Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-19-2013, 04:40 PM
 
3,326 posts, read 8,819,909 times
Reputation: 2034

Advertisements

Oh wait.... lemme get me pj's and hot chocolate!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-19-2013, 04:42 PM
 
3,326 posts, read 8,819,909 times
Reputation: 2034
Quote:
Originally Posted by attrapereves View Post
Yes, it's an ACA plan. If I did not get any deductions, I would now be paying over $200/month. I could not afford to pay that.

Despite the many problems with the ACA, it does make it a lot easier for people who didn't have insurance before to be able to obtain a plan. I'd rather my tax dollars go towards healthcare and the bettering of society than straight into politicians pockets and useless wars. I'd say cut the defense budget in half and reinvest that money into education and healthcare. Healthy, educated people = more income = more tax income.
... but your money is going into politicians pockets..........
even more so now.


and bad healthcare policies will never be a part of bettering society....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2013, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Midwest
978 posts, read 2,041,005 times
Reputation: 801
Quote:
Originally Posted by northbound74 View Post
... but your money is going into politicians pockets..........
even more so now.


and bad healthcare policies will never be a part of bettering society....
I agree. This wasn't a healthcare reform, but just an insurance reform. Once again, politicians completely missing the point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2013, 07:38 PM
 
Location: SW MO
662 posts, read 1,220,776 times
Reputation: 695
Quote:
Originally Posted by nealrm View Post
So how much are taxpayers on the line so you can get that rate?
He gets about $450 a month in subsidies according to what he posted in another thread. Of course things decrease in price when somebody else is paying for 75% of it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2013, 01:36 AM
 
35,309 posts, read 52,011,809 times
Reputation: 30998
The lower rates are a basically a result of mass pooling of clients for the insurance companies, for example if you went to a car dealership and ordered 10 000 cars you would certainly be getting a lower price than if you acted as an individual just buying one car and it wouldnt be the tax payers paying for the reduced cost per unit
While there will be some who still require public assistance that figure will now be much lower as people with a wide range of reasons for not having or not qualifying for medical insurance will now be able to get healthcare insurance.

Last edited by jambo101; 12-20-2013 at 01:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2013, 08:19 AM
 
583 posts, read 775,316 times
Reputation: 766
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101 View Post
The lower rates are a basically a result of mass pooling of clients for the insurance companies, for example if you went to a car dealership and ordered 10 000 cars you would certainly be getting a lower price than if you acted as an individual just buying one car and it wouldnt be the tax payers paying for the reduced cost per unit
While there will be some who still require public assistance that figure will now be much lower as people with a wide range of reasons for not having or not qualifying for medical insurance will now be able to get healthcare insurance.
No, the lower rates are not due to mass pooling. Insurance plans already have thousands if not millions of people enroll, more than enough to spread the cost around. The lower costs are due ONLY to shifting of the fees from one person to another. Younger and healthier people are being forced to pay MUCH higher premiums to subsidize the rates of those older or less healthy. Then there is the direct government subsidizes, money that comes from taxpayers pockets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2013, 10:14 AM
 
35,309 posts, read 52,011,809 times
Reputation: 30998
Quote:
Originally Posted by nealrm View Post
No, the lower rates are not due to mass pooling. Insurance plans already have thousands if not millions of people enroll, more than enough to spread the cost around. The lower costs are due ONLY to shifting of the fees from one person to another. Younger and healthier people are being forced to pay MUCH higher premiums to subsidize the rates of those older or less healthy. Then there is the direct government subsidizes, money that comes from taxpayers pockets.
Of course tax payers will foot some of the bill for the lowest income earners but you seem to be implying all subsidies are tax based,the system is a bit more complex and there are many advantages and savings to be made in the pooling of resourses, remember this whole plan was based on a Republican plan that was instituted by Romney in Massachusetts where i'm not hearing too much in the way of problems or the people using that system wanting it repealed...
A bit of research comes up with a somewhat unbiased article on the issue.How The Affordable Care Act Pays For Insurance Subsidies : Shots - Health News : NPR
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2013, 02:26 PM
 
Location: St. Louis
7,442 posts, read 6,962,866 times
Reputation: 4601
That's great if you feel like you found a good deal. Heck, I'd switch from my group plan if I could save money, but apparently that's not what most people are finding on the exchanges.

In fact, the White house felt the need to once again improvise by allowing individuals an exemption if they feel the coverage on the exchanges is too expensive:

Utter Chaos: White House Exempts Millions From Obamacare's Insurance Mandate, 'Unaffordable' Exchanges - Forbes


Forget for a moment this undermines the entire concept of the individual mandate, and forget also whether the administration can effectively circumvent the ACA on a whim, this clearly demonstrates that administration is reacting to the outcry over the costs of plans offered on the exchanges through the ACA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2013, 02:54 PM
 
583 posts, read 775,316 times
Reputation: 766
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101 View Post
Of course tax payers will foot some of the bill for the lowest income earners but you seem to be implying all subsidies are tax based,the system is a bit more complex and there are many advantages and savings to be made in the pooling of resourses, remember this whole plan was based on a Republican plan that was instituted by Romney in Massachusetts where i'm not hearing too much in the way of problems or the people using that system wanting it repealed...
A bit of research comes up with a somewhat unbiased article on the issue.How The Affordable Care Act Pays For Insurance Subsidies : Shots - Health News : NPR
If you read the article and and my post, you will see that they match real well. The last paragraph states that "young, healthy people subsidize older people, who are more likely to be sick." Which I also stated. It calls out that the subsidies are partially being paid by increased tax rate on people and businesses. The only real difference is that the article mentioned that part of the insurance subside will be offset by a reduction in the subsidies that goes to medicare. So one taxpayer financed subside with be replaced by a different taxpayer financed subside.

So thank you, your "unbiased article" support my post real well. The young and healthy are subsidizing the older or less healthy, and the rest of the subside is coming from taxpayers pockets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2013, 04:34 PM
 
35,309 posts, read 52,011,809 times
Reputation: 30998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versatile View Post
I was with Aetna. Was paying 645.00 per month (single male)$2000.00 deductible) They were cancelling me out due to not meeting govt standards. So they raised it to $708.00 for the last 2 months of Nov and Dec. I paid $25.00 per visit it for my Primary doctor and $35.00 for a Specialist and a discount on prescriptions.

My new plan is $159.07 per month and NO Primary doctor copay.$50.00 Specialist Copay,Generic Prescriptions are $5.00 and ER visit is $300.00 copay after deductible. i have a $1250.00 Deductible. Max out of pocket is $5k
Now that the topic has rolled on a bit what say you to the assertion that the $500 savings you are now benefiting from on your new plan are apparently all paid for by tax payers?
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


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 > U.S. Forums > Missouri

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top