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.
Everyone does have access to health insurance, but obviously if someone is so poor that they should qualify for medicaid they likely can't afford the premiums. Those people have to take it up with their republican governors who refused to expand. My state has a R governor, he went against the party and decided to expand.
I belong to a countrywide, large group of self employed individuals and almost no one is paying significantly more for 2014. Some pay a little more, some a little less, but not one person has complained of any dramatic unaffordable increase. These are people who have been buying their own insurance for years, they are used to these ups and downs. Many are thrilled because they can finally get insurance. I have heard that there are a few states where the rates are very high. I don't know anyone in those states, so I can't really say anything about that, but I would take it up with the insurance companies. I heard of a few companies reducing the rates when they were posted online, and people called them out on it. I recently moved to a state where legally one company had to accept everyone, but would put a 6 month wait on PE conditions. The rates here at that company were less than in my last state that denied millions, and the rates were competitive with other companies, so clearly it can be done if the insurance companies are forced to do it. People need to question the insurance companies putting massive profit over people's health, not changing the law.
Many of the complainers are comparing their cancelled plans to the ones their insurance company tried to put them on, and not the actual exchange plans. I have a lot of issues with the ACA, no one loves this, but repeal is not okay until a real alternative is ready to implement. So far I haven't heard anything but repeal. I will always be independent, but I won't vote for a republican until there is a reasonable replacement. The old system is 100% unacceptable. If the Rep would put some of their repeal effort into a new plan, I might vote for one.
Obamacare redefined "poor" though.
If they are "so poor" then they qualify for medicaid.
Expanded medicaid is 133% FPL.
Why wasn't Obamacare written that medicaid is to FPL and subsidies for all over that to 400% FPL ?
Why wasn't Obamacare written so that medicaid as a program got changed to 133% FPL like SNAP was ?
If the Dems really cared about those poor the law would have been written that way.
Cannot blame the Repubs for what the Dems did.
I'm not comparing anything, I'm simply stating that employer based health insurance costs the country in taxes. The country, i.e. the taxpayers subsidize it in the form of people and businesses paying less taxes. I support this because health coverage is essential, but it's a huge benefit that many do not have. NOW everyone has access to health insurance, before the ACA many did not. MILLIONS of people were denied coverage, or kicked off for getting sick. It could have happened to anyone at any time. That's not acceptable!
My premiums are $20 less that I paid last year w/o any subsidies, and my coverage is significantly better, so it's false to say premiums are higher now across the board. They may be for some, but they likely would have been anyway. For many years I worked in HR, part of my job was compare plans for companies. Health insurance rates always rise, this was years before the ACA was ever thought about. A companies rates might go up tens of thousands in a following year, that was the norm.
How about this: agree or disagree
For the vast majority (I just love to use the word vast majority these days). The vast majority of folks ages 18-40 face potential higher health care cost. Remember I ain't talking about lower premiums. We all know now that the ACA set premiums lower especially for younger folks but double their deductible.
I posted numerous times most young folks could have high quality HSA $2500 max out of pocket in network deductible for around $100-150/month. Those same plans still provided preventive services.
Now under the ACA those same plans to maintain the similar $100-150/month premiums involve up to $6350 deductibles.
You see it's all spin. The administration can proclaim the premiums haven't gone up. But the potential hit has doubled.
I am self employed. Late 30s. Wife 2 kids. All healthy. In Florida. We pay around $10000 a year with a $6000 deductible.
But for 2014. The ACA keeps our cough cough premiums "the same" at around $10000 for the year. Yet the deductible has doubled to $12000. So on paper the admin can legally say and trick the public by saying the premiums have stayed the same.
But if I wanted a max $6000 out of pocket like my 2013 plans the premiums would jump to $14000 a year.
So I look at the potential hit I will incur. It's very dangerous to trick the public to thinking premiums aren't bad when their max deductible will be high.
To some young adult. A simple appendix surgery can easily hit that $6300 deductible which is a lot of money as opposed to paying $2500 for the same policy in 2013.
And please don't say these 2013 plans I am talking about are junk. They are major comprehensive. They may lack "maternity". But u know what. You can easily add a maternity rider for around $200-250/month to a policy. Or just pay cash. Most global maternity vaginal deliveries are around $5000-600 and $7000-8000 for C section (my sister is OB) and these are very standard cash rates includes maternity care anesthesia and hospital charges.
Once it's fully established, handing out cash to most people in the country, do you think a majority will EVER vote against it, or against the people who push it?
Obamacare is principally a wealth-transfer program, not a health care program. It merely uses health care as its excuse, to hand out money to voters.
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” - Alexis de Tocqueville
If ACA was for people who couldn't afford their premiums and for the sick then why are they upset that healthy people aren't signing up ?
The ACA was for the poor and the sick.
Those that had their own insurance and those that won't get any subsidy don't need to go via the exchange.
All of a sudden we need everybody else, those not needing subsidies, to sign up for the crappy HHS negotiated plans ?
The Obama administration and HHS is to force everyone to the exchanges. We all know that as grandfather plans fad away.
Insurance companies love it cause they can collect even more money from healthy people. They get it 100% either way in terms of people who pay full price or get subsidies.
Why do you think insurers are very accommodating to the ACA law. They didn't need to let those age 26 and under stay on parents plans until Jan 2014. Yet they all voluntarily did it much sooner. Why? Because they knew it looks good to the public. Yet they also knew letting young adults stat on parents plans meant very little cost to them cause most are healthy. Like a good public relations move.
Yet those that could hurt their profits. Like pediatric pre existing conditions that took affect a few months after the ACA was signed into law in 2010. Insurers moved quickly to eliminate pediatric only plans which were very popular with self employed and force parents to add kids to their plans with "integrated deductibles" which end up costing parents more money.
Shocking, isn't it? All the left is interested in these days is making more people dependent on government. And guess what, they are "succeeding."
Maybe its more of a testament to the real truth here; that healthcare is unaffordable to MOST if not ALL Americans.
I remember taking a credit counseling course (part of my divorce because of the debt my ex-husband burried me in). In it they talked about budgeting; how rent/mortgage was supposed to be 30% of your budget, food another percentage (25% which included personal care). I got a good chuckle because health expenditures hould be something like 15 or 20% of your income.. pfftt.. yeah.. okay. ...LOL.
The reality is that health insurance and everything else takes up often MORE than rent/mortage expense.. if not equal to it.
Indeed, insurance cost MORE THAN MY RENT prior to Obamacare for me.
This subsidy is designed so that the correct alotment of percentage of your income goes toward your health insurance/care... kind of levels the field and gives the middle class a fighting chance.
Many receiving subsidies are hardly poor, lazy or incompetent. NO.. they are AVERAGE working famiies that would consider themselves middle class (at least that is how they grew up!). Many have homes.. that they worked for and continue to work for. We're grateful for the subsidy to allow us to purchase health insurance so that when we're sick we don't have to face not only the illness, but loosing EVERYTHING.
Other nations have it right.. healthcare is available to all regardless of personal wealth. We are the ONLY industrialized nation that still doesn't get it .
That WAS NOT how the whole program was presented. Obamacare was supposed to:
cut costs- it hasn't
lower premiums- it hasn't
increase the number of insured- it hasn't
lower deductibles- it hasn't
be "budget neutral"- what a laugh!
Here is the real math
It cost about $8K per year for a bare bones medicaid policy. If we assume 3 lives covered and 30 million uninsured, that comes out to $800 billion per year of additional cost.
Only an idiot would have assumed that Obamacare would cut costs.
The PROBLEM is our government - both sides - is captive to special interests. They won't be passing any legislation that affects their gravy train.
Don't imagine the Dems are any less captive to the Medical Industry than the Republicans are.
Given that environment, the only thing single payer does is bankrupt the middle class at a faster rate while simultaneously reducing their access to medical care.
Thats what I meant in my post. Our politicians are so beholden to special interests and they could care less. However if we actually elected people who cared about the average American, they would use the govt to.lower health costs, just like every first world nation. That's why I'm hoping on a grass roots effort and a state by state effort to lower healthcare costs by having individual states negotiate prices. ACA does not do enough to lower costs because this kind of stuff was barred from hapenning.
You know through all of these pages, one thing I havent heard any left wing kook bring up, which indeed would be a valid point is that NEXT year, when the fines start to increase, more people will sign up because it will eventually get cheaper to buy insurance than pay the fines, even if you arent subsidized..
Of course the response will be, yaaa big government taxes..
It's intention is to establish a way for a major portion of those who have been priced out and/or excluded from access to Health Care Ins, to get access. So yes, most of those entering the Insurance market via the ACA will get subsidies. The program is paid for, so please explain what debt is being piled on?
Your statement that people have been priced out or excluded from access is proof there is no Free Market healthcare in the US.
Refusing to reform healthcare and reduce healthcare costs by eliminating the "Out-of-Network" clause is stupid.
Refusing to reform healthcare and reduce healthcare costs by barring monopolistic hospital cartels from price-gouging is stupid.
Refusing to reform healthcare and reduce healthcare costs by prohibiting monopolistic hospital cartels that illegally collude to illegally fix prices is stupid.
Free Market competition is smart.....
4.2.1 Those under 50 years old are concerned by the lack of competition in the health care
system
Source: RATIONING OF MEDICAL SERVICES IN EUROPE: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY [France]
I guess the French are smarter than Americans....how sad is that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by borregokid
There is no debt being piled on, there were several new taxes added to pay for the program.
Prove that they will. The CBO says they won't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by borregokid
On the other hand Medicare will cost taxpayers about $230 billion out of next years budget.
Why?
Because for the last 13 years Congress and the President have failed or refused to implement the recommendations of the Medicare Trustees, which is to reduce payments, increase the HI [Medicare] Tax or a combination of both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by borregokid
The 2.9% payroll tax only pays about 50% of Medicare.
And the Medicare Trustees have been begging Congress and the President for 13 years to do something, but Congress and the President have failed or refused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by borregokid
The ACA is means tested meaning people over the 400% fpl pay the full pop.
Both Social Security and Medicare are means-tested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker
It has already been reported in the news that the insurance companys will be inflicting massive rate increases next year because more people are requiring subsidies than those that don't.
10% is "massive?"
By law, rate increases are limited to 10% annually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker
That is not how insurance works.
What insurance?
Health insurance has been illegal in the US since 1954....you have Fee-for-Service, not insurance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
And why does a billionaire need a subsidy?.
Why can't you stay on topic?
This isn't about subsidies for Harpo Winfrey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
ObamaCare has created two new business classes in the U.S.: the “twenty-niners” and the “forty-niners."
29-ers and 49-ers. I like it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Yeah but not many of them understand or want their FICA tax to go from 6% to 15%.
They want single payer for FREE.
Quote:
How much National Insurance you pay
The amount and type of National Insurance contributions you pay depend on whether you're employed or self-employed and how much you earn. The rates shown below are for the 2013-14 tax year.
If you're employed
If you're employed you pay Class 1 National Insurance contributions. The rates are:
if you earn more than £149 a week and up to £797 a week, you pay 12 per cent of the amount you earn between £149 and £797
if you earn more than £797 a week, you also pay 2 per cent of all your earnings over £797
You pay a lower rate if you're a member of your employer's contracted-out pension scheme.
Your contributions are deducted from your wages by your employer.
Effectively, that is 25.8% employer-employee contributions, however it does include your equivalent to:
OASI/OADI/Worker's Compensation
UE Benefits
Health plan coverage
The caveat is the caps on your benefits (OASI, OADI, Worker's Comp and UE Benefits)....
Quote:
How much is the benefit cap?
The level of the cap is:
£500 a week for couples (with or without children living with them)
£500 a week for single parents whose children live with them
£350 a week for single adults who don’t have children, or whose children don’t live with them
This may mean the amount you get for certain benefits will go down to make sure that the total amount you get isn’t more than the cap level.
Quote:
Who uses your National Insurance number?
You will have to give your National Insurance number to:
HM Revenue & Customs
your employer
Department for Work and Pensions (which includes Jobcentre Plus and Pension, Disability and Carers Service), if you claim state benefits
your local council, if you claim Housing Benefit
the Student Loans Company, if you apply for a student loan
Student Loans?
And people think education is, uh, "free."
Oh, one other thing....
Total Income: £0 to £32,010
You pay 20% on earned income such as wages and certain unearned income, plus 20% on interest you are paid for savings, plus 10% on Capital Gains.
Total Income: £32,011 to £150,000
You pay 40% on earned income such as wages and certain unearned income, plus 40% on interest you are paid for savings, plus 32.5% on Capital Gains.
Total Income: Over £150,000
You pay 45% on earned income such as wages and certain unearned income, plus 45% on interest you are paid for savings, plus 37.5% on Capital Gains.
I don't see a problem with minimum wage earnings paying 12% payroll taxes, plus 20% taxes on their income, plus 20% on whatever they manage to save when not drinking, drugging, gambling or throwing away their money on stupid stuff and such.
Taxing.....
Mircea
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.
