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.
Strange that she didn't pay any premium and got a check;
It's called redistribution. Instead of purse snatching to steal your money they are using daddy government, they can't do it without us working fools you know. As to why, who knows, we can assume, maybe uneducated, to dumb to get educated, lazy, could be so many reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav
I certainly haven't got a check and my premiums went up over a year ago when my employer adopted the ACA and the deductible doubled; co-payment went up and drngs cost more plus out of pocket.It went up even higher for my employer .I can see the reason so many are asking and getting that year extension and unions are now griping on cost .I also notice I 2012 they ran out of funding for pre-existing subsidy before end of year, Its a mess; IMO.
I didn't get a check either and our premiums went up practically the minute Obamacare was passed. Employers were given a break but people weren't. The goal is to get as many of these free loaders on the exchanges as possible then try taking the baby cub away from it's mother, they would riot.
And that's before the exchanges even kick in--by making it a more consumer friendly process, the companies know they're going to have to become more competitive or go out of business. Great post and good catch.
Do you just pull garbage out of your backside? The insurance companies aren't "operating on the governments behalf." All the exchanges are is a centralized location where you can buy health care. The pros, cons, cost and coverage of every company is spelled out, side by side, so consumers can see exactly what they're buying, and how much it costs for what you get. The companies on the exchange are certified to meet certain standards for coverage and affordability before they can participate. No consumer can be turned down by a company. By making it easy to comparison shop, the companies who offer the best deal get the business. THAT'S how premiums will go down--if you don't offer a competitive product to consumers, you won't get the business. The competition doesn't come in on how much they pay for a procedure--it's the margin of profit they make on providing a service.
The push to make insurance companies actually deliver services is why the rebate system is in place now as well. If your insurance company is taking your premium, but spending less than 80% of those funds on actually providing health care, they're having to rebate the difference to consumers. Right now there are plans out there on the market that take advantage of consumers by taking your premium, covering very little, and pocketing the rest. If you're going to be in the business of providing health care coverage in this country, then you should actually cover health care. It's not complicated.
It is almost like a transparent market place, isn't it? No wonder the traditional players are worried.
Giving out $100 checks while simultaneously raising premiums or subsidizing increases with tax dollars has got to be the very definition of smoke and mirrors.
With people who vote buying into this scheme wholesale, its no wonder this country is ******
It's called redistribution. Instead of purse snatching to steal your money they are using daddy government, they can't do it without us working fools you know. As to why, who knows, we can assume, maybe uneducated, to dumb to get educated, lazy, could be so many reasons.
I didn't get a check either and our premiums went up practically the minute Obamacare was passed. Employers were given a break but people weren't. The goal is to get as many of these free loaders on the exchanges as possible then try taking the baby cub away from it's mother, they would riot.
She probably pays part of the premium to her employer through payroll deductions--good grief!! The employer and the employee split the refund on a prorated basis, and the refund comes from the INSURANCE COMPANY--not the government. IF she paid nothing, and her employer covered the entire cost of the insurance (how often does that happen?) then her employer CHOSE to give her a portion of the refund as an extra bennie. This has absolutely nothing to do with the government paying for squat.
The health care exchange is a clearing house to MARKET privately run health care companies that meet certain standards. It's not government run health care insurance, like Medicaid or Medicare. It's a process to go through to BUY private insurance affordably, where you can easily compare the pros and cons of each company side by side. You'll still be covered by companies like Cigna and Blue Cross Blue Shield just like people are now--not by something like medicare or medicaid.
Is this really that difficult for you to understand? As I keep saying, I don't think I'd be calling anyone else stupid...
You throw around insults like "dumb" and "stupid" a lot, and I don't think I'd go there. I'm amazed at how difficult it is for you to understand even very simple concepts.
Oh I know exactly what the concept is.. You're the one applauding the overpayment
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547
If I'm getting a rebate from a company because I discover that they're not providing a reasonable amount of coverage for the premium I pay, why would I stay with them?
I dont know, because you got your $100 rebate for the year and think its fabulous? Thats YOUR choice, not mine
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547
The rebate isn't as much a cash benefit for consumers as a way of making the insurance companies very visibly accountable to consumers--if you don't provide reasonable care, you have to pay pay back some of the premium, and your customers will know that you're not meeting standards. If I was Insurance company X, and I had to send out a ton of rebates , I'd be looking to raise my standards or lower my premium costs in order to stay in business.
Once again, what part of Obamacare creates an incentive to lower premiums? Why do you continue to ignore this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547
I said this earlier, but homeowners insurance is not the same as health insurance. Your maximum payout from the company is capped by the coverage you purchase, which could be as much as the entire replacement value of your home and possessions, and a set amount in liability for injuries that occur on your property. If your house burns down, there's a limit on the cost to you (replacement value). There's not that kind of limit on the costs that can be incurred by a catastrophic illness or traumatic injury--you could require profound medical care for decades. You're comparing apples to oranges.
My $132K home is insured for $1.5M.. I'm willing to bet I'll never claim anywhere near that in health benefits..
Giving out $100 checks while simultaneously raising premiums or subsidizing increases with tax dollars has got to be the very definition of smoke and mirrors.
With people who vote buying into this scheme wholesale, its no wonder this country is ******
How are increases subsidized with tax dollars? Premiums have been going through the roof for decades, but as another poster pointed out, the rate of increase has slowed now that companies know the health care exchanges start enrollment this October, and consumers will be able to see very clearly just what they're getting for the premium they would pay to each company. The refunds aren't based on how much your premium has gone up, or what you pay--it's based on whether or not the company you have insurance through is spending at least 80% of the money they take in on health care.
We have very good insurance through our company, and we pay a substantial price for it too. Just because we pay more doesn't mean we'll get a refund--it's based on whether or not the company is providing a reasonable amount of service for what we pay. If we pay more, but we're getting great services in return, then we won't get a refund.
How are increases subsidized with tax dollars? Premiums have been going through the roof for decades, but as another poster pointed out, the rate of increase has slowed now that companies know the health care exchanges start enrollment this October, and consumers will be able to see very clearly just what they're getting for the premium they would pay to each company. The refunds aren't based on how much your premium has gone up, or what you pay--it's based on whether or not the company you have insurance through is spending at least 80% of the money they take in on health care.
We have very good insurance through our company, and we pay a substantial price for it too. Just because we pay more doesn't mean we'll get a refund--it's based on whether or not the company is providing a reasonable amount of service for what we pay. If we pay more, but we're getting great services in return, then we won't get a refund.
Do you even know a dam thing about Obamacare? Its a subsidy, which comes from the taxpayers..
Oh I know exactly what the concept is.. You're the one applauding the overpayment
That's laughable, as you've proved over and over in this thread.
Quote:
I dont know, because you got your $100 rebate for the year and think its fabulous? Thats YOUR choice, not mine
Our company uses Cigna, and if we stay in network it's a $10 copay for pretty much everything, period. If we go out of network it's an 80/20 split. We've found that offering great benefits is more likely to help us retain great staff vs. offering higher salaries. We pay a pretty price for it, but we get good coverage in return. We added staff this year and we were able to negotiate prices down with them because our pool became bigger. In the businesses that we're in, staff retention is huge, because turnover is so costly. I'm not getting a refund from my insurer.
Quote:
Once again, what part of Obamacare creates an incentive to lower premiums? Why do you continue to ignore this?
I feel like I'm talking to a four year old. If consumers can see side by side just what they're getting from each company for their premium price, then consumers are going to pick the companies with the best deal. It takes the mystery and guesswork out of the process for consumers. If an insurance company isn't competitive with prices and service delivery, they're not going to stay in business. That's business 101--competition in the market. The trade off to make this work for insurance companies is that although they'll be forced to lower premium costs and provide better services, the mandatory coverage lowers their risk by putting more healthy people in the market--they'll be getting premiums from more people who don't have health care problems.
Quote:
My $132K home is insured for $1.5M.. I'm willing to bet I'll never claim anywhere near that in health benefits..
[/quote]
You crack me up. You say you're paying for supplemental coverage to boost the payout on a $132K home to $1.5M (what are planning on doing-- burning it down for the insurance?) but you don't want to pay for health care insurance (a more realistic need) beyond a catastrophic care policy. In fact, you went on to say that you're going to go without health insurance entirely and just pay the fine. Either you're completely full of crap, or you have no business telling anyone, ever, how to do anything.
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.
IF she paid nothing, and her employer covered the entire cost of the insurance (how often does that happen?) then her employer CHOSE to give her a portion of the refund as an extra bennie. This has absolutely nothing to do with the government paying for squat. 
