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.
Why can't you? It is a bad law and was always a bad law. Did we need to replace Jim Crow laws before repealing them?
I agree with you that it needs to be replaced. The problem is Americans only see an inch in front of their noses. My taxes will go up if we have universal health care. Yes, but what you pay for health care will go down.
We don't need to reinvent the wheel here. Australia has an excellent system. We copy it, modify it a bit and roll with it. The dems could have done that. Instead they strapped us with the abortion misnamed the Affordable Care Act. It should have been named The unaffordable care Act or the rape of the middle-class. Both apply equally.
Yeah, they've got you suckers over a barrel good. If you are playing along with their game and plan to continue to play it by paying that exorbitant fee every month, you're allowing yourself to be conned. Otherwise healthy adults have no reason to continue paying the extortion and the individual mandate was dropped for 2019. Cancel the coverage, save the money and take personal responsibility to stay away from the pills, doctors, and hospitals as best you can.
As a 56 year old breast cancer survivor, I say that's nuts. 1 in 8 women will get BC in their lifetime.
They is the people and interests who forced Obamacare on America.
Insurers aren't the problem. Insurers just process claims and pass along provision costs used by consumers conditioned to buy what they're told through mandated coverage.
Now it's your turn to tell us about the exemptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastriver
Mandates on employers and mandates on what constitutes coverage are not "free market" anything.
Then ACA is not insurance, is it. It's a mandate and a tax. Insurance policies are voluntary, ACA isn't.
Insurance is part of the problem, IMO the biggest part of the problem. The ACA tried to address the costs of insurance, but that was some of the meat that was removed.
Does your state require certain minimums for auto insurance? Of course. In order to ensure that the most are protected at the base, it's necessary. If you think medical insurance mandates are the problem, just look at what it costs us when someone is uninsured. And if basic coverage isn't basic, there's no point. All of these catastrophic coverage policies are making people think they are protected, but they aren't. They're shams. One often has to pay more than they can afford in deductibles or the exceptions to coverage are fairly comprehensive.
You think insurers are just passing along costs? LOL! That is the funniest thing I've heard today! I worked in the insurance business, and I know that's not true. Insurance companies got most of the benefit when the ACA was neutered. The original intention was to prevent them from increasing premiums so that the insured was protected.
Medical & drug expenses are another part of the problem. But the cost of insurance premiums is on our insurance companies. The entire system of insurance is problematic, but health insurance has become the biggest part of our problem.
I got the news today, and it was a good thing I was sitting down when I opened the envelope.
The premium for the "budget" plan I have (otherwise known as the bronze plan) will be $977 a month. That's nearly $1,000 a month for the cheapest plan available, which carries a deductible of nearly $7,000. That means that I, with a straight middle-class income, will be on the hook for almost $20,000 in medical costs (if my year is bad). Boy, do I long for the pre-Obamacare days just a few years ago when I paid a few hundred a month at most for a real plan that covered medical expenses!
Basically, as has been discussed before, Obama "arranged" for middle earners to pay exorbitant premiums for what is essentially a catastrophic plan in order to have insurance companies provide the costs for every sneeze and cough for low(er) earners.
So, has anyone else received their envelope?
Whether the left wants to admit it or not, Obamacare has been a disaster for many people, while helping a small segment of society.
Those people could have and did claim indigence status, and still received care either Medicaid or free care, just not having the choices that private insurance payers had (i.e. choice of MD, facility, private room, etc.).
But we know all that anyway, and Johnathan Gruber made that clear in his videos.
Those with Obamacare now are not the only ones who are suffering because of it. Private insurance companies have also been effected to the point of much higher premiums (having to cover more things, even if you don't need them), and much larger deductibles. As a result more MD's are dropping certain plans (some major carriers), and charging "convenience fees" to draw blood in the office. They are forced to do it because they will either not be reimbursed now, or receive a pittance that does not even cover their costs.
I'm still waiting for my $2500/yr savings that Zero promised!
Instead I have this expensive, crappy, high deductible, moderate co-pay, high yearly cap coverage plan that covers fewer procedures and costs more each year. Even when I hit the high deductible, I still have to pay 20% of my (and my kids) medical costs.
Doesn't that mean that you are paying $400/month for other people's care as long as you stay healthy? And if you get cancer or something, you'll still only pay $400/month and other people will pay for your care?
Why does this sound like a familiar model?
Yes but the difference is you are not also paying for people that don't pay which the Unaffordable and I don't Care Act requires....in any case, I like paying $400/mo more than the Obamacare $2000/mo.
Status:
"Smartened up and walked away!"
(set 26 days ago)
11,780 posts, read 5,792,331 times
Reputation: 14201
I believe the GOP had a healthcare plan alternative and it was John McCain that tanked the whole deal but that's besides the point. Had Hillary won - we would still be seeing these enormous increases because the Dems were waiting for it to implode to force single payer. Can't blame Trump - Obama started this whole mess - Pelosi pushed it though saying we'll see what's in it after it's past - so the Dems dropped the ball.
And as far as preexisting - it still exists and you can still end up paying for services due to a pre-existing condition. I had a benign lump which cost me $2500 OOP 1 1/2 yrs ago - my annual mammograms are no longer covered as they are following a pre-existing condition to see if any more appear. I called the State Attorney General's office for what I believed was falsified billing - they told me that's the way it is - the ACA is useless.
Doesn't that mean that you are paying $400/month for other people's care as long as you stay healthy? And if you get cancer or something, you'll still only pay $400/month and other people will pay for your care?
Why does this sound like a familiar model?
I am paying for alot of programs. Social security for one. Medicaid, designed for poor children, is now mainly for elderly in long term care.
Semi-retired, but too young for Medicare. When I first semi-retired, I was paying just $400 a month pre-Obamacare. I thought I had it all figured out, given how Obama said premiums would drop. Hah.
But are you saying the only low-income are rabid Trump supporters? What about all the low-income on welfare in Detroit, St. Louis, Washington DC, Baltimore, NYC, etc., etc.? If they vote at all, they vote Dem.
(What is it with these sanctimonious liberals who think Trump supporters are poor and the Democratic supporters are educated and affluent? They're so full of themselves.)
Rachel, I'm in the same boat, I don't have lifetime medical as part of my retirement from my employer. Have you considered any of the so called cost sharing companies? Look at Aliera health, medishare, there are a few others but I don't remember. Monthly bills are cheaper, I've had Aliera for a while now and don't have any issues with it, it's basically the same as having regular "medical insurance".
I looked at Obama Care and it was more than I wanted to pay and I also didn't qualify for subsidies.
Last edited by colt22; 10-17-2019 at 03:35 PM..
Reason: To add additional info
No such thing as free market healthcare anywhere in the world.
I don't care what the rest of the world does, I want free market health care here.
Quote:
You might be referring to a relatively primitive time when people died of a simple assessed tooth.
The projected life expectancy of someone born in 1900 was age 33-47, dependent upon race.
And maybe you should stop the fear mongering and snide comments if you don't understand it. It has nothing to do with back in the day when people died of teeth problems - which actually still happens, by the way, because people don't go to the dentist like they should.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
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.
...
Your numbers are off. Self employed, you get the full amount in take home pay. So $50,000 a year is $4166/month, not $3500.
The person could still have $4166/month if they have certain write offs, or they could end up worse than your scenario.
It is absolutely possible, the IRS does give some write offs that ultimately make it so that you break even but keep every bit of my money that was earned throughout the year. I know, because I've done it.
If they have $4166/month, then after their rent of $1200, they would have $2966. Utilities - depends on where they live. Get a place where either the landlord pays for the heat, (oil, gas) or find a place with a fireplace and/or wood burning stove.
So she has other bills (cell phone, internet, car insurance), then food. Well, food is more expensive up in NE than say, the states lower than that, but she should be fine feeding herself - in fact, comfortably feeding herself on $300. Let's say she's frugal (because she has to be) and it's $500 in bills, plus rent, so $1700 taken out of the $4166. She still has $2466 remaining. Let's toss her another $300 just in case money. She still has $2166 remaining, but we'll round it to 2160.
Her premium is a grand. Now she has $1660 remaining. She has to visit the doctor for whatever reason. Now she has $1060 remaining. Annoying - but still doable and still doable comfortably - as long as nothing goes wrong, and she is able to invest or save that money for the times things go wrong.
However, if she does NOT get enough write offs, she's in worse shape than what you're saying. She has to pay her own everything - no employer to pay part of it. She needs to set aside 30% of her earnings for the IRS man. That's $1250 she has to set aside every single month, leaving her with $2916.
Take out the $1700 we talked about before, she's got $1216 left. We can't give her that $300 "just in case" like we did in the last scenario, because she has to pay that dumb Obamacare $1000 each month.
Now she's got $216 left to pay for food, utilities, etc. Most people are not going to get the deduction I'm talking about. So, your friend is probably in the second scenario status - which means it's even worse for her than you painted.
She could be somewhere in the middle - even then, even if we tacked on another $500 to that, it would go to her food, utilities, and whatever, and she would be left with maybe $100 - doubtful, but possible. But, whatever, as someone jokingly reminded me recently, she "didn't build that" anyway - considering some actually agree with that, according to those types, she deserves to live paycheck to paycheck.
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.
