Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Foo (http://www.bikeforums.net/foo/)
-   -   Affordable Care Act... (http://www.bikeforums.net/foo/920166-affordable-care-act.html)

ahsposo 10-30-13 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by no1mad (Post 16205991)
Sounds like the OP's daughter needs to find a mate in Canada ;)

Don't we all.

I never thought I'd view Canada as the sane alternative.

God help the USA.

eja_ bottecchia 10-30-13 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver (Post 16205667)
Lets just say I ran the numbers as if my wife and I were living in Oregon with our daughters... the ACA is not affordable.

This...

Wordbiker 10-30-13 07:00 PM

I couldn't afford health insurance before. Now that the government has the right to put a gun to my head, my costs have gone up 100% for insurance....and I still can't afford it.

ahsposo 10-30-13 07:01 PM

'Debacle'.

Someone watches way too much Faux and listens to a fat, bloated, pill-addled idiot, me thinks.

But I could be wrong. I often am. Ask my wife.

Sorry if I have strayed, OP, but 'debacle'?

ahsposo 10-30-13 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wordbiker (Post 16206146)
I couldn't afford health insurance before. Now that the government has the right to put a gun to my head, my costs have gone up 100% for insurance....and I still can't afford it.

So, they started at nothing, because you couldn't afford it, and went up 100%.

Where's my cac-u-later?

overthehillmedi 10-30-13 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by no1mad (Post 16205991)
Sounds like the OP's daughter needs to find a mate in Canada ;)

If she emigrated to anywhere in Canada she would become eligible in six months for coverage with basically no restrictions without having to find a mate of either sex.

Wordbiker 10-30-13 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahsposo (Post 16206154)
So, they started at nothing, because you couldn't afford it, and went up 100%.

Where's my cac-u-later?

0 + 100% = 100%.

ahsposo 10-30-13 07:21 PM

Thank you.

Sixty Fiver 10-30-13 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahsposo (Post 16205744)
I haven't talked to a Canadian yet that is unhappy with their healthcare.

The worst comment I heard is that there was something of a 'brain drain' after the law was implemented as greedy doctors left for the greener pastures of the US.

Our system is far from perfect we do spend less of our GDP on healthcare, live longer, and managed to implement universal healthcare before the medical and insurance monopolies could gain enough traction to buy their own politicians.

In Alberta medical expenses and user fees are covered through oil revenues but even if you are ina province where you pay premiums they are not onerous and there are no ridiculous deductibles.

3alarmer 10-30-13 07:26 PM

A Canadian Protests at the US Capitol:
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ahsposo (Post 16206116)

I never thought I'd view Canada as the sane alternative.

God help the USA.

http://hugelolcdn.com/i700/60101.jpg

ahsposo 10-30-13 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver (Post 16206214)
Our system is far from perfect we do spend less of our GDP on healthcare, live longer, and managed to implement universal healthcare before the medical and insurance monopolies could gain enough traction to buy their own politicians.

In Alberta medical expenses and user fees are covered through oil revenues but even if you are ina province where you pay premiums they are not onerous and there are no ridiculous deductibles.

There's a so-called 'conservative' newspaper in one of Canada's major cities and the political cartoonist is a seasonal member of a lunch group I often join. I asked him about Canada's system and he prefaced that nobody fought harder against it than he did while it was being proposed and implemented. Now, however, he thinks it's the smartest thing Canada has done as a nation.

steve0257 10-30-13 08:56 PM

I have employer provided insurance but my coverage will change. The current options I have selected don't meet the requirements of the ACA so my cost will probably go up. If I did have to go to the exchange, there is currently only one plan in the part of the state I live in, and it is the costliest plan in the state for its level of coverage. $600/month for a 56 year old male. But I did hear on the news this evening that another company has decided to come in with a couple of plans.

GP 10-30-13 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genec (Post 16205953)
Now wait a minute... don't go touting successes here. Com'on there has to be some horror story behind your post... did you contact the death panels directly?

Well, since you asked.

The website, Covered California, is a little clunky. It died on me last week halfway through the session. Luckily I'd saved the information and was able to start where I'd left off.

My $639/mo savings takes my employer's contribution into account. If I enroll on Covered California, I'll end up paying about $150-200 more per month than I pay now. I'm retiring in a few months so the employer contribution will end in March 2014 anyways.

dstrong 10-31-13 10:21 AM

Thanks for all your responses and staying mostly on track to prevent this being moved to P&R.

She will make a trip to the local help center to have them help her through the process. I'll report back then.

MillCreek 10-31-13 11:11 AM

I don't know where your daughter lives, but has she looked into a Community Health Center as a treatment option? I do some risk management work for some of these facilities, and they do some fine work. Many of them offer medical, dental, behavioral health and pharmacy services, often on sliding scales if the patient has no or poor insurance.

http://findahealthcenter.hrsa.gov/Search_HCC.aspx

genec 10-31-13 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GP (Post 16206515)
Well, since you asked.

The website, Covered California, is a little clunky. It died on me last week halfway through the session. Luckily I'd saved the information and was able to start where I'd left off.

My $639/mo savings takes my employer's contribution into account. If I enroll on Covered California, I'll end up paying about $150-200 more per month than I pay now. I'm retiring in a few months so the employer contribution will end in March 2014 anyways.

So you are retiring before you are eligible for medicare? That is one thing that keeps me employed at the moment, knowing that I would lose medical coverage if I retired. The mortgage is another... but that is a different situation. I can sell and move into something smaller to take care of the housing situation, I don't know of a good solution to the medical needs.

phoebeisis 10-31-13 11:27 AM

Michigander-
Of course someone has to pay.
Young healthy folks have to pay more so older folks and poorer folks and folks with pre existing conditions can have health care.
President Obama has been fairly clear on this- the young healthy and affluent folks have to pay more than they will consume.
It is a progressive tax in some senses.
No free lunch-but the very affluent-who are "job creators"(usually jobs in china india etc)- have really been benefiting from the current economy.We are being turned into South America with HUGE income disparity.Much of it is income transfer via credit cards-that "bank money" goes to the very affluent.They aren't "creating" any jobs here- they invest in low wage countries-not here.
The middle class is being drained by banks-credit cards. They aren't benefiting from the credit cards-
They are being scammed-simple as that-credit does them ZERO good.
-yes the young and healthy and wealthy are paying for health care for the older unhealthy and not wealthy-progressive tax.

haplorrhine 10-31-13 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wordbiker (Post 16206189)
0 + 100% = 100%.

Technically, the answer is undefined, but I think you could make a strong case for it being infinity.

Percent Increase = [ (Final – Initial) / initial ] 100
= [(x - 0) / 0] 100
= ( x / 0 ) 100
= ( undefined ) 100

Now, if you were previously payiong $1, and it rose to $100:

= [(100 - 1) / 1] 100
= ( 99 / 1 ) 100
= 99 100
= 9,900% increase

no motor? 10-31-13 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahsposo (Post 16206284)
There's a so-called 'conservative' newspaper in one of Canada's major cities and the political cartoonist is a seasonal member of a lunch group I often join. I asked him about Canada's system and he prefaced that nobody fought harder against it than he did while it was being proposed and implemented. Now, however, he thinks it's the smartest thing Canada has done as a nation.

One of my friends wrote a magazine article on the Canadian medial system when they were changing and everyone he talked to was in favor of it. The editors told my friend to go back and find some people with the opposite view, as the magazine advertisers didn't want people to find out how much the public liked their system.

haplorrhine 10-31-13 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tizeye (Post 16205933)
When I see statements like this, it typically is not comparing apples to apples - even if the insurance plans were identical. The reason is because employers subsidize their employees health premium, gaining a tax break - which we all pay for - while calling it a personnel benefit. While doing a hypothetical review, as HR what the current COBRA payment is "if you left the company". That is basically 100% of the employer's cost for the insurance plus a small (1% or so) administrative fee for COBRA. Watch you $120/mo suddenly shoot up to $400 or more.

I don't think I understand.

In other words, the government taxes us instead of our employers, so long as those employers use the tax-break to give us insurance?
In other words, we're paying for employer-provided insurance whether we're recieving it or not? Or does the government give a special tax to those recieving the benefit?

tizeye 10-31-13 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haplorrhine (Post 16208199)
I don't think I understand.

In other words, the government taxes us instead of our employers, so long as those employers use the tax-break to give us insurance?
In other words, we're paying for employer-provided insurance whether we're recieving it or not? Or does the government give a special tax to those recieving the benefit?

Actually, no. It is one of the rare instances where the government takes it on both ends. The employer medical contribution is tax deductible as a business expense. On the other end, the employees benefits - in this case the amount that the employer contributes - is not considered income and is not taxed. SO the government loses potential tax revenue on both sides.

Using your figures let me illustrate

ACA quote $620 (or $400 more than your current employer)
Employer : $120 your 'cost' + $400 employer contribution (unknow, so hypothetical) = $620 (COBRA would give you a good idea of what that contribution is if employer doesn't tell you)
That is what I meant by "apples to apples" comparison as it includes all factors, and in this example, the insurance cost was the same $620.

The only way for the insurance to go up $400 as you perceived, is to leave the employer where you then become responsible for that portion that the employer was contributing.

Michigander 10-31-13 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoebeisis (Post 16207786)
Michigander-
Of course someone has to pay...snip.

If you want my opinion on it, send me a PM, or start a thread in P&R. I wish to keep my mouth shut in regards to how I feel and what I make of the situation in order that the thread can stay here/my posts won't get deleted.

haplorrhine 10-31-13 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tizeye (Post 16208360)
Using your figures let me illustrate

You were actually responding to bikeguyinvenice (below), but I wanted to understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bikeguyinvenice (Post 16205688)
I shopped on healthcare.gov last week. It's not affordable. To get something similar to my current health care plan I'd have to spend about $400 per month vss $120 per month for my employer provided plan. I think a lot of people will pay the penalty tax vs buying healthcare.


Sixty Fiver 10-31-13 03:02 PM

I think if we bottom line things it is clear that healthcare is the United States is frighteningly expensive, that a good part of this expense is driven by insurers and the medical establishment, and that the ACA legislation and implementation is a mess.

Many other countries do a much better job of providing healthcare at lower costs and see much better outcomes.

cafzali 10-31-13 03:47 PM

Texas is one of those anti-ACA states that have refused to set up their own exchange and are instead using the one run by the feds that's been beset by technical issues. As others pointed out, a medical discount plan isn't really insurance, which is why those are no longer being offered, as they don't meet ACA requirements. The ACA mandates that preexisting conditions be covered, which is one of the chief benefits of the law, so that will no longer be an issue.

I think, long term, one of the upsides of the ACA in addition to benefits will be that people will finally begin to understand how the health system they think is so great really operates. It is a good system if you've got money and/or good coverage, but if you don't make a lot of money or don't have good insurance, it's never really been a great system. Many of the things that are wrong with our system, like preexisting conditions, only affect people who are either uninsured or aren't in large group plans where they're not an issue. But when things go wrong in their situations, it can cost them -- and often us all -- more money because everyone's rates are raised to account for that.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:12 AM.