"Obamacare confession."

[pnwmom]

Saw this on Facebook today. Hopefully there will be a lot more stories like this one.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013/07/obamacare-confession/

The hammer has dropped. The sky has fallen. I have been a staunch defender of the ACA. I have defended Nancy Pelosi’s much maligned (and taken out of context by the right) statement to pass it so we would know what was in it.

Well.

Today, I got a letter from my current insurance company inviting me to call them and find out what the exchange could do for me. The letter informed me that I could keep my current $600 per month, $10,000 deductible policy since it is grandfathered in, or I could get a new policy starting Jan. 1.

For a total of $105 per month, I will be able to get a new silver policy. My current policy equal to a bronze. For a total of $300 per month, I will be able to get a gold policy. The higher your metal, the lower your deductible, your copay, and the higher the drug benefit.

SNIP

[Safetykitten]

1. Ah, more I have's it issues. Any there with people with no insurance? Hmmmm?

[pnwmom]

4. There are millions who lacked insurance who will now be able to get it.

Some young people have already been added to their parents plans. Others, children and adults, who couldn't get any insurance because of preexisting conditions, will now be able to get insurance. And in the states that aren't insanely choosing not to, Medicaid will be expanded to cover even more lower-income people. And families with incomes under about $90K a year will be eligible for subsidies to help them pay their premiums.

[dionysus]

27. you want it to fail so badly you'll ignore any positive outcomes from it. sad.

[msongs]

2. kaiser charges $200/month for the right to pay $100 just to talk to a receptionist. can't be any

worse under ACA...maybe

[sufrommich]

3. This is why the GOP is desperate to stop ACA , too

many people will soon realize they're better off with it.

[TrollBuster9090]

71. BOTTOM LINE: The GOP have ONCE CHANCE (in September) to KILL OBAMACARE before everybody finds out

how beneficial it is, AND finds out that Government CAN do things that benefit the people.

The Healthcare Exchanges come online OCTOBER 1st.
The GOP is planning to force a showdown over the Debt Ceiling (which we're due to hit in September) to kill Obamacare before everybody sees how much they'll save in premiums when the exchanges come online.

This is not just their last chance to kill Obamacare for the sake of snubbing Obama. This is their last chance to make the argument that GOVERNMENT IS ALWAYS BAD and can NEVER do anything that benefits the people. That's pretty much THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM.

If they can't kill Obamacare in September, there's a strong chance they'll never win another election. So, they're going to throw everything INCLUDING the kitchen sink into this fight. The survival of their entire Party depends on winning it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

102. The Republicans will look bad if they try to overturn this

[joshcryer]

116. Yup, it's the crowbar in the crack of the door.

The want to take away the crow bar because once the door is open there's no going back.

[leftstreet]

5. This is fabulous news for people who can afford premiums!

[Safetykitten]

6. Yes, and we all know that they are oh so affordable, even with the deductables!

[leftstreet]

9. Drop your cell service, cableTV, stop eating so much!

And does a person really NEED shelter...what's wrong with tent camping?

Big Insurance and Big Pharma must be obeyed!

[TrollBuster9090]

39. I'm not really sure what argument you're trying to make. Are you claiming that there are people who

can barely afford food and shelter who will now have to pay HC premiums?

If you're that poor, you qualify for the Medicaid Expansion. If you're NOT that poor, have loads of money to spend on various luxuries, but simply choose to not have health insurance and let other people foot the bill for the E.R. visit if you get sick...then you're exactly the kind of person this program was designed to bust.

[leftstreet]

41. That used to be a GOP talking point

If you're NOT that poor, have loads of money to spend on various luxuries, but simply choose to not have health insurance and let other people foot the bill for the E.R. visit if you get sick...then you're exactly the kind of person this program was designed to bust.

Jesus

[Progressive dog]

44. Yes it did and it used to be Romney care,

but it's still a big improvement over what we had.

[TrollBuster9090]

65. And....?

I'm still waiting for you to make your point.


The fact that the Democratic State Legislature forced Romney into pushing the same argument in Massachusetts doesn't make it a bad thing. It worked out pretty well there. Yes, I think Single Payer would work even better, but that's not on the table at the moment. The actual options are A) Support the ACA, or B ) let the GOP kill it in September over a forced confrontation over the Debt Ceiling....AND GO BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE.


Sorry, but you'll have to d better than a stupid 'Republicans used to say that, so it must be bad' Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle Term argument.

[leftstreet]

70. Suggesting people are irresponsible

because they don't want to kick up the vig to for-profit insurance companies

...that used to be a GOP talking point

you know, bootstraps?

[TrollBuster9090]

74. Sorry, but repeating "it must be bad because the GOP said it" over and over again just won't cut it.

As I said, I'd rather have Single Payer, Medicare for all. But at the moment that's not an option. At the moment there are only two options: A) SUPPORT THIS, or B ) Enable others to kill it. Anybody who thinks there is more to this than that is being either naive or disingenuous.

THIS is better than what we had before.
Obama has said she STILL plans to pursue the Public Option, once the Exchanges are up and running.

Saying 'this must be bad because Romney did it in Massachusetts' is an argument that only works with people who have the IQ of a dogfish.

[leftstreet]

76. Nice try, but I didn't say that

You're insinuating people are somehow immoral, wicked, deficient if they aren't willing to give money to for-profit insurance companies.

That's something the GOP used to do, not the Democrats

[TrollBuster9090]

83. Not exactly. I insinuated that people are immoral when they're willing to force OTHER people to

give money to for-profit insurance companies on their behalf.

It's like cheating on your taxes, and rationalizing it by saying 'I refuse to pay my pacifist tax dollars to the corporate war machine' while allowing everybody ELSE to subsidize your roads, schools, firefighters and police protection. I hate people who make that argument even more than I hate wealthy bastards who cheat on their taxes simply because they're greedy and egocentric, and ascribe no higher purpose to it. At least they're being honest with themselves. The latter group I call greedy Robber Barons. The former group....well, I just call them what they call themselves: Libertarians.

[MADem]

107. We've had something similar in MA for years.

I know people who have been broke, busted, unemployment running out, who got top of the line medical care, hospitalizations, physical therapy, the whole nine yards, at a cost of $0.

It's been working in MA. It's not like it hasn't been tested first, so I can't understand why people are complaining--unless they are gamblers, and are "rolling the dice" that they'll never get sick...

[Hekate]

110. I don't know MADem. It's like they WANT this to fail because it's not single payer...

But some of them seem to want the ACA to fail for ... other reasons. There's some talking points about the ruination it will bring to the working poor that sound like... well I wouldn't want to cast nasturtiums on anyone.

[MADem]

112. They don't get it. The working poor get prenatal care and maternity services and

post natal, well baby care as a result of this program, instead of not seeing a doctor until labor pains start, for example.

I have nothing but good things to say about it, and I don't even use it (I have Tricare and I pay for that--so much for that "free medical care for life" stuff they promised us). I do, though, know people who wouldn't have gotten proper treatment and might have died were it not for the MA program.

[Hekate]

117. I worry about my daughter and her kids all the time

She keeps denying that she's eligible for the ACA based on her gross income from running a preschool (out of which gross comes her living expenses for her and her 2 kids, the salaries of two or more teachers when the enrollment is high enough, and all the myriad other expenses). But her doctor is Immedicenter. I am quite sure she will be eligible unless her flake of an ex-husband stays employed and keeps them all on his plan. She might still be eligible for assistance even so.

[MADem]

131. She needs to do some homework--it's adjusted gross.

She's gotta take out all her expenses, etc. Go back and have the talk again, if you can do it without upsetting any apple carts!

I don't know anyone who, once they get on the bandwagon, regrets it. In fact, I have one relative who got tired of paying the fine at tax time, and at last got on a plan, and asked "Why was I such a stubborn asshole?"

It's NICE to have the security of medical insurance. It takes a huge, unacknowledged, stress off of people.

It works in MA--no reason why it can't work across the country.

[Skittles]

46. and FORGET saving for retirement!!!

[TrollBuster9090]

67. Still waiting for either of you to make your point.

Under this program, nobody who's poor enough to have to decide between Health Insurance premiums and Food, Shelter, and Retirement Savings will have to MAKE that choice. If you're that poor, you get Medicaid. If you're NOT that poor, the only opition that will be eliminated is the option of NOT buying insurance, and expecting your fellow non-poor taxpayers to pay the bill for your medical expenses if you get sick.

So, what's the difference between the Medicade expansion (paid for by tax money) and the old system? The difference is that the Medicade expansion was paid for by raising the taxes on upper income people. The previous system was paid for by the middle class and working poor taking it right on the chin with higher medical premiums, which were mostly the result of hospitals rolling the costs of treating people who didn't have insurance into higher charges for those who did. Meanwhile, the wealthy got off scott free.

[leftstreet]

82. Ah there it is

the only opition that will be eliminated is the option of NOT buying insurance, and expecting your fellow non-poor taxpayers to pay the bill for your medical expenses if you get sick.

This is the vile shit the Rush Limbaughs spew to rally prejudice and bigotry against the working poor. Freeloaders! Moochers! Welfare bums!

I guess you have to do that when you're rallying the masses to give private for-profit corporations lots of money, rather than using the tax base of the commons for...OMG the common good

[TrollBuster9090]

85. Nope. The 'freeloaders' Limbaugh is talking about are the poor. The 'freeloaders' I'm talking

are usually middle class, upper middle class, and wealthy.

Nice try, but I DO favor using the tax base to benefit the commons, and Obamacare PARTIALLY does that. The Medicaid Expansion was paid for by a 2% tax increase on upper incomes.

But you're partially right. I DO despise MOOCHERS. It's just that the moochers I'M talking about are usually wealthy, and accept subsidies from the middle class and working poor in the form of Farm Subsidies, Home Owner's Grants, Gulf State Flood Insurance, cheap oil subsidized by a massive military presence in the Persian Gulf....and yes....people who transfer their healthcare burden onto others, despite easily being able to pay for it themselves.

No, I don't like HMOs. I believe in single payer Medicare for all. But in the unfortunate absence of that, I support the ACA, as opposed to the system we had before. (If you can dignify it by calling it a system.)

[SoCalDem]

15. Have you plugged in the numbers in the online calculator?

I was pleasantly surprised, although soon we will both be on medicare and won't need to use the ACA.

example (CA calculator)

[Cronus Protagonist]

37. A THOUSAND BUCKS A MONTH???

A THOUSAND BUCKS A MONTH??? Holy FUCK! That's daylight robbery.

[TrollBuster9090]

40. No,it says $164 bucks a month, not a thousand. You get a tax credit if you're in that income range.

You don't qualify for the tax credit if your income is quite a bit higher.

[Cronus Protagonist]

42. Tax credit means you still have to pay the cash through the year

I'm shocked. I pity my fellow self-employed poor folk. As the year progresses, we'll be missing payments right and left and have corresponding spotty coverage.

I yearn for a true first world healthcare solution.

[Schema Thing]

45. yeah, I'm pretty sure it's not going to work like that.

[Progressive dog]

47. No cash, credit paid dirctly to insurance company

What Will Happen When A Family Receives a Tax Credit?
When a person or family qualifies for a tax credit, the dollars from the credit will flow directly
to the health plan in which the individual or family enrolls, offsetting the total cost of the
family’s health insurance premiums for that plan.

from familiesusa.org

[Cronus Protagonist]

95. Really? Wow!

I'm still not fully clear on this, but are you saying that people won't have to pay $1000 a month but only the difference between the tax credit and the cost?

If so that's way more workable than what I thought it was going to be!

[Progressive dog]

133. That's what they claim and it makes sense.

I can't imagine how people that needed subsidies could pay out and wait to get a refund.

[Cronus Protagonist]

135. I really hope so

However, that is how the tax system works right now. I'm shocked that they're actually going to make it work differently for this purpose. That's a good thing.

[pnwmom]

126. Not these. The subsidies will go into effect right away. n/t

[JCMach1]

134. ACA tax credits are given when you pay your premium

not at tax time...

[Autumn]

55. Interesting. So the tax credit, that comes off the $1,086 and you pay $164. a month?

If so that is pretty damn affordable.

[TrollBuster9090]

89. You should try going and calculating your own rate. Here's the link.

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/healthpolicy/calculator/

And, in most cases, it WILL be pretty damned affordable. In the case of the top 1% it won't be, and for people who were just not buying insurance before (shifting the burden to higher premiums for everybody else) it won't be, but for everybody else it will be a lot cheaper.


That's why the GOP is going to throw everything but the kitchen sink into an attempt to kill the ACA before the exchanges come online, and everybody will find this out.

[Just Saying]

106. That's really good!

My family will pay $282/month if it works this way in Ohio. We currently pay over $1000! We're self-employed and buy through a co-op now.

Yes, more people need to see this!

[Skittles]

49. I checked for myself as a single person

I'd pay four times more than you - how the F*** is THAT fair?

[TrollBuster9090]

80. Probably because you didn't calculate it properly. What calculator did you use? nt

[TrollBuster9090]

90. Okay, I just used the same calculator, punched in the same numbers for a single person and

I got a premium of $317 (not quite 2X). However, the Federal Poverty Level number was nearly 4X higher. Therefore, I'm guessing the reason they got such a low monthly insurance number is because $40,000 is considered a very low household income for a family of 4, and therefore the premium is heavily subsidized, which makes sense. On the other hand, if a SINGLE person earns $40,000 per year, that's not really 'poverty,' and the premium is less subsidized, which also makes sense.


That's exactly the way government subsidies SHOULD work. A family of 4, struggling to survive on $40K SHOULD pay a much lower premium than a single person living on $40K. And $317/mo is still a lower price than most people earning $40K are paying now.

[Skittles]

94. sounds like the old single people getting screwed business to me

[pnwmom]

100. Sounds like it's just a recognition of the fact that a salary divided by ONE is greater

than a salary divided by FOUR.

[Skittles]

104. sounds like a GREAT DEAL for INSURANCE COMPANIES

[joeglow3]

52. I hope my employer keeps their plan

Beats the fuck out of that plan.

[brewens]

57. Now I'd have to say that is doable and I'm just a little under that income level.

Of course I'm single so I'd expect less subsidy but also a cheaper plan because it's just me. Right now I have coverage at work but if I did have to go to one of those plans, I would be able to afford it. Not a chance on my own a couple years ago.

Some people in my town are up in arms over a health insurance company laying off people because of "Obamacare". They are a major employer but is that really bad? When they were debating the ACA I was hoping I'd see health insurance company stocks take a dive. That would have been an indication to me that they were on the right track. I look at what went on the last twenty years or so as basically looting. They needed to be taken down.

[SoCalDem]

58. Here's the calculator.. put your numbers in and see what happens

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/healthpolicy/calculator/

[brewens]

59. Thanks. Not as good as I'd hoped but I could still swing it. Still, it's way cheaper that what I

know my employer pays every month.

[ellie]

62. Yowsa!

I hope my company doesn't drop my plan either.

[awoke_in_2003]

64. $1058 a month for me

that is 70-80k a year for me (45) and wife (55). That is $12696 a year. That is 18% of my gross income.

on edit- that is $200 less a month than my mortgage

on second: interesting- going from 62k to 63k a year you lose a $568 a month tax credit. You would expect a tapered drop, not a cliff.

on third edit: It was pointed out that I missed the fact that it is based on adjusted gross. I will recalculate later, once I review last years tax forms.

[SoCalDem]

68. Is that your adjusted gross?

That's the income you use.. mouse-over the link about income for explanation..they give you a tax form line # for the info

[awoke_in_2003]

69. Hmmm, good point...

I put regular gross. I will have to check last years tax forms to get my adjusted and plug the numbers again.

on edit: luckily I work for a large company and will probably not lose my coverage, though the vampires (Cigna) raise the cost every year.

[SoCalDem]

75. It's line 37 n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

77. Thanks...

I put an edit in my original response to note that I used gross, not adjusted growth. I do not want to be accused of spreading disinformation. Thank you for pointing out my oversight.

[TeeYiYi]

88. Do you have a link to the calculator you used?...

I tried to find it online but was unsuccessful.

TYY

[SoCalDem]

108. here's a link to it..

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/healthpolicy/calculator/

[TeeYiYi]

122. Thank you. ..nt

TYY

[pnwmom]

8. Medicaid will help millions of others who can't.

And the government will also be offering subsidies for families with incomes up to $90K.

[leftstreet]

13. Why are there so many millions who can't afford it?

[pnwmom]

16. "So many millions"? Do you have specific numbers you're talking about?

If I were living in one of the states that has chosen NOT to take Federal money to expand Medicare, I would be furious with my local government -- but not with Obamacare.

So there are probably millions affected by that. But who are the rest of the "many millions"? Yes, compared to Medicare for all, which was never a possibility this time around, some will fall through the cracks. But a lot fewer than before ACA.

[leftstreet]

19. LOL ^^You just said 'millions' up there^^

Hello?

[pnwmom]

22. Here's one source.

This doesn't include young people up to 26 who can remain on their parents' policies, or people who will no longer be subject to preexisting condition bans or annual or lifetime limits.

So, other than those whose own state governments decided not to take money from the Federal government to expand Medicaid, who are in the "many millions" the ACA won't help?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57463122/medicaid-expansion-could-help-millions-but-not-all-states-want-in/

(CBS News) In Thursday's ruling on healthcare, the Supreme Court said that states cannot be forced to expand their Medicaid programs. That expansion would have covered 17 million more of the working poor in this country. So what happens now?

[Fumesucker]

31. By the time I was 26 both of my parents had been dead for years

Not everyone under 26 is lucky enough to have parents with insurance, or even parents for that matter.

[TrollBuster9090]

43. A) Sorry about your parents, and B ) what exactly is your point?

The ACA forces HMOs to now offer parents the OPTION of keeping their children on their HC plan all the way up to age 26, which they didn't do before. At the same time, it guarantees premium assistance to people who can't afford the premiums OF ANY AGE. So, somebody like you would be covered either way.

But I gather you liked things better the way they were before.

[Fumesucker]

53. At least everyone was equal before

Now we have two classes of sub 27 year olds, those who have parents who can provide insurance and those who don't.

It seems a bit randomly discriminatory for no good reason to me, if this had been in effect when I was young I would have been one of those left out.

Great for those who can benefit, really sucks for those who can't.

[TrollBuster9090]

61. I disagree. People with LIVE or WEALTHY parents ALWAYS had an advantage before. (Not equal)

And I never see the idea of government forcing private industry to give the public MORE OPTIONS as being a bad thing. This has been true ever since the Federal Anti-monopoly laws came into effect around the turn of the century, forbidding monopolies, and actually FORCING businesses to compete with each other. Something economic libertarians claim they would do without government, but IN REALITY it's something they've never done at any period in history without government forcing them to do so for the first time around 1900.

So, I'd say children with either dead parents, or poor parents were NEVER 'equal' to children with live and/or wealthy parents.
Furthermore, this gives THE OPTION for just regular middle class parents to continue to help their kids by keeping them on their plan.
And finally, the ACA gives premium assistance to poor young people who couldn't afford it.

I'd say no matter which way you slice it, young people who's parents are dead are STILL better off under Obamacare. I can't possibly think of any way they'd be worse off under Obamacare than they were before. Can you? If you can, please tell me.

[Fumesucker]

84. Eh, I just know how I would have felt at the time if that had been the situation

Every time I hear that "26" thing it reminds me of being alone after the death of my parents, It's just a personal sore point and I know there are other people out there going through that right now.

I've had enough grief with insurance companies in my life to thoroughly loathe them, sorry, I'm not going to be happy with anything that leaves them sucking the blood of the public for no good reason at all.

The thing to do with a vampire is drive a giant wooden hypodermic through their heart and inject holy water with a fire hose, not assure them more victims but they must only drink 20% of their blood.

There are times I get whiplash going from Poutrageous Firebagger to Paulbot Libertarian in the blink of an eye.

[TrollBuster9090]

91. 'but they must only drink 20% of their blood'

Hahah! Well, that's an accurate statement, I have to say.

When they managed to 'negotiate' Obamacare with a Senate full of millionaires who have their campaigns subsidized by the HMOs, I assume the best they could do was 'negotiate' that they take no more blood than they already are. Thus, guaranteeing the HMOs their pound of flesh, while giving us unwashed masses a nice talking point. In fact, of the four HMOs, I think only ONE had a profit margin/overhead that was as high as 20%, while the others were between 15% and 20%. All the profit mandate might have done is to encourage ALL of them to jack their profit margin up to 20%. Nice going, guys.


I'm for Medicare for all! Medicare, despite servicing only the most expensive clients (the elderly), still has an overhead of only 3%! Mainly because they don't have to pay any Bill McGuire-type CEOs $1.4 BILLION in compensation.

BOOKMARK this guy on your computer. He's the poster child for why American healthcare costs more than twice as much per capita as any other country on Earth, while STILL leaving 30 million people uninsured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._McGuire

[pnwmom]

98. Before it was exactly the same, except the age division was at 21, or wherever

individual insurers decided to set it.

Low income young people will have a lot better chance of coverage now than they did before, between the ones who can stay on their parents' policies, the ones who will be newly eligible for Medicaid, and the ones who are eligible for tax credits.

[pnwmom]

96. True. We know a young woman without resources whose mother doesn't have any insurance.

But now she's going to be eligible for Medicaid, thanks to the ACA.

[Hoyt]

24. Don't forget the subsidies that will be available to lots of people.

[tridim]

34. Neo-DU and the Republicans will forget. Count on it.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

51. yes indeed. it looks like now many millions more will be able to afford premiums

you are correct. it is fabulous news for Americans.

[mzmolly]

93. And for those included in the Medicaid expansion.

eom.

[flamingdem]

7. I am very happy with the changes

Long live ACA! It will be loved by many.

[northoftheborder]

10. Something I saw at Repub's house today pertaining to ACA............

She had a book on her kitchen counter "Surviving Obamacare". Anyone know anything about that book? I know she & husband are devoted Repubs., but we have other areas of life that we have in common, they are old friends, and I would never get into a discussion about anything politically controversial with them. I just wonder how accurate it is, how long it has been published, etc., what misinformation might be being spread, etc..

The best source for information that I know of is the website for the program.

[Control-Z]

23. I've seen and heard it advertised.

Ominous, dread inducing music - end of the world stuff. That's all I know. It pisses me off so much I leave the room or change the channel.

[emulatorloo]

66. It is a scam to get wingnut/fox viewer $$$ for a book full of lies

[TrollBuster9090]

92. Yeah, probably a book telling them to buy overpriced gold coins and SURVIVAL SEEDS.

You know, for when Obamacare kicks in, and the entire universe implodes....

[meaculpa2011]

11. Depends on where you live, I guess.

Back in the 90s I was paying $196 per month to cover my family of four. New York reformed its health care insurance laws and my premiums rose immediately to $650 per month, rising steadily each year. My current premium is more than $1,600 per month. The Times reported that premiums would be cut in half for many New Yorkers, but I've just been raised by $65. That's much smaller than any other rate hike I've received, but it's not nearly what was advertised.

[SoCalDem]

17. here's a link that might help

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/healthpolicy/calculator/

http://healthbenefitexchange.ny.gov/resource/fact-sheet-individuals-and-families

I did not see a calculator for NY, but it has to be in line somewhat with CA's

[Sheepshank]

18. Insurance companies are happy to "grandfather" you in with the old fees

Go to your State Web site (I'm assuming NY is participating in the exchange), and see what youe other insurance options are going to be come 1/1/14. You may be surprised.

[SoCalDem]

20. Here's the federal calculator

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/healthpolicy/calculator/

[Sheepshank]

30. $396/mo for me and my family.

much much much less that the COBRA payment of $860/mo I was quoted 12 years ago (can only assume it's gone up since then) when our primary breadwinner lost a job.

[meaculpa2011]

35. I just figured my new premium with the calculator...

and my payment before the subsidy will be $2,130 per month. Hopefully my $1,600 monthly premium will hold for another year before the new rate kicks in.

My monthly subsidy will be zero.

I'm thankful that I make enough to make me ineligible for the subsidy. I'm really PISSED that I'll be paying more than $25,000 per year to the insurance swindlers.

It's been said many times here: Good for some. Bad for some. Disaster for some.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

56. I find it hard to believe you are that much of an outlier. perhaps you should recheck your math

[meaculpa2011]

118. I checked it four times...

and we'll still be paying an outrageous amount for the same coverage I have now.

We're a family of our and earn too much to qualify for a subsidy. I did plug in some different age numbers and the key factor is that we're both over 60, plus we have two kids (21 and 22) still living with us. Under our current plan the kids are covered until their 24th birthday at no additional premium because they're in college. Under ACA they're covered until they're 26, but there's an additional premium cost. According to the calculator on the link, the extra cost for the kids is almost $600. Also, if we were 45 instead of 60s, the premium would be half. I don't know if all of this is correct, but that's what the calculator at the link is giving me.

I've been a freelancer for thirty years and the only downside has been dealing with bureaucrats. Whether they're from the insurance companies or the IRS, they don't know how to deal with non-traditional situations.

[meaculpa2011]

119. BTW: In NYC we're not really "outliers."

I earn too much to qualify for the subsidy, but not enough to qualify as an outlier. I'm sure the same is true for any major population center.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

123. Good information. I just thought it strange

That so many people in NY and elsewhere are seeing decreases and you are seeing increases.

[Sheepshank]

12. Last weekend I went to the Utah State web site for new HC costs

State of Utah is participating the Exchange. And there are calculators to help you make some decisions.

Plugging my age (over 50), Spouse (also over 50) and 3 minors. I got 75 different plans made available ranging from $230/mo (with $10K out of pocket max) to $700/mo (with $2500 out of pocket max) with varying options regarding out of pocket max and types of co pays, HMO, HSA, and standard. 70+ options for much much less than I would have had to pay previously.

Clearly, the word and numbers are going to prove the Reps to be lying sacks of shit with regard to Health Care.

We cannot afford (literally) to let the Reps take over the House or the Senate and try to abolish this program!!! Dems are the only ones that would be willing to take this AHC start and end up with Universal or Single Payer care.

[pnwmom]

14. That's good news. Thanks! n/t

[Scurrilous]

21. K & R

[MineralMan]

25. And there it is.

I'm on Medicare, but my wife is still several years away from it. Her monthly premium, just for herself, is almost $1000, and she has pre-existing conditions that have prevented her from getting a different policy. All that's about to change. We don't know what the savings will be yet, but there will be savings.

[SunSeeker]

26. K & R

[southernyankeebelle]

28. There should be a website that people can post positive outcomes from the ACA. I wonder

if the white house thought of that idea.

[Iliyah]

29. One of the false and/or lies

that the Koch Brothers and their minions - gopers are spreading is that ACA (Obamacare) will make your present health-care cost rise at least 50% and also if you are already insured per se through your job then ACA will cause you to lose that particular coverage and force you and your family to fall back on an insurance policy you may not want or desire, which is totally untrue. Plenty lies floating around and unfortunately many people fall into such stories, i.e. fake news and the corporate media.

[SheilaT]

32. Well I hope you turned them down!

How dare they . . . . wait. Let me look at those numbers again. . . .

Your premiums will go down? By a lot? 83%, if I recall how to calculate percentages correctly. But that's not right. Haven't we been told over and over by people who of course would never lie to us, that Obamacare will cost all of us buckets more money?



Actually, it's nice to see postings like this.

[stuckinodi]

33. Still can't find anything for my situation

No income - live on savings

State has no exchange and will probably refuse Medicaid expansion

61 yrs. old.

It's my understanding you have to have an income of $11, 100 to participate in the fed exchange.

SO - I can't get insurance but I have to pay the penalty.

[SoCalDem]

127. States that refuse to set up exchanges, will have a FEDERAL one put in place

The medicaid issue is your biggest problem if you are poor and live in a mean state

[photogirl26]

36. I no longer believe in the ACA

Today was the last straw. I used to be the # 1 supporter of the ACA.

Over the past 6 months my boyfriend has been dropped from Minnesota Care because of the changes. He made $6000.00 last year. He is in the second year of a remission from Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma. They give him 5 more years at best. He takes a bus over 2 hours to work and 2 hours back every day for a part time job. He does what he can to make an income despite his cancer. He repealed the decision and went to court, but the state continues to mis calculate his income and he lost his appeal. They told him to apply directly to Health Partners which is the insurance he had through Minnesota Care. We got the letter today saying because he had cancer they could not insure him. Yearly scans and every 6 month blood work has been skipped this year and we are hoping that the illegal in our state marijuana tincture capsules he takes daily with a long list of vitamins keep him in remission a bit longer.
The reality is that he has been having dizzy spells, loosing weight and is displaying the same symptoms now as when he was first diagnosed with stage 4 bone marrow non Hodgkin's. This is a man who did a one man play about his cancer experience and donated all the funds to the Lymphoma and Leukemia Association because of the kindness they showed him while going through cancer treatment in Denver Colorado.

So, basically he is screwed. He has a slow moving cancer, but there is no way for him to find out and pro act before the cancer gets too bad. This is the reality of the ACA. I am sick to my stomach about this. We are living what was not supposed to happen.

It also doesn't help that he is a libertarian and keeps saying " I told you so ".

[Chemisse]

48. This sounds like what has been happening PRE Obamacare.

It hasn't all been rolled in yet, by any means. Is your state going to participate in the Medicaid coverage increase? If so, he should be able to get coverage. If not, it is surely not the fault of the Obamacare plan.

[Schema Thing]

54. dropped because of what changes?

Shouldn't you be mad at Minnesota, not the ACA? Obamacare expands Medicaid to 133% of poverty in Minnesota starting Jan 2014. $6K is waaaay below that.



I hope you guys can make the state accurately count his income. Maybe there is an advocate service somewhere? He should be covered. I'm sorry for and share your frustration - the little guy is so well and truly fucked in America.

[pnwmom]

73. I'm very sorry for your boyfriend but his situation has NOTHING to do with ACA.

Based on his income, under the ACA he will be available for Medicaid in 2014, unless your state is one of the ones with Republican governors who turned the funding down.

And under ACA no insurers will be able to turn people down or charge them extra because of preexisting conditions.

The REALITY is that it's the Rethug/libertarians who insisted on a delay for all of the ACA taking effect till 2014, and it's Rethugs/libertarians who are preventing large expansions of Medicaid in other states. So if your libertarian boyfriend wants to blame anyone, he might have to look in the mirror.

http://mn.gov/health-reform/images/TaskForce-2012-09-06-ACA_and_Medicaid_Expansion.pdf

The Affordable Care Act gives Minnesota the opportunity to expand MA eligibility and extend better health care coverage to more people in need. Beginning in 2014:
 Individuals under age 65 who earn up to 133% FPL, or about $14,859 per year for a single adult, could be eligible for Medicaid, beginning in 2014. This means an additional 57,000 Minnesotans would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2016.
 Enrolling in and staying on MA will be simpler and faster through the new health insurance exchange and changes under the ACA, including elimination of the asset test for parents and a streamlined application process.
 Medicaid generally provides a more comprehensive set of health care benefits for adults compared to MinnesotaCare.
For individuals up to 400% FPL that are not eligible for MA, tax credits may be available to help buy commercial insurance in the health insurance exchange.

[BainsBane]

81. Minnesota has already begun it's Medicaid expansion

Has he tried applying under that?

[photogirl26]

86. Medicaid expansion

yes, he has applied for that..The people from Minnesota Care told him his coverage was ending because of Obamacare.

[BainsBane]

87. I seriously doubt that

Why? Did they refer him to Medicaid? Is the complaint he will get coverage for no cost rather than paying as he does now under Minnesota Care?

[lolly]

109. Yes, this story is confusing.

I'm trying to figure out which of these issues are the fault of ACA.

Most of what is described here explains how our medical system works without ACA--which the poster doesn't seem quite aware hasn't been fully implemented yet.

Obviously, universal health care would be better in this situation--but as a libertarian, wouldn't that be exactly what he didn't want?

And the state worker who told her he couldn't get coverage "because of Obamacare"--which expands coverage and eliminates the pre-existing condition exclusions?

Really--please explain exactly what of this situation--which is truly heartbreaking--can be attributed to Obamacare? Except perhaps the fact that its implementation has been delayed?

[Coexist]

121. I absolutely do NOT believe that

I work in healthcare - for a benefit management company and I call bullshit.

[Ms. Toad]

130. I believe someone told him that -

having fought less than competent people in the Medicaid office in my own state when my daughter was on the Healthy Start program. They said all sorts of crazy things which weren't true.

But - there would almost certainly be a reason in the termination notice - and/or the appeal. And I'm 100% sure it didn't say terminated because of the Affordable Care Act.

[Ms. Toad]

129. Nothing you have said has anything to do with the affordable care act.

You didn't give any details about his being dropped by Minnesota Care - but in most states it is uncommon for a non-disabled adult to have access at all to a Medicaid based program. As to not being accepted by Health Partners, that is the reality of how the insurance industry has acted (and will continue to act) until the full implementation of the ADA.

Your boyfriend should look into access via HIPAA, if he was covered by Minnesota Care (or another policy before that) with no break of longer than ~60 days for at least 18 months. That is the pre-ACA act option for obtaining coverage when Medicaid or an employer's coverage ends (and COBRA has run out).

Other than that, until 1/1/2014 when the next stage of the ACA kicks in, the insurance industry is playing by the old rules and can continue to reject people with pre-existing conditions. Once 1/1/2014 hits they will no longer be able to do so BECAUSE OF the ACA..

I am sorry for your boyfriend's health - I am in the same boat with my daughter. If she loses her insurance between now and 1/1/2014 not a single insurance company will offer her a policy (the reality since she was 4; she is now 23). But don't blame standard insurance industry practices which have been in place forever, many of which will be significantly modified by the ACA on provisions of the ACA which have not yet been implemented.

[pinto]

136. Check this out - MNsure

http://mn.gov/hix/

Frequently asked questions -

http://mn.gov/hix/how-work/main-faqs.jsp

[arely staircase]

38. recommended nt

[Doctor_J]

50. rec

from the posts on this thread it looks like there are a lot of loopholes to be filled, but some people are getting help. Medicare for all!

[revmclaren]

60. Just figured in my data and will only pay 64 dollars a month

for myself and my daughter. that's a savings of almost $110. a month from what I pay through my work insurance. And I work almost 100 miles away from home and visit family every week or two for 2 days or less just to have insurance. Now I can find a job at home, even for a bit less, and not worry about them not offering insurance. Thank you ACA and President Obama for soon saving me money and allowing me to be with my family!

[revmclaren]

63. 1000 X rec.

1,000,000 X

[NorthCarolina]

72. With regards to "Number of people in the household"

does anyone know how, or if, this applies gay couples?

BCBSofNC Does not permit same sex couples access to family plans, requiring each to have an individual policy at substantially higher cost. That's why we ended up having to let them lapse. We could have probably kept one of us insured, but we didn't want to make that choice.

So, in looking at this National Health Care Calculator I notice that it is basically geared towards "Family" coverage with Question 1 "Number of people in household", followed by "Age of first adult" and "Age of spouse"

How do we, as a gay couple, use this form? OR, is there some other form we should be looking at? Anyone know?

[SoCalDem]

78. Since it;s a FEDERAL program. I think you are a-okay.....unless

your state said no to medicaid and you happen to be poor & need it, since that is a state administered fund..

[pnwmom]

79. If you were living in a state that had legalized gay marriage, I've read that they're

in the process right now of changing Federal laws so that same-sex and opposite-sex marriages were treated the same.

Everything in the courts is in a state of flux right now -- a case like yours will probably come to trial in the next few years, I bet.

[liberal_at_heart]

97. Well the minute I no longer have to pay $925/month in premiums and can start paying my copays

I'll let you know.

[pnwmom]

99. Have you looked at your state's insurance exchange yet to see what your options will be? n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

103. I have visited a few websites but all they say is that starting this fall we will be able to shop

the exchanges. I can't find any information about the actual exchanges. Even checked out Washington Healthplan Finder which I believe is the official site for finding information on the exchanges. Call centers open in September.

[bhikkhu]

101. Mine will be no cost next year, then $120 or so a year for the next five

as I have one daughter leaving home, and one staying for another few years. Overall, it should be affordable and make a huge difference.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

105. In Britain you can go to the doctor or the hospital and it is free

free at the point of use. No one to hound you at the hospital about your insurance. when my mother came home from hospital she had a visit from her primary care doctor at home! I really do think we need single payer here. Obamacare is a start in the right direction but it needs to go a lot further. Waiting lists are long in the USA - 6 months to see a dermatolgist here. 3 hours in the waitng room to see the vein doctor and 8 weeks to start radiation at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.

Obamacare is pointing us in the correct direction but we need to get rid of health insurance companies for good. Perhaps by 2020? If we are stil in power.

[Safetykitten]

111. Yes, we will be dealing with this...

https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/

[liberal_at_heart]

115. It will take a revolution to overthrow the 1% before we can get true single payer healthcare.

We saw what happened when Hillary and Bill Clinton tried to get what they called universal healthcare. The insurance industry told them no. The insurance company gets guaranteed customers under ACA, so why would they fight it? It will take quite the coup d'etat to get rid of the insurance companies. They have billions and billions of dollars in their pockets, and they own many politicians including democrats. I have much more respect for Bill and Hillary for even attempting to go after the insurance agencies than Obama who never fought for it and let the insurance agencies write the ACA. Bill and Hillary are far from perfect. They have taken a lot of corporate donations. Bill Clinton repealed the Glass Steagall Act and signed NAFTA, but for some reason they really did believe in keeping the corporations out of healthcare.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

132. a public option could be made more appealing

in time people would opt for the public option if it was made tamper proof. No doubt the media and Republicans would trash it. In time the public entity could start to run hospitals, pay doctors nurses etc. Like a public Kaiser but much nicer.

[Gravitycollapse]

113. Lest we forget the 4 motherfucking years after ACA was passed that we were hung out to dry.

[pnwmom]

125. As you know, the Rethugs were the ones blocking a faster implementation.

But the parts that have already gone into effect have benefited millions of people.

[Hekate]

114. The reaction here is why so many people are being hired to explain the ACA

The GOP and their minions have done their job too well -- I even see RW talking points here, because people are afraid of change and afraid of the unknown.

[Coexist]

120. +1 lots of folks here seem to want to dampen that man's good news

with their nonsense.

[SoCalDem]

128. Not necessarily nonsense...just differing circumstamces

This is why we simply have to end up with a national , single payer system, where EVERYONE is included, and payment for the plan is based on income and "paid" for by taxation.

[Raffi Ella]

124. K&R

His last paragraph rocks:

"So, for all the conservatives who have been desperately straining for years to scare me out of this, and to the Republicans in the House who have voted 37 times to repeal the ACA……kiss my country ass. You’re a bunch of lying, fear mongering and ignorant demagogues, and you should be ashamed of yourselves."