Articles
   
       
Pics/Video
       
Wake 101
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       04-14-2015, 7:22 PM Reply   
Some of the main supporters of the ACA are starting to see the results. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamac...091500185.html
Old     (jtech)      Join Date: Aug 2008       04-15-2015, 11:45 AM Reply   
I guess that's what happens when you have to pass a bill to know what's in it. I hope those that voted for candidates that supported the ACA get all they have coming to them. Or in this case, lose their gold plated plans which is counterproductive. The ACA needs to be re-worked or scrapped and re-introduced with concepts that can be funded with actual money and stand the test of time. The current law turns the renewal process in to a dog an pony show each year with several new "gotchas" to deal with.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-15-2015, 12:46 PM Reply   
I doubt people who couldn't get insurance before but now can are crying the blues over this. That's what happens when you have a screwed up system and don't want to fix it. I read that a veteran Republican pollster (Whit Ayers) working for Marco Rubio claims that only 18% of Americans want to go back to the old system.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/whit...ternative-2016

That means Republicans need to have some real salable ideas about how to proceed with changes to the system instead of being ineffectual obstructionists. The old system was bad. Short of working together to produce a consensus of good ideas we pretty much got we deserve after years of inflationary and discriminatory HC policy. I really have no sympathy for the complainers.

Losing gold plated plans is not counterproductive. It is counter inflationary.
Old     (Froggy)      Join Date: Nov 2013       04-16-2015, 5:20 AM Reply   
How about we fix the issues with the old system instead of spending a trillion plus on a system that harms more than it helps?
Old     (skiboarder)      Join Date: Oct 2006       04-16-2015, 6:28 AM Reply   
My insurance went up $385/month, My deductible went up $2,000.00 and my co-pay doubled. AND my prescriptions are rolled into omni-flex so...I am required to buy generic and if my doctor says I need something, it may or may not be covered.

Example: The hormones that my mom's doctor prescribed her and she has been taking ever since her hysterectomy (10 years) are no longer covered, but she can have the lower dosage...To protest takes 60-90 days.

I shopped hard and this is the closest that I could get to what I had before. Across the board there was less than $20/month difference between similar plans from other companies. Oh, and I was required by law to pay $28/month for my daughters dental care. One of my ski buddies is a dentist!! I trade rides for dental cleanings!
Old     (skiboarder)      Join Date: Oct 2006       04-16-2015, 6:31 AM Reply   
John, My mom has had cancer and my spent 3 weeks in the hospital from an injury a few years ago. They are considered near uninsurable, shouldn't they benefit? NO, their insurance went up $1,000/month.

My brother, who couldn't afford insurance. Is now required to pay $100/month through the market place. His prescription deductible is $500 and his deductible is $10,000. He still does not have insurance he can afford to use.

So who does it help??
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-16-2015, 7:26 AM Reply   
Justin, they are considered "near" uninsurable but they are insured. Good thing it's only "near" and not "un". Apparently it's helping a lot of people who couldn't afford or even get insurance before. In no way am I saying that the ACA is a good solution. At this point the only good solution is universal HC with govt controls over costs. The govt has been pushing money into HI/HC for decades without requiring any real concessions over cost control from the industry. Now HC is so overinflated we are all screwed. No fix is going to be easy.

Cancer care is so outrageously expensive that if you don't have insurance you don't get any care. You should be happy your Mom "had" it and got care. And even if she had a large deductible, the cost of cancer treatment would have far overshadowed it.
Old     (skiboarder)      Join Date: Oct 2006       04-16-2015, 8:21 AM Reply   
But if you are previously uninsurable and your insurance is now $3,4,5K/month, with a $50K deductible. You are still not insured is my point.

Now, I'm no means a republican or a democrat. Washington has failed us and both sides are equal to blame. ACA is crap.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-16-2015, 8:33 AM Reply   
The "affordable" part of the ACA is that you get subsidies if you don't have the income. The argument you put forth would be true if the numbers you quoted weren't just something you made up with no regard to reality. Those numbers are actually what could have happened (and probably did) before the ACA. Except in general HI companies just said... "no thanks we don't want you at any price". People now get insurance priced based on age, not health.

I could buy the argument that the ACA is crap as long as you include the claim that what we had before the ACA was crap. At no time have I ever had the stance that the ACA was the solution.
Old    bigdtx            04-16-2015, 9:01 AM Reply   
> But if you are previously uninsurable and your insurance is now $3,4,5K/month, with a $50K deductible. You are still not insured is my point.

Not sure where those numbers came from. I got coverage through the exchange for 2 years through Blue Cross and the monthly premium was $422.00 and that included dental. That was not even the cheapest option available and I did not get a subsidy.
Old     (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       04-16-2015, 10:42 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
The "affordable" part of the ACA is that you get subsidies if you don't have the income.
Don't forget the other side of that wonderful statement, if you have what they deem as "too much" income, you get to pay extra to pay for those subsidies. It's just disguised income redistribution. I have to be careful not to make too much money this year or i will have to pay back part of my subsidy at the end of the year. As it is, my premiums doubled (and we lost all our doctors). If I make too much money this year, my premiums will more than triple. I much prefer the old system where I carried my own weight (paid my full premium), got a plan with which I was much happier and wasn't encouraged to not do well with my business.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-16-2015, 11:16 AM Reply   
It is true that if you make more money you may not get the subsidy. But you can get insurance based on your age and not your health. What is bad that no one talks about is that a person who has to buy it on his own outside a business generally gets no tax write off on their premium payments, even if they get no subsidy. I get my HI through my employer and no fed or fica tax is owed on the HI premium payments. That's a 40% lower tax burden than the guy who has to get it himself. Or as I see it the govt is chipping in that 40% as a subsidy.
Old     (Froggy)      Join Date: Nov 2013       04-17-2015, 6:14 AM Reply   
John how long do you think your employer will keep paying Your HI ? As the rates keep going up for them its only a matter of time before the company reduces their costs by supplying less coverage or increasing your co pay . I heard the governments end game it to keep the pressure on companies supplying HI until they can no longer afford the rate increases . Then they will give the money to you to buy your own HI. That will be a 15-20k raise for you. But then YOU will have to buy the ever increasing health coverage and give 30-40% of the money back in taxes. It sounds like you are living in Shagri La now but you will face the same consequences that we all face sooner or later . Unless of course you work for the Government?
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-17-2015, 8:15 AM Reply   
You are missing the point Froggy. Anytime the govt subsidizes or compels you to buy a product it causes excessive inflation. This didn't start with the ACA. It's been going on for decades. In addition it had become impossible for many people to afford or qualify for insurance. The ACA fixed that but didn't address the real issue of excessive inflation. If my employer stops buying my insurance then that's the price I pay for other people to get insurance. HI/HC has not been a "free market" for a long time. But everyone who got insurance through their employer subsidized by tax deductions couldn't care less. We are seeing the consequences of our actions, and I am happy to pay the piper if enough people are affected to do something about it. The problem is that the public doesn't have any grasp of economics so we are at the mercy of politicians and special interests who keep throwing out red herrings because they don't have any real solution.

I'm 59 and almost never see a doctor. I'm subsidizing plenty of conservatives who are obese, unhealthy, and couldn't a crap about their health. They are all stressed about trying to make more money than the next guy and I'm chipping in for their trips to the hospital, diabetes treatment, pills, and heart bypass surgery. That's part of being a member of society. But it bugs me when these fat f*ks complain about poor people getting insurance. Let's get rid of ACA but also make it so that HI companies don't have to insure you just because you are an employee and no more tax deductions for premiums. When all these unhealthy people get booted out then my premiums will go way down.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       04-17-2015, 12:04 PM Reply   
But why offer only the three plans, which are overpriced and have excessive deductibles? Once again, those same people you mention could have bought similar plans cheaper before the ACA. It would have been easier just to require everyone to buy insurance or pay a fine and leave it at that.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       04-18-2015, 12:25 PM Reply   
Apparently that was the only way to get the HI companies to agree to insure people with bad health history. Of course the govt could have threatened to take away the tax deductible nature of employer sponsored HI plans, told employers to offer to let the employees to opt out and get the employer contribution as pay instead of insurance, and refused to let HI companies ignore health history for employee plans unless they ignore them for single plans. Then the HI industry would have freaked. And everyone with employer plans that wanted to stay on because they were unhealthy would have freaked.

The penalty for "Cadillac" plans is because those plans basically encourage people to over consume HC services. Driving up demand without increasing supply, which is an inflationary factor.
Old     (FunkyBunch)      Join Date: Jun 2011       04-27-2015, 10:56 AM Reply   
IMHO if you want to fix this stop trying to address the result and address the cause. Fix tort reform and big banking and insurance and the rates would be adjusted to an affordable level. That is over simplifying the issue but we are trying to fix how to make insurance more affordable instead of addressing why the rates keep going up.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:46 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2019 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us