U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-25-2015, 01:33 PM
 
432 posts, read 229,735 times
Reputation: 905

Advertisements

I have an eight thousand dollar deductible that costs 450 per month. We are supposed to see a 38% increase in this cost with the next coverage year. I haven't been to a dr besides my gyno in years. We had our old policy canceled when ACA (haha) passed. I'd like to know how in the heck 450 per month with an 8000 deductible is affordable for most people? Fortunately I can afford it but I am darn tired of paying these premiums and then have a high deductible.

In December of 2013 I had a prescription that previously cost me in the low twenties. When DH got a refill for me July of 2014 the cost was over $332. I do NOT call any of this affordable care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-25-2015, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,012 posts, read 13,578,167 times
Reputation: 22098
Quote:
Originally Posted by WouldLoveTo View Post
At least THAT was affordable
yeah unless you got sick
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2015, 02:16 PM
 
6,354 posts, read 3,575,892 times
Reputation: 7272
I was uninsured for 4 years before the ACA. I was very lucky to age into Medicare right before it became mandated. Let me give a different view of this. I did not care whether I had insurance after I quit my job. My husband was/is still working and he could have insured me under his plan, for a total of about $1,000 a month for both us. Yeah, we could have scraped that up, but we, especially ME, considered all that money being thrown away. When I was working and had my own employer insurance ($360 month/only me), I never used it. The one time I went to Emergency Care Clinic, not by MY choice, for food poisoning, even that did not meet my $3,500 deductible and we had to pay $2,500 out of pocket. Pointless for health insurance. Oh, yeah, my former employer's health insurance covered a LOT of FREE Preventive Care, as does Medicare. Thanks, but no thanks. Tell me HOW that will prevent food poisoning, cracking your head on a tree, or getting into an accident?

In the past 30+ years, I have had health insurance, on and off over the years. It made absolutely no difference at all to me. NEVER went to the ER with any issues just because I did not have insurance. LUCKY during all those decades? lol Hello? I did not go to, or HAVE, my own personal doctor when I DID have insurance. I believe the medical professionals call people like me "high risk taking" individuals. Ok, maybe I will agree with that, but they aren't going to change us.

ACA? I can tell you that if I wasn't OLD when it came into effect, I would have been very, very ANGRY being forced into my husband's $1,000/month plan, or any other, when I did not WANT it, or intend to use to.

I simply do not like the idea of being forced into health insurance, or health CARE, when you do not want it. While my view may not be the norm for people my age, I am sure a lot of YOUNG PEOPLE will agree. You WANT it, and medical treatment, that is YOUR choice and should be available, but not if you DON'T.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2015, 02:30 PM
 
5,248 posts, read 5,168,715 times
Reputation: 6242
I guess my parents are lucky. They are low income but do not qualify for any state plans. They have a silver plan and because of their income, they receive a substantial amount of credit and for both of them pay $100something/month. Their prescriptions are reasonably priced. And I was very thankful when they were able to acquire insurance, because both of my parents have a myriad of health issues and my dad has two heart conditions---he had been disqualified from a city job because he failed the physical due to these heart conditions. I don't think anyone would have insured them before and if someone would have, their insurance costs would have been insane.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2015, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Northern Virginia
336 posts, read 417,284 times
Reputation: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48 View Post
ACA? I can tell you that if I wasn't OLD when it came into effect, I would have been very, very ANGRY being forced into my husband's $1,000/month plan, or any other, when I did not WANT it, or intend to use to.

I simply do not like the idea of being forced into health insurance, or health CARE, when you do not want it. While my view may not be the norm for people my age, I am sure a lot of YOUNG PEOPLE will agree. You WANT it, and medical treatment, that is YOUR choice and should be available, but not if you DON'T.
Supposed someone just like you described got into a horrible car accident, got taken to a hospital, and required multiple surgeries. The person does not have insurance and the hospital bill is $45,000. The person does not have sufficient asset to satisfy the bill. Who pays for the person's healthcare in that case?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2015, 02:52 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Beach
1,498 posts, read 1,189,287 times
Reputation: 3790
If you don't want to be forced to get insurance, why did you sign up for Medicare?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2015, 02:56 PM
 
9,526 posts, read 4,866,768 times
Reputation: 3870
Quote:
Originally Posted by take57 View Post
Scaliaism of the day: jiggery-pokery
I like something Scalia wrote even more, but first this from Roberts:

"The act does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation."

From Scalia:

"We should start calling this law SCOTUScare."

They're both right. The SC has rewritten the law at least 3 times to keep it alive. After declaring that a 'penalty' is a 'tax' it's no surprise they the majority used jiggery-pokery to now rule that 'an exchange established by the State' is really, truly an exchange established by the federal government.

{ Jiggery-pokery is dishonest manipulation or nonsense, akin to hocus pocus, humbug, bambosh, baloney, bunkum, hogwash, flapdoodle, flim-flam, flumadiddle, rubbish, hooey, hot air, motormouthing, poppycock or malarkey}
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2015, 02:56 PM
bg7
 
7,697 posts, read 8,163,628 times
Reputation: 15093
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
Greatly disagree with the opinion. While the whole point about the statutory scheme (and that Congress didn't intent to destroy the health care industry) point is well taken, its ridiculous to say that the law is ambiguous. Indeed, it states that subsidies are available for exchanges "established by the State." The "state" is then defined to include the 50 states plus DC. Not the Federal government. Nothing ambiguous here.

Its not the Supreme Court's job to correct misapplied assumptions by Congress (in this case, that states would all fall in line and establish their own exchanges) and to save an otherwise unworkable law.

Out of context, ....because I don't have the whole document in front of me, but the phrase "the State" can be the federal government. The term "the State" is used in writing, and has been for hundreds of years in English to mean the government or a legislature of a country. While not common in American English, its not precluded.

You say "state" (lower case s) is defined as the 50 states plus DC. Is the State defined that way? Also is there any difference between "the State" and "a state" as in the Government versus a state of the United States?

Perhaps it is not ambiguous, but your post doesn't show that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2015, 03:18 PM
 
Location: College Hill
2,903 posts, read 2,779,005 times
Reputation: 1787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Bully View Post
Not surprising. Whatever they blackmailed Roberts with the first time around was likely to sway his hand this time as well.

Sore Loserman. Great day for America!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2015, 03:19 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,605 posts, read 31,475,774 times
Reputation: 29071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panu16 View Post
Supposed someone just like you described got into a horrible car accident, got taken to a hospital, and required multiple surgeries. The person does not have insurance and the hospital bill is $45,000. The person does not have sufficient asset to satisfy the bill. Who pays for the person's healthcare in that case?
The same We the People who now pay for the subsidies. Who else?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top