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.
Many ignore the annual out of pocket caps which include the deductible and co-pays.
Those with greater expectations of the need to rely on ongoing healthcare are more likely to purchase gold or platinum plans and pay more because they expect to use more.
Oh, wonderful advice! Thank you!
So a fifty-something couple with health trouble can "go for the ACA gold" at a cost of $1,961.44 monthly, and get a nice low $500 deductible and an out of pocket maximum of $7,000 for the couple. So on an annual basis, add up your $23,500 in premiums plus your $7,000 in out of pocket costs and you get total health outlays of $30,500. And this is not Health Savings Account compliant so there are no breaks on costs.
What is getting cancelled January 1 costs me $1,010 monthly with an out of pocket maximum for the couple of $6,000. On an annual basis, about $18,000 total health outlays, worst case. And that is HSA compliant so there was a tax break on out-of-pocket.
Follow closely: $30,500 in costs is WORSE than $18,000 in costs. Ask someone who knows arithmetic if you do not believe me.
Why is the government better to determine whats good coverate, rather than you and the insurance company?
Your insurer has never been a part of determining what's best for you. Your insurer is in the business of making money. Those insurers who sold sub prime plans with high deductibles, low lifetime caps and exclusions were on the gravy train.
Being underinsured implies an intent to stiff the healthcare system, should your medical situation cost you substantially more than your own determination.
Your insurer has never been a part of determining what's best for you. Your insurer is in the business of making money. Those insurers who sold sub prime plans with high deductibles, low lifetime caps and exclusions were on the gravy train.
Being underinsured implies an intent to stiff the healthcare system, should your medical situation cost you substantially more than your own determination.
I disagree, since most people dont have "catastrophic" incidences yearly. Its also not health insurance if you cant afford it, have your policy cancelled, or choose to pay the fine either.
Catastrophic means different things to different people. Obviously, some who post here view the base premium as catastrophic.
Indeed most people do not incur a true catastrophic risk. Actuaries know what percentage of the people they insure will have a catastrophic situation. What they or any of us don't know is if it's going to be our click on the rotary, or not.
One day in outpatient surgery could blow through a non ACA compliant cap in a heartbeat.
Many assume all healthcare insurance is alike.
You do realize that a $10 million lifetime cap is a "non ACA compliant cap," don't you? You gonna blow through that in a heartbeat?
I wish people would stop acting like the 85% of us that had insurance before ACA and liked it just fine are like children who could not possibly understand the complexities.
Reputable insurers have always met their obligations on claims. Most people had no trouble with insurance pre-ACA. Were there unaddressed problems and issues and things that needed fixing? YES. Obamacare will turn out to be one of the failures on the road to eventual success. Let's admit it and get on down the road.
Is the fact that people are telling you over and over again, that their getting screwed, and that even looking at your precious exchanges that it's not what they want or need... completely lost on you?
The fact is some folks are losing their insurance. The fact is some folks benefits are changing for the worse.
The fact is some folks premiums are skyrocketing.
The fact is some folks do not get a subsidy to make it "affordable."
The fact is... you, nor the government have any right to be telling these folks what is or isn't good...
Well this is a new one. I am not aware of anyone who had richer benefits pre ACA than post ACA. Please explain.
I have no issue with those who chose not to adequately insure their risks not receiving medical attention, including in the ER, unless they can pay for it out of pocket. That's me. Right now, your government feels you have a right to the ER, regardless of your insurance status or ability to pay for it.
As mentioned, maybe this could be a future amendment. To make it " fair" no one, including ERs, should be required to treat or medicate anyone, unless they "show the money" or the hospital transfers the debt to a bank and you agree to a payment plan at the maximum amount of interest allowed under state law.
So you're suggesting we allow people to DIE, just to make Obamacare seem like a success?
Catastrophic means different things to different people. Obviously, some who post here view the base premium as catastrophic.
Indeed most people do not incur a true catastrophic risk. Actuaries know what percentage of the people they insure will have a catastrophic situation. What they or any of us don't know is if it's going to be our click on the rotary, or not.
Which is why Obamacare is one of the DUMBEST bills ever passed.. It tries to make a one plan fit all scenario..
Whats weird is these are the same people who wined that $6 a month birth control needed to be covered because people couldnt afford it, but now all of a sudden they have $6k a year to pay for deductibles..
And they arent even embarassed by their position, thats what sad..
I don't think they're smart enough to figure that out. Continuing to defend 0care proves it.
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.