If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Obamacare fan quoted by President discovers that she can't afford it after Washington state web site gets told there should have been math   (foxnews.com) divider line 73
    More: Followup, obamacare, Susteren, Washington, Erik Smith, doctor's visit  
•       •       •

1109 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Nov 2013 at 9:58 AM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



73 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-19 10:04:45 AM
Take some English classes subby.
 
2013-11-19 10:04:50 AM
So....... This is an "article" with a transcript of a radio interview of a person that wasn't the one quoted. Just saying "she" said this / that.

Seems legit.
 
2013-11-19 10:06:11 AM
http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator

According to the math, she makes at least $48,000 a year and can get a silver plan to cover both her and her kid less than $5K a year.
 
2013-11-19 10:10:03 AM
VAN SUSTEREN: So she is going to pay that $95142.50 (FTFMVS) tax, is that right?
SMITH: She says that she has no choice.


$142 > $250*12 == math Republicans do to make themselves feel bitter.

BTW, if she makes more than qualifies her for a subsidy at 400 percent of the poverty line and self employed, I'm going to guess she's a lot more successful than the article leads me to believe.
 
2013-11-19 10:10:55 AM

lennavan: http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator

According to the math, she makes at least $48,000 a year and can get a silver plan to cover both her and her kid less than $5K a year.


and the pre-ex conditions that would impact both of them are removed. Whole article seems like a stretch.
 
2013-11-19 10:13:12 AM

Fantasta Potamus: So....... This is an "article" with a transcript of a radio interview of a person that wasn't the one quoted. Just saying "she" said this / that.


http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/rude-awakening-for-federal-way-w om an-who-got-shout-out-from-president-cant-afford-obamacare-policy-after -all/

Google. How the fark does it work.
 
2013-11-19 10:15:39 AM
Her son has "ADHD" and she is working on some tendonitis, so if they're not both collecting about $1,200/month on disability, they soon will be.  And Medicare is "free"!  So everything is working out just fine for this Obama voter.
 
2013-11-19 10:17:16 AM
The not very Affordable ....

How many ways to fail, that is the question.
 
2013-11-19 10:17:36 AM

Fantasta Potamus: So....... This is an "article" with a transcript of a radio interview of a person that wasn't the one quoted. Just saying "she" said this / that.

Seems legit.


Hmm, so her letter to the Pres that he quoted in a presser?  Just fine.  This?  You're skeptical.

The problems with the Washington exchange website are well known, by the way.  And if you don't like the source,

http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/rude-awakening-for-federal-way-w om an-who-got-shout-out-from-president-cant-afford-obamacare-policy-after -all/

This was the first I'd heard of why they were getting the subsidy numbers wrong, though.  Amazing.  The country's in the best of hands.
 
2013-11-19 10:17:48 AM

Fantasta Potamus: So....... This is an "article" with a transcript of a radio interview of a person that wasn't the one quoted. Just saying "she" said this / that.

Seems legit.


Here's a better article with actual quotes from the woman involved.

lennavan: http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator

According to the math, she makes at least $48,000 a year and can get a silver plan to cover both her and her kid less than $5K a year.


Maybe it's something to do with the kid's medication - the insurance might not cover the whole $250 a month or the deductibles might be too high.  Still, if your kid needs that much in medication, I would have to imagine he's got some underlying medical problem ... and that not finding some way to get insurance would just be asking for a disaster.  Personally, I think the solution to her problems is to go to the daddy and tell him to support his kid.
 
2013-11-19 10:19:52 AM
The redlit article had a bit more info. It says her actual quote included a $452/month subsidy. That subsidy was based on a flawed calculator. Also, her signing her son up for Medicaid changed her tax status.

Here
 
2013-11-19 10:20:44 AM

monoski: lennavan: http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator

According to the math, she makes at least $48,000 a year and can get a silver plan to cover both her and her kid less than $5K a year.

and the pre-ex conditions that would impact both of them are removed. Whole article seems like a stretch.


The article Talondel posted is better:

Yes, Sanford says, it was all true at the time she wrote the letter. She was ecstatic when she discovered she could sign up for a health plan that covered all her needs at a reasonable price. As a freelance court reporter, Sanford, 48, doesn't make a lot - a little less than $50,000 a year.

She doesn't make a lot?  That's above the median income.  I'm shocked that Fox News didn't decide to run with that portion of the story.  If they agree this a lady who makes above the median income can't afford health insurance, doesn't that say something about the median income?  Oh wait, that doesn't fit into their narrative.

That doesn't go very far when there is a child in the household and his father doesn't pay child support.

How is that the ACA's fault?

Before the Affordable Care Act came along, she was getting rate quotes of $500 and $600 a month.

After the ACA, she gets quotes of $4700 a year, or under $400 a month.  So fark you Obama?
 
2013-11-19 10:21:20 AM

monoski: lennavan: http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator

According to the math, she makes at least $48,000 a year and can get a silver plan to cover both her and her kid less than $5K a year.

and the pre-ex conditions that would impact both of them are removed. Whole article seems like a stretch.


The issue seems to be that she originally thought (due to an error on the website) that she would be paying only $169 a month.  Instead it would be closer to $380 a month, or about $4500 a year.  That is after a federal subsidy (i.e. money from other tax payers) of about $1600.  Alternately, she could drop down to a bronze plan and pay about $250 a month, or $3000 a year, again after a subsidy.  But according to her, given the deductibles on a bronze plan, she is better off going without insurance and paying the $95 tax:

"Now she says her health-insurance dream has gone bust. Without a tax credit she has to consider the cheapest "bronze" level plans, but the deductibles are so high that couldn't afford to purchase prescription medication. "I was like, forget that - I'm not going to pay."
So now she is looking forward to no health insurance at all. Under the terms of the Affordable Care Act, she will have to pay a penalty of $95."


Which is going to be true for any relatively healthy person.  It's almost always cheaper under the ACA to go without insurance until you need it.  If she or her son gets sick she can always pay out of pocket this year and then sign up for the exact same plan during next year's open enrollment.
 
2013-11-19 10:21:40 AM
What's with the derpnado today?
 
2013-11-19 10:21:44 AM

Karac: Personally, I think the solution to her problems is to go to the daddy and tell him to support his kid.


Even with the presumption that he's not dead, considering that 70 percent of child support obligors earn less than $10000 a year I doubt he's a gold mine.
 
2013-11-19 10:21:45 AM

pueblonative: she's a lot more successful than the article leads me to believe.



Americans really hate admitting there are classes in our society, which is why even people making 6 figures a year like to pretend they're hard workin' Joe six packs just barely scrapin' by, rather than privileged elites.  The people who can't even afford a six pack are too busy worrying about keeping the lights on to even bother romanticizing their lot in life.
 
2013-11-19 10:22:30 AM

Talondel: Fantasta Potamus: So....... This is an "article" with a transcript of a radio interview of a person that wasn't the one quoted. Just saying "she" said this / that.

http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/rude-awakening-for-federal-way-w om an-who-got-shout-out-from-president-cant-afford-obamacare-policy-after -all/

Google. How the fark does it work.


Why should I Google it when I have you to do it for me?

Anyway, that article is better than the one green lit here. This is transcript of a Fox News radio interview about an interview done by a newspaper.
 
2013-11-19 10:23:14 AM
Clearly this whole situation is fundamentally farked.

/Scrap everything and go to a single payer system.
 
2013-11-19 10:25:25 AM

Talondel: It's almost always cheaper under the ACA to go without insurance until you need it.


That is true for every single person in every single type of insurance.  That's how insurance works.  People pay a premium that's slightly higher than the average claim.

Talondel: But according to her, given the deductibles on a bronze plan, she is better off going without insurance and paying the $95 tax:


Yes, she is better off going without insurance and paying the $95 tax that will ensure she gets catastrophic coverage, unless something happens to her.That's how insurance works.  I'm way better off not paying for my car insurance, unless I get into a crash.
 
2013-11-19 10:25:39 AM

Tyee: The not very Affordable ....

How many ways to fail, that is the question.


blogs.msdn.com
 
2013-11-19 10:28:14 AM
Can we get an Obamacare tab up in here?
 
2013-11-19 10:28:37 AM
The Washington site just this past weekend was held up as a shining model for the nation by its sock puppet governor. Today, it was revealed that the site is incorrectly listing health care providers available under certain levels of coverage.

The good news is, more doctors were available than listed but it's not such good news if people picked a different plan because of the misinformation.

Problems are inevitable with such a massive rollout, so both rabid critics and supporters should tone it down or there won't be anybody with any credibility left.
 
2013-11-19 10:28:55 AM

Talondel: monoski: lennavan: http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator

According to the math, she makes at least $48,000 a year and can get a silver plan to cover both her and her kid less than $5K a year.

and the pre-ex conditions that would impact both of them are removed. Whole article seems like a stretch.

The issue seems to be that she originally thought (due to an error on the website) that she would be paying only $169 a month.  Instead it would be closer to $380 a month, or about $4500 a year.  That is after a federal subsidy (i.e. money from other tax payers) of about $1600.  Alternately, she could drop down to a bronze plan and pay about $250 a month, or $3000 a year, again after a subsidy.  But according to her, given the deductibles on a bronze plan, she is better off going without insurance and paying the $95 tax:

"Now she says her health-insurance dream has gone bust. Without a tax credit she has to consider the cheapest "bronze" level plans, but the deductibles are so high that couldn't afford to purchase prescription medication. "I was like, forget that - I'm not going to pay."
So now she is looking forward to no health insurance at all. Under the terms of the Affordable Care Act, she will have to pay a penalty of $95."

Which is going to be true for any relatively healthy person.  It's almost always cheaper under the ACA to go without insurance until you need it.  If she or her son gets sick she can always pay out of pocket this year and then sign up for the exact same plan during next year's open enrollment.


That is phenominally irresponsible when you have a child who has health problems.
 
2013-11-19 10:30:43 AM
I love how conservatives are all of the sudden concerned about people not being covered any more.  How about we just institute single payer health care so that this won't be an issue any more?
 
2013-11-19 10:33:11 AM

Talondel: But according to her, given the deductibles on a bronze plan, she is better off going without insurance and paying the $95 tax:


I hope somebody contacts her and tells her that, given an annual income of $50000, it's going to be $500 this year.  That might be some sticker shock to her.
 
2013-11-19 10:35:25 AM

Talondel: The issue seems to be that she originally thought (due to an error on the website) that she would be paying only $169 a month. Instead it would be closer to $380 a month, or about $4500 a year. That is after a federal subsidy (i.e. money from other tax payers) of about $1600. Alternately, she could drop down to a bronze plan and pay about $250 a month, or $3000 a year, again after a subsidy. But according to her, given the deductibles on a bronze plan, she is better off going without insurance and paying the $95 tax:


In short, she can't do basic math, let alone manage complex decision making about future implications without coverage.  Great parenting.
 
2013-11-19 10:39:01 AM

Leader O'Cola: Talondel: The issue seems to be that she originally thought (due to an error on the website) that she would be paying only $169 a month. Instead it would be closer to $380 a month, or about $4500 a year. That is after a federal subsidy (i.e. money from other tax payers) of about $1600. Alternately, she could drop down to a bronze plan and pay about $250 a month, or $3000 a year, again after a subsidy. But according to her, given the deductibles on a bronze plan, she is better off going without insurance and paying the $95 tax:

In short, she can't do basic math, let alone manage complex decision making about future implications without coverage.  Great parenting.


Nobody should ever take her seriously.
 
2013-11-19 10:39:40 AM

lennavan: That is true for every single person in every single type of insurance.  That's how insurance works.  People pay a premium that's slightly higher than the average claim.


Well you see, before the ACA you had an incentive to purchase and keep health insurance, because if you developed a condition while you weren't insured, no one would sell you insurance because you had a pre-existing condition.  That's a fairly powerful incentive to keep insurance.

Now, the incentive to purchase health insurance is a $95 tax (although that amount will increase in future years) and you can't be denied coverage if you have a pre-existing condition.  So what the ACA has done is encoded into the law an incentive to not purchase insurance until your sick.  It tries to overcome this with a series of tax penalties and and incentives, but as the article (and your comments) demonstrates, that incentive is insufficient.  You should just wait until you get sick, knowing that the system will be forced to sell you coverage anyway.

So what we will see is state and federal exchanges full of only people who need insurance because their annual medical expenses are equal to or greater than the cost of insurance.  Healthy people who don't already have coverage and don't have a pressing need for insurance won't buy it, because the cost is roughly equal to new car payment, and most people would rather have a new car (or whatever else they can get for $400 a month).

When healthy people like this woman and her son don't join the exchanges, prices in the exchanges will soar.  At that point, some one will find a reason to blame the rising price of insurance on anything and everything other than the absurd system of perverse incentives created by this abomination.  And then we'll either scrap this system and go back to something like what we have now, or we'll implement a single payer system.
 
2013-11-19 10:48:01 AM

Leader O'Cola: Talondel: The issue seems to be that she originally thought (due to an error on the website) that she would be paying only $169 a month. Instead it would be closer to $380 a month, or about $4500 a year. That is after a federal subsidy (i.e. money from other tax payers) of about $1600. Alternately, she could drop down to a bronze plan and pay about $250 a month, or $3000 a year, again after a subsidy. But according to her, given the deductibles on a bronze plan, she is better off going without insurance and paying the $95 tax:

In short, she can't do basic math, let alone manage complex decision making about future implications without coverage.  Great parenting.


There's no way you can tell that from the article.  All it says is that, given what she can afford through the exchanges, and her known current medical expenses, she is better off without coverage.  As has already been pointed out, that's almost always going to be true.  The article says that pre ACA she would have been paying $100 or $200 a month more.  Well no shiat, if the federal government gives you $1600 of other peoples money, certainly you're going save some.  The point is that even that $200 a month savings isn't enough to make buying insurance a good deal for this family.  Especially not when there's guaranteed issue and you can just buy insurance after you get sick.

You're asking this woman to spend $4500 a year of her money, plus $1600 a year in other people's money, in order to cover far less than that in medical expenses.  And then you say she's a moron for not taking the deal.  No.  She'd be a moron to take that deal.  If buying insurance doesn't save her money, she shouldn't buy it.  If she or her son get sick and their expenses go up, then she can buy insurance at that point.

I also find it amusing that people thing a single mother with an income around $48000 a year should be able to add an additional $380 a month payment to her budget without any problems.  Yeah, I'm sure there are a lot of single moms out there with an extra $400 a month to blow.
 
2013-11-19 10:48:06 AM
lennavan:

Yes, she is better off going without insurance and paying the $95 tax that will ensure she gets catastrophic coverage, unless something happens to her.That's how insurance works.  I'm way better off not paying for my car insurance, unless I get into a crash.

For me, it has more to do with what I stand to lose, vs. what it's going to cost me. If you've got no assets, skip the insurance, get treated at the emergency room, and file (medical) bankruptcy. Then, get insurance.
 
2013-11-19 10:48:16 AM

Talondel: It tries to overcome this with a series of tax penalties and and incentives, but as the article (and your comments) demonstrates, that incentive is insufficient. You should just wait until you get sick, knowing that the system will be forced to sell you coverage anyway.


And somehow Massachussetts was able to drop its uninsured to 2 percent.  Figures that those libby libs and their RINO conspirytors don't cotton to cracker barrel common sense.  And the health insurance companies have to take you despite your condition; they don't have to cover anything that you racked up on your own prior to that coverage.  Yes, you could wait the 9 months to hit that coverage area, but if you have a serious medical condition good luck with that.
 
2013-11-19 10:53:12 AM

Talondel: Now, the incentive to purchase health insurance is a $95 tax (although that amount will increase in future years) and you can't be denied coverage if you have a pre-existing condition.  So what the ACA has done is encoded into the law an incentive to not purchase insurance until your sick.  It tries to overcome this with a series of tax penalties and and incentives, but as the article (and your comments) demonstrates, that incentive is insufficient.  You should just wait until you get sick, knowing that the system will be forced to sell you coverage anyway.


Not quite, it's $95 or 1%, whichever is highest (I believe per person but I could be wrong), so you're going to need to be making no more than 9,500 a year as a single individual to pay that much. The penalty alone makes getting at least a bronze plan the smartest financial decision, although silver plans might also slide in under the threshold of costing less than the penalty. There's pretty much no reason to want to pay the penalty instead of getting insured past self-indulgence that you're not supporting others, except you are because that's the reason the penalty was implemented.
 
2013-11-19 10:53:49 AM

pueblonative: Talondel: But according to her, given the deductibles on a bronze plan, she is better off going without insurance and paying the $95 tax:

I hope somebody contacts her and tells her that, given an annual income of $50000, it's going to be $500 this year.  That might be some sticker shock to her.


It's 1% of taxable (i.e. post deduction) income, not gross income.  So it won't be anywhere near $500, though I concede it will likely be more than the $95 minimum.  That is assuming that the tax penalty for the individual mandate isn't waived for 2014 or postponed.
 
2013-11-19 10:59:11 AM

Talondel: So what we will see is state and federal exchanges full of only people who need insurance because their annual medical expenses are equal to or greater than the cost of insurance. Healthy people who don't already have coverage and don't have a pressing need for insurance won't buy it, because the cost is roughly equal to new car payment, and most people would rather have a new car (or whatever else they can get for $400 a month).


That's not entirely true.  I'm healthy and don't have a pressing need for insurance, but I'll be buying some off the exchange.

The most pressing reason?  A coworker who's only a year or two older than me (and frankly, in much better general health than I am) got kidney stones two or three months ago.  He was in the hospital one night on painkillers.  His wife's a nurse at the hospital, so he only got something like a $500 bill ... a considerable drop from the original $20,000.

Now me?  I'm unmarried and don't have insurance.  If the same thing happened to me then I'd have to choose between going to the hospital and saying goodbye to about half my yearly income, or load up at the ABC store down the street from my house, climb into my bathtub, and try to drink myself into oblivion until they pass.  Or I could just sign up for Obamacare.
 
2013-11-19 11:04:09 AM

Talondel: There's no way you can tell that from the article. All it says is that, given what she can afford through the exchanges, and her known current medical expenses, she is better off without coverage. As has already been pointed out, that's almost always going to be true. The article says that pre ACA she would have been paying $100 or $200 a month more. Well no shiat, if the federal government gives you $1600 of other peoples money, certainly you're going save some. The point is that even that $200 a month savings isn't enough to make buying insurance a good deal for this family. Especially not when there's guaranteed issue and you can just buy insurance after you get sick.

You're asking this woman to spend $4500 a year of her money, plus $1600 a year in other people's money, in order to cover far less than that in medical expenses. And then you say she's a moron for not taking the deal. No. She'd be a moron to take that deal. If buying insurance doesn't save her money, she shouldn't buy it. If she or her son get sick and their expenses go up, then she can buy insurance at that point.


I think you may have missed several key points of TFA.  First off, she's not going to get "$1600 of other peoples money" because she makes too much to qualify for subsides.  Secondly, her kid is already sick.
 
2013-11-19 11:14:06 AM

Talondel: Fantasta Potamus: So....... This is an "article" with a transcript of a radio interview of a person that wasn't the one quoted. Just saying "she" said this / that.

http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/rude-awakening-for-federal-way-w om an-who-got-shout-out-from-president-cant-afford-obamacare-policy-after -all/

Google. How the fark does it work.


Don't you know that any 'proof' provided that comes from web-sites are 'racist' and not accepted by Farkers?
 
2013-11-19 11:14:41 AM

FarkedOver: I love how conservatives are all of the sudden concerned about people not being covered any more.  How about we just institute single payer health care so that this won't be an issue any more?


They never pretend to care about that first part, the focus is on "Obama lied and people died"
--Rand Paul
 
2013-11-19 11:19:15 AM

UrCa: Talondel: Now, the incentive to purchase health insurance is a $95 tax (although that amount will increase in future years) and you can't be denied coverage if you have a pre-existing condition.  So what the ACA has done is encoded into the law an incentive to not purchase insurance until your sick.  It tries to overcome this with a series of tax penalties and and incentives, but as the article (and your comments) demonstrates, that incentive is insufficient.  You should just wait until you get sick, knowing that the system will be forced to sell you coverage anyway.

Not quite, it's $95 or 1%, whichever is highest (I believe per person but I could be wrong), so you're going to need to be making no more than 9,500 a year as a single individual to pay that much. The penalty alone makes getting at least a bronze plan the smartest financial decision, although silver plans might also slide in under the threshold of costing less than the penalty. There's pretty much no reason to want to pay the penalty instead of getting insured past self-indulgence that you're not supporting others, except you are because that's the reason the penalty was implemented.


$95 per person, $47.50 per dependent child under the age of 18.  And the penalty doesn't have any teeth if you aren't getting a refund back.
 
2013-11-19 11:24:58 AM

Karac: The most pressing reason? A coworker who's only a year or two older than me (and frankly, in much better general health than I am) got kidney stones two or three months ago. He was in the hospital one night on painkillers. His wife's a nurse at the hospital, so he only got something like a $500 bill ... a considerable drop from the original $20,000.


That's impossible. I've been told that people never have unexpected health problems.  Obviously you should have paid the penalty and then biatched about getting a huge medical bill when something bad happens.
 
2013-11-19 11:39:09 AM

Karac: The most pressing reason? A coworker who's only a year or two older than me (and frankly, in much better general health than I am) got kidney stones two or three months ago. He was in the hospital one night on painkillers.


Our next door neighbor, young woman (34 or so) just got married. For their honeymoon they went hiking in Europe. Came back, and was having a problem with her left knee. Went for xrays, and they happen to xray the right leg also. Found several large and malignant tumors on the right tibia. So big the doctors were surprised her leg hadn't broken. Now she faces surgery, and probably chemo or radiation. Scary.

You just never know...
 
2013-11-19 11:42:21 AM
whither_apophis:
/Scrap everything and go to a single payer system.

With the relative ease in which the ACA passed I'm sure single payer would breeze through Congress.
 
2013-11-19 11:42:47 AM

DarnoKonrad: pueblonative: she's a lot more successful than the article leads me to believe.


Americans really hate admitting there are classes in our society, which is why even people making 6 figures a year like to pretend they're hard workin' Joe six packs just barely scrapin' by, rather than privileged elites.  The people who can't even afford a six pack are too busy worrying about keeping the lights on to even bother romanticizing their lot in life.


Most people making 6 figures a year are hard working Joe six packs. Are they better off than somebody making $40,000? Of course, but it is usually by a factor of nicer things, e.g. the new car instead of the sued car, the nicer house instead of the apartment, the dinner out at Olive Garden instead of McDonald's. Six figures doesn't remotely make you privileged elite until you start creeping up into high six figures.
 
2013-11-19 11:45:51 AM

Karac: I think you may have missed several key points of TFA. First off, she's not going to get "$1600 of other peoples money" because she makes too much to qualify for subsides. Secondly, her kid is already sick.


Heh. I think you'd be correct. But really, it was only a "good deal" when she thought she was getting to force the cost of the insurance upon others, via subsidy. Suddenly, when she discovers that it's all on her, it's not such a good deal anymore.
 
2013-11-19 11:53:34 AM

Talondel: Well you see, before the ACA you had an incentive to purchase and keep health insurance, because if you developed a condition while you weren't insured, no one would sell you insurance because you had a pre-existing condition. That's a fairly powerful incentive to keep insurance.


That is fundamentally not true.  All sorts of places would sell people with pre-existing conditions insurance.  It wasn't until those people filed claims that the insurance companies would go digging and denying claims.

What's more, somehow people were born with pre-existing conditions and therefore were never going to be coverable by insurance.

Those are two even more powerful incentives to pass the ACA.
 
2013-11-19 11:53:55 AM

Karac: Talondel: There's no way you can tell that from the article. All it says is that, given what she can afford through the exchanges, and her known current medical expenses, she is better off without coverage. As has already been pointed out, that's almost always going to be true. The article says that pre ACA she would have been paying $100 or $200 a month more. Well no shiat, if the federal government gives you $1600 of other peoples money, certainly you're going save some. The point is that even that $200 a month savings isn't enough to make buying insurance a good deal for this family. Especially not when there's guaranteed issue and you can just buy insurance after you get sick.

You're asking this woman to spend $4500 a year of her money, plus $1600 a year in other people's money, in order to cover far less than that in medical expenses. And then you say she's a moron for not taking the deal. No. She'd be a moron to take that deal. If buying insurance doesn't save her money, she shouldn't buy it. If she or her son get sick and their expenses go up, then she can buy insurance at that point.

I think you may have missed several key points of TFA.  First off, she's not going to get "$1600 of other peoples money" because she makes too much to qualify for subsides.  Secondly, her kid is already sick.


Her kid is already sick, in that he's being treated for ADHD, but according to her given the deductibles involved on a bronze plan, there won't be much actual reduction in her out of pocket costs.  I've no idea if that's true.  But most common ADHD medications are available for around the price of a typical copay, so it's not out of the question.

Regarding your other point, the article I linked says she makes "a little less than $50,000 a year."  I am aware that the article states that she isn't eligible for any subsidy.  However, that appears to be incorrect based on my research.  The subsidy for a single adult cuts off around $45000 a year.  But she has a kid.  Taking that into account, the various subsidy calculators agree that she should be paying $496 a month for a silver plan, with a $116 subsidy according to one calculator (http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/healthpolicy/calculator/ ) or a $1600 annual subsidy according to another calculator (http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/).

Karac: Or I could just sign up for Obamacare.


If you're under 30 (or apply for a hardship) you could buy a catastrophic coverage plan that would probably make more financial sense.  You'd be out more money if you get kidney stones or gall stones (probably around $5000) but depending on your income it could save you a couple thousand dollars.  Of course, a catastophic coverage plan under the ACA will cost a great deal more than what they did pre ACA, as they're now required to cover a ton of crap you probably don't want.  So signing up for that through the exchange will actually cost you more than it would have pre ACA.  Although if your income is low enough you may get a better price on a Bronze plan, as those are eligible for subsidies that the catastrophic plans aren't.

All of this ignores the fact that if you don't have a net worth that's worth insuring, there's no rational incentive to get health insurance.
 
2013-11-19 11:58:16 AM

Talondel: a $95 tax (although that amount will increase in future years) and you can't be denied coverage if you have a pre-existing condition. So what the ACA has done is encoded into the law an incentive to not purchase insurance until your sick.


You already bought insurance -- it cost you $95.  You bought catastrophic insurance from the government.

Talondel: Healthy people who don't already have coverage and don't have a pressing need for insurance won't buy it


Except of course for the healthy people who couldn't afford it before.  Or the healthy people that are also young that can now be on their parents health insurance plans.

But yeah, the rest of the healthy people that did not already have coverage and are too stupid to get insurance, making the teenager bet that nothing can hurt them, will indeed have to pay the government for catastrophic only coverage.
 
2013-11-19 12:08:04 PM

Talondel: Regarding your other point, the article I linked says she makes "a little less than $50,000 a year." I am aware that the article states that she isn't eligible for any subsidy. However, that appears to be incorrect based on my research. The subsidy for a single adult cuts off around $45000 a year. But she has a kid. Taking that into account, the various subsidy calculators agree that she should be paying $496 a month for a silver plan, with a $116 subsidy according to one calculator (http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/healthpolicy/calculator/ ) or a $1600 annual subsidy according to another calculator (http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/).


The other article both of us provided links for explains that (although it's not copy/pastable).  Her income is low enough she can enroll the kid in medicaid - BUT - doing that means she can't count him for a tax credit.  Which puts her above that single adult cutoff of $45,000.
 
2013-11-19 12:27:52 PM

FarkedOver: I love how conservatives are all of the sudden concerned about people not being covered any more.  How about we just institute single payer health care so that this won't be an issue any more?


We voted to repeal this bill 50 times to try to prevent this suffering.  We took this bill to the Supreme Court.  Don't sit here and tell me we didn't care and we didn't do anything about it.  Republicans did everything they could to prevent the suffering that is now wreaking havoc across this great nation.
 
2013-11-19 12:28:47 PM

Talondel: So what the ACA has done is encoded into the law an incentive to not purchase insurance until your sick


That's great and all, but insurance is NOT retroactive. Therefore, if I have a heart attack and then get insurance afterwards, I'm on the hook for the bill. Yeah, the insurance may help with some of the cost of the meds after the fact, but it still doesn't help me out much.
 
2013-11-19 12:36:57 PM
Oh Snap!
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report