ACA and what I would supposedly not save.

[araine]

Far to the right? You can't be serious. That man implemented more liberal ideology in Mass than any REAL conservative or far right person I know.

Dead serious and dont take my words for it, Romney himself said he was a "SEVERELY CONSERVATIVE GOVERNOR" That isnt left leaning or liberal by any means just the words straight from the candidate and i take those comments just like the 47% BS he spewed out at face value to be what he really is.

[Mukki]

Dead serious and dont take my words for it, Romney himself said he was a "SEVERELY CONSERVATIVE GOVERNOR" That isnt left leaning or liberal by any means just the words straight from the candidate and i take those comments just like the 47% BS he spewed out at face value to be what he really is.

The fact that you're taking Mitt Romney's word for it as absolute truth is frightening. He's incredibly inconsistent and not very well-acquainted with the truth if you catch my drift.

Here, 20 minutes of Mitt Romney contradicting himself.


He's a liberal who changed his approach for an election cycle like a typical politician that stands for nothing. That is why I find it disturbing that you believe him when he claims he's conservative.

[Deathcries]

The issue you have, have NOTHING with ACA to do. what you are getting all rallied up against is the FOR PROFIT system that you in other posts love to death.

Bah I have time to respond to this. Look I was doing fine paying health insurance for me and my family at around $500 per my family a month that I have to pay out. In order to keep what I have if I wanted to I would have to pay an additional $500 to keep the current plan I'm on. Everything else ALSO goes up. My company is telling me it's due to ACA.

- - - Updated - - -

The fact that you're taking Mitt Romney's word for it as absolute truth is frightening. He's incredibly inconsistent and not very well-acquainted with the truth if you catch my drift.

Here, 20 minutes of Mitt Romney contradicting himself.


He's a liberal who changed his approach for an election cycle like a typical politician that stands for nothing. That is why I find it disturbing that you believe him when he claims he's conservative.

At least you get it. Romney was a used cars salesman. I voted for Gary Johnson. At least he stuck by his principles. I wish Ron Paul would've got the nomination. I'm hoping his son gets it in 2016. If triple C gets it I'll vote libertarian again.

[Jayarih]

Bah I have time to respond to this. Look I was doing fine paying health insurance for me and my family at around $500 per my family a month that I have to pay out. In order to keep what I have if I wanted to I would have to pay an additional $500 to keep the current plan I'm on. Everything else ALSO goes up. My company is telling me it's due to ACA.

Your company is just telling you that so you dont blame them. Its easy to scapegoat ACA

[Deathcries]

You cannot pin point a singe reason why ACA is responsible, yet in 5 minutes I can find your states only insurance exchange provider, saying it's not. You do not see anything wrong with this picture? In the time it took you to not be able to find a reason why ACA caused you to lose care, I found why it didn't in 2 states. I even found a link to register for the kids insurance program you claimed was cut due to ACA. You should really see a problem here, and it's not ACA...

Edit: Good night, tending to responsibility at 4 am is a chore...

Went to go pick up my wife from the airport, but thanks for assuming.

[Prokne]

He said his employer doesn't offer a co-pay. If they did, he would only be paying about 5.5k, or exactly what he currently pays for far, far better coverage. Because they don't offer a co-pay, unless he is making a lot of money (>400% of 18k poverty for a family of 4) he likely get's a subsidy he doesn't yet know about.

Do you know what a co-pay is? Its the amount you automatically owe the insurance company for a specific service, it has nothing to do with the company he works for. If he has no-copay insurance, then he has a pretty expensive plan which is being subsidized by his employer. All employers do is create a plan through an insurance company, pay part of their employees premiums and receive tax benefits. Employers dont deal with your actual healthcare, thats why they pay insurance companies to do it for them.

[Felya]

Went to go pick up my wife from the airport, but thanks for assuming.

What did I assume? That tending to responsobility at 4 am is a chore? Was it saying good night? Roll eyes at me being polight... Wtf?

I'm the one who actually googled your predicament, instead if starting a thread blaming ACA...

- - - Updated - - -

I will. I'll go over your stuff and then rebuddle. I didn't really have time to look over your stuff tonight. Give me tomorrow and I'll give you the answers you seek, just so you can tell me that ACA is good for me and to enjoy being forced upon it.

You have been and are blaming ACA for things your employer is doing. You will wait to tomorrow to confirm with work, but you will continue to blame ACA regardless. That really said it all...

- - - Updated - - -

Bah I have time to respond to this. Look I was doing fine paying health insurance for me and my family at around $500 per my family a month that I have to pay out. In order to keep what I have if I wanted to I would have to pay an additional $500 to keep the current plan I'm on. Everything else ALSO goes up. My company is telling me it's due to ACA.

Yet, the only insurance company on exchanges in your state, in plain text to the public, is claiming that ACA is not inhibiting your existing plan. That's why you need to talk to your work on Monday, which does not seem to inhibit your blame of ACA. I'm still interested in that kid program killed by ACA, that you enumerated and I found the registration page for, without any indication it's not active.

[Pitkanen]

Did you read this part in my post:

Anthem BC/BS is the only insurance provider on the exchange in NH. They just announced they're dropping 10 of NH's 26 hospitals from coverage on the exchange, as well as their affiliated medical providers. That includes the hospital about a mile from my house. I'd lose all my doctors.

Anthem also announced they wouldn't cover any out of state specialty hospitals for subscribers on the exchange (i.e. Children's Hospital in Boston, Dana-Farber Cancer Center, etc)

I'm not a 1%, I'm in the middle/low end of the middle class. I'll go in Monday to talk to HR, but it looks like I'm going to end up paying double for the insurance I already had.

Insurance companies have only a few ways to reduce costs now that they can't drop the unhealthy people from their plans. One such way is negotiating with hospitals / not allowing hospitals that are inefficient on their plan. Blame your hospital for spending more money than it should rather than the insurance company not being willing to pay it.

And yeah, losing employer based 'good' health insurance is a good 3.5-5k salary loss for just one younger individual. One thing you should be doing is making sure they earmark the money they are paying you specifically for healthcare expenses... much like how you didn't pay taxes on your employer's health insurance contribution, you don't have to pay taxes on money that is paid to you that is designated as being ONLY used for healthcare.

[Shelly]

Regarding Romney the candidate; it was a placeholder election. Fact is that the Republicans knew they didn't have anyone on hand that could beat Obama. That's why there was such a huge circus over whom the candidate would be, also it was generally fueled by the media requiring some sort of drama for ratings/page views/twitting/whatever. That's why the big folks who'd stand a much better chance getting elected on the national stage - Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie - stayed out. It's also why conservatives now give a damn about what happened in Bengazi because they are hoping to make a scandal to keep Hillary Clinton from winning the presidency.

Meanwhile the Democrats know that Clinton winning will rely entirely on the ACA functioning "well enough" in the next 3 and a half years or so.

The "true conservatives" such as Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, etc are wackjobs that will never get elected nationally. Anyone who talks about how this country just needs some "strong libertarians" is completely out of touch with both urban and rural sensibilities and need to get off the Internet and actually start talking to people. It's incredibly easy to gauge both the local and national mood and trust me, Rand is crazy and unelectable.

On the other hand though he does have better economic ideas than Reagan. So there is that.

Anyway, one of the reasons health care costs so much in this country is because most hospitals do two things:
1) They mark up costs across the board by 70% or more. Insurance companies are able to get these negotiated down to their real levels, whereas those without insurance are hosed unless - as commonly happens - the state or federal government comes in and picks up the tab through medicare/medicaid.

2) They spread costs out. They'll reduce - the already inflated cost of an MRI - and spread that cost into tiny little things that more people need. Which is why you get $70 aspirin and $50 bandaids, as frankly there's a lot more people out there who need aspirin and a bandaid that come to an emergency room than there are folks who need an MRI.

Anyway, all I've taken away from the entire discussion is that the OP just doesn't want to deal with the fact that he now has to do some legwork on getting insurance and seeing what sort of assistance he may qualify for. Instead he'd rather be upset, which is his right. So there's that.

[Deathcries]

Okay this is to Felya now that I have some time to read your post:

I never said I lost insurance. As a matter of fact, as a disabled veteran, I'm exempt. But this goes beyond 2014, they plan to enact it all.

So it's everybody else's fault? Employers are at fault for not shouldering the burden of increased healthcare costs and cutting part-time employees hours to 28? Insurance companies are at fault for trying to make a profit? Medical device manufacturers will be at fault for leaving the country to avoid the medical device taxes taxes? Will college students be at fault for deciding not to go into medicine? Sounds like you're just making an argument for a complete federal takeover and a single payer system. Businesses are in business to make money. When burdened with expansive and expensive regulations that cost always gets shifted to the consumer.

NH Healthy Kids was not cut, it was absorbed. Not everyone qualifies for Medicare (which is what absorbed it). Those families who didn't qualify for Medicare, and couldn't afford insurance, could get their kids covered (i.e. a friend who makes approx $65,000 with 5 kids). Now they're out of luck. NH Healthy Kids was non-profit, it wasn't a drain on the taxpayer. Now it is.

So lets get to the heart of the matter.....not everybody without health insurance will get subsidized. There's nothing affordable about it. I was on COBRA for six months and paying full price still didn't cost what it costs on the exchange.

basically I believe that the majority here have no disregard for the actual TAX PAYER and just shove them aside, unfortunautely for you we're the ones having to burden this on our backs. One day we're going to have enough carrying your alls weight.

[Felya]

Okay this is to Felya now that I have some time to read your post:

I never said I lost insurance. As a matter of fact, as a disabled veteran, I'm exempt. But this goes beyond 2014, they plan to enact it all.

Forced to buy something or dumped on an exchange with one insurer but it isn't the fault of Obamacare?

Yeah I know. I do good for myself, but my insurance rates are doubling which I'm not caring for too much. I also agree our insurance here in America is whacked but because of our immigration issue I do not think single payer healthcare is the solution and will only drain our money that much more.

I currently pay $512.32/month with a $3,000 deductible through my employer. No copays, no co-insurance, no limits. My kids see specialists at Children's in Boston. I see specialists in both NH and MA, I've had a rough couple of years. By choice I also see a specialist that I pay for with cash.

How is it better for me? I'm paying double. I'm not rich either. I'm getting hammered, and I'm not the only one who's going to get hammered by this. They're punishing middle class Americans for being Middle Class.

I'm not a 1%, I'm in the middle/low end of the middle class. I'll go in Monday to talk to HR, but it looks like I'm going to end up paying double for the insurance I already had.

Which of these people is actually you?

[Pitkanen]

...
NH Healthy Kids was not cut, it was absorbed. Not everyone qualifies for Medicare (which is what absorbed it). Those families who didn't qualify for Medicare, and couldn't afford insurance, could get their kids covered (i.e. a friend who makes approx $65,000 with 5 kids). Now they're out of luck. NH Healthy Kids was non-profit, it wasn't a drain on the taxpayer. Now it is.

So lets get to the heart of the matter.....not everybody without health insurance will get subsidized. There's nothing affordable about it. I was on COBRA for six months and paying full price still didn't cost what it costs on the exchange.
...

Married with 5 kids should get the subsidy on 65k family income. Now what might be happening is that their total income is so high that less than 10% of their income is going towards insurance. Or his wife makes more than him (400% of 35k is ... wife makes more than him). Or he doesn't actually have custody of the kids and they aren't his dependents.

There is an issue where people who CAN'T afford it CAN'T get it. But that isn't obama's fault, it's the republican state legislators who didn't pass medicaid expansion. Of course based on obamacare they would have had to have medicaid expansion except that republicans brought the state medicaid expansion to the supreme court and got it removed.

There should be a softer slide off of the subsidy at the 400% poverty level which is a problem for old people (since young people pay less than 10% of income at the end point).

[Felya]

Married with 5 kids should get the subsidy on 65k family income. Now what might be happening is that their total income is so high that less than 10% of their income is going towards insurance. Or his wife makes more than him (400% of 35k is ... wife makes more than him). Or he doesn't actually have custody of the kids and they aren't his dependents.

There is an issue where people who CAN'T afford it CAN'T get it. But that isn't obama's fault, it's the republican state legislators who didn't pass medicaid expansion. Of course based on obamacare they would have had to have medicaid expansion except that republicans brought the state medicaid expansion to the supreme court and got it removed.

There should be a softer slide off of the subsidy at the 400% poverty level which is a problem for old people (since young people pay less than 10% of income at the end point).

Here is the letter that was sent by NH Healthy kids on the changes:
http://moorecenter.org/moore-news/ch...ids-insurance/

Here is a local newspaper overview of the changes:
http://www.citizen.com/news/2012-05-..._examined.html

[iperson]

If the ACA actually provided affordable health care coverage there wouldn't be a need for an individual mandate...

[Pitkanen]

Here is the letter that was sent by NH Healthy kids on the changes:
http://moorecenter.org/moore-news/ch...ids-insurance/

Here is a local newspaper overview of the changes:
http://www.citizen.com/news/2012-05-..._examined.html

Nothing in there excludes them from subsidies on the marketplaces. Literally, the only way his 5 kid example wouldn't get subsidies is if he+wife make over 140k. At which point, seriously you think you need a subsidy to be able to afford healthcare, seriously? Also, how can making 180% more than the "median" household still be defined as middle class?

If the ACA actually provided affordable health care coverage there wouldn't be a need for an individual mandate...

Most liberals would have rather have single payer (medicare that covers 100% of the population).

But sadly, if you mandate that you can't exclude accepting new sick people, then there is nothing stopping people from waiting until they get extremely sick from getting insurance. If the average person in a risk pool is extremely sick, it's not affordable.

[Mormolyce]

Frankly, every kind of insurance I've ever looked into seemed extremely overpriced. If it wasn't mandatory I wouldn't insure anything in my life at all. You go a few years without a major incident and you're already ahead.

[fengosa]

Okay this is to Felya now that I have some time to read your post:

I never said I lost insurance. As a matter of fact, as a disabled veteran, I'm exempt. But this goes beyond 2014, they plan to enact it all.

So it's everybody else's fault? Employers are at fault for not shouldering the burden of increased healthcare costs and cutting part-time employees hours to 28? Insurance companies are at fault for trying to make a profit? Medical device manufacturers will be at fault for leaving the country to avoid the medical device taxes taxes? Will college students be at fault for deciding not to go into medicine? Sounds like you're just making an argument for a complete federal takeover and a single payer system. Businesses are in business to make money. When burdened with expansive and expensive regulations that cost always gets shifted to the consumer.

NH Healthy Kids was not cut, it was absorbed. Not everyone qualifies for Medicare (which is what absorbed it). Those families who didn't qualify for Medicare, and couldn't afford insurance, could get their kids covered (i.e. a friend who makes approx $65,000 with 5 kids). Now they're out of luck. NH Healthy Kids was non-profit, it wasn't a drain on the taxpayer. Now it is.

So lets get to the heart of the matter.....not everybody without health insurance will get subsidized. There's nothing affordable about it. I was on COBRA for six months and paying full price still didn't cost what it costs on the exchange.

basically I believe that the majority here have no disregard for the actual TAX PAYER and just shove them aside, unfortunautely for you we're the ones having to burden this on our backs. One day we're going to have enough carrying your alls weight.

It's almost like you're trying to reach the wrong conclusion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...PP)_per_capita

Rank/Country/Total costs per capita/Total costs% of GDP
1 USA 8,233 17.6
2 Norway 5,388 9.4
3 Switzerland5,270 11.4
4 Netherlands5,05612.0
5 Luxembourg4,786 7.9 (2009)
6 Denmark 4,464 11.1
7 Canada 4,445 11.4
8 Austria 4,395 11.0
9 Germany 4,338 11.6
10 France 3,978 11.6

[Prokne]

If the ACA actually provided affordable health care coverage there wouldn't be a need for an individual mandate...

The individual mandate is part of the reason why healthcare will be more affordable. No matter how inexpensive insurance might be, there are still people who wouldnt buy it. Some people would even pay a fine instead of getting insurance even though they can already afford it.

[Felya]

It's almost like you're trying to reach the wrong conclusion

I have no clue how he came to the conclusion he did. I repeated the fact that we pay 6% more of GDP for healthcare, before ACA, several times. I have no clue how anyone thinks that the government has not taken over healthcare. ACA does not change government control of healthcare, it simply makes it available to more people.

Here is how ACA effects him:
http://www.va.gov/health/aca/FAQ.asp