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.
Catherine McMorris Rodgers in the Republican Response to the State of The Union cited Bette in Spokane whose premiums increased by $700 per month because of the ACA. The Spokesman-Review was able to track down the real Bette. It turns out Bette was show a plan by her insurance broker that was about $700 higher but Bette refused to shop at the Washington State Exchange and look at other policies. Bette might be eligible for subsidies but you can only lead a horse to water you cant make him drink. Too bad McMorris-Rodgers didnt do some fact checking.
Yes, she should be forced to put her private information on the insecure website. Had she "been able to keep the plan she liked, period," she would have her same healthcare right now.
These "debunking" stories are always, "we think, maybe, if the person had gone on the exchanges, they possibly, might have, potentially, sort of, could have been eligible for a subsidy, maybe." People were assured they would be able to keep their plan. The president lied, and now they are being dragged through the mud if they don't want to deal with a faulty, insecure website.
Yes, she should be forced to put her private information on the insecure website. Had she "been able to keep the plan she liked, period," she would have her same healthcare right now.
These "debunking" stories are always, "we think, maybe, if the person had gone on the exchanges, they possibly, might have, potentially, sort of, could have been eligible for a subsidy, maybe." People were assured they would be able to keep their plan. The president lied, and now they are being dragged through the mud if they don't want to deal with a faulty, insecure website.
Ah, me thinks someone didn't actually read the article.
Quote:
But the “nearly $700 per month” increase in her premium that McMorris Rodgers
cited in Tuesday night’s GOP response to the State of the Union address was
based on one of the pricier options, a $1,200-a-month replacement plan that was
pitched by Asuris Northwest to Grenier and her husband, Don.
The carrier also offered a less expensive, $1,052-per-month option in lieu of
their soon-to-be-discontinued catastrophic coverage plan. And, Grenier
acknowledged the couple probably could have shaved another $100 a month off the
replacement policy costs by purchasing them from the state’s online portal, the
Health Plan Finder website, but they chose to avoid the government health
exchanges.
“I wouldn’t go on that Obama website at all,” said Grenier, 58, who lives in
the Chattaroy area and owns a roofing company with her husband. “We liked our
old plan. It worked for us, but they can’t offer it anymore.”
The point is, they were happy with their old plan. Which, from the article, we can conclude was about $500 a month. (the $1200 plan minus the "$700 increase" they mention). So rather than the $1200 plan, they went with the $1052 plan, a $550+ a month increase...or more than twice the cost of their old plan that they actually liked. Obamacare really took great care of them...if soaking another $6,600 a year from their pockets is "taking care" of them.
The Spokesman is a pretty bad newspaper-90% of the articles are cut and paste from the AP, the rest are heavily slanted "local interest" articles from some pretty poor writers. I'm surprised they aren't blaming Bush and Republicans for the Affordable Care Act.
Ah, me thinks someone didn't actually read the article.
The point is, they were happy with their old plan. Which, from the article, we can conclude was about $500 a month. (the $1200 plan minus the "$700 increase" they mention). So rather than the $1200 plan, they went with the $1052 plan, a $550+ a month increase...or more than twice the cost of their old plan that they actually liked. Obamacare really took great care of them...if soaking another $6,600 a year from their pockets is "taking care" of them.
The Spokesman is a pretty bad newspaper-90% of the articles are cut and paste from the AP, the rest are heavily slanted "local interest" articles from some pretty poor writers. I'm surprised they aren't blaming Bush and Republicans for the Affordable Care Act.
Actually, they now have no plan at all. Bette didn't check out the state's exchange site for their offerings. So now she's paying $0.00 per month. (Or whatever the penalty is.)
Yes, she should be forced to put her private information on the insecure website. Had she "been able to keep the plan she liked, period," she would have her same healthcare right now.
These "debunking" stories are always, "we think, maybe, if the person had gone on the exchanges, they possibly, might have, potentially, sort of, could have been eligible for a subsidy, maybe." People were assured they would be able to keep their plan. The president lied, and now they are being dragged through the mud if they don't want to deal with a faulty, insecure website.
Those cards with magnetic strips on them that you carry in your wallet are for less secure than any website.
Her refusal to to use the website or even call a customer service line is stubborn and shortsited decision that is going to either cost a lot of money or leave her uninsured. But then again this is a 56 year-old who was "happy" with a bare bones catastrophic plan.
Yes, she should be forced to put her private information on the insecure website. Had she "been able to keep the plan she liked, period," she would have her same healthcare right now.
These "debunking" stories are always, "we think, maybe, if the person had gone on the exchanges, they possibly, might have, potentially, sort of, could have been eligible for a subsidy, maybe." People were assured they would be able to keep their plan. The president lied, and now they are being dragged through the mud if they don't want to deal with a faulty, insecure website.
And for every person that qualifies for a subsidy, a taxpayer pays more.
Those cards with magnetic strips on them that you carry in your wallet are for less secure than any website.
Her refusal to to use the website or even call a customer service line is stubborn and shortsited decision that is going to either cost a lot of money or leave her uninsured. But then again this is a 56 year-old who was "happy" with a bare bones catastrophic plan.
So she should go to a website that has a security risk, or call and talk to a felon. Awesome. Great choices.
The difference with those cards with the magnetic strips and the website is that if you are ripped off with the former, you are helped out with the consequences. The government will leave you high and dry if it happens on the website. Not their problem.
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.
