that makes no sense, and not at all what the OP is about.


Obfuscation!
They're good at it.


----------



## willow_girl

Well, the numbers are in!

My out-of-pocket cost to keep my current policy nearly DOUBLED for 2015!

While still modest (because my subsidy covers 3/4 of the cost) that was unacceptable to me. When I went back to the Marketplace, it tried to push me off onto Medicaid (which my state decided to expand this year) but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't qualify if it's at all means-tested. (While my income is low, I have investments and real estate.) 

So I jiggered with my reported income on the Marketplace until I pushed it up just high enough to clear the bar and be eligible for a subsidy again. (Who knows if I'll actually make that much money next year? But I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.)

My subsidy will be $6 less than it was last year. OK, I can live with that.

The problem is, all the policies available this year that are comparable to what I was paying out-of-pocket last year (about $25 a month) STINK! Most don't cover anything until you meet a $5,000-$6,000 deductible, and even then, the cover is minimal. A 40% co-pay for hospitalization? Seriously? :hysterical:

So the bad news is, I ended up with lousy coverage for the next year. The good news is, it's only costing me $28 a month out-of-pocket, which is fair enough for a policy that amounts to catastrophic coverage. I feel sorry for the government, which is footing the other $174 of the bill -- certainly not a good buy, IMO, but then the government isn't exactly known for spending money wisely, is it?


----------



## Glade Runner

willow_girl said:


> The problem is, all the policies available this year that are comparable to what I was paying out-of-pocket last year (about $25 a month) STINK! Most don't cover anything until you meet a $5,000-$6,000 deductible, and even then, the cover is minimal. A 40% co-pay for hospitalization? Seriously? :hysterical:
> 
> So the bad news is, I ended up with lousy coverage for the next year. The good news is, it's only costing me $28 a month out-of-pocket, which is fair enough for a policy that amounts to catastrophic coverage. I feel sorry for the government, which is footing the other $174 of the bill -- certainly not a good buy, IMO, but then the government isn't exactly known for spending money wisely, is it?


More evidence that Obamacare is complete garbage. What makes it worse is they punish you if you don't accept the garbage. You have my sympathies.


----------



## BohemianWaxwing

I've been happily without health insurance for 5 and a half years but joined a health share this year to avoid the penalty. The $340/month or so for the family plan is roughly what I would pay in penalty and I'd just as soon see that money go to pay someone's actual medical expenses as feed the behemoth our government has become. So I guess you could say my insurance costs went up by an infinte percentage and I still don't technically have insurance... :facepalm:


----------



## ErinP

willow_girl said:


> So the bad news is, I ended up with lousy coverage for the next year. The good news is, it's only costing me $28 a month out-of-pocket, which is fair enough for a policy that amounts to catastrophic coverage. I feel sorry for the government, which is footing the other $174 of the bill -- certainly not a good buy, IMO, but then the government isn't exactly known for spending money wisely, is it?


Actually "the government" doesn't pay for much of anything, taxpayers like me pay for your subsidy. 
And, look on the bright side, _we_ pay about $610 month for that which you're getting for $28.


----------



## Nevada

willow_girl said:


> Well, the numbers are in!


I registered for the same plan in 2015. The plan went up $7 and my subsidy went up $2, so it's going to cost me $5/month more than last year. But I'm also a year older so I expected some increase.

I'll be on Obamacare for the first 7 months of the year. I'll be on a Medicare Advantage HMO starting August 1.


----------



## willow_girl

> Actually "the government" doesn't pay for much of anything, taxpayers like me pay for your subsidy.


Hey, I'm a taxpayer too, ya know! This year marks the 30th year I've worked full-time and paid into the system. I can't remember the last time I got a refund. I'm happy if I don't have to cough up more than a couple hundred bucks in addition to the payroll deductions already taken out of my check! That's what happens when you don't have any little deductions ... err, I mean, _children_. 

But, yes, my Obamacare subsidy will probably zero out the amount I pay in federal taxes from now on. Apparently the government has decided I need that money (to buy health insurance) more than it does. I can be down with that ... :thumb:


----------



## Momo

Obamacare forces many folks to accept subsidies to avoid breaking the law. How does an independent person who does not want subsidized health care but can't afford the new higher after Obamacare premium decide what to do? 
I have a few friends struggling with this moral dilemma.


----------



## ErinP

willow_girl said:


> Hey, I'm a taxpayer too, ya know! This year marks the 30th year I've worked full-time and paid into the system. I can't remember the last time I got a refund. I'm happy if I don't have to cough up more than a couple hundred bucks in addition to the payroll deductions already taken out of my check! That's what happens when you don't have any little deductions ... err, I mean, _children_.
> 
> But, yes, my Obamacare subsidy will probably zero out the amount I pay in federal taxes from now on. Apparently the government has decided I need that money (to buy health insurance) more than it does. I can be down with that ... :thumb:


:indif:

This is _fascinating_&#8230; 
I gave the official right-wing response to someone who appreciates their subsidy (tongue in cheek, in my case). And all of the folks here who usually _recite_ that line are the ones that are liking your Nevada-ish reply! lol


----------



## Ozarks Tom

I think you're misreading the response. Willow Girl is working and paying into our spendthrift system, whereas others (who will not be mentioned) are goldbricks looking to work the system for all it's worth. She's doing her best with what she's got, and believe it or not, that's what conservatives respect.


----------



## ErinP

Well really, thats true of _everyone _who qualifies for subsidies. 
Only people with incomes make *enough* to qualify for Obamacare...


----------



## bowdonkey

Just another way to have us beholden to the government. It's the law now, what do you do? Obey or not? Don't like the law, change it. Easier said than done. But I hear that all the time, "if ya don't like it change it". So I recommend calling your legislators. I did, but they had different ideas. Maybe the conversation should be about how to cope with this GARBAGE IDEA called ACA.


----------



## jwal10

OK, Sweetie and I have spent 3 days going over this health care mess. We went on the Healthcare.gov site because Oregon's site has never worked. They spent 341 million and it does not work so we have to use the Healthcare.gov site. Our income is too much for Medicare but we checked out the cost without subsidies anyway. Then went on the Obamacare part by entering our income. IF we paid ourselves, it is less than 1/2 what the cost is using the cost the Obamacare subsidies pay, although nearly 3 times what we paid last year. All the bronze (free) plans with the subsidy, have $12,700 deductibles, each person. The silver plans have some plans that show $1500.00/family but when we go on the insurance company policy itself, they show $2500/person, up to $5000.00/person. Looks like the .gov site draws people in with low deductibles. We called the .gov phone # and the person there says "what the .gov site shows is right" but "we can't bring that up to see it, of course." but "It should be right" but "we have no way of verifying that" We will be calling the insurance company direct to find out.

We had picked out the policy we liked but of course it is an unofficial estimate because the only way you will get a real price is to fill out all the paperwork for Obamacare. We do that, get an "official" quote, but the "official" deductions do not match up with what the REAL insurance company policy says. 

So for us, the subsidy covers all but $46.00 of a silver plan with a deductible of $2500/person and a out of pocket cost of $12,750.00. $780 subsidy and $46 our cost/month. We were paying $216.00 a month for what we had, only catastrophic, it never paid a dime for anything, even when we had the kids. We have always paid cash, got the cheaper price. Example, the clinic charged $35.00, if we would have done all the paperwork and sent it in it would have been $85.00 even though the insurance would have paid nothing, just gone towards deductible. I can buy a plan without .gov for $435.00 but the deductible is 3 times more than what we had last year, $35 doctor visit and it pays for certain tests and procedures. Obamacare, I pay $35.00/visit, 35% after deductible, up to 3 doctor visits/year, each of us, 6 emergency room visits, preg. and birth control for me, OH BOY!!!! and Sweetie and a lot of feel good junk. All for the grand price of $46.00, cheap ain't it AND they can not deny me coverage. I feel so much better knowing....but I feel dirty and I haven't even signed up for anything yet....James


----------



## Nevada

jwal10 said:


> OK, Sweetie and I have spent 3 days going over this health care mess. We went on the Healthcare.gov site because Oregon's site has never worked. They spent 341 million and it does not work so we have to use the Healthcare.gov site. Our income is too much for Medicare but we checked out the cost without subsidies anyway. Then went on the Obamacare part by entering our income. IF we paid ourselves, it is less than 1/2 what the cost is using the cost the Obamacare subsidies pay, although nearly 3 times what we paid last year. All the bronze (free) plans with the subsidy, have $12,700 deductibles, each person. The silver plans have some plans that show $1500.00/family but when we go on the insurance company policy itself, they show $2500/person, up to $5000.00/person. Looks like the .gov site draws people in with low deductibles. We called the .gov phone # and the person there says "what the .gov site shows is right" but "we can't bring that up to see it, of course." but "It should be right" but "we have no way of verifying that" We will be calling the insurance company direct to find out.
> 
> We had picked out the policy we liked but of course it is an unofficial estimate because the only way you will get a real price is to fill out all the paperwork for Obamacare. We do that, get an "official" quote, but the "official" deductions do not match up with what the REAL insurance company policy says.
> 
> So for us, the subsidy covers all but $46.00 of a silver plan with a deductible of $2500/person and a out of pocket cost of $12,750.00. $780 subsidy and $46 our cost/month. We were paying $216.00 a month for what we had, only catastrophic, it never paid a dime for anything, even when we had the kids. We have always paid cash, got the cheaper price. Example, the clinic charged $35.00, if we would have done all the paperwork and sent it in it would have been $85.00 even though the insurance would have paid nothing, just gone towards deductible. I can buy a plan without .gov for $435.00 but the deductible is 3 times more than what we had last year, $35 doctor visit and it pays for certain tests and procedures. Obamacare, I pay $35.00/visit, 35% after deductible, up to 3 doctor visits/year, each of us, 6 emergency room visits, preg. and birth control for me, OH BOY!!!! and Sweetie and a lot of feel good junk. All for the grand price of $46.00, cheap ain't it AND they can not deny me coverage. I feel so much better knowing....but I feel dirty and I haven't even signed up for anything yet....James


Healthsherpa.com has a much simpler interface. Go there and see if agrees with what you're seeing at healthcare.gov.

https://www.healthsherpa.com/

It shouldn't be that difficult. I suspect you're doing something wrong.

With the difficulty you're having you might also consider going through a private insurance broker. They don't charge extra, since the healthcare exchange pays their fee.


----------



## willow_girl

> Obamacare forces many folks to accept subsidies to avoid breaking the law. How does an independent person who does not want subsidized health care but can't afford the new higher after Obamacare premium decide what to do?
> I have a few friends struggling with this moral dilemma.


The deciding factor, for me, was the fact they're going to fine me if I choose to go without insurance. 

As long as that's the case, well, I guess they can buy me some! :grump:

Added to that is the fact that Obamacare raised the cost of a bare-bones policy by about a third and eliminated catastrophic insurance, as well as ending the discounts relatively healthy people such as myself used to receive for being, well, relatively healthy! Now we pay more to subsidize all the UNhealthy people the insurance companies are obliged to sell policies to ... for the same price as they charge us.

Before Obamacare, I could have purchased adequate catastrophic insurance ($10,000 deductible, but covered everything at 100% once the deductible was met) for $95 a month. That would have been my preferred choice, as I can/could afford to be self-insured up to $10,000. (Generally my annual medical costs are less than $100.) Those policies are no longer allowed by law. A similar policy nowadays (catastrophic coverage, but with the addition of all the 'free' preventative screenings) costs more than $300 a month. 

Obamacare has, in effect, priced me out of the market, absent a subsidy. 

It's a great deal for health insurance companies and hospitals, though! (They are the real beneficiaries of the act.)


----------



## jwal10

Nevada said:


> Healthsherpa.com has a much simpler interface. Go there and see if agrees with what you're seeing at healthcare.gov.
> 
> https://www.healthsherpa.com/
> 
> It shouldn't be that difficult. I suspect you're doing something wrong.
> 
> With the difficulty you're having you might also consider going through a private insurance broker. They don't charge extra, since the healthcare exchange pays their fee.


 
Went there did that, thanks for the link. Prices are different than Healthcare.gov. Cheaper by $7.00 but different deductibles too. 1 we liked was same deductible, other is much higher.

We are going to our State rep. Open house on Tuesday. ask some questions.
Does .gov know that the policies don't match with what is on their site?
Why one price but different when you go to sign up and much higher deductable?
Are these companies telling .gov one thing but charging differently and switching deductables?
Sounds like bait and switch to me.
Looks good at first glance, goes south when you go to sign up....James


----------



## Allen W

willow_girl said:


> The deciding factor, for me, was the fact they're going to fine me if I choose to go without insurance.
> 
> As long as that's the case, well, I guess they can buy me some! :grump:
> 
> Added to that is the fact that Obamacare raised the cost of a bare-bones policy by about a third and eliminated catastrophic insurance, as well as ending the discounts relatively healthy people such as myself used to receive for being, well, relatively healthy! Now we pay more to subsidize all the UNhealthy people the insurance companies are obliged to sell policies to ... for the same price as they charge us.
> 
> Before Obamacare, I could have purchased adequate catastrophic insurance ($10,000 deductible, but covered everything at 100% once the deductible was met) for $95 a month. That would have been my preferred choice, as I can/could afford to be self-insured up to $10,000. (Generally my annual medical costs are less than $100.) Those policies are no longer allowed by law. A similar policy nowadays (catastrophic coverage, but with the addition of all the 'free' preventative screenings) costs more than $300 a month.
> 
> Obamacare has, in effect, priced me out of the market, absent a subsidy.
> 
> It's a great deal for health insurance companies and hospitals, though! (They are the real beneficiaries of the act.)


I have to dicide this week on a new plan and they all look worse then my old plan, even the more expensive ones.


----------



## kasilofhome

Nevada said:


> Healthsherpa.com has a much simpler interface. Go there and see if agrees with what you're seeing at healthcare.gov.
> 
> https://www.healthsherpa.com/
> 
> It shouldn't be that difficult. I suspect you're doing something wrong.
> 
> With the difficulty you're having you might also consider going through a private insurance broker. They don't charge extra, since the healthcare exchange pays their fee.


The non tax payer funded ......created and maintained site created due to the governmental failure. Capitalist succeeded where the goverment fail when hiring 
Michelle Obama friends simply got to scam millions.


----------



## Danaus29

Ds just last week tried to get enrolled in the heath care scam. No go. The premiums were more than he could afford, the deductibles and co-pays would eat up the rest of his meager income, and he doesn't qualify for a subsidy. To make it worse, since the health care scam relies on info from the credit bureau to confirm your identity, he really doesn't exist.

BTW, Ohio did NOT expand the Medicaid program to include healthy, low income people. I don't care what they say on all the health care scam sites or in that info, I can tell you for a fact that healthy low income people ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAID!!!!


----------



## mekasmom

Nevada said:


> I just got notification about my 2015 health care renewal premium through the healthcare exchange. I'm curious about what others are experiencing.


I have seen a couple of reports on the news about prices soaring for the insurance exchange on the obamacare site.


----------



## jwal10

Nevada said:


> Healthsherpa.com has a much simpler interface. Go there and see if agrees with what you're seeing at healthcare.gov.
> 
> https://www.healthsherpa.com/
> 
> It shouldn't be that difficult. I suspect you're doing something wrong.
> 
> With the difficulty you're having you might also consider going through a private insurance broker. They don't charge extra, since the healthcare exchange pays their fee.


 Found out that the difference between Healthcare.gov stated cost, deductibles and benefits is because Oregon is in the enhanced system and gives more benefits than the federal system alone. We called the insurance company directly. We are signed up and will have coverage on the 1st. Not what we wanted but we had to do something, we couldn't afford a 3x increase on our own. I don't know what we will do in the future when everything kicks in and the costs go up....James


----------



## Wendy

Well, my daughter found out she can no longer see her OB/GYN as that is considered a specialist. So she now has to find another doctor for her routine female exams. But wait, I recall hearing someone say that we would be able to keep our doctors.


----------



## partndn

Danaus29 said:


> Ds just last week tried to get enrolled in the heath care scam. No go. The premiums were more than he could afford, the deductibles and co-pays would eat up the rest of his meager income, and he doesn't qualify for a subsidy. To make it worse,* since the health care scam relies on info from the credit bureau to confirm your identity, he really doesn't exist.*
> 
> BTW, Ohio did NOT expand the Medicaid program to include healthy, low income people. I don't care what they say on all the health care scam sites or in that info, I can tell you for a fact that healthy low income people ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAID!!!!



What the...........!!!!!!!!!! Credit reporting = another TOTAL SCAM on the people of this country, full of illogical methods and false security, feeding the slave mentality, :hair:grit:gre::hammer::grumble:


----------



## Danaus29

Seriously, to enroll in the health care scam you absolutely must pass their credit check. He was given an extension so he would have time to prove he exists. No credit history, no chance at getting insurance.


----------



## Nevada

Danaus29 said:


> Ds just last week tried to get enrolled in the heath care scam. No go. The premiums were more than he could afford, the deductibles and co-pays would eat up the rest of his meager income, and he doesn't qualify for a subsidy.


Something's not right about that. If he has a meager income he should get a subsidy.


----------



## Danaus29

You get NO SUBSIDY if you are at 138% of the poverty level or below:
http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-subsidies/

&#8226; Those making under 400% of the FPL have access to tax credits, those making under 250% FPL are eligible for cost sharing reduction subsidies on Silver Plans, and those making 138% (or less in some states) are eligible for Medicaid.

&#8226; In states that didn&#8217;t expand Medicaid many adults will fall in the Medicaid gap meaning they won&#8217;t qualify for Medicaid or subsidies.


----------



## Nevada

Danaus29 said:


> You get NO SUBSIDY if you are at 138% of the poverty level or below:
> http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-subsidies/
> 
> â¢ Those making under 400% of the FPL have access to tax credits, those making under 250% FPL are eligible for cost sharing reduction subsidies on Silver Plans, and those making 138% (or less in some states) are eligible for Medicaid.
> 
> â¢ In states that didnât expand Medicaid many adults will fall in the Medicaid gap meaning they wonât qualify for Medicaid or subsidies.


Aren't you relieved to know you live in a state that expanded Medicaid?


----------



## arabian knight

Sure is nice that a great majority of the states Did NOT. They KNEW it would turn into a great mess in a few years for those setter that did get suckered in.


----------



## Danaus29

They claim Ohio expanded Medicaid. But you can't apply for it unless you are disabled. So in practice Ohio didn't expand Medicaid.


----------



## Lookin4GoodLife

Looking at ehealthinsurance.com and healthcare.gov looks like I have the option of TWO companies. Neither of their plans look good for our situation. And one of the companies I swore I would never deal with again after dealing with them in the past. What a pain in the rear. Same old same old, they protect the big companies and their insurance plans and they screw the self-insured. Nothing in THAT regard has been "fixed".


----------



## Allen W

Lookin4GoodLife

I'm in the same situation.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Gruber admits Obummer LIED.

http://joemiller.us/2014/12/white-l...il&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-6b1564f67b-230980529

Obama lied about the law and told congressmen to vote against their constituents&#8217; wishes:

&#8220;I wish that President Obama could have stood up and said, &#8216;You know, I don&#8217;t know if this bill is going to control costs. It might, it might not. We&#8217;re doing our best. But let me tell you what it&#8217;s going to do&#8230;&#8221; (goes on to explain that some people would die without insurance) (49:55)


----------



## Wendy

> Aren't you relieved to know you live in a state that expanded Medicaid?


Are you kidding me?? Where do you think the money for this comes from?? The states that chose not to expand Medicaid were actually thinking about that. They KNEW they would not have the funds to cover all of the extra people that would fall under Medicaid. Unlike the people that passed the bill. They didn't think anything through. They are so out of touch with the working American that they have no clue. I guess they could always raise taxes even more & squeeze the working man even more than they already do.


----------



## Lookin4GoodLife

Looks like I'm eligible for an $82 tax credit. The only thing ANYWHERE NEAR (not as cheap) as what I had before has a deductible over $12,000.


----------



## Lookin4GoodLife

And I don't even know why they list all these benefits as "no charge after deductible". I understand a "catastrophic event" but short of that happening, I'll NEVER hit a $12,600 deductible, even with me AND my son. So I'd REALLY like to know what things are going to cost BEFORE my deductible. Jeez.... I know something needed to be done about the healthcare system, but this is BS. And because it's such a hot-button issue and now with all this Gruber stuff, they'll be fighting over it until at least 2016 and beyond instead of fixing it. My health insurance was fine with me (other than the aforementioned getting screwed by being self-insured) and my premium had been basically the same for 3 years. Once the ACA was passed, I started getting the letters. It went up a lot every year until they cancelled me this year and now I've got to buy something even MORE expensive. I was actually excited to have some "good" insurance like everybody else and now this. With those deductibles, I *still* won't be able to go to the doctor when I need to because I can't afford the premium AND a trip to the doctor with their typical tests to "let's just check that out". What a load....


----------



## Lookin4GoodLife

How about for a small business? My girlfriend's business is incorporated. Would it be cheaper/better to get insurance that way to insure her and her three kids and insure me and my son? She and I both work in the business so I guess I would qualify.


----------



## Lookin4GoodLife

Do you have to sign up for a dental plan through healthcare.gov or can you do that separate? I looked at the Humana dental plan online and clicked on the "brochure" button. It didn't take me to a brochure, it just took me to humana.com. So I looked at their plans on their web site. I have 3 options for my area on their site, none of which are on healthcare.gov. All three plans look better than the one on healthcare.gov and THEY ARE ALL CHEAPER! So can I just sign up from them directly, or do I have to do it through the govt? It looks like it's going to apply my full tax credit to my health plan and they dental and vision look like an afterthought. What have you guys done?


----------



## Danaus29

We did find a way to enroll ds in Medicaid. (not like he wanted to but he didn't want to pay the penalty for not having insurance next year) You have to google "expanded medicaid program ohio" to find a link to get to the enrollment. And who is supposed to know that?????

At least now we know why Transunion says he doesn't exist. For some reason they have the last line of the address as; city state county zip.


----------



## Lookin4GoodLife

Yeah, isn't using the credit report thing pretty hokey to verify a person? How often are credit reports wrong?! :hair


----------



## arabian knight

Ah yes and now comes a report that Medicaid CUTS will be coming in 2015. AH yes BAD news for those states that Expanded Medicaid. Obama just Hates Poor People.
Now those states that did not expand can say "See I TOLD YOU SO". LOL


----------



## Oxankle

The Democrats did not care what they said or how big the lie. They wanted a single-payer health plan, UK version, so that we'd all have to wait months to see a doctor and the elderly would die quickly and cut SS and pension costs. 

Do you think for an instant that the govt pension plan counted on me living 23 years (and still counting) after I retired? Not so; when I was a young man and a union rep I was told that the average employee in my unit lived five years after retirement. 
Ox


----------



## ErinP

oh good grief. 
did that make sense when you were typing it? because it sure doesn't make sense to read... 

It's one thing to complain that it doesn't work as promised, but to assign evil intentions to half the country? C'mon...


----------



## arabian knight

Millions will soon find out just how bad ObamaUncare really is and UnCare is the key word here.


----------



## Danaus29

I read the bill. It took several days to finish but I read the bill. Something I can guarantee those voting on it didn't do. The sad thing is that it is working out like it was written. And yes, there were evil intentions in the bill. Why else would they limit health care to elderly patients, make Medicare cuts, and tax people who can't afford insurance in the first place? And remember, just because cancer and other testing is required to be covered, doesn't mean treatment coverage is required. In fact, treatment coverage for anything other than birth defects in minor children, birth control, and pregnancy issues is not required.


----------



## Nevada

Danaus29 said:


> I read the bill. It took several days to finish but I read the bill.


What did the bill say was included in [FONT=&quot]MAGI?[/FONT]


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> What did the bill say was included in [FONT=&quot]MAGI?[/FONT]


Maybe you should read it for your self! Then you might have a clue when you talk about it!


----------



## Danaus29

Definition here:
https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/modified-adjusted-gross-income-magi/


----------



## Nevada

Danaus29 said:


> Definition here:
> https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/modified-adjusted-gross-income-magi/


Actually, that's not what the bills says. If you read it then you would have known that.

As the bill was written the total adjusted income on form 1040 was to be your ACA MAGI. The original ACA definition of MAGI was later amended under P.L. 112-56 (see section 401 of that law) to include non-taxable Social Security income. Public Law 112-56 didn't go into effect until November 2011.


----------



## unregistered353870

Nevada said:


> Yeah, I suspected that you didn't really read it.


Did he claim he read it?


----------



## arabian knight

Danaus29 said:


> I read the bill. It took several days to finish but I read the bill. Something I can guarantee those voting on it didn't do. The sad thing is that it is working out like it was written. And yes, there were evil intentions in the bill. Why else would they limit health care to elderly patients, make Medicare cuts, and tax people who can't afford insurance in the first place? And remember, just because cancer and other testing is required to be covered, doesn't mean treatment coverage is required. In fact, treatment coverage for anything other than birth defects in minor children, birth control, and pregnancy issues is not required.


 I did not post about the Medicare cuts, which BTW were mostly true. Nope this is something different. 
I wrote about the Up Coming MEDICAID CUTS~! That will effect those states that TOOKO the added monies. LOL


----------



## Lookin4GoodLife

Nevada said:


> As the bill was written the total adjusted income on form 1040 was to be your ACA MAGI. The original ACA definition of MAGI was later amended under P.L. 112-56 (see section 401 of that law) to include non-taxable Social Security income. Public Law 112-56 didn't go into effect until November 2011.[/SIZE][/FONT]


So how are they going to take a number off a 1040 that hasn't even been filed yet? They want my *estimated* income for 2015 that will be filed in 2016. Not a known number from my latest tax return.


----------



## Danaus29

You really expect me to remember the whole 2000+ page document with many of the revisions and additions never published in the same article? That was just one of the hundreds of revisions added after they passed the fiasco. If you had read the whole bill you would know that they left it wide open for revisions and additions which would not have to be passed through congress, only the committee.

Do you have a link to the cuts in the Medicaid program? The articles I found say that the fed govt will give those states more money for the next few years.


----------



## arabian knight

*Doctors face steep Medicaid cuts as fee boost ends*


> WASHINGTON (AP) &#8212;* Primary care doctors caring for low-income patients will face steep fee cuts next year as a temporary program in President Barack Obama's health care law expires.* That could squeeze access just when millions of new patients are gaining Medicaid coverage


.


> *Doctors probably won't dump their current Medicaid patients, but they'll take a hard look at accepting new ones,* said Dr. Robert Wergin, a practitioner in rural Milford, Neb., and president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.
> 
> "You are going to be paid less, so you are going to have to look at your practice and find ways to eke it out," Wergin said.


http://news.yahoo.com/doctors-face-steep-medicaid-cuts-fee-boost-ends-210044713--finance.html


----------



## Danaus29

Technically not a cut. Just the end of a payment expansion program.


----------



## FarmerKat

Most doctors today are really picky about accepting new patients. I was recently getting established with a new doctor and the office manager reviews each case before they accept a patient. When you call to get an appointment, they say that they are accepting new patients but that they will call you within 2 weeks once your case has been reviewed. Obviously they are very careful as to whom to accept. The rest of my family started seeing this doctor in July and it was not like this at all - you called and got an appointment.


----------



## Nevada

Lookin4GoodLife said:


> So how are they going to take a number off a 1040 that hasn't even been filed yet? They want my *estimated* income for 2015 that will be filed in 2016. Not a known number from my latest tax return.


Sure, you'll need to estimate your income. If it's obvious during the year that your income will be significantly different than your estimate (you got a new job or a big raise, or even lost your job) then you should call the healthcare exchange and have your subsidy modified. The IRS will be settling up with you at the end of the year.


----------



## Nevada

FarmerKat said:


> Most doctors today are really picky about accepting new patients. I was recently getting established with a new doctor and the office manager reviews each case before they accept a patient. When you call to get an appointment, they say that they are accepting new patients but that they will call you within 2 weeks once your case has been reviewed. Obviously they are very careful as to whom to accept. The rest of my family started seeing this doctor in July and it was not like this at all - you called and got an appointment.


Yes, doctors have become picky. Some doctors are reluctant to take on patients who require a significant maintenance dose of narcotics, since they are scrutinized on that. I don't think it relates to the ACA though.


----------



## FarmerKat

Nevada said:


> Yes, doctors have become picky. Some doctors are reluctant to take on patients who require a significant maintenance dose of narcotics, since they are scrutinized on that. I don't think it relates to the ACA though.


I think the thing with narcotics depends on state. Here even non-narcotic pain management meds have to be prescribed by a specialist so it is a non-issue when trying to get a family Dr. My particular post was about a family Dr. It took us a year to find one where we could see an MD, not a nurse practitioner. It has a lot more to do with how much money they will get for treating you.


----------



## Nevada

FarmerKat said:


> I think the thing with narcotics depends on state. Here even non-narcotic pain management meds have to be prescribed by a specialist so it is a non-issue when trying to get a family Dr. My particular post was about a family Dr. It took us a year to find one where we could see an MD, not a nurse practitioner. It has a lot more to do with how much money they will get for treating you.


We don't have that problem here. Alma had spinal compression fractures that required a lot of lortab (~100/month). Her nurse practitioner prescribed them.


----------



## wes917

I have seen my coverage go from $200/month for my family and covered most everything with $20 copays and no deductible to over $500/month with 5k deductible now and you have to fight to get things covered. It's rising another $150 next year for the exact same coverage I have now. I am not eligible for a subsidy so don't ask. Also don't tell me it's more in line with what everyone else is paying, I took the jobs I've had, at the salaries I've had with the insurance cost taken into consideration. I have out the time and monetary investment in myself to be able to get to tge position of being able to negotiate these things for myself, not to pay for others who refuse to make the effort.


----------



## wes917

FarmerKat said:


> I think the thing with narcotics depends on state. Here even non-narcotic pain management meds have to be prescribed by a specialist so it is a non-issue when trying to get a family Dr. My particular post was about a family Dr. It took us a year to find one where we could see an MD, not a nurse practitioner. It has a lot more to do with how much money they will get for treating you.


I saw a sign at my drs office that stated they would no longer be providing pain maintenance rxs anymore. I was suprised I first went to the dr bc of some back issues and they of course referred to a specialist, but if I had a flare up they would prescribe it. She has also complained of the hassle of getting things done now. Luckily I'm to a spot now where ibuprofen does the job.


----------



## Nevada

wes917 said:


> I have seen my coverage go from $200/month for my family and covered most everything with $20 copays and no deductible to over $500/month with 5k deductible now


That doesn't sound right. There's something about your situation that you're not telling us.


----------



## wes917

The $200/month was with a different employer. This year my benefits were $364/month with a $3400 deductible. Their going up $156/month and to a 5k deductible next year, for what is essentially the same coverage.


----------



## Nevada

wes917 said:


> The $200/month was with a different employer.


OK, your new employer isn't giving you as good of a deal as your former employer. That makes sense. But making a blanket statement that your premium went up to $500 and your benefits dropped in an Obamacare thread you leave the impression that it's the result of the ACA. That appears not to be the case.


----------



## wes917

Um did you miss the part where it's increasing $156/month and having a much larger deductible next year as opposed to this year? For the same coverage?


----------



## Cornhusker

Everybody I've talked to that has Obamacare says their deductible is around $6500, with no co-pays until the deductible is met.
$6500 is a bankruptable amount for a lot of hard working people.
"Affordable Care Act" my foot, it's a boondoggle and a huge scam.


----------



## Nevada

Cornhusker said:


> Everybody I've talked to that has Obamacare says their deductible is around $6500, with no co-pays until the deductible is met.
> $6500 is a bankruptable amount for a lot of hard working people.
> "Affordable Care Act" my foot, it's a boondoggle and a huge scam.


If they select a plan with a high deductible then the deductible will be high. I selected an HMO with zero deductible for routine care (doctor visits, specialists, xrays, lab, prescriptions, etc.).


----------



## Cornhusker

Nevada said:


> If they select a plan with a high deductible then the deductible will be high. I selected an HMO with zero deductible for routine care (doctor visits, specialists, xrays, lab, prescriptions, etc.).


A lot of hard working people with families can't afford the huge premiums.
Most parts of the country, $500 is a lot of money


----------



## Nevada

Cornhusker said:


> A lot of hard working people with families can't afford the huge premiums.
> Most parts of the country, $500 is a lot of money


My premium (64 years old) is $558/month, but I get a subsidy.


----------



## popscott

Danaus29 said:


> You really expect me to remember the whole 2000+ page document with many of the revisions and additions never published in the same article?


Exactly......This bill was so incomplete when passed not even Gruber knew what was in it..... &#8220;to be determined by the Secretary&#8221; left this baby wide open.....

Please go to the link.....go to the tool bar-click "edit".....and click on "find "....enter into the colored box ..... determined by the Secretary..... start hitting enter

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act HR3590

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> If they select a plan with a high deductible then the deductible will be high. I selected an HMO with zero deductible for routine care (doctor visits, specialists, xrays, lab, prescriptions, etc.).


And you live in the Las Vegas metropolitan area, right? How many hospitals and doctors offices with an hour drive? Lots I bet.

An HMO might be cheaper than a PPO but for rural people where options for care are fewer and farther between, people who travel for their work, and lots of other circumstances, it's simply not the right choice. Some people need a PPO plan, which is more expensive by design. Not everyone is you!


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> That doesn't sound right. There's something about your situation that you're not telling us.


We've all given you links confirming that many folks are left out in the cold b/c they now cannot afford ins. You fail to believe us. DH's ins went up $60/mo, thanks to you & UNcare.


----------



## Nevada

Tricky Grama said:


> DH's ins went up $60/mo, thanks to you & UNcare.


Your DH is on Obamacare and not Medicare?


----------



## Allen W

Can't sign up for the plan I want with out going through the market place, what a crock of crap.


----------



## willow_girl

> I saw a sign at my drs office that stated they would no longer be providing pain maintenance rxs anymore. I was suprised I first went to the dr bc of some back issues and they of course referred to a specialist, but if I had a flare up they would prescribe it. She has also complained of the hassle of getting things done now. Luckily I'm to a spot now where ibuprofen does the job.


That sign may be simply to discourage pillheads who are doctor-shopping. My doc has a sign like that in his waiting room, too, and has had it for years, but when I complained about my issue with severe cramps, he wrote me a script for Vicodin without batting an eyelash, and has never given me a hassle about renewing it.


----------



## Nevada

Allen W said:


> Can't sign up for the plan I want with out going through the market place, what a crock of crap.


Why is that a problem? Does it matter where you buy it?


----------



## Cornhusker

Just yesterday, a friend tried to sign up for insurance.
The premiums would be over 40% of her take home pay, the deductible would be 35% of her take home. leaving her with 25% of her already small check.
Is that what Obama thinks is "affordable"?
By the way, it told her she is not eligible for any of the discounts, refunds, whatever you call it.
She ended up frustrated and in tears and still has no insurance, and afraid she'll go to jail for not paying the fine.
This is what Obama wants for us, poverty and terror.
Fundamental change.


----------



## Cornhusker

Nevada said:


> Why is that a problem? Does it matter where you buy it?


It's a problem for a lot of people.
It's like forcing people to make payments on a new car they can't afford.


----------



## Nevada

Cornhusker said:


> Just yesterday, a friend tried to sign up for insurance.
> The premiums would be over 40% of her take home pay, the deductible would be 35% of her take home. leaving her with 25% of her already small check.
> Is that what Obama thinks is "affordable"?
> By the way, it told her she is not eligible for any of the discounts, refunds, whatever you call it.
> She ended up frustrated and in tears and still has no insurance, and afraid she'll go to jail for not paying the fine.
> This is what Obama wants for us, poverty and terror.
> Fundamental change.


Insurance takes 40% if her pay and she doesn't qualify for a subsidy? Something's not right about that.

What state does she live in, what are the ages of people in her household, and what is her income level?


----------



## Cornhusker

Nevada said:


> Insurance takes 40% if her pay and she doesn't qualify for a subsidy? Something's not right about that.
> 
> What state does she live in, what are the ages of people in her household, and what is her income level?


She lives in Nebraska, 1 person in her household (56) and she makes less than 23k (Just started a new job)
Obamacare said she is not eligible for subsidy.
It does ask what race you are, would that make a difference?


----------



## Cornhusker

Nevada said:


> Insurance takes 40% if her pay and she doesn't qualify for a subsidy? Something's not right about that.
> 
> What state does she live in, what are the ages of people in her household, and what is her income level?


If you count the high deductible, it takes about 75% of her pay


----------



## Nevada

Cornhusker said:


> She lives in Nebraska, 1 person in her household (56) and she makes less than 23k (Just started a new job)
> Obamacare said she is not eligible for subsidy.
> It does ask what race you are, would that make a difference?


A single person household for a 56 year old person in NE qualifies for a $363/month ($4356/year) subsidy.

She is also in the 151-200% of the poverty level income bracket, so she qualifies for a CSR (cost sharing reduction) that will give her an 87/13 copay (13% paid by her), or equivalent reduction in deductible or copay for an HMO or PPO plan. Her out-of-pocket costs are also capped at no more than $2,250/year.

To get the CSR she MUST signup for a silver plan (not a bronze, gold or platinum plan). Assuming she lives in Omaha, she could get a POS plan for as low as $110/month with the following benefits:

* Note that these benefits are BEFORE applying her CSR, so her actual benefits will be much better.
* Also note that if I have her zip code I can show the exact plans available in her area.


----------



## partndn

Ever since this fiasco of a subject thread started, I have been waiting to see how much my premium would go up. Finally got it last night.

Our company guy did a lot of research and tried hard to keep the best options to offer with the least amount of increase.

Our company contributes $250 per month to each employee's choice. 
We pay what is over and above the 250. 2014 first time I had insurance in a decade. It cost me 26 dollars a month. Just me only. Ok, might as well, and have NOT used it one single penny.

2015, my portion will go up 440%. The total cost of the policy increased 33%. 

Nobody will be able to convince me there is anything good about the entire situation. I don't give a crap about who got a good deal (subsidy) or who got some new Medicaid, or what the heck ever else.

It's shameful, disgusting, unethical, immoral, and many other words that are not suitable here. I have never been so ashamed of this country. And I have never been more baffled at the stupidity of those who refuse to see the truth of the molestation of our rights that has occurred.


----------



## MO_cows

Looks like DH might lose his insurance, his employer isn't mandated to provide it and it has gotten so costly they are thinking about dropping it. What is being discussed, give a raise to offset it. Only, the proposed raise doesn't even make up half the cost of the plan they are in. And the independent policy we pay out of pocket for my coverage went up $70 a month for 2015, too. I've heard of house poor and car poor, now in today's world we have health insurance poor.


----------



## Nevada

MO_cows said:


> Looks like DH might lose his insurance, his employer isn't mandated to provide it and it has gotten so costly they are thinking about dropping it.


You'll have to check to make sure, but it's possible that you'll be better off without employer subsidized insurance. If insurance isn't available from your employer then you qualify to use the exchange, which might offer a better deal than your employer was offering.


----------



## Allen W

Nevada said:


> Why is that a problem? Does it matter where you buy it?


 
Why should I have to go through a third party when I already decided on the insurance policy I settled for. 

Somebody please explain to me how I'm better of having to pay more for a lessor policy compared to the one I had that was canceled. No one in my house needs maternity coverage or pediatric dental and eye care.


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> You'll have to check to make sure, but it's possible that you'll be better off without employer subsidized insurance. If insurance isn't available from your employer then you qualify to use the exchange, which might offer a better deal than your employer was offering.


How is it better to go from your employer paying 100% of your premium, to paying for it yourself? The one-time raise they proposed wouldn't even cover the current cost, let alone how deep in the hole we will be as it continues to go up and up every year. I HAVE looked at the exchange, I also posted we have to pay for my policy out of pocket, remember?? Honest, there weren't any policies on there for less than zero cost!


----------



## Cornhusker

Nevada said:


> A single person household for a 56 year old person in NE qualifies for a $363/month ($4356/year) subsidy.
> 
> She is also in the 151-200% of the poverty level income bracket, so she qualifies for a CSR (cost sharing reduction) that will give her an 87/13 copay (13% paid by her), or equivalent reduction in deductible or copay for an HMO or PPO plan. Her out-of-pocket costs are also capped at no more than $2,250/year.
> 
> To get the CSR she MUST signup for a silver plan (not a bronze, gold or platinum plan). Assuming she lives in Omaha, she could get a POS plan for as low as $110/month with the following benefits:
> 
> * Note that these benefits are BEFORE applying her CSR, so her actual benefits will be much better.
> * Also note that if I have her zip code I can show the exact plans available in her area.


Could you PM me a link?


----------



## Tyler520

mine increased by $258.30 a month


----------



## MO_cows

Tyler520 said:


> mine increased by $258.30 a month


Ouch!


----------



## Nevada

Cornhusker said:


> Could you PM me a link?


I got that info from healthsherpa.com


----------



## Momo

My official new premium for 2015 came in...an increase of 33% for the exact same policy I had last year. So glad DH got his huge 1.7% social security increase to help cover it.


----------



## Cornhusker

Nevada said:


> I got that info from healthsherpa.com


Thanks, I'll have her give it a try


----------



## Cornhusker

Momo said:


> My official new premium for 2015 came in...an increase of 33% for the exact same policy I had last year. So glad DH got his huge 1.7% social security increase to help cover it.


Just remember, it was never about affordable health care, it's about control and selling insurance.


----------



## jwal10

Nevada said:


> I got that info from healthsherpa.com


 It didn't work for us here in Oregon as Oregon has the enhanced program, prices were not right and neither were the coverages, much better at healthcare.gov once we found out that what healthcare.gov showed was right, not what the links on the site for actual policies was saying. Actual coverages were for states without enhanced programs. Enhanced coverage cut all of them in half and a lot more included in the $10.00/ visit charge

We ended up with a policy for $81.00/month, $10.00 doctor visits, $750.00 deductible, $1500.00 max/year for 2. A long list of included services (probably all we will ever use) no deductible, just $10.00/visit....James


----------

