Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 10-17-2019, 11:31 AM
 
19,394 posts, read 6,458,729 times
Reputation: 12309

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annandale_Man View Post
No it's not. We have insurance through our employer. You are paying a significant discount for services even for the charges that you are paying out of pocket. I just got a colonoscopy a few weeks ago and received the bill for the visit. The invoice lists the "billed charge" for each item and next to it the "allowed charge". Without insurance, I would be paying "full retail".

Without insurance: $3089.00
With insurance out of pocket: $1073.28
Surprise! Your above claim ALSO is not necessarily true. Obamacare is such a disaster that in many cases you are better off paying cash (as in "no insurance") than you are with the "discounted rate" of insurance. Case in point:

PT office:
Full charge: $330 per session
Charge w/insurance: $130 per session
Charge for cash only: $95 per session

In the above case, I was better off with the "no-insurance" fee, even after paying $800+ a month in premiums. (Of course, the low-income people in the waiting room paid nothing. One of them was even bragging about it to me. How stupid can they be? She overheard me haggling over the $130 w/insurance and $95/without fees, and then she tells me how she pays nothing? Not even a premium, and not even a co-pay. Jeez...…)

 
Old 10-17-2019, 11:39 AM
 
19,394 posts, read 6,458,729 times
Reputation: 12309
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
What is this “Obamacare” thing?

The ACA is legislation, not insurance. If one qualifies for subsidy, one must acquire their insurance via an exchange. If one does not qualify for a subsidy, one can shop for insurance beyond the exchange. This has been true all along.

One could have driven a truck through the exemptions to avoid penalties for failure to insure their healthcare risks.
Obamacare plans are short-hand for ACA-approved health plans. It was in the post just above. And as far as shopping beyond the exchange, Obamacare decimated the individual market. It my region, there were only two options: one is Kaiser, which I was told to stay away from because their specialists are far from the best; and the second, which I bought. THAT WAS IT. And when I inquired, the plans were identical whether you purchased them on or off-exchange: same premiums, same deductible, same co-pay, and same network of doctors.

The choices are extremely limited since Obamacare.
 
Old 10-17-2019, 11:43 AM
 
2,495 posts, read 860,310 times
Reputation: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
Well in theory the party that was responsible for the accident becomes responsible for your medical bills in states without No Fault.

All but one state mandates Minimum Liability insurance. The Minimums are so low, they would hardly cover a $200,000 medical bill. If the party responsible has assets, it’s lawsuit time.

One could become a victim of violent crime.

And of course, many otherwise healthy people get a dreaded diagnosis.
That's what the catastrophic-only policies, for those rarities and outliers, were for....that Obamacare outlawed.
 
Old 10-17-2019, 11:43 AM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,539,278 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by neko_mimi View Post
Does your car insurance offer coverage on pre-existing damage? Health coverage was far better and cheaper than it is under the ACA. I remember very well.
Better? That depends.

Cheaper for sure.

Premiums were 50% less in 2000 than they were in 2010, before the ACA.

Many of us have transitioned to a more costly age demographic, 50-64, over the past 10-20 years.
 
Old 10-17-2019, 11:46 AM
 
Location: Texas
9,189 posts, read 7,567,111 times
Reputation: 7801
It's not referred as Obama Care anymore since President Obama is out of office. It's the Affordable Care Act.
 
Old 10-17-2019, 11:53 AM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,539,278 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
Yes, it is. Single payer is needed
All we have to do is pay for it.

Even then, unless, until all providers agrees to play ball.....

If I understand Sander’s intention, there would be no private healthcare insurance market, federal government would determine universal reimbursement rates to providers, no co- pay, no coinsures, no deductibles and Bezos will pay for it.

In the unlikely event he recieives the nomination and wins in 2020, it’s DOA in Congress, no matter party/ majority.

And he knows it
 
Old 10-17-2019, 11:54 AM
 
19,394 posts, read 6,458,729 times
Reputation: 12309
I've heard taunting from liberals (some, not all) about the horrible consequences of Obamacare to middle-class folks, and I'd like to outline just how awful things have become:


Take, for example, a self-employed person making $50,000*, or about $3,500 a month take-home, living in a liberal NE city. She has $500 in commuting costs, so that leaves her with $3,000 a month for living expenses.


Now, of that $3,000, a modest 1-bedroom apartment in a lower-middle class area will run about $1200 a month, leaving her with $1,800 for everything else - utilities, food, household items, etc. NOW, consider that nearly $1,000 is removed from that for insurance premiums, leaving just $800 a month. That person has $800 a month?! It's impossible. Forget about going to a restaurant once in a while. She is buying day-old bread and cheap brands. And if she should need to go to the doctor during the month? Good luck coming up with the $500 for a visit.


Now look to the person junior to her - less experience, less demanding tasks - who is also self-employed, but making $40,000, or $2,800 take-home. Her subsidized plan drops all the way to $100 a month, meaning that after her insurance premium and $1200 a month apartment, she is left with $1500 a month. She earns less, has less experience and a less demanding role, yet she has some "extra" left over to go out to dinner once in a while, buy new clothes, whatever.


The point is that thanks to Obamacare, a $40,000 worker has a better standard-of-living than a $50,000 worker. Obama, like all good liberals, is disincentivizing upward mobility.




*I'm not talking about myself, but many people fall in this range and they are the ones who are REALLY suffering.
 
Old 10-17-2019, 11:56 AM
 
19,394 posts, read 6,458,729 times
Reputation: 12309
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastriver View Post
That's what the catastrophic-only policies, for those rarities and outliers, were for....that Obamacare outlawed.
He HAD to outlaw them because the "bronze" plans, now running close to $1,000, are effectively catastrophic-only plans. If REAL catastrophic plans were allowed to exist, who in their right mind would buy an over-priced bronze plan?
 
Old 10-17-2019, 11:59 AM
 
19,394 posts, read 6,458,729 times
Reputation: 12309
Quote:
Originally Posted by fitzy24 View Post
It's not referred as Obama Care anymore since President Obama is out of office. It's the Affordable Care Act.
1) Liberals would like nothing more than to remove "Obama" from Obamacare so as to downplay who put this disaster in motion.

2) Calling it the Affordable Care Act is a real slap in the face to lower-middle income people who HAD previously been able to afford health insurance and no longer can, thanks to the AFFORDABLE Care Act.
 
Old 10-17-2019, 12:03 PM
 
19,394 posts, read 6,458,729 times
Reputation: 12309
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
All we have to do is pay for it.

Even then, unless, until all providers agrees to play ball.....

If I understand Sander’s intention, there would be no private healthcare insurance market, federal government would determine universal reimbursement rates to providers, no co- pay, no coinsures, no deductibles and Bezos will pay for it.

In the unlikely event he recieives the nomination and wins in 2020, it’s DOA in Congress, no matter party/ majority.

And he knows it
Don't downplay this. Taxes will zoom up on the middle-class. And with liberals saying they want to provide it to illegals, well.....the costs to law-abiding, tax-paying Americans will be tremendous.

Also, do not discount how unfair this is to elderly people, who have paid in for 40 years. Any Medicare-for-all scheme would more likely resemble Medicaid-for-all, with rationing and long waits. After years of dutifully paying into Medicare, with the promise a good plan would exist for them when they retire, older Americans will find themselves with much poorer health coverage. Nobody over 65 (or even approaching 65) will vote for a scheme that will make their own insurance worse just at the very age they need 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.


Closed Thread


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
Similar Threads

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