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.
Fact: 15% of Americans have some type of "pre existing condition"
Fact: 50 million Americans do not have health insurance
Fact: 50-60% of Americans have access to employer health care. Most employer health plans do not exclude against pre existing conditions.
Fact 15% have Medicare which does not exclude against pre existing conditions
Fact 15% have medicaid which does not exclude against pre existing conditions
Fact 10% have VA/tricare which does not exclude against pre existing conditions.
Fact:5% of Americans buy insurance on the indivudal market that DOES potentially exclude against pre existing conditions.
So do the math. If 5% of Americans buy individual insurance that can deny them coverage. And of that amount 15% have pre existing conditions. We are talking at most 2 million Americans who potentially can be denied insurance on the indivudal market. And the vast marjority have minor pre existing conditions like well controlled hypertension or diabetes. So we are really talking 1-2 million who are the "true uninsurables". That's not a lot relative to the 315-330 million Americans the ACA is trying to help.
Now let's break down the 50 million who currently do not have health care.
Fact: 15 million of those 50 million have household incomes over 75k a year
Fact: 15-20 million of those uninsured are under age 25. The vast marjority of young adults do not have any major health issues and can easily get a major comprehensive medical plan with a $2000-2500 deductible that's HSA compatible for less than what they pay for a night out on the town partying or less than one months iPhone/android smartphone indivudal phone bill on Verizon or ATT n
You guys see my point?
1: the people affected by pre existing conditions on the indivdual market is extremely small who cannot get health insurance. Employer/Medicare/medicaid/Va plans all cover pre existing conditions. Most employer plans have no waiting period for pre existing conditions as well
2. The 50 million uninsured is completely over blown. The "true" number is probably closer to 15-20 million and the ACA is going to put 15 million on the free medicaid yet leave an estimated 30 million Americans still without insurance.
3. Oh the popular keep kids till age 26 means extemely little except add to the insurance company bottom line. Again I go back to young adults who can get their own plans for less than $100/month a comprehensive major medical HSA compatible $2000-2500 deductible.
So the ACA ends up helping about 15 million medicaid patients. It's free care. It helps 2-3 million with pre existing medical conditions on the individual market.
And it's going to cost 2-3 trillion and still leave the same 30 million people without health insurance.
Don't drag the young, but sensible folks like me into this. I don't know what your age is, but don't forget who raised this current crop of neo communists...
I'm just glad I worked for a decent company that provides health insurance at no cost to me. A small victory even though the idiots reelected one of their own.
So you're okay therefore the heck with everyone else? And what happens when your 'decent company' has to let you go? COBRA is very expensive.
The funny thing is that the ACA programs and other 'entitlements' will be there when you need them, even if you hate them and the people who made them possible.
As a Democrat, I will be pleased for you to have these services.
Most people still get their insurance through their employer. Only those who work for companies of fewer than 50 will have to buy individual policies. And who says only 10% can afford more than a bronze plan?
I smell hypocrisy!
Do we need to keep repeating ourselves? We have shown you fools news stories about hundreds of thousands of people who lost their employer insurance, because of 0bamaCare. We also showed you stories where the employers dropped employee spouses and families off their policies.
So don't play stupid with these "I smell hypocrisy" comments, you will just look foolish and ignorant.
So you can't refute the numbers...... Attacking the source is a very weak argument.
I refute the numbers.
Someone, anyone, tell me where the numbers are coming from in the table that accompanies the article. The article has a section on "methodology" that, son-of-a-gun, says nothing about the actual numbers they use.
For example, the number on the table that corresponds to a 27-year-old in Alabama buying health insurance through the exchange. The number - $216 plus change - does that correspond to a specific Obamacare health insurance plan? If so, which plan?
And for the same 27-year-old in Alabama .... for the health insurance plan purchased on the open market ... does that plan match in features and coverages the health insurance plan offered through the exchange for $216?
Because if they're not talking about the same plan - the same kind of plan (HMO, fee-for-service, etc.), the same deductibles and co-pays, the same coverages, etc. - then this article and table are worthless. They're comparing apples to oranges, and that doesn't help anyone.
I asked in two different posts yesterday about the numbers, and apparently no one knows where the numbers are coming from, yet people don't have any problem arguing about the numbers. And that just doesn't make any sense.
Perhaps that's what the not-so-helpful folks responsible for the article and table intended all along: to spread misinformation and confusion.
TRANSLATION: I can't refute anything the article said, but I hate it anyway. So I'll try to imply somehow that its data isn't accurate, even though I can't cite any examples, and hope that somebody believes my smears instead of their documented results.
Transaltion: I took Heritage Foundation's BS and swallowed hook line and sinker without checking other sources, I believe in the Gospel according to Heritage.
Transaltion: I took Heritage Foundation's BS and swallowed hook line and sinker without checking other sources, I believe in the Gospel according to Heritage.
It is like believing the smoking industry when they tell you cigarettes are good for you.
My wife's current coverage (she's a cancer survivor) costs $639 a month under Washington state's high risk pool, with a $2500 deductible, 20% co-pay, and $5000 maximum out-of-pocket.
Under the ACA, her premium will be $397, with a $2500 deductible, 20% co-pay, and $6100 out-of-pocket limit.
That looks like a savings of $242 per month, offset by a higher out-of-pocket maximum (by $1100).
These plans are a ripoff for those self employed making more than 94k with a family of four compared to non ACA plans.
And lets get real. The non ACA plans were comprehensive major medical with a $7000 deductible HSA. My premiums were around $10000 for 2013 with a $7000 deductible. So I know my max out of pocket cost would be $17000.
For 2014. I am looking at close to 14000 in premiums with a $7000 deductible. Or $10000 in premiums with a $12000 deductible.
Essentially a 40% increase n
And why is there subsidy for 399% of poverty and none for 401% of poverty. That means u make $500 less the government will kick u back $5000 in subsidies vs the guy who makes $500 more. Unbelievable.
I too am self employed and do not qualify for a subsidy. I am however carried on my husband's employer's group healthcare policy so I am not in need of a individual policy. Husband qualifies for Medicare so if he retires he 's going to be good to go. I would need my own policy and for this reason, I have paid close attention to costs and benefits pre and post ACA.
I was mentally prepared to see my ACA compliant potential premium double, given the richness of the benefits. I was surprised to see that my cost would decline under ACA for substantially improved benefits. I can and do appreciate that mileage varies.
The thing about any subsidy is that there is a cut-off. If the subsidy pushed to 401% of the FPL, those in the 402% bracket have a beef. That there is an opportunity for a subsidy for someone with an earned income of 399% of the FPL says a whole lot more about the cost of healthcare in the U.S., than anything else. Healthcare cost is approaching 20% of GDP, multiples of what in costs in the rest of the developed world. This mores o than anything else should outrage the people, yet it seems to get lost in the anti ACA rhetoric. Why is this?
The ACA took a lot of fringe niche healthcare insurers out of the running because they refused to compete on a level playing field. They made their money selling sub prime policies to the masses who thought all insurance was the same. They often had no serious bargaining power with healthcare systems and therefore no ability to discount costs via PPO arrangements. These sub prime policies usually contained one or more characteristics, high deductibles, low life time caps and plenty of exclusions.
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.
