• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Obamacare succeeding

4consideration

*
Premium Member
t
Ack. Just asked and she said the 6250 is for an individual and it IS12k is for a family with any amount of children. Wow. Is that way higher than before ACA or ?? Maybe you could post here what you find out for others to know. I'd be interested in the premiums you find as well.

EDIT: I should note that our insurance hasn't changed at all since the ACA. Our premium portion is about $250 a month for just Rick and I. The other $250 of premium is paid for through his FAA retirement. However, we've always had deductibles of $350-450 per person a year. Each kid was the same as well.
I checked the (first) link you posted. At a glance, I'm seeing basically the same results as before. It's been a few months now, since I made calls regarding what plans are accepted a facilities in our area, so there may be some changes in accessibility since then -- and it'll take some time to look into it in depth. During that time, I wasn't finding under about $1,000 accepted around here.

To answer the specific questions about costs, monthly premiums range from $820 - $1,272 (for two of us.)

I'm still seeing some deductibles on plans using that link, listed a bit higher than the max you mentioned, so I'm wondering if it varies from state to state. I also checked other zip codes for comparison, and the costs and availability of plans seems to fluctuate a lot, based on zip code. (If you're curious to see what I'm seeing, I'll PM you the zip code and birth years, but don't want to post that stuff publicly.)
 

Buttercup

Veteran Member
t
I checked the (first) link you posted. At a glance, I'm seeing basically the same results as before. It's been a few months now, since I made calls regarding what plans are accepted a facilities in our area, so there may be some changes in accessibility since then -- and it'll take some time to look into it in depth. During that time, I wasn't finding under about $1,000 accepted around here.

To answer the specific questions about costs, monthly premiums range from $820 - $1,272 (for two of us.)

I'm still seeing some deductibles on plans using that link, listed a bit higher than the max you mentioned, so I'm wondering if it varies from state to state. I also checked other zip codes for comparison, and the costs and availability of plans seems to fluctuate a lot, based on zip code. (If you're curious to see what I'm seeing, I'll PM you the zip code and birth years, but don't want to post that stuff publicly.)
Sure, I would be interested in seeing that. I'm guessing because you're smokers the premiums basically double? Doesn't seem fair.
 

4consideration

*
Premium Member
Sure, I would be interested in seeing that. I'm guessing because you're smokers the premiums basically double? Doesn't seem fair.
I've sent that information to you by PM.

I do not object to policy price reflecting risk, because (even though I can't do the math that actuaries do) I realize there is a reality to how expected costs must be spread out and have to include the risk. I object to the penalty.

What does not seem fair to me is that all other groups of people, whose lifestyle choices make them a greater cost risk are absorbed into the pool, and the cost of that risk is borne by the whole, so that a person who is a smoker bears the additional cost (under Obamacare) of the spread of everyone else's lifestyle risks that cannot be separately asked about and included in the pricing of their policy, plus the smoker's risk, separately added.

A person that is a junkie (of a street substance, or some other substance that increases health risk,) unless they get free coverage, has the option to purchase coverage at a pooled rate for the negative affects of that substance, yet a cigarette smoker that cannot afford the much higher cost of coverage heavily impacted by the pooled effects of other peoples' non-tobacco addictions and pre-existing conditions, gets a penalty.

I realize the penalty is not isolated to smokers, it's just more likely the coverage is -- in reality -- out of reach for that one group.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Obamacare is success for those who can afford it & are subsidized.
It's a failure for those who must pay the penalties cuz they can't afford it, or are paying increased rates to subsidize the "successes".
 

4consideration

*
Premium Member
You guys are genuinely nuts. Who pays for medical expenses?
Yes, and apparently idiots, as well. We pay for medical expenses.

The lack of clarity in this whole process...the worry, confusion, and stress, I strongly believe has had more of a negative impact on my health than cigarettes have had.

And now for the rant... a big one...after the fact, I'm now seeing information I could not locate before.

On several occasions when looking to see if we could get coverage, and seeing the cost prohibitive policies...most of which were not accepted locally, anyway, and weren't even practical for medical services...I attempted to find out what the rules were for those who found coverage cost prohibitive, and how to document it, since I had heard there was a way for those that could not afford coverage to avoid being penalized for it.

In my idiocy at the time, seeing the Obamacare site showed no mention of how to handle the matter under the law when cost of coverage was out of reach when estimates displayed, it seems I should have intuited that I ought to apply for coverage I knew I had no way of paying for.

Instead, I went directly to the source, the IRS site, trying to find out what the rules would be, so I could do what would be required for our situation. However, the IRS has not been making most tax forms and publications that apply to the year one is living in available to the public. They are not available until that year has passed, and it is tax filing time.

(The IRS makes forms that facilitate you paying money to them in this year available, but not forms for knowing what you will have to pay...and oh, maybe being in a position to be able to plan for it...so, you can find 2015 estimated tax payment forms to pay throughout the year on income earned in 2015, but you cannot get the 2015 income tax returns to see how and what new rules apply to 2015 until some time in 2016.)

If you want to see for yourself, click Instructions for Form 8965 and then right click and look at the document Properties. It was created on 1/15/15. It shows an option for a waiver of penalty that requires one to have obtained an ECN through the marketplace in 2014, but even having heard such a possibility existed, I couldn't find the IRS's rules about it during the time period I could have used the information.

At the time, I thought the place to go would be the IRS site, since that is the entity that would have publications regarding such matters, to see what proof requirement they had for those in our position, and the last time I checked was in mid-December 2014, less than 30 days from implementation. As an idiot I didn't anticipate a process I could find no information on. I scoured the website and could find no proof requirements. So, I resigned myself to having to pay a penalty for coverage I could not afford.

So now...in looking at forms not made available until 2015, I'm guessing...I actually could have avoided paying the penalty for 2014 if I had applied for coverage I had no reasonable expectation of being able to pay for, in order to get an ECN, whatever that is, that I hadn't heard about, and had intentionally looked for.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yes, and apparently idiots, as well. We pay for medical expenses.

The lack of clarity in this whole process...the worry, confusion, and stress, I strongly believe has had more of a negative impact on my health than cigarettes have had.

And now for the rant... a big one...after the fact, I'm now seeing information I could not locate before.

On several occasions when looking to see if we could get coverage, and seeing the cost prohibitive policies...most of which were not accepted locally, anyway, and weren't even practical for medical services...I attempted to find out what the rules were for those who found coverage cost prohibitive, and how to document it, since I had heard there was a way for those that could not afford coverage to avoid being penalized for it.

In my idiocy at the time, seeing the Obamacare site showed no mention of how to handle the matter under the law when cost of coverage was out of reach when estimates displayed, it seems I should have intuited that I ought to apply for coverage I knew I had no way of paying for.

Instead, I went directly to the source, the IRS site, trying to find out what the rules would be, so I could do what would be required for our situation. However, the IRS has not been making most tax forms and publications that apply to the year one is living in available to the public. They are not available until that year has passed, and it is tax filing time.

(The IRS makes forms that facilitate you paying money to them in this year available, but not forms for knowing what you will have to pay...and oh, maybe being in a position to be able to plan for it...so, you can find 2015 estimated tax payment forms to pay throughout the year on income earned in 2015, but you cannot get the 2015 income tax returns to see how and what new rules apply to 2015 until some time in 2016.)

If you want to see for yourself, click Instructions for Form 8965 and then right click and look at the document Properties. It was created on 1/15/15. It shows an option for a waiver of penalty that requires one to have obtained an ECN through the marketplace in 2014, but even having heard such a possibility existed, I couldn't find the IRS's rules about it during the time period I could have used the information.

At the time, I thought the place to go would be the IRS site, since that is the entity that would have publications regarding such matters, to see what proof requirement they had for those in our position, and the last time I checked was in mid-December 2014, less than 30 days from implementation. As an idiot I didn't anticipate a process I could find no information on. I scoured the website and could find no proof requirements. So, I resigned myself to having to pay a penalty for coverage I could not afford.

So now...in looking at forms not made available until 2015, I'm guessing...I actually could have avoided paying the penalty for 2014 if I had applied for coverage I had no reasonable expectation of being able to pay for, in order to get an ECN, whatever that is, that I hadn't heard about, and had intentionally looked for.
I don't know why yer talk'n 'bout problems.
It's dun been pronounced a success!
 

Wirey

Fartist
Yes, and apparently idiots, as well. We pay for medical expenses.

The lack of clarity in this whole process...the worry, confusion, and stress, I strongly believe has had more of a negative impact on my health than cigarettes have had.

And now for the rant... a big one...after the fact, I'm now seeing information I could not locate before.

On several occasions when looking to see if we could get coverage, and seeing the cost prohibitive policies...most of which were not accepted locally, anyway, and weren't even practical for medical services...I attempted to find out what the rules were for those who found coverage cost prohibitive, and how to document it, since I had heard there was a way for those that could not afford coverage to avoid being penalized for it.

In my idiocy at the time, seeing the Obamacare site showed no mention of how to handle the matter under the law when cost of coverage was out of reach when estimates displayed, it seems I should have intuited that I ought to apply for coverage I knew I had no way of paying for.

Instead, I went directly to the source, the IRS site, trying to find out what the rules would be, so I could do what would be required for our situation. However, the IRS has not been making most tax forms and publications that apply to the year one is living in available to the public. They are not available until that year has passed, and it is tax filing time.

(The IRS makes forms that facilitate you paying money to them in this year available, but not forms for knowing what you will have to pay...and oh, maybe being in a position to be able to plan for it...so, you can find 2015 estimated tax payment forms to pay throughout the year on income earned in 2015, but you cannot get the 2015 income tax returns to see how and what new rules apply to 2015 until some time in 2016.)

If you want to see for yourself, click Instructions for Form 8965 and then right click and look at the document Properties. It was created on 1/15/15. It shows an option for a waiver of penalty that requires one to have obtained an ECN through the marketplace in 2014, but even having heard such a possibility existed, I couldn't find the IRS's rules about it during the time period I could have used the information.

At the time, I thought the place to go would be the IRS site, since that is the entity that would have publications regarding such matters, to see what proof requirement they had for those in our position, and the last time I checked was in mid-December 2014, less than 30 days from implementation. As an idiot I didn't anticipate a process I could find no information on. I scoured the website and could find no proof requirements. So, I resigned myself to having to pay a penalty for coverage I could not afford.

So now...in looking at forms not made available until 2015, I'm guessing...I actually could have avoided paying the penalty for 2014 if I had applied for coverage I had no reasonable expectation of being able to pay for, in order to get an ECN, whatever that is, that I hadn't heard about, and had intentionally looked for.

You guys need to get socialized health care. Do you know what I did when I had my stroke? I went to the hospital and said "Fix it", and they did. My tax dollars at work.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
If one considers human life to be important, then I would suggest the ACA is at least somewhat successful in getting more insured. Plus medical inflation has declined from the 9% per year to 1 & 1/2% per year, the last figure I saw which probably was two years ago. A recent report by the CBO now has estimates lower than what they had projected some years ago.

'Tain't perfect by any means, but better 'n nuttin.
 

4consideration

*
Premium Member
You guys need to get socialized health care. Do you know what I did when I had my stroke? I went to the hospital and said "Fix it", and they did. My tax dollars at work.
I've heard a lot of that on RF, from Canadians that seem to like it.

In real life, in past years, (around 2007 & 2008) I was working and had occasion to be around a number of people from Canada on a regular basis that were traveling to the U.S. for education in some alternative health related classes, because they were unsatisfied with the health care in Canada. In a personal conversation, one woman I knew (not well) from Canada (who was actually complaining to me about her husband) told me when she had a C-section she had to wait all day for a surgeon to come and close her up, and she was angry about the fact that her husband would not go down and purchase something like Ibuprophen, since she was in pain, and they didn't provide her with pain medication. That kind of thing has stuck in my mind when I think about socialized medicine, even though it may be an isolated kind of thing.

We may be headed for that, and maybe it's necessary. Looks to me like Obamacare was constructed in a way so as to destroy private medicine. I wish they would have been honest about it.

I think with the way this whole transparent-as-mud healthcare debacle that's been going, we're in serious danger of a complete (and planned) collapse of health insurance companies.

It seems (as was mentioned in the OP linked article) the Supreme Court will be deciding in the summer if the 111th Congress put in place a law, that almost no one read before voting on, which has wording that makes the subsidies given through the very exchange established by the federal government, illegal. If a lot of people in 37 states who could afford ACA mandated coverage with a subsidy, cannot afford the same coverage without it, should those subsidies be withdrawn, my guess is a mass exodus of people from health insurance companies -- who are still required by law to provide coverage according to ACA standards, but with much fewer people participating.

Insurance companies are required to maintain certain levels of surplus, or it becomes illegal for them to continue writing coverage, and they may be considered insolvent, and closed. It seems to me they may not be able to weather a mass exodus, without the option to provide lesser/cheaper coverage those same people might be able to afford.

Hope I'm wrong. If this happens, my prediction is we have a fairly serious potential for the federal or state governments to be required by law to close lots of health insurance companies for not having enough money to stay in business, if or when the federal government stops paying according to these subsidies people are counting on. It is, IMO, a potentially serious situation on a mass scale, directly related to mandates imposed by the federal government.
 

Wirey

Fartist
In real life, in past years, (around 2007 & 2008) I was working and had occasion to be around a number of people from Canada on a regular basis that were traveling to the U.S. for education in some alternative health related classes, because they were unsatisfied with the health care in Canada. In a personal conversation, one woman I knew (not well) from Canada (who was actually complaining to me about her husband) told me when she had a C-section she had to wait all day for a surgeon to come and close her up, and she was angry about the fact that her husband would not go down and purchase something like Ibuprophen, since she was in pain, and they didn't provide her with pain medication. That kind of thing has stuck in my mind when I think about socialized medicine, even though it may be an isolated kind of thing.

She was lying. The same doctor who opens you up closes you (I've had three kids this way). Why would they leave? And why would you go buy Aspirin? If you ask they'll give it to you. It's free. More likely she wanted "Brand X Extra Strength Non-Diarrhea Pain Medication" and the hospital said "We have this".
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I keep hearing this stuff, but I have never met a single person it has happened to.
Fact of the matter is that it isn't actually much longer of a wait. In fact American Emergency rooms have a longer average wait time than Canada. The only time it is ever a difference in wait time is usually to see specialists and only if your condition isn't dire.
 

Wirey

Fartist
I just asked around the office, and one guy remembers a story about someone from Quebec going to the Mayo clinic because she had an incredibly rare disease. Quebec footed the bill.
 
Top