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 21
    More: Followup, obamacare, Susteren, Washington, Erik Smith, doctor's visit  
•       •       •

1107 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Nov 2013 at 9:58 AM (34 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-11-19 10:20:44 AM
5 votes:

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 10:25:25 AM
2 votes:

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 03:54:55 PM
1 votes:

Mrbogey: Johnny_Whistle: Except come up with any kind of alternative, you mean.

Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


Oh, right, I forgot about "'Mericans For Emergency Rooms (MFERs, for short)."
2013-11-19 03:20:01 PM
1 votes:
As someone who is associated with medical insurance companies, i would say that the first thing she needs to do is to dislodge her Doc off of the teat of that really hot Drug Co rep and have him come up with an alternative to a drug that costs $250 per month.

If that is not possible, plead poverty to the drug Co and get the meds that way. If that does not work, buy 'em from Canada or India.  She has a scrip, so no problem.

If all all else fails, the plans she can sign up for have MOOPS varying from $3,000 to $6,000 per year so at least the expenses are capped.

Deal with it.  Without ObamaCare we'd tell the guy to Eff-Off and die if he wanted his pre-existing covered.  So $6K MOOP per year or die?  What's better?
2013-11-19 12:57:50 PM
1 votes:

Talondel: forcing insurance companies to cover people from ages 18 to 26".


You have to do an awful lot of twisting to get to that statement.  Insurance companies are not forced to offer family plans.

Talondel: That has a cost associated with it.


Paid for by the policy holder.  The world is not so poutrageous as you make it to be.

Talondel: So instead of having kids age 18 to 26 without insurance, we'll have parents with higher insurance costs


There is not a single parent in the entire country that is forced to purchase a family plan.
2013-11-19 12:48:34 PM
1 votes:

SlothB77: Republicans did everything they could to prevent the suffering that is now wreaking havoc across this great nation.


Except come up with any kind of alternative, you mean.
2013-11-19 12:37:16 PM
1 votes:

monoski: 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


Basically. Single payer universal healthcare is what we should have, but the very same conservatives whining about this are the ones that blocked anything but the emasculated version of the ACA (remember, this was meant to be more comprehensive, but after years of fighting it, what we have was the version that made it through Congress.)

Fark you, conservatives.
2013-11-19 12:28:47 PM
1 votes:

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 12:27:52 PM
1 votes:

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 11:53:34 AM
1 votes:

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 11:24:58 AM
1 votes:

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 11:04:09 AM
1 votes:

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 10:59:11 AM
1 votes:

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 10:39:40 AM
1 votes:

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 10:33:11 AM
1 votes:

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 10:30:43 AM
1 votes:
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 10:21:40 AM
1 votes:
What's with the derpnado today?
2013-11-19 10:10:03 AM
1 votes:
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 10:06:11 AM
1 votes:
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 10:04:50 AM
1 votes:
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 10:04:45 AM
1 votes:
Take some English classes subby.
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report