U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 10-29-2013, 11:38 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,584 posts, read 7,974,324 times
Reputation: 4146

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
She's 56 and I cannot fathom what the heck she bought for $54 a month.
So, your inability to fathom what she has, means that SHE must change?
Quote:
the lousiest healthcare policy in the nation
What part of "she is happy with the plan she has" don't you understand?

Apparently you seem to feel you are qualified to overrule her decision on what she wants.

And then, you further decide to impose your own decision on her, whether she likes it or not.

As I have long suspected, liberals are simply dictators in sheep's clothing.

Quote:
Her premiums for the bronze or silver plans would be $174-215/mo*.
So her premiums would triple or quadruple?

And you say that like it's a GOOD thing?

Again, what part of "She is happy with the plan she has" don't you understand?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-29-2013, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Louisiana
7,303 posts, read 3,980,723 times
Reputation: 5907
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
What plan? I pay $66.50 and have universal health care....No way $54 will cover anything.

The Weekly Standard is a neoconservative opinion magazine...I'm not buying this story at all.

Uhh...The Weekly Standard got the story from CBS News.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,712 posts, read 11,026,686 times
Reputation: 5600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
And the hits just keep on coming.

Have the people who came up with this scheme, explained where citizens will get the extra money they are required to pay for Obamacare?

----------------------------------------------------

Florida Woman's Insurance Rate Increases 10X Under Obamacare | The Weekly Standard

Florida Woman's Insurance Rate Increases 10X Under Obamacare

8:44 AM, Oct 28, 2013
by DANIEL HALPER

One Florida woman is going from paying $54 a month to $591 under Obamacare, CBS reports:

"For many, their introduction to the Affordable Care Act has been negative: A broken website, and now cancellation notices from insurance companies, followed by sticker shock over higher prices for the new plans," says a CBS reporter. "It's directly at odds from repeated assurances from the president."

"When I got this bill, I was outraged," CBS quotes a 56-year-old Florida resident who got dropped from her health care plan.

Her new plan will be 10 times higher than what she's paying now, jumping from $54 a month to $591.

"What I have right now is what I'm happy with, and I just want to know why I can't keep what I have," says the woman. "Why do I have to be forced into something else?"
From: Why This Woman's Health Care Plan Costs 994% More Under Obamacare - Arit John - The Atlantic Wire

This is the primary cost difference:

Quote:
Under her old limited liability plan Barrette wouldn't have been covered if she was admitted to the hospital, for instance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post

Again, what part of "She is happy with the plan she has" don't you understand?
She may be 'happy' until she needs to use a hospital.

Also:

Quote:
the health care law that was passed in 2010 outlined 10 essential benefits every plan has to provide: "ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care," according to Healthcare.gov. So while you can probably keep your doctor, you can't keep you bare bones limited liability plan.

Barrette's plan didn't offer most of this. According to the same GoBlue summary mentioned earlier, and a GoBlue representative, her plan:

Only paid "up to $50 per provider per date of service for covered services."
Discounted medicines, but didn't cover them. "Contraceptives and self-injectable drugs are not covered. GoBlue pays up to $5 or $15 per prescription, depending on the plan purchased."
Didn't cover maternity/pre-natal care or hospital visits.
The old plan was so cheap because it didn't cover much.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 01:27 PM
 
Location: South Portland, ME
874 posts, read 969,593 times
Reputation: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
It is funny..
For one, her new insurance is much different from her old insurance, so it is an apples to oranges comparison.
Its funny how few people realize that the PROBLEM is because it's become an "apples to oranges" comparison.

Here is a better example that is easier to follow.

Suppose there are two kinds of cars: a ****ty used KIA that only costs $5,000 or a nice BMW that costs $25,000

Even though the BMW is way better than the KIA, many people choose the KIA for many reasons - just because it's cheaper, because they don't care about all the extra stuff the BMW has, whatever.

However, let's say a law is passed that outlaws the KIA because it's "not safe enough" to drive and forces BMW to sell their car for $18,000, since it's the only car people can now buy.

That's a heck of a deal if you were already planning on buying the BMW for $25,000... but it's not a good deal AT ALL if you were only planning to buy the KIA for $5,000.

It's the same thing with health insurance. Some people DON'T WANT a lot of coverage, they would rather just pay the bare minimum and "risk it". What this new law is doing is making it so that they HAVE TO buy the expensive insurance, even if the expensive insurance is cheaper now than it used to be, it's still more expensive than the person is willing to pay for insurance and is therefore a BAD DEAL to them.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 01:28 PM
 
Location: Barrington
41,984 posts, read 31,779,380 times
Reputation: 14097
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyMack View Post
Her plan was basically worthless ...
Indeed it was.A function of ACA is consumer protection. That her existing plan did not provide for ER, hospitalization or treatment suggests either she did not realize the limitations or was rolling the dice till 65. What was her back up plan if she became seriously ill or has a serious accident? What are the odds for a 56 year old?The ACA price she was quoted was the gross price. She is eligible for subsidy and that changes her net cost.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 01:40 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
19,428 posts, read 9,756,057 times
Reputation: 7535
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoulesMSU View Post
Its funny how few people realize that the PROBLEM is because it's become an "apples to oranges" comparison.

Here is a better example that is easier to follow.

Suppose there are two kinds of cars: a ****ty used KIA that only costs $5,000 or a nice BMW that costs $25,000

Even though the BMW is way better than the KIA, many people choose the KIA for many reasons - just because it's cheaper, because they don't care about all the extra stuff the BMW has, whatever.

However, let's say a law is passed that outlaws the KIA because it's "not safe enough" to drive and forces BMW to sell their car for $18,000, since it's the only car people can now buy.

That's a heck of a deal if you were already planning on buying the BMW for $25,000... but it's not a good deal AT ALL if you were only planning to buy the KIA for $5,000.

It's the same thing with health insurance. Some people DON'T WANT a lot of coverage, they would rather just pay the bare minimum and "risk it". What this new law is doing is making it so that they HAVE TO buy the expensive insurance, even if the expensive insurance is cheaper now than it used to be, it's still more expensive than the person is willing to pay for insurance and is therefore a BAD DEAL to them.
No, it would be more like:
There are two cars. Car A can only be driven 5 miles a day, and will not start when you really need it, but only costs $5,000.
Car B can go as long as you wan it to go, is very reliable never breaks down, and costs $10,000.

Those that choose to buy car A can risk it, but if there is a serious need then the person with car B will have to drive them wherever they need to go.

That is what happens when people with the crappy or no insurance end up needing serious medical care that their policy doesn't cover. MY insurance rates go up to cover THEIR medical treatment.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 02:27 PM
 
8,487 posts, read 5,687,326 times
Reputation: 1113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
And the hits just keep on coming.

Have the people who came up with this scheme, explained where citizens will get the extra money they are required to pay for Obamacare?

----------------------------------------------------

Florida Woman's Insurance Rate Increases 10X Under Obamacare | The Weekly Standard

Florida Woman's Insurance Rate Increases 10X Under Obamacare

8:44 AM, Oct 28, 2013
by DANIEL HALPER

One Florida woman is going from paying $54 a month to $591 under Obamacare, CBS reports:

"For many, their introduction to the Affordable Care Act has been negative: A broken website, and now cancellation notices from insurance companies, followed by sticker shock over higher prices for the new plans," says a CBS reporter. "It's directly at odds from repeated assurances from the president."

"When I got this bill, I was outraged," CBS quotes a 56-year-old Florida resident who got dropped from her health care plan.

Her new plan will be 10 times higher than what she's paying now, jumping from $54 a month to $591.

"What I have right now is what I'm happy with, and I just want to know why I can't keep what I have," says the woman. "Why do I have to be forced into something else?"
Florida insurance is crazy. All of it. (Auto, HO etc...) Not surprised. They have like the 4th highest uninsured rate iirc.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 08:19 PM
 
Location: Out West
20,687 posts, read 15,469,075 times
Reputation: 24239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fancy-Schmancy View Post
It wasn't 'free'. They just paid you in insurance instead of in dollars. If you hadn't had insurance from your employer, they likely would have paid you more. And even if that weren't true, you were still trading work-hours for insurance costs.

Nothing is free.
Considering it was one of the highest paying jobs in that city, I would say it was free. (Barring movie producers, internet millionaires, lawyers, and business owners, that is.)
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 08:33 PM
 
Location: Geneva, IL
12,976 posts, read 11,803,744 times
Reputation: 14677
And finally an interview with this woman, and the truth comes out. The insurance she had previously was essentially worthless. And the $591 she quoted was the highest of 10 options, the lowest option being $209.Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren Out-Journalisms CBS News on Florida Woman’s Junk Insurance | Mediaite
Quote:
Crawford’s report omitted loads of key information, including the fact that 56 year-old Dianne Barrette’s old insurance plan barely even qualifies as insurance, paying only $50 toward most of the small list of covered services (Dianne pays the rest), and offering exactly zero coverage for hospitalization. Crawford also failed to mention that, based on her age and income, Barrette’s new plan would actually cost her about $209 a month, not $591.Actually, the plan BCBSFL was only one of many plans Dianne has to choose from, 10 of which are cheaper than that $591, and based on her income, she’d only pay around $209 a month, but Greta did cut right to the chase about the quality of her old plan. “Your $54 a month policy is a pretty, you know, bare bones policy, “Greta said. Actually, it doesn’t cover any hospital stays. It doesn’t cover any outpatient care, except for mammography, osteoporosis screening, diabetes self-management, and complications from pregnancy. For that handful of services, the plan pays $50, and Dianne pays the rest.

Last edited by Zimbochick; 10-29-2013 at 08:46 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2013, 08:42 PM
 
23,769 posts, read 16,043,994 times
Reputation: 8753
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
No, it would be more like:
There are two cars. Car A can only be driven 5 miles a day, and will not start when you really need it, but only costs $5,000.
Car B can go as long as you wan it to go, is very reliable never breaks down, and costs $10,000.

Those that choose to buy car A can risk it, but if there is a serious need then the person with car B will have to drive them wherever they need to go.

That is what happens when people with the crappy or no insurance end up needing serious medical care that their policy doesn't cover. MY insurance rates go up to cover THEIR medical treatment.
Yep!
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.


 
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top