Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-07-2013, 11:07 AM
 
5,365 posts, read 6,386,391 times
Reputation: 3360

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minethatbird View Post
Who gets to decide what "full coverage" consists of?
In my mind, a full coverage plan would cover ER visits, check ups and tests, as well as a percentage of payment if you have to go to the doctor for the occasional sickness.

The government will decide what full coverage means. I can guarantee that they will make a better judgment call on that question than insurance companies would.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-07-2013, 11:12 AM
 
5,365 posts, read 6,386,391 times
Reputation: 3360
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp View Post
Once again, it's everyman (or woman) for themselves. People think what benefits them the most.

So you have a per-exisiting condition, and it HELPS YOU PLUS you probably may or may not get a subsidy.

Now, bounce the ball on the side. If you don't have a pre exisiting condition, and don't get a subsidy and next year's rate will triple (3X). Yes, like I said the average rate for a 26 year old male with no subsidy will triple next year.

How would you feel about it?

How about we split it it. Let those who have pre exisiting pay the same rate as someone their age group without a pre existing condition. Alright than. But what if the government eventually runs out of money to subsidy everyone they were supposed to. Would people be happy than?

You see there is no correct answer. It's going to be much more expensive for those making 90K with a family of 4"just because they can afford it more?" even though they will end up paying $8-10K more. That's a lot of money just in premiums and still end up paying a $6000 high deductible. But the same family making 88K will get a subsidy and pay less. So if someone making 2K more in adjusted gross income. They will end up paying $8000-10000 more in health premiums.

Do the math: MAGI 400% of poverty (9.5% limit to health premiums). Vermont releases their rates this past week:
Average family of 4 premiums will be around $1500/month with a $6250 deductible
$1500 X12 months equals $18K a year

Now let's get to the subsidies:
If you make less than 400% of poverty (around $88K for a family of 4) you won't pay more than 9.5% in premiums of your adjusted income. So you won't be responsible for more than about $8000 in premiums. The government will "subsidized you about $10K in premiums).

Now if you made 401% of poverty. Guess what? You end up paying the full $18K in health premiums.

So you work an extra few hours a week. Your reward from the ACA? You pay $10K more.

How can supporters of the ACA say it's fair if someone making a few more dollars eventually ends up paying much more than the next guy.

I thought this was supposed to be "affordable". Doesn't seem like. "But but but.....they will say: "you can just pay a "tax" and not carry insurance or but but but most people have employer coverage"

"But but but that situation doesn't affect many people and they can afford it" Keep the excuses coming. I can hear almost every defense from the ACA supporters.

Same excuses used against you (the one with the pre existing condition). Opponents against the ACA say "but but young people with pre existing conditions don't make up that much of the population"

You see my point. Just because it's helps you and others. It also hurts many others especially job creators like small business whose owners generally net between 90-200K in income. They aren't multi-millionaires. They aren't the 1%. They could live modestly trying to save but will get crushed having to pay upwards to $10K in health premiums.

Anyone have any responses? Always see both sides. That's the way I examine things. Yes it sucks to have a pre existing condition. The ACA is the right step in that direction. But it does a whole lot of things wrong by making costs much higher for many in the population at the same time.

And never assume the subsidy will be around. Because the system will be swallowed soon by too many people wanting the subsidy and not enough tax revenue being collected. What happens if they give you too much subsidy? Do you need to get it back? Again, government non sense. The government says even if they over subsidized you, you won't have to give back some or most of the subsidy. It's unbelievable accounting. Like saying I give you $8000 in subsidy. But find out you make too much. Now I don't really want that $8000 back to fund the system. The government may end up only asking for $4000 back.

Isn't that a nice way to fund this system?
CBO: PPACA tax credit could be big | Health Insurance Brokers
To summarize your post, you are concerned about funding this system. If shortfalls occur, then I support tax increases to fund it.

And please, SHUT UP about this fairytale 300% increase in premiums for gods sake. Can you be anymore fear mongering? You can rest easy because that is NOT going to happen!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 11:15 AM
 
5,365 posts, read 6,386,391 times
Reputation: 3360
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
Which is a good policy for people that have low risk.



Modified Adjusted Gross Income



No, you cannot "more than afford" a 300% increase in premiums.

$36,000
-$3,506 [estimated fed tax]
-$2682 [7.45% FICA tax]
- $3600 [ estimated insurance premiums]
------------
$26212
+$112 [estimated subsidy]
-----------
$26,324

OR... $26212+$3600-$900 (expected tax surcharge)= $28912



The CBO is predicting otherwise... Less employer coverage and not enough people affording insurance through the exchange.



Yes they will. Americans may not be smart but they can tell that $900 is less than $3600. Even if you make $100K your tax surcharge is only going to be $2500.

Catastrophic insurance makes perfect sense unless you go to the Dr. every month. I can have $3K sitting in an account gaining 8-10%/year until I need to use it for health reasons and pay a lower deductible. Obamacare took away that option.
There is NOT going to be a 300% increase in premiums for gods sake. You people are CRAZY!! I can't take it. I'm going to the beach.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 11:18 AM
 
3,600 posts, read 6,811,153 times
Reputation: 1461
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
Health insurance really covers your "life" in a macro context and as such, premiums should be spread out over your entire life.
Than why don't they force everyone to pay for life insurance?

If one or both parents die. This saves the state potentially millions or billions.

What about mandating disability insurance. The US disability rate has doubled in the past 15 years. Why don't force people to pay for this?

Because I am responsible I carry both life insurance and disability insurance.

If u die or become disable. That saves the govt more by covering myself and my love ones.

So why not mandate that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 11:27 AM
 
3,600 posts, read 6,811,153 times
Reputation: 1461
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneTraveler View Post
To summarize your post, you are concerned about funding this system. If shortfalls occur, then I support tax increases to fund it.

And please, SHUT UP about this fairytale 300% increase in premiums for gods sake. Can you be anymore fear mongering? You can rest easy because that is NOT going to happen!
Look at the Vermont 2014 rates for single persons

I rest my case.

A single young healthy male age 26 will end up paying 300% more than what they could have gotten in 2013

$300-350 for premiums for $2500 deductible. Instead of paying $100-130 for same premium in 2013 with same $2500 deductible.

U guys make it "oh the subsidy will help".

Some people won't get a subsidy. U end up paying full price for the insurance.

Subsidies hide the real cost. Do u really think that iPhone cost $199? No it's costs $650.

Not everyone gets that $199 price for the iPhone. They pay full price.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 11:47 AM
 
3,600 posts, read 6,811,153 times
Reputation: 1461
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneTraveler View Post
There is NOT going to be a 300% increase in premiums for gods sake. You people are CRAZY!! I can't take it. I'm going to the beach.
Again. Look at the rates for next year.

http://www.dfr.vermont.gov/sites/def...HP%20rates.pdf

Tell me if I when i am crazy after looking that those rates.

Remember. Never make an assumption everyone gets a subsidy. Just like u complain people assume u are young and therefore able to afford health insurance cause they assume u do not have pre existing conditions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 08:39 PM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,149 posts, read 8,471,723 times
Reputation: 4190
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp View Post
Than why don't they force everyone to pay for life insurance?

If one or both parents die. This saves the state potentially millions or billions.

What about mandating disability insurance. The US disability rate has doubled in the past 15 years. Why don't force people to pay for this?

Because I am responsible I carry both life insurance and disability insurance.

If u die or become disable. That saves the govt more by covering myself and my love ones.

So why not mandate that?
When you show up dead at the ER it doesn't cost the taxpayers tens of thousands to millions of dollars if you don't have life insurance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 09:01 PM
 
3,600 posts, read 6,811,153 times
Reputation: 1461
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn View Post
When you show up dead at the ER it doesn't cost the taxpayers tens of thousands to millions of dollars if you don't have life insurance.
It can cost society millions if u are the primary bread winner and die and have kids to support.

Term life is dirt cheap for 500k-1 million policy. Especially when u are under age 40 with kids. Cheaper than most smartphone monthly bills.

So it does cost tax payers millions if u are a primary bread winner parent and have kids and die.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 09:14 PM
Itz
 
714 posts, read 2,209,270 times
Reputation: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp View Post
Ask 100 of your cohorts ages 18-35. Ask them how many of them have pre existing conditions?

Get back to me if that number is more than 3%.

I am 38 years old now. Out of my 100 friends. One has had cancer. One has diabetes.

That's it. The percentage of "pre existing" conditions is very low.

I see about 100-150 patients a week. Pretty much every one ages 18-35 is healthy.
/

Pre-existing condition = anything you see your doctor for.
Back aches = pre-existing
Allergies = pre-existing
head aches = pre-existing
mental health such as depression = pre-existing.

Any thing you have seen a doctor for can be construed as a pre-existing condition.

the number is much higher than 3%. I highly doubt any of your 100 friends has even thought of it in those terms. Nor have they come out and told you every single thing they've seen a doctor for in their x amount of years of living.

I have asthma and have had it for 20 years. I have never ever ever been denied coverage from any health insurance because of this pre-existing condition. Ever. The insurance companies have never been able to deny you, but they can charge you outrageous premiums.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2013, 06:55 PM
 
Location: Long Island
33,112 posts, read 19,744,114 times
Reputation: 9760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itz View Post
/


I have asthma and have had it for 20 years. I have never ever ever been denied coverage from any health insurance because of this pre-existing condition. Ever. The insurance companies have never been able to deny you, but they can charge you outrageous premiums.
not outrageous...but REASONABLE


insurance is RISK MANAGMENT


you say asthma...ok...

the advair disk....about 300 a month....do you REAL THINK an insurance company is ONLY GOING TO CHARGE you 30 a month, when they are EXPECTED to cover a 300 a month bill........hardly
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top