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.
Lots of the negative comments and feelings about the ACA is based on ignorant political parroting. They were told they are not supposed to like or support the ACA because it's bad for them. Unfortunately, we have become a country of rats where the Pied Piper is leading them to their death but they merrily sing and dance because that was what they were told to do by their political leader. When discussing the ACA, you'll see independent mature thought give way to the same old tired political rhetoric of those who did more to destroy the ACA so it never had a fair chance to succeed.
Had the ACA been allowed to operate without political interference, the odds are it would not have had the cost rising issues or had insurance companies scared away by bias regulations and attacks. Sadly the only ones hurt by this was the people, yet many still are too stupid to think for themselves so they continually fight against the ACA even if they were some of the biggest beneficiaries of the ACA. Just shows how stupid americans really are.
And to add, I bet if the ACA is abolished and things go back to what it was, many of those ACA haters will find out real quick why the ACA wasn't as bad as they were told to belive it was. But on the bright side, if it does happen, we can at least start thinning the heard of ignorant idiots as they die because they can't pay for health care. And you know whats funny, I will just walk over their rotting bodies. Oh how I wish it comes true!
This is nonsense. The law was not bipartisan, it was passed 100% by the Democratic party who own it. Don't you remember Jonathan Gruber, the economist hired by Obama to work on Obamacare was depending on the stupidity of the American voters? The law was basically designed to fail so it could be replaced with single payer.
Or Dr Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm's brother and the doctor working on Obamacare suggesting that 75 years old is a good year to die. Some confidence in providing quality healthcare for the American people. https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...reator-die-75/
This interests me. Which health insurance plan did you have prior to 2014 that was better than the ACA is today? Presumably, you are not comparing different situations, such as being under an employer plan then to being on the ACA now.
More specifically, what plan did you have have prior to implementation of the ACA that offered coverage for pre-existing conditions?
I had a plan that did cover pre-existing conditions. It also paid my entire $25,000 hospital bill minus a small co-pay, when I spent 5 weeks being diagnosed with my current neurological disease. It did not bankrupt me, and didn’t have out of area doctors sending me bills the insurance wouldn’t pay. I was surprised that it covered all of my needs despite only getting the coverage 5 months prior after spending 7 years with no coverage. The monthly premium was less that $300 too. I realize that this plan was not available to everyone, but it was available to anyone who lived in MD, where I lived at the time. I wish we still had that policy to be honest. In 2010 it was canceled due to the ACA. I have yet to see an ACA plan that offers as good coverage as that plan did for less than several times the monthly premium, and at least a $6000 to 12000 deductibles and/or out of pocket. However, the ACA did do away with the lifetime limits on that plan.
If the ACA had really made insurance more affordable then it would definitely be better than that plan. With the current coats, it’s not.
Insurance has always been on a state by state basis for health and auto. I agree it shouldn't be
...three states already allow it: Georgia, Maine and Wyoming. In fact, so does the Affordable Care Act, as long as all states involved agree to it.
However, for several reasons, “not a single insurance company has offered” to sell a product approved in one state to people in another, the report said.
Having read several comments complaining about the ACA, I'm curious as to whether anyone here feels that they were better off prior to implementation of the ACA.
I ask because, one is only supposed on the ACA if ineligible for any other health care plan. This means that those on the ACA now might be completely unable to obtain coverage for pre-existing conditions if the ACA had not been passed. I have trouble understanding how this lack of coverage could be preferable to being on the ACA, even if the premiums are higher than promised.
Given the above, I would be interested in hearing from those who feel they'd be better off without the ACA, and if so, what health insurance you would be on instead and whether that alternative plan would cover you for pre-existing conditions.
Personally, yeah. But I'm relatively young, mid 30s, healthy, and above 400% of the FPL so I don't qualify for the welfare aspects of ACA.
Many states, California being one, do not allow non-ACA plans to be sold. It's hard to say what a pre-ACA plan would cost today, but I currently spend $3,000/year more for an ACA plan with the same deductible as I did prior to ACA. Maybe it would be $2,000/year more today due to the price increase. So yeah, that's $2,000 a year out of my pocket. Up until Trump's executive order though, even if you lived in a state that did permit non-ACA plans to be sold you still paid the tax penalty. So if they were available, perhaps I'd have saved $2,000 on premiums but then my tax penalty would have been right around $2,000. Pick your poison based on income level. They were about the same for me, someone who made more would be better off going with a more expensive ACA plan as their tax penalty would be higher. Someone who made less would be better off with a non-ACA plan and just paying the penalty.
My husband and I are self employed and were self employed prior to the ACA being implemented. We had BCBS coverage.
Finally, my husband was able to sign up in a consortium sort of situation as an independent contractor and now we are thrilled to be paying "only" $1000 a month with a $5000 each deductible, but it's a PPO with a wide "this is in plan" circle so whew! Caught a break there!
.
Would you be able to tell me what consortium situation your husband was able to join? I too am self employed and am looking at options. Thank you for your help. Please DM me if you don't feel comfortable giving this information out in public. Thank you.
This interests me. Which health insurance plan did you have prior to 2014 that was better than the ACA is today? Presumably, you are not comparing different situations, such as being under an employer plan then to being on the ACA now.
More specifically, what plan did you have have prior to implementation of the ACA that offered coverage for pre-existing conditions?
Blue Cross, equivalent of a bronze plan.
2014 I switched to Aetna as Blue Cross stopped covering Hill Physicians, which is my doctor.
2015 I switched back to Blue Cross as they started covering Hill Physicians again and Aetna left my area. The major difference was it just cost about 80% more in two years for basically the same coverage.
2016 Blue Cross left so I switched to Kaiser, it was around double the price it was three years ago for Kaiser, which generally I would consider lower quality of care than Hills/Sutter. But it was Kaiser or HealthNet. HealthNet is awful and really expensive, so Kaiser it is.
2017 Still with Kaiser, didn't increase that much.
2018 Still with Kaiser, went up to to 300% of 2013 prices. Partly that was moving in 2017 to an area that's just more expensive, around 260% if I was still in the same area.
2019 is the big mystery. California won't see the big increases that other markets will as it set prices for 2018 assuming most of the stuff like getting rid of the individual mandate and cost-sharing subsidies would be eliminated. We already took that 20-40% price increase for 2018 that other markets will take in 2019. But we'll see when they release the actual 2019 prices.
2014 I switched to Aetna as Blue Cross stopped covering Hill Physicians, which is my doctor.
2015 I switched back to Blue Cross as they started covering Hill Physicians again and Aetna left my area. The major difference was it just cost about 80% more in two years for basically the same coverage.
2016 Blue Cross left so I switched to Kaiser, it was around double the price it was three years ago for Kaiser, which generally I would consider lower quality of care than Hills/Sutter. But it was Kaiser or HealthNet. HealthNet is awful and really expensive, so Kaiser it is.
2017 Still with Kaiser, didn't increase that much.
2018 Still with Kaiser, went up to to 300% of 2013 prices. Partly that was moving in 2017 to an area that's just more expensive, around 260% if I was still in the same area.
2019 is the big mystery. California won't see the big increases that other markets will as it set prices for 2018 assuming most of the stuff like getting rid of the individual mandate and cost-sharing subsidies would be eliminated. We already took that 20-40% price increase for 2018 that other markets will take in 2019. But we'll see when they release the actual 2019 prices.
I don't recall your stating your employment/business situation. It seems that you are likely self-employed. My post was prompted by the view that the people on the ACA today would be without coverage for pre-existing conditions if the ACA didn't exist. It appears that one category of insured persons for whom this is not true is the self-employed.
If costs truly have risen across the board for self-employed people due to the ACA, that's truly unfortunate. The main difference between self-employed people and others regarding the pre adn post ACA situation seems not to be the ACA itself, but instead the fact that self-employed people, in contrast to others currently insured under the ACA, were in fact able to obtain coverage for pre-existing conditions even prior to passage of the ACA. On that point, this thread was educational for me. So thanks to the contributors for that information.
I don't recall your stating your employment/business situation. It seems that you are likely self-employed. My post was prompted by the view that the people on the ACA today would be without coverage for pre-existing conditions if the ACA didn't exist. It appears that one category of insured persons for whom this is not true is the self-employed.
If costs truly have risen across the board for self-employed people due to the ACA, that's truly unfortunate. The main difference between self-employed people and others regarding the pre adn post ACA situation seems not to be the ACA itself, but instead the fact that self-employed people, in contrast to others currently insured under the ACA, were in fact able to obtain coverage for pre-existing conditions even prior to passage of the ACA. On that point, this thread was educational for me. So thanks to the contributors for that information.
State insurance rules had a lot to do with with quality of plans you found pre ACA. In NY, the plans were community rated. Very expensive, but good coverage.
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.
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.
