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.

(Independent Journal Review)   Welcome to Obamacare, where you pay three times what you used to pay to get "affordable" health care   (ijreview.com) divider line 564
    More: PSA, obamacare, health cares, rainy day fund  
•       •       •

2350 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Jan 2014 at 4:09 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-02 07:41:08 PM  
Alabama

farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2014-01-02 07:45:28 PM  
Forcing people who were under-insured to buy decent insurance is a feature of the ACA, not a bug,

/single payer system is looking pretty good about now isn't it?
 
2014-01-02 07:48:26 PM  
I'm still waiting for the Republican plan since they hate Obamacare

/single payer ftw
 
2014-01-02 07:49:13 PM  
Damn, I was wrong. The Kochs are still pushing this crap.

Was this an instagreen? Are we starting Freeper Friday early?
 
2014-01-02 07:50:45 PM  
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.
 
2014-01-02 07:50:59 PM  
Red staters vote for assholes, then are shocked when they get treated badly. Cry moar.
 
2014-01-02 07:51:57 PM  
A lot of this letter doesn't make sense.

You and your husband are both employed, but you're buying insurance on the individual market?
You both have jobs, own a house and two cars, but you're still below the subsidy threshold?
Your old plan, which covered 4 people, was $380 per month? What kind of plan was this?

Something smells weird.
 
2014-01-02 07:53:40 PM  
Didn't RTFA, but I figured I'd get some popcorn and watch the ODF (Obama Defense Force) come to the thread and I've not been disappointed.  While I know the libs are in favor of universal health care, they simply cannot tell anyone with a straight face that the ACA is a good law.

/not a Republican or a Democrat
 
2014-01-02 07:57:26 PM  

slayer199: Didn't RTFA, but I figured I'd get some popcorn and watch the ODF (Obama Defense Force) come to the thread and I've not been disappointed.  While I know the libs are in favor of universal health care, they simply cannot tell anyone with a straight face that the ACA is a good law.

/not a Republican or a Democrat


The ACA is a good law.

Politically motivated obstructionists have generated some problems. That's all the Koch-funded ad campaigns Fair and Balanced Conservative News Outlets have been yapping about.
 
2014-01-02 07:57:41 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: I'm still waiting for the Republican plan since they hate Obamacare

/single payer ftw


It'll be single-payer.
 
2014-01-02 07:58:52 PM  

slayer199: Didn't RTFA, but I figured I'd get some popcorn and watch the ODF (Obama Defense Force) come to the thread and I've not been disappointed.  While I know the libs are in favor of universal health care, they simply cannot tell anyone with a straight face that the ACA is a good law.

/not a Republican or a Democrat


oh please tell us about great libertarian utopia that the US will become when Earl TurnerRon Paul* finally comes to power.

*oops, finger slipped
 
2014-01-02 08:03:50 PM  

DamnYankees: A lot of this letter doesn't make sense.

You and your husband are both employed, but you're buying insurance on the individual market?
You both have jobs, own a house and two cars, but you're still below the subsidy threshold?
Your old plan, which covered 4 people, was $380 per month? What kind of plan was this?

Something smells weird.


It's the blog you just read.
 
2014-01-02 08:06:56 PM  
I've seen this floating around Facebook lately. I really want a reporter or a health care policy specialist to find this woman and fact check the f*ck out of it.
 
2014-01-02 08:09:30 PM  

slayer199: Didn't RTFA, but I figured I'd get some popcorn and watch the ODF (Obama Defense Force) come to the thread and I've not been disappointed.  While I know the libs are in favor of universal health care, they simply cannot tell anyone with a straight face that the ACA is a good law.

/not a Republican or a Democrat


My insurance went from about $540 a month to $222 thanks to the ACA.
 
2014-01-02 08:12:34 PM  

slayer199: /not a Republican or a Democrat


Fark Independent tm
 
2014-01-02 08:17:50 PM  
So what if the story is true? If this woman was paying 380 a month, and getting all that health care, then someone was subsidizing her. Someone was paying the difference. And frankly, if she wants to pretend no one was, that her family just got what was coming to it because of all their hard work, fark her. I don't want to subsidize her. Let her pull her own weight, and see what that actually feels like. I'd rather subsidize someone who appreciates it.
 
2014-01-02 08:20:04 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Alabama

[farm4.staticflickr.com image 250x272]


Voiceofreason01: Forcing people who were under-insured to buy decent insurance is a feature of the ACA, not a bug,

/single payer system is looking pretty good about now isn't it?


Peter von Nostrand: I'm still waiting for the Republican plan since they hate Obamacare

/single payer ftw


fusillade762: Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.



I would like to thank this worthless woman for not providing us with details.
For example, you are you husband have jobs, but have to buy private insurance?
Please, tell use who your employers are? No? 
MEH
I dont believe you.


Point 2
Could you please include the details of what was covered in you previous plan?
Because, well, we dont believe you.

Point 3
WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What part of Obamacare was confusing?
It is coverage for poor people and screwing over red states citizens.
Didnt you get the memo?
HAHAHAH AHAHA HAHAHA HAHAHAHA
 
2014-01-02 08:22:20 PM  
My quote was $940 a month and a $12,600 deductible.  Family plan with a 52 y/o male, 57 y/0 female and a 19 y/o female student, all non smokers residing in 39157.  Because there isn't a universe where this is affordable for those making above 400% poverty level (about $78,500 a year combined income), I lol'ed.

For those thinking I am making it up, go to ehealthinsurance.com and check for yourself.  The plans offered there are the same as on healthcare.gov.

More or less, I am asked to spend $23880 a year on insurance.

/if you can't afford the deductible, what good is the worst insurance on the planet?

/you know, because men need maternity care and post menopausal women need free birth control.

I have thought the republicans were dead for years.  But that they refuse (other than the democrats running in red states) to admit this is a bad law and should be scraped before it destroys the middle class, they have opened a door for the republicans to whip the dems this year.

//will wait for all the insurance brokers to chime in and tell me how to find cheaper plans (remember:  this is the government approved cheapest bronze plan).
 
2014-01-02 08:24:51 PM  
 
2014-01-02 08:25:47 PM  

SauronWasFramed: My quote was $940 a month and a $12,600 deductible.


What did you have before?
 
2014-01-02 08:26:30 PM  

slayer199: Didn't RTFA, but I figured I'd get some popcorn and watch the ODF (Obama Defense Force) come to the thread and I've not been disappointed.  While I know the libs are in favor of universal health care, they simply cannot tell anyone with a straight face that the ACA is a good law.

/not a Republican or a Democrat


ACA is infinitely better than what we had before.
1) no life time limits
2) no previous conditions exclusions
3) subsidies so that every one is covered

yup
perfect !!

/who the fark thinks that anything, ever is perfect?
 
2014-01-02 08:32:18 PM  

DamnYankees: SauronWasFramed: My quote was $940 a month and a $12,600 deductible.

What did you have before?


Full coverage, zero deductible, hand jobs in bed if you're hospitalized overnight, and the cost was so low that the insurance company actually paid him every month.
 
2014-01-02 08:34:39 PM  

MrBallou: slayer199: Didn't RTFA, but I figured I'd get some popcorn and watch the ODF (Obama Defense Force) come to the thread and I've not been disappointed.  While I know the libs are in favor of universal health care, they simply cannot tell anyone with a straight face that the ACA is a good law.

/not a Republican or a Democrat

The ACA is a good law.

Politically motivated obstructionists have generated some problems. That's all the Koch-funded ad campaigns Fair and Balanced Conservative News Outlets have been yapping about.


Ah, a card-carrying member of the ODF.  The president didn't lie when he said, "If you like your current plan if you can keep it."  We all just misunderstood him or he didn't frame the argument the way for the American people to understand.  Heathcare.gov wasn't a total debacle.  People aren't paying substantially more for their healthcare under ACA.

Maybe if you keep shouting it loud enough, people will believe you when you say it's a good law.


 
2014-01-02 08:35:10 PM  

namatad: slayer199: Didn't RTFA, but I figured I'd get some popcorn and watch the ODF (Obama Defense Force) come to the thread and I've not been disappointed.  While I know the libs are in favor of universal health care, they simply cannot tell anyone with a straight face that the ACA is a good law.

/not a Republican or a Democrat

ACA is infinitely better than what we had before.
1) no life time limits
2) no previous conditions exclusions
3) subsidies so that every one is covered

yup
perfect !!

/who the fark thinks that anything, ever is perfect?

God

is perfect, which is why we should shift to a faith based health care system. Duh.

Take that one apart Libbytards...

/I need a shower now...
 
2014-01-02 08:35:16 PM  

fusillade762: Fark Independent tm


No, libertarian and have been since 1992.
 
2014-01-02 08:37:35 PM  
Let me guess, a Red state that didn't accept the medicare expansion. Huh. DNRTFA.
 
2014-01-02 08:38:17 PM  
Hey, those vacations ain't gonna pay for themselves.
 
2014-01-02 08:41:52 PM  

slayer199: fusillade762: Fark Independent tm

No, libertarian and have been since 1992.


so you have a poor understanding of economics and how government works in this country?

/not something most people are proud of
 
2014-01-02 08:42:51 PM  

DamnYankees: SauronWasFramed: My quote was $940 a month and a $12,600 deductible.

What did you have before?


DamnYankees: SauronWasFramed: My quote was $940 a month and a $12,600 deductible.

What did you have before?




I was paying $600 a month with a $2500 deductible and copays. And I was able to renew that plan.

Yea me.

Can't imagine how any middle age family can afford the premiums if you had no options...like people I know.

/they have opted to break the law, do without insurance. Defeating the purpose of the law.

I know a woman who is separated from her hubby. She has insurance through her employer. Because she makes too much, he can't qualify for the subsidy So she has to keep him on her policy even though she is getting divorced.

////
 
2014-01-02 08:43:57 PM  

slayer199: fusillade762: Fark Independent tm

No, libertarian and have been since 1992.


img263.imageshack.us
 
2014-01-02 08:46:24 PM  

SauronWasFramed: My quote was $940 a month and a $12,600 deductible.  Family plan with a 52 y/o male, 57 y/0 female and a 19 y/o female student, all non smokers residing in 39157.  Because there isn't a universe where this is affordable for those making above 400% poverty level (about $78,500 a year combined income), I lol'ed.

For those thinking I am making it up, go to ehealthinsurance.com and check for yourself.  The plans offered there are the same as on healthcare.gov.

More or less, I am asked to spend $23880 a year on insurance.

/if you can't afford the deductible, what good is the worst insurance on the planet?

/you know, because men need maternity care and post menopausal women need free birth control.

I have thought the republicans were dead for years.  But that they refuse (other than the democrats running in red states) to admit this is a bad law and should be scraped before it destroys the middle class, they have opened a door for the republicans to whip the dems this year.

//will wait for all the insurance brokers to chime in and tell me how to find cheaper plans (remember:  this is the government approved cheapest bronze plan).


If you think $940 a month for 3 people is a lot, I think you have no idea what employer provided insurance actually costs. I am in my 30s and the total cost of my health insurance at my last job was about $540 a month for just me, a single male in my 30s.

If you don't like shelling out $940 a month, then you get a job where the real cost is hidden from you. But that doesn't mean you or anyone is saving money. And having a choice because of the ACA is a good thing, unless you hate freedom for some reason.
 
2014-01-02 08:49:22 PM  

SauronWasFramed: My quote was $940 a month and a $12,600 deductible.


SauronWasFramed: //will wait for all the insurance brokers to chime in and tell me how to find cheaper plans (remember:  this is the government approved cheapest bronze plan).


You didn't respond to when I pointed this out in the last Obamacare thread you repeated this, so...

i.imgur.com

A few things.

1: Yes, a hard cut-off is bullshiat, but the subsidy is available up to and including $75,000. Funny how your income is just higher than that cutoff. Still, a graduated subsidy that tapered off between $45,000 and $125,000, for example, would be more reasonable.
2: You spend $3,300 more per year for the gold plan, you're looking at a $7,000 lower subsidy. Why are you committed to a bronze plan considering you and your spouse's ages?
3: I'm not saying you're wealthy or rich or anything beyond upper-middle-class, but that number seems more like an inconvenience for you than something that would really wreck you, and considering for ANYONE making less than $75,001 a subsidy is available that seriously cuts down that total and makes health insurance actually feasible and affordable... I'm not that sympathetic to you pleading poverty.
 
2014-01-02 08:50:51 PM  

itcamefromschenectady: If you think $940 a month for 3 people is a lot, I think you have no idea what employer provided insurance actually costs. I am in my 30s and the total cost of my health insurance at my last job was about $540 a month for just me, a single male in my 30s.

If you don't like shelling out $940 a month, then you get a job where the real cost is hidden from you. But that doesn't mean you or anyone is saving money. And having a choice because of the ACA is a good thing, unless you hate freedom for some reason.


Also, his combined income is, convenient, JUST SLIGHTLY higher than the cut-off for the subsidy that would make that plan $580/month.
 
2014-01-02 08:52:25 PM  

slayer199: MrBallou: slayer199: Didn't RTFA, but I figured I'd get some popcorn and watch the ODF (Obama Defense Force) come to the thread and I've not been disappointed.  While I know the libs are in favor of universal health care, they simply cannot tell anyone with a straight face that the ACA is a good law.

/not a Republican or a Democrat

The ACA is a good law.

Politically motivated obstructionists have generated some problems. That's all the Koch-funded ad campaigns Fair and Balanced Conservative News Outlets have been yapping about.

Ah, a card-carrying member of the ODF.  The president didn't lie when he said, "If you like your current plan if you can keep it."  We all just misunderstood him or he didn't frame the argument the way for the American people to understand.  Heathcare.gov wasn't a total debacle.  People aren't paying substantially more for their healthcare under ACA.

Maybe if you keep shouting it loud enough, people will believe you when you say it's a good law.


Ow! I've been projected on. Ow, ow, ow!

Obvious troll is tedious. Get a new schtick.
 
2014-01-02 08:54:01 PM  
By design, there is absolutely no way for most people to come out ahead with the ACA.  Anyone who already had insurance is going to pay more because the risk pool has been expanded greatly and the minimum services have been expanded greatly.  The only "winners" are people with pre-existing condition and the poors.  If you were healthy, in the upper middle class, and responsible - you're taking a hit.  It's the only way the math works.  No one wants to admit it, but that's the main flaw with the ACA.
 
2014-01-02 08:56:17 PM  

Lsherm: By design, there is absolutely no way for most people to come out ahead with the ACA.  Anyone who already had insurance is going to pay more because the risk pool has been expanded greatly and the minimum services have been expanded greatly.  The only "winners" are people with pre-existing condition and the poors.  If you were healthy, in the upper middle class, and responsible - you're taking a hit.  It's the only way the math works.  No one wants to admit it, but that's the main flaw with the ACA.


THAT IS HOW HEALTH INSURANCE WORKS.

The alternative was letting health insurance companies keep the risk pool as carefully selected as they wanted, which meant people with pre-existing conditions (read: lots of people, and probably you in the future) and the poors had two options: go bankrupt or die.
 
2014-01-02 08:56:32 PM  

slayer199: Didn't RTFA, but I figured I'd get some popcorn and watch the ODF (Obama Defense Force) come to the thread and I've not been disappointed.  While I know the libs are in favor of universal health care, they simply cannot tell anyone with a straight face that the ACA is a good law.

/not a Republican or a Democrat


Make that "single-payer universal health care", and I'm in.

I think the ACA may be an improvement on what existed before, but that's just like saying the Olds Cutlass Ciera was better than the Chevy Citation (they were both horrible, hateful cars, but the Olds was a more comfortable flavor of awfulness). I *do* like the idea of the individual mandate, but I'd give it some real teeth.

Approval polls of ACA are an interesting data point - but without the follow-up question "... if you don't like the current system, what would you replace it with?", there's something missing. Yes, I think the ACA is fundamentally flawed - because it didn't go nearly far enough to address the problem.

(but I also think it would be a stretch of the imagination to think the US medical industry could be changed into something like the UK's NHS, even if there was huge public approval and legislative bodies eager to do so, without a decade or so of incremental steps. so, I'll grudgingly admit that political reality in a large, prosperous nation means I don't get my way.)
 
2014-01-02 09:02:13 PM  

Bloody William: Lsherm: By design, there is absolutely no way for most people to come out ahead with the ACA.  Anyone who already had insurance is going to pay more because the risk pool has been expanded greatly and the minimum services have been expanded greatly.  The only "winners" are people with pre-existing condition and the poors.  If you were healthy, in the upper middle class, and responsible - you're taking a hit.  It's the only way the math works.  No one wants to admit it, but that's the main flaw with the ACA.

THAT IS HOW HEALTH INSURANCE WORKS.

The alternative was letting health insurance companies keep the risk pool as carefully selected as they wanted, which meant people with pre-existing conditions (read: lots of people, and probably you in the future) and the poors had two options: go bankrupt or die.


I know - didn't I just explain it?  Democrats understandably don't want to face this reality, or at least they don't want to be caught acknowledging it out loud.  They should have been up front in the first place.
 
2014-01-02 09:04:26 PM  

Lsherm: Anyone who already had insurance is going to pay more because the risk pool has been expanded greatly and the minimum services have been expanded greatly.


Besides the obvious point (already made) that this is in fact the basic function of health insurance, the ACA was not intended to save personal finances but rather to drive down Federal budget deficits by lowering government cost for indigent (and other) care, which the Congressional Budget Office says it will do a good job of doing.
 
2014-01-02 09:04:57 PM  

SauronWasFramed: ( //will wait for all the insurance brokers to chime in and tell me how to find cheaper plans (remember:  this is the government approved cheapest bronze plan).


Big question, Can any of you get insurance through work...that is a big determination.

Because after all, you are obviously not bootstrappy enough, talented or special enough to afford insurance.

Here's another option.  Ask for a pay cut from your boss.  Go down to $70,000 a year.

Health plans for three individuals, ages 52, 57 and 19, living in Madison County, MS.
Based on a household size of three and income of $70,000, you may qualify for a $1,051/month tax credit you can choose to apply to your premium for these plans. This tax credit has been applied to the premiums below.

Humana Local Preferred Bronze 6300/6300 Plan
PPO | Bronze
Humana Insurance Company

Deductible
 
$12,600/yr
Family total
$6,300/yr
Per individual


Out-of-pocket Maximum
$12,600/yr
Family
$6,300/yr
Per individual

Copayments/Coinsurance:
 
Primary Doctor: No Charge after Deductible
Specialist Doctor: No Charge after Deductible
Generic Prescription: No Charge after Deductible
ER Visit: No Charge after Deductible

So be a champ.  Take a hit for the team.
 
2014-01-02 09:06:31 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: SauronWasFramed: ( //will wait for all the insurance brokers to chime in and tell me how to find cheaper plans (remember: this is the government approved cheapest bronze plan).

Big question, Can any of you get insurance through work...that is a big determination.

Because after all, you are obviously not bootstrappy enough, talented or special enough to afford insurance.

Here's another option. Ask for a pay cut from your boss. Go down to $70,000 a year.

Health plans for three individuals, ages 52, 57 and 19, living in Madison County, MS.
Based on a household size of three and income of $70,000, you may qualify for a $1,051/month tax credit you can choose to apply to your premium for these plans. This tax credit has been applied to the premiums below.

Humana Local Preferred Bronze 6300/6300 Plan
PPO | Bronze
Humana Insurance Company

Deductible

$12,600/yr
Family total
$6,300/yr
Per individual


Out-of-pocket Maximum
$12,600/yr
Family
$6,300/yr
Per individual

Copayments/Coinsurance:

Primary Doctor: No Charge after Deductible
Specialist Doctor: No Charge after Deductible
Generic Prescription: No Charge after Deductible
ER Visit: No Charge after Deductible

So be a champ. Take a hit for the tea


Oh and your Premium

Monthly premium
 
$0/mo
3 enrollees
Premium before tax credit: $955/mo
 
2014-01-02 09:08:07 PM  
Maybe you guys should move to Michigan.  I'm covering my family of 5 for $595/month with a $2500 deductible.  All of our preventative care is covered.  I'm also paying just over $200/month to cover my employees with the same plan.  Just the employees, not their families.  If they want their families covered they pay for it themselves.  Of course, this could be because we have a group plan because I'm a pretty awesome boss and maybe you just need to find a new job or move or something.  :)
 
2014-01-02 09:08:46 PM  

SauronWasFramed: I was paying $600 a month with a $2500 deductible and copays. And I was able to renew that plan.


This is through your work? Or the individual market?

I guess I'm a bit confused. How much do you think it ought to cost to insure 2 people in their late 50s, together with their child? The actuarial risk of someone in their late 50s is pretty high.
 
2014-01-02 09:08:51 PM  

Lsherm: Democrats understandably don't want to face this reality, or at least they don't want to be caught acknowledging it out loud.


Actually I thought it was laid out rather well to begin with. For anyone actually paying attention, the fact that some people will pay more and some less and some will be able to pay some amount when they couldn't get any coverage at all was not a revelation. But I like the way you equated poverty and irresponsibility in your original post. Fairly subtle in your approach. Kudos.
 
2014-01-02 09:12:15 PM  

slayer199: Darth_Lukecash: So you're a moron. Got it.
/Not that you can't have dumb republicans and dumb democratics.

I suppose if you have a overly simplistic and myopic view of politics, you'd see it that way.  In my view, anyone voting the status quo (either party) is either a moron or naive.  Two sides of the same coin...both want nothing more than to increase the power of the federal government at the expense of individual liberty...they just attack from from opposite sides of the spectrum.


Thank you for proving my point.  You're happy to throw your vote and have no damn voice at all.

It's a two party system. That's the way our current government would naturally progress.

A third party is useless in a Representational Republic.  The only hope, really, is for one of the parties to disintegrate and rebuild.  As had happened in the Whig party when the Abolitionist/Conservatives broke off.
 
2014-01-02 09:12:49 PM  

Voiceofreason01: so you have a poor understanding of economics and how government works in this country?

/not something most people are proud of


I'd say that about the rest of the lemmings that vote for either party.
 
2014-01-02 09:13:49 PM  

Bloody William: SauronWasFramed: My quote was $940 a month and a $12,600 deductible.

SauronWasFramed: //will wait for all the insurance brokers to chime in and tell me how to find cheaper plans (remember:  this is the government approved cheapest bronze plan).

You didn't respond to when I pointed this out in the last Obamacare thread you repeated this, so...

[i.imgur.com image 800x590]

A few things.

1: Yes, a hard cut-off is bullshiat, but the subsidy is available up to and including $75,000. Funny how your income is just higher than that cutoff. Still, a graduated subsidy that tapered off between $45,000 and $125,000, for example, would be more reasonable.
2: You spend $3,300 more per year for the gold plan, you're looking at a $7,000 lower subsidy. Why are you committed to a bronze plan considering you and your spouse's ages?
3: I'm not saying you're wealthy or rich or anything beyond upper-middle-class, but that number seems more like an inconvenience for you than something that would really wreck you, and considering for ANYONE making less than $75,001 a subsidy is available that seriously cuts down that total and makes health insurance actually feasible and affordable... I'm not that sympathetic to you pleading poverty.




I make more than 400% poverty and do not qualify for a subsidy. Sucks to be educated and making sooo much I am "rich".
 
2014-01-02 09:14:53 PM  

Somacandra: Lsherm: Democrats understandably don't want to face this reality, or at least they don't want to be caught acknowledging it out loud.

Actually I thought it was laid out rather well to begin with. For anyone actually paying attention, the fact that some people will pay more and some less and some will be able to pay some amount when they couldn't get any coverage at all was not a revelation. But I like the way you equated poverty and irresponsibility in your original post. Fairly subtle in your approach. Kudos.


I actually meant that to imply people who were already purchasing insurance.  But it works the other way, too.
 
2014-01-02 09:16:08 PM  

SauronWasFramed: I make more than 400% poverty and do not qualify for a subsidy. Sucks to be educated and making sooo much I am "rich".


I'm sorry, I clearly have to repeat myself, because you didn't actually answer 2 or acknowledge 3.

Bloody William: 2: You spend $3,300 more per year for the gold plan, you're looking at a $7,000 lower subsidy. Why are you committed to a bronze plan considering you and your spouse's ages?
3: I'm not saying you're wealthy or rich or anything beyond upper-middle-class, but that number seems more like an inconvenience for you than something that would really wreck you, and considering for ANYONE making less than $75,001 a subsidy is available that seriously cuts down that total and makes health insurance actually feasible and affordable... I'm not that sympathetic to you pleading poverty.


Feel free to keep biatching, I'm going to be pretty happy that Americans making less than $75,001 can get affordable health insurance thanks to the ACA and both the regulations and subsidies it offers.
 
2014-01-02 09:16:47 PM  

DamnYankees: SauronWasFramed: I was paying $600 a month with a $2500 deductible and copays. And I was able to renew that plan.

This is through your work? Or the individual market?

I guess I'm a bit confused. How much do you think it ought to cost to insure 2 people in their late 50s, together with their child? The actuarial risk of someone in their late 50s is pretty high.




I am a contractor and the rate I pay is offered by the people I work for to us.

/when 10/1 hit, I wasn't sure if they were going to renew their packages. Found out in November they would.
 
Displayed 50 of 564 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report