carlfense Posted October 30, 2013 Author Share Posted October 30, 2013 Funny thing....when Carl suggested that I go to the web site and get the information for myself, I went to it and plugged in some information. That was around noon......as of now...it is still sitting there searching. Sorry for my strange sense of humor. Seriously? My search took less than 30 seconds. Might want to refresh. In fact, the process was so smooth and painless that it makes me wish that more states had chosen to create their own exchanges instead of handing the authority to Washington D.C. Oh, those small government/local government conservatives. Link to comment
LouisianaHusker Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Carl, eye wish two apollogize four the weigh eye ended my last post. It wuz a bit ruff and mistaken of me two dew that two ewe. BTW Junior. 1 Link to comment
LouisianaHusker Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 So in other words, you can't answer why I should have to pay for coverage that I don't need. No. I was trying to give you a personal example instead of just saying "risk pooling." But if you'd prefer, the answer is risk pooling. Also you know exactly how the term Obamacare has always been used as a nickname for the Individual Mandate of the ACA and the entire ACA overall. No. I've never heard someone (other than you, apparently) refer to the individual mandate portion of the ACA as Obamacare. I have heard the entire ACA referred to as Obamacare. Given that, what you're trying to argue doesn't really make sense. You said that the federal government is forcing people to be on Obamacare. It doesn't really make sense for you to say that the federal government (through the individual mandate) is forcing people to be on the individual mandate. Carl, risk pooling does not work. If it did people that live in Key West Florida should be required to buy avalanche insurance and those that live in Point Barrow Alaska should be required to buy tornado insurance. Now for the next part. You say that is doesn't make sense to say that the federal government (through the individual mandate) is forcing people to be on the individual mandate. Well than why did CNN post the link below? http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/13/news/economy/obamacare-penalty/ Now you did notice that in 2014 the penalty is $95 per adult or 1% which ever is higher? Now lets say 1 adult refuses to get health insurance and decides to pay the "penalty" or "TAX" as the USSC incorrectly ruled it IMHO. $95 dollars times 100 = $9500. How many people do you know making less than $9500 per year? So it seems to me that the vast majority of the poor are going to pay the 1%, but we know that isn't going to happen because they are the ones that are going to get their health care paId for because of the rate hikes that people like me are going to end up paying. Here comes 2015 and now the penalties are $325 per adult or 2% which ever is higher. Next comes 2016 and now it is $695 per adult or 2.5% which ever is higher. Now I went to that California site that you used earlier for rate quotes and I put in my information back when I was a part time worker from 10 years ago making less that 18K per year before taxes but using my current age of 42. The cheapest plan was $5 dollars a month after tax credits. Now here is the kicker, the individual deductable was $5000 and the family deductible was $10000. How is that affordable? Link to comment
tschu Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/29/the-health-care-trilemma-how-obamacare-is-changing-insurance-premiums/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/10/29/morning-plum-why-normal-debate-about-obamacare-is-impossible/ should be required reading for Husker37, LouisianaHusker, JJ, and a couple others I can't think of right now Link to comment
tschu Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 carlfense, hang in there brother your screen name has had a tough day and i about had an aneurysm reading some of the posts on the last couple of pages, as I'm sure you did. good thing I have health insurance. Link to comment
tschu Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 I'm now "an Idiot" for being "nearly 100% healthy? You’re not an idiot, you’re just being completely insensitive to those who aren’t fortunate to be healthy like you. I haven't been able to afford health insurance for about 6 years now. Well, if only there was some massive healthcare overhaul designed to allow people access to affordable insurance who wouldn’t be able to get it otherwise? I don't blame/credit either political party for this "Affordable" Care Act. They can get lost in the blaming of each other for it fine all by themselves, when it's more likely funded by the EVIL Insurance Industry...They were almost tolerable when they were just investing our money while charging us crazy interest rates for us to borrow our own money..(Term Life vs. Whole Life)..Now that they can't make near as much in the Stock Market investing our premiums, they start pressuring our elected officials to strike a deal to guarantee EVERY worker has to fund them through premiums... I mean...get insurance with a tasty compromise that "pre-existing" conditions won't affect our ability to get care. On the surface, that sounds "sorta" fair...I'd like to think I could have gotten a better deal, but I doubt it. My own experiences aside, I just DON'T TRUST INSURANCE COMPANIES, and I don't see them paying for everything that can happen to everybody...They'll start off denying any "Experimental Procedures" that show promise in other countries, and fight tooth and nail to keep them from being approved without decades of research and testing... Kidding, but I wouldn't put it past them to start making the hard decisions about denying older folks from getting care that would extend their lives and just focus on trying to make them comfortable..Which maybe they should in order to do what's "best for your country and humanity and your future". (Sounds a little "Hitler Youth" creepy seeing it that way) It's more than a little retarded to trust big business to actually care about our health when it's in their best interest (short term) to collect the premiums and run. I totally agree, but there’s zero chance of getting any real solution right now. We’re probably 40 years away from getting the ACTUAL solution, being the single-payer system of course. Republicans love them some capitalism and big business, even when it’s completely horrifically broken. I’m all for regulated capitalism, but health care is one area where capitalism simply cannot work, due to the infinite self-valuing of our own lives. Our lives and our well-being are, at the end of the day, all we have. Normal supply-and-demand economic rules do not apply – insurance companies and healthcare providers can price gouge until they milk us dry. If our Government seriously feels like wrecking..I mean ..Taking over something, I wish they'd leave Medicine alone and just take over the Insurance industry...Socialize That!!! I mean, in a sense, that’s basically what they are doing. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 Carl, risk pooling does not work. If it did people that live in Key West Florida should be required to buy avalanche insurance and those that live in Point Barrow Alaska should be required to buy tornado insurance. . . . what? You say that is doesn't make sense to say that the federal government (through the individual mandate) is forcing people to be on the individual mandate. . . . and I think that we're done here. I don't mean to be rude but if you think that that makes any sort of sense we're wasting our time. Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 You really have totally bought into every "article" that comes up on this subject haven't you? This paragraph alone totally throws any credibility for your link out the window. . . . So....the author...."guarantees us" what they think. Really? That's pretty darn good reporting right there. I'm sure they will win a Pulitzer over that article. I have absolutely no clue what "Deborah's" plan was before so how can this "reporter" claim anything? Oops. I talked with [Deborah] Cavallaro, 60, after her CNBC appearance. Let's walk through what she told me. Her current plan, from Anthem Blue Cross, is a catastrophic coverage plan for which she pays $293 a month as an individual policyholder. It requires her to pay a deductible of $5,000 a year and limits her out-of-pocket costs to $8,500 a year. Her plan also limits her to two doctor visits a year, for which she shoulders a copay of $40 each. After that, she pays the whole cost of subsequent visits. This fits the very definition of a nonconforming plan under Obamacare. The deductible and out-of-pocket maximums are too high, the provisions for doctor visits too skimpy. . . . At her age, she's eligible for a good "silver" plan for $333 a month after the subsidy -- $40 a month more than she's paying now. But the plan is much better than her current plan -- the deductible is $2,000, not $5,000. The maximum out-of-pocket expense is $6,350, not $8,500. Her co-pays would be $45 for a primary care visit and $65 for a specialty visit -- but all visits would be covered, not just two. Is that better than her current plan? Yes, by a mile. http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77990231/ 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Lol.....my joking about the comment on"deductibles in the thousands" went obviously over some heads. I happen to be FOR high deductible plans because it forces people to be consumers. And......doesn't she still have deductibles in the thousands ? I'm happy for the reporter that his assumptions were right. Great for him. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Btw.....I just found out that Bcbs is predicting that my company's health insurance plan is going to go up over 70 % on March 1st. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Some more fuel to the fire - http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/10/31/forbes-obama-officials-predicted-2010-93-million-would-lose-health-pl#ixzz2jJGbh1b1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 Lol.....my joking about the comment on"deductibles in the thousands" went obviously over some heads. . . . not really. I think that it was passed over for a reason other than a lack of understanding. I'm happy for the reporter that his assumptions were right. Great for him. Link to comment
Junior Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 I happen to be FOR high deductible plans because it forces people to be consumers. Yea... we should have to choose between fixing the heater and getting that back surgery. Link to comment
tschu Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Some more fuel to the fire - http://newsbusters.o...l#ixzz2jJGbh1b1 93 MILLION WILL LOSE THEIR PLANS!!!!! only to have them replaced with more comprehensive plans. Meanwhile upwards of 10 million will have insurance that didn't have it before. THE HUMANITY Link to comment
carlfense Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 . . . Meanwhile upwards of 10 million will have insurance that didn't have it before. THE HUMANITY Shhhh. We can't talk about that. Link to comment
Recommended Posts