Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Personal Finance
 [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)
 
Old 10-21-2013, 10:07 AM
 
2,280 posts, read 4,486,397 times
Reputation: 1852

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bxlefty23 View Post
in most states you could have gotten a plan with a 5000 dollar deductable for the 50-60 bucks if you were young and healthy not a 30k deductable

You leave out the fact that in most states, pre ACA I am saying, not with the ACA, you would have the above with no catastrophic coverage and that is what counts so much! Catastrophic coverage is so important! And everyone has that with ACA, whereas few did prior to the ACA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-21-2013, 10:11 AM
 
1,552 posts, read 3,158,632 times
Reputation: 1268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha Anne View Post
You leave out the fact that in most states, pre ACA I am saying, not with the ACA, you would have the above with no catastrophic coverage and that is what counts so much! Catastrophic coverage is so important! And everyone has that with ACA, whereas few did prior to the ACA.
i was very specifically referring to young healthy people. could a 70 year chain smoke get those rates? of course not
some people on here and people in general really think insurance companies exist to pay their medical bills.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2013, 11:35 AM
 
Location: NJ
31,771 posts, read 40,495,842 times
Reputation: 24590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha Anne View Post
You leave out the fact that in most states, pre ACA I am saying, not with the ACA, you would have the above with no catastrophic coverage and that is what counts so much! Catastrophic coverage is so important! And everyone has that with ACA, whereas few did prior to the ACA.
don't you have Medicaid after you blow through all your money?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2013, 01:11 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
21,669 posts, read 24,814,702 times
Reputation: 18896
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
don't you have Medicaid after you blow through all your money?
No, not generally. Gotta be below 138%, about $15,600 for a single adult.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2013, 01:31 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
21,669 posts, read 24,814,702 times
Reputation: 18896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martha Anne View Post
You leave out the fact that in most states, pre ACA I am saying, not with the ACA, you would have the above with no catastrophic coverage and that is what counts so much! Catastrophic coverage is so important! And everyone has that with ACA, whereas few did prior to the ACA.
No, most people had it prior to ACA as well. I think you'll see more people post-ACA. Some people will drop their insurance since it's often around 50% more expensive under ACA than it is currently. Others who qualify for the subsidy may choose to buy insurance. For my situation (20s, healthy) the break-even income is just about $30k.

I really don't know. How many people now are making between $15,600 and $30k (single, late 20s) for whom insurance will now be cheaper versus how many people now are making $30k+ (single, late 20s) for whom insurance will now be significantly more expensive? That's a fairly difficult question to answer. A much larger percentage of people making $30k+ already have insurance through work than do those making under $30k. The median household income for the 25-34 bracket is $52,000 per year, but there's some two-income households in there, some with families. Family over 4 @ 30k qualifies for Medicare. Employers are dropping family coverage options which is another twist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2013, 04:59 AM
bUU
 
Location: Florida
12,077 posts, read 10,656,566 times
Reputation: 8793
Quote:
Originally Posted by bxlefty23 View Post
right but pools are supposed to spread risk among those who have a similar statistical chance of risk or by charging those with high risk a lot more.
Who says? You're clearly confusing your personal preference with what is "supposed" to be. It isn't surprising that you oppose ACA given that you assume that your own personal preference is the only possible effective perspective that could prevail. The term echo chamber is coming up a lot this past week, and this is another good example of the impact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bxlefty23 View Post
you don't take a great driver, charge him as much as an atrosious driver and call it pooling risk bc it's not pooling risk, it's giving the good driver the shaft.
And there's no reason not to handle auto insurance differently from health insurance. Automobile transportation should be considered a luxury. Society's best interest is in motivating people to live close to where they work and use public transportation, and it isn't an essential of life to live in the suburbs and commute by car to work. By contrast, if you have cancer, it is an essential of life to receive cancer treatment. See the difference? A really critical difference between ACA supporters and ACA detractors is that the latter often work very hard to blind themselves to critical distinctions and otherwise deny nuances that make, literally, all the difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bxlefty23 View Post
we are both entitled to our opinion, but taking money from one person and giving it to another is absolutely stealing
False. No - worse than that - self-deception. Stealing has implies "without permission or legal right". Taxation has legal standing. That has been affirmed by the SCOTUS many times. It isn't stealing. It isn't even taking. Income is a recompense for work. Taxation is a legal mechanism that results in you receiving an amount of recompense which is less than 100% of the gross salary. You get less money from your work. No one takes money away from you. It was never yours, because what's yours is your net salary, not your gross salary. That's the law. It's affirmed by the SCOTUS. If you really truly don't want the SCOTUS defining what is and isn't legal, then you really must pick up and find another nation to live in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bxlefty23 View Post
the whole responsible to society is a crock as well.
Thank you for confirming that your perspective is grounded firmly in a callous disregard for others - that you advocate a literally antisocial perspective.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2013, 05:25 AM
 
20,793 posts, read 61,105,495 times
Reputation: 10691
Quote:
Originally Posted by bxlefty23 View Post
in most states you could have gotten a plan with a 5000 dollar deductable for the 50-60 bucks if you were young and healthy not a 30k deductable
Not true at all....care to back that up with some actual proof? I live in what has been the lowest health insurance premium state for years and I have NEVER seen a plan with premiums that low with a $5000 deductible. Plans with a deductible that low are in the $120 range...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bxlefty23 View Post
we are both entitled to our opinion, but taking money from one person and giving it to another is absolutely stealing- whether or not is is beneficial is another question.in this case you're literally taking money out of young healthy people's pockets and putting into older people's pockets and to those who have health problems.i'd have a lot less of a problem with it if so many people didn't treat their bodies like garbage disposals.

the whole responsible to society is a crock as well.most people who greatly benefit from other people's money couldnt give 2 ****s about all the people in the world who have it way worse than them.
Try this, go live in a low tax state and try to get social services or attend their schools...places like Alabama or Mississippi...then go do the same in MA, MN, both high tax states..and then come back and tell us how much of a crock the concept is....

People are also forgetting that insurance has ALWAYS worked this way. It's not a new concept to the ACA. The risk has ALWAYS been spread out between the healthy and the sick and everyone in between..young or old....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2013, 06:44 AM
 
1,552 posts, read 3,158,632 times
Reputation: 1268
Who says? You're clearly confusing your personal preference with what is "supposed" to be. It isn't surprising that you oppose ACA given that you assume that your own personal preference is the only possible effective perspective that could prevail. The term echo chamber is coming up a lot this past week, and this is another good example of the impact.



No not because I said no, I didn't invent insurance- insurance companies and actuaries say so.When you take a young healthy person and charge them the same amount of money for insurance as an old unhealthy person you are merely stealing money from the young person and giving it to the old person. Real insurance is based on paying a premium based on statistical risk. What's next mandating all home owners insurance is merely based on the value of the property rather than things like the likelihood of natural disasters or the safety of the neighborhood?Life insurance rates that aren't based on the age or health/lifestyle of the person being insured?

The reason people get insurance for anything is to avoid financial damage should the event being insured against happening.By definition it has a negative expectation.I don't insure a phone or a laptop because they are terrible bets statistically and the amount of money at steak isn't worth worrying about.On my own before the aca I got health insurance because I'm worried about something catastrophic happening not because I will get sick once in a while.

It's not just my personal preference- it's the reason insurance exists to begin with.You pay a premium based on your risk.If I live a long time I should pay more for health insurance when I'm old, I should pay more for car insurance if I'm a ****ty driver, I should pay more for hurricane insurance if I live in an area that often gets hit by hurricanes.

Of course health insurance is more important than car insurance etc.And sadly people get old and die and even worse people get diseases that they in no way contributed to getting.And lots of people also live extremely unhealthy lifestyles that cause them to rack up all kinds of medical bills.If there is some random disease that strikes one in one hundred thousand people and it has nothing do with with life style/age then it is fair to spread that risk out evenly at the same premium.For this reason I could understand looking at health insurance a little differently than other kinds of insurance by not letting companies drop people. But a very large percentage of all the medical bills in this country come from old people and problems caused by living unhealthy lifestyles.We all either get old eventually or die before we get old and statistically will spend on a lot more on medical care if/when we get old than we do when we're young.

I'm against the aca among many other reasons because it's a deplorable in that it's trying to get young people to subsidize health care for older people. I'm perfectly fine with being pooled in a group with people are similar statisitcal risk,paying the same premiums they do and if I never need my insurance great. i have no problem with my money going to the insurance companies profit and to pay for other people in my group who needed the insurance.I have a huge problem being forced to pay for something I know is guaranteed to be subsidizing someone else.

And if you think I'm just after my own selfish interests-I live in NY which is one of if not the only state where my premium would actually be lowered by the aca (although it is still way higher than everywhere else) because insurance companies in NY already weren't allowed to discriminate based on age which is why my premium was already so high.The aca will actually save me some money, and I still think it is a disgrace.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2013, 07:04 AM
 
1,552 posts, read 3,158,632 times
Reputation: 1268
False. No - worse than that - self-deception. Stealing has implies "without permission or legal right". Taxation has legal standing. That has been affirmed by the SCOTUS many times. It isn't stealing. It isn't even taking. Income is a recompense for work. Taxation is a legal mechanism that results in you receiving an amount of recompense which is less than 100% of the gross salary. You get less money from your work. No one takes money away from you. It was never yours, because what's yours is your net salary, not your gross salary. That's the law. It's affirmed by the SCOTUS. If you really truly don't want the SCOTUS defining what is and isn't legal, then you really must pick up and find another nation to live in.

I couldnt agree more .
I am not disputing the legality of it. It may be legal but it is being done without permission. Just because it is legal does not mean it is not stealing.When fdr stole people's gold in this country it was done legally but it was still stealing.When this country stole the businesses of Japanese citizens in the country it was legal and it was stealing. There are many examples of stealing throughout the history of the world that were perfectly legal. That doesn't mean people werent stolen from.

All your rambling about Scotus has no bearing on whether or not it was theft.we are in agreement the aca/taxes are legal.Of course money gets taken away from me when I pay taxes. It was my money and then it is taken.I work for myself but when I pay my employees I pay them and then the govt comes in and takes their money.It's not very hard to follow the trail it's right on their w2s.the idea that what was taken wasn't their money is laughable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2013, 07:15 AM
 
1,552 posts, read 3,158,632 times
Reputation: 1268
Thank you for confirming that your perspective is grounded firmly in a callous disregard for others - that you advocate a literally antisocial perspective.

It's a crock because the vast majority of the time it's not about people wanting a better society, it's about them wanting more stuff and thinking those who have more than them should be the ones paying for it.I just gave you an example of me being against something even though it actually helps me financially.Very few people do that.

It's a crock because if these people really have half a **** about a better society they wouldnt be so concerned about the rich "sharing" more so they can have more things,better things etc.They would want rich people's money to actually better the world and not just their own selfish interests.There are people in the world who don't have basic things like food and water, who die of easily curable diseases,places where infant mortality rates are sky high and there are still a ton of slaves in this world. But the vast majority of people who always want more more more and think those more fortunate should be the ones paying for it couldnt give a **** about those signigicantly less fortunate than them. Hearing people like that talk what's better for society is an absolute crock.They live indoors, have plumbing, electrcty,usually tvs phone and the internet, water, don't die from bs diseases, aren't gonna starve to death and think people owe them something because they those people are better off than them.They need to put their hands back in their pockets because they live better than 99 pct of the people who have ever walked the face of the earth and better than most of the people on this planet today.If they want what's actually good for society that's great but way more often than not they just want what's better for them.

I don't have callous disregard for others- I want my money going to people who really need it and are in ****ed up situations through no fault of their own and never had a real opportunity to better themselves.The people who really have a callous diregard for others are the ones I just described- those who want free **** from people financially better off than them who don't give half a **** about those who have it way worse through no fault of their own.

Last edited by bxlefty23; 10-22-2013 at 07:36 AM..
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 > Economics > Personal Finance
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top