Affordable Care Act -- NOT Affordable

[yinne]

Oh, my goodness, I went and ran the calculator on the federal site -- it is worse than what BCBS quoted me.      We have always had adequate coverage if something serious happened, but with large deductibles -- anywhere from $7000 - $10,000.   Now those are out of our price range.   This is crazy.   

 

I understand where you are coming from Amy in NH, but your ability to now get affordable heath insurance coverage should not be on the backs of people that now will no longer be able to afford the 'adequate coverage' they had in the past.

 

Yvonne in NE

[jelbe5]

I want affordable healthcare for all. I have a pre-existing condition and understand the fear of not having coverage.

 

I too am afraid of what is coming down the pike.

 

Where I think our anger should be directed is towards our legislators who have exempted themselves from what the rest of us are being mandated. I think they should lead by example.

[Supertechmom]

Well that was depressing..... Hopefully , the real for sure info will be out soon so we will all know the details and can stop the guessing game.

[Supertechmom]

Well that was depressing..... Hopefully , the real for sure info will be out soon so we will all know the details and can stop the guessing game.

[Serenade]

 

I understand where you are coming from Amy in NH, but your ability to now get affordable heath insurance coverage should not be on the backs of people that now will no longer be able to afford the 'adequate coverage' they had in the past.

 

Yvonne in NE

 

 

This exactly. 

[creekland]

Maybe when everyone has crappy-to-no insurance like the poor we can actually make a real change in our healthcare system that will benefit everyone.  Some people just needed to be led down that road to see what the rest of us have already been dealing with before they see the need to make a real change.

This is wishful thinking at best.  The comparison to fixing public schools by having everyone have to go is a good one.

 

I doubt health care to all will improve until our politicians (and perhaps the top 1% of earners) have to have the same policy (and % of their income cost + waiting times, etc ) as the average person.  As it is now, they have Cadillac coverage at no cost to them... and no wait.  This new legislation doesn't affect them at all.  Instead, they prefer to force the middle class down to try to assist the rest.

 

Oh, goodness. I hope you're not really wishing ill on the people who were plugging along decently until now.

Maybe that's what I'm doing in wishing the pols had to be part of their own program... who knows?  I don't wish it on those who were happy with their coverage though.  It would have been nice if the "if you like it you can keep it" statement were true.

 

And again, I'm just speaking in theory based upon how furious I would feel if we had to change given the numbers I ran from Cathie's link.  We do not since health sharing programs are exempt.  I do see why membership has been growing quickly though.  We could not afford what they claim we should be able to - ESPECIALLY if something went wrong.

 

Oh, my goodness, I went and ran the calculator on the federal site -- it is worse than what BCBS quoted me.      We have always had adequate coverage if something serious happened, but with large deductibles -- anywhere from $7000 - $10,000.   Now those are out of our price range.   This is crazy.   

 

I understand where you are coming from Amy in NH, but your ability to now get affordable heath insurance coverage should not be on the backs of people that now will no longer be able to afford the 'adequate coverage' they had in the past.

 

Yvonne in NE

:iagree:  :iagree:  :iagree: !

[HomeschoolMum]

I am SO confused reading this. I "thought" your current   government  was bringing in some kind of universal health care like other countries have. This sounds like they have simply made it a way for private insurance companies to make a HUGE increase  in profit by increasing their charges and that people are  being forced to pay for all this out of  their wages on top of taxes...???  HOW does this help the poor??

 

This has nothing to do with universal healthcare. What exactly is it? Can someone explain please.

 

We have free hospital care in NZ which I have used as have my children for free surgeries( heart , tonsils etc) but we do usually pay for GP visits( poorer families get it cheaper if you have a community service card and in some areas of the country it is free,  and ALL children aged under 6 are free also at the GP. Our family also chooses to have extra private insurance in case we need more urgent care as sometimes there is a wait in the public and to pay for GP visits as we have a lot of sickness with asthma etc. It does NOT cost anything like that much though!

 Many  surgeons here work in public hospitals part time and private part time, same with specialists.. 

[Katy]

I am SO confused reading this. I "thought" your current   government  was bringing in some kind of universal health care like other countries have. This sounds like they have simply made it a way for private insurance companies to make a HUGE increase  in profit by increasing their charges and that people are  being forced to pay for all this out of  their wages on top of taxes...???  HOW does this help the poor??

 

This has nothing to do with universal healthcare. What exactly is it? Can someone explain please.

 

We have free hospital care in NZ which I have used as have my children for free surgeries( heart , tonsils etc) but we do usually pay for GP visits( poorer families get it cheaper if you have a community service card and in some areas of the country it is free,  and ALL children aged under 6 are free also at the GP. Our family also chooses to have extra private insurance in case we need more urgent care as sometimes there is a wait in the public and to pay for GP visits as we have a lot of sickness with asthma etc. It does NOT cost anything like that much though!

 Many  surgeons here work in public hospitals part time and private part time, same with specialists.. 

 

It's not universal health care; it's supposed to be modeled after the French system, which is based on private insurance, but it's ended up being very different.

 

Basically, every American will be required to buy their own insurance (or choose one partially provided by their employers), and if they don't, they'll have to pay a fine.

 

The concept is that if we're all covered the costs of the uninsured (that we all currently pay) will be less.

 

The reality is that the law is 1,000 pages long and no one read it before it was passed, and there are a lot of terrible loopholes in it that are going to terribly damage the economy. 

 

Some examples: 

• The fines cost much less than the cost of the insurance, so it's an economic advantage to not buy insurance unless your job provides it for you.
• Large companies have always been required to offer their full time employees insurance, and in most areas "full time" has been defined as 32 hours per week.  The law lowers that threshold to 30 hours per week, and rather than stepping down requirements (ie: requiring companies with part time employees to still provide some of the cost of the required health plan), the law allows employers to provide NO healthcare to part time employees.  So many, many companies are cutting back hours so they don't have to pay health care costs at all, which increases the cost of everyone's care.  There is speculation that so many companies are cutting back on people's hours that the new norm will be two part time jobs instead of one full time job.
• If you were one of the few people with really good health insurance that was employer provided (rare because good insurance is so expensive here), then your employer is now going to have to pay a luxury tax on your insurance, which is effectively taxing good insurance plans out of existence.
• Previously employers had some discretion on which plans they wanted to offer to their employees.  Christian companies who had moral objections to providing abortions, for example, are now forced to pay for healthcare plans that do.  There are many ongoing lawsuits about this, and some companies have been granted exemptions by federal courts because this violates their constitutional religious rights (yes, corporations have constitutional rights here).

 

All of this has created such chaos that now Obama has changed the deadline for companies to comply with the law until after the next election.  But he has not changed the deadline for individual people to comply, so now it doesn't matter if you don't make enough money to buy your own insurance - your employer is not currently required to buy it for you, but you are required to have it.   It's difficult to think that this isn't directly tied to the next election, because as soon as companies started announcing layoffs due to the increased cost of healthcare due to this law, their deadline for compliance was changed.  Many people consider that deadline change unconstitutional - technically Obama doesn't have the right to change a law passed by congress, although he is responsible for enforcing laws, so I would argue that he does.

 

If you have a large family buying good private insurance (the type that covers several doctor visits per person and care for pregnancy and childbirth) is probably going to cost more per month than your mortgage.

 

The reality is that the people who don't have insurance are still going to have to be covered by government plans, because they are poor enough that they can't afford their own coverage, so it seems that there will be a lot of economic chaos for not much benefit.

 

Some states are projecting lower costs for insurance, but many are projecting much higher costs.  It's very complicated, and therefore very controversial.

[Lanny]

It is not just individuals and families and businesses, who are faced with rising costs for health insurance. This article is about the Cleveland Clinic, one of the most famous hospitals in the USA, and what is happenng there, because of ACA.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/19/ohio-clinic-touted-by-obama-in-health-care-reform-speech-slashes-budget-due-to/?intcmp=HPBucket

[flyingiguana]

Thing is, we've had major increases in insurance every year for, I dunno, the past 10 years or so.  There was a bit of drop the year my husband's company switched to a high deductible plan, but then it continued to go up.

 

This is not the fault of the Affordable Care Act.

 

The ACA didn't do much to fix the cost problem, but it's not what was causing the problem in previous years.  So it's probably not responsible for the cost increases this year either.

 

Congress blew it, for us.  Although they probably got exactly what they wanted in terms of higher profits for insurance companies that are funding Congress.  What I don't get is why there are so many in Congress who want to de-fund ACA.  You'd think the insurance company lobbyists wouldn't be too thrilled with that.

 

The video I posted earlier is pointing out that the MAJOR issue with health care costs in the US is that the govt refuses to negotiate reasonable costs with the insurance companies/hospitals/drug companies etc.  They're the only entity big enough to do it, and this is what keeps costs down in other countries. 

 

From what I've seen of the exchange plans in our state, they look "reasonable" compared to other medical insurance.  It may vary by state.

[Pawz4me]

The reality is that the law is 1,000 pages long and no one read it before it was passed, and there are a lot of terrible loopholes in it that are going to terribly damage the economy. 

 

Really?  You know for a fact that absolutely no one read it?  I don't find this type of hyperbole to be helpful at all.  Especially since I've worked on very large (1,000+ page) legislation in the distant pass, and I can assure you that many, many people read every word of it many times over.

 

 

 

Large companies have always been required to offer their full time employees insurance, and in most areas "full time" has been defined as 32 hours per week.

 

Prior to the ACA, no company has ever been required to offer/provide health insurance.  The better companies have traditionally provided insurance benefits for full time employees simply because it helped them attract better workers.  But they were not required to do so by law.

 

[Katy]

Really?  You know for a fact that absolutely no one read it?  I don't find this type of hyperbole to be helpful at all.  Especially since I've worked on very large (1,000+ page) legislation in the distant pass, and I can assure you that many, many people read every word of it many times over.

 

 

I worked for a senator once too, also a long time ago.  But that has nothing to do with this. 

 

Don't you remember when the bill came out just a few days before the vote? It was universally bemoaned that no one could read more than the first 20-40 pages at the time.  Nancy Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.†

 

She said that on March 9, 2010, in case you care to google it.

 

Also, while there may not have been a federal law requiring benefits, there were enough previously existing local laws that did require benefits for those working more than 32 hours per week in large companies that between complying with local laws and the previous tax incentives to provide benefits that large companies did typically offer some sort of coverage, whether that coverage was adequate or not.

[poppy]

Prior to the ACA, no company has ever been required to offer/provide health insurance.  The better companies have traditionally provided insurance benefits for full time employees simply because it helped them attract better workers.  But they were not required to do so by law.

 

 

Yes, I'm just shaking my head here at the idea that insurance was "required" pre-ACA.  Some of the disinformation being put out there is astonishing. Do not believe everything OP-EDs tell you. 

[yinne]

 

 

Really?  You know for a fact that absolutely no one read it?  I don't find this type of hyperbole to be helpful at all.  Especially since I've worked on very large (1,000+ page) legislation in the distant pass, and I can assure you that many, many people read every word of it many times over.

 

 

 

I did read it (or at least enough of it to get the general idea) and what struck me was there was no way anyone was going to know what was in the bill until it was passed because it repeatedly said "Rules and regulations to be determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services."   (Disclaimer:  May not be an exact quote, but pretty close :)

 

Call me naive, but I thought we elected Congressman and Senators to write laws, not pass the buck to bureaucrats.

 

Yvonne

[QueenCat]

Actually it depends on the policy you had before. Some employers did offer standard cancer coverage at nearly 100%, just pay the dr visit and rx copays.  Now those same employers, for the similar premiums,  have no cancer coverage,  the first $4000-6000 in expenses is paid by employee, diagnostic imaging is not included in the out of pocket max and is paid for 100% by the employee, and 20% of the treament cost is passed on to the employee. A friend did a similar analysis for heart attack and stroke -- we are playing vastly more now as co-insurance despite paying higher premiums. I saw the same thing happen with hospital births back in the late 90s when major medical was going away and hmos came in...premiums and out of pocket went up, and coverage went down. It is now cheaper to go out of the country for major procedures than thru employer based insurance...of course if it's not elective, you don't have much choice.  At the same time, my elderly friends are really happy...$400 a month for insurance thru the school district or local govt, no out of pocket anything, and lots of knee and hip replacements plus physical therapy. I don't see equity happening here.

 

True to a point.... Also depends on your current, not just past insurance. I've never heard of employer based plans not covering cancer though. That is rather surprising to me. Not all employer based plans have had increases in out of pocket costs. Ours has improved over the past few years. I know plenty of people with similar experiences. I also know some that are paying more. I'm not actually thrilled with the way ACA is being done, but I am glad that some who have had none will now have some. To me, it was better than no legislation but I think there is room for a lot of improvement. Mostly with cost containment.

[QueenCat]

Let's be clear. Standard cancer treatment and surgery is covered. However,significantly more cost  is now shared with the insured, who is paying more in premiums this year than last. By my calculations, if I were to go through a round of cancer treatment under this year's plan, I would be out of pocket about $15k.  Last year's plan would be about $500.  I of course know many people in this boat and those who have similar scenarios with their heart issues, diabetic issues, and so forth. Everybody that sat down and calculated scenarios and shared them saw tremendous cost increases if they actually had to use their insurance, due to the 20% co-insurance that more and more plans are featuring. They will have significant cost savings going out of country.

 

 

My apologies.... I thought you meant the plans weren't covering cancer at all. 15k is a lot of money but a drop in the bucket compared to the overall cost of treatment. Can you imagine what their debt would be if they were uninsured?

 

[Pawz4me]

Don't you remember when the bill came out just a few days before the vote? It was universally bemoaned that no one could read more than the first 20-40 pages at the time.  Nancy Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.†

 

She said that on March 9, 2010, in case you care to google it.

 

Nancy Pelosi said that, so that means no one read the bill?  I don't think one plus one equals two there.

 

I did read it (or at least enough of it to get the general idea) and what struck me was there was no way anyone was going to know what was in the bill until it was passed because it repeatedly said "Rules and regulations to be determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services."   (Disclaimer:  May not be an exact quote, but pretty close :)

 

Call me naive, but I thought we elected Congressman and Senators to write laws, not pass the buck to bureaucrats.

 

Right or wrong, that provision isn't unusual at all in legislation.

 

Note I'm not defending or criticizing the ACA.  I think it's way, way too early to judge it.  If I lean one way or another, it's the belief that at least something is being attempted, 'cause what we've been doing sure hasn't been working well.  If the ACA is as bad as many want to make it out to be, it seems to me there should be legitimate areas to debate rather than making criticisms of fairly routine wording or making the indefensible claim that "no one" read it.

[QueenCat]

The cost to an uninsured person depends on their income. If they are indigent, they will receive free or subsidized care, depending on what they have and where they can go for treatment. The ER is not going to turn them away untreated either.Their cost will be passed on to the insured, as it is now.

 

 To an employed person the cost is the substantial premium plus all the co-insurance if they choose to use their medical insurance. It will be much less for certain procedures if they go out of country.

 

I understand that the uninsured seek treatment in ERs. But ERs do not provide chemo and radiation. It's not the indigent that normally lack care, it's those in between. And unfortunately, people do get turned out for those things when they can't pay through some means, and don't have the means for a payment plan. Not all employer plans involve high premiums and co-pays. Some do, some don't but it still far cheaper (even if it's not cheap) to have insurance for when one does encounter a catastrophic situation. As I said previously, mine (employer based, small company) has gone down in the past few years, and the benefits are just as good as they were before. I know plenty in similar situations, and then some who are now paying more.

[poppy]

The cost to an uninsured person depends on their income. If they are indigent, they will receive free or subsidized care, depending on what they have and where they can go for treatment. The ER is not going to turn them away untreated either.Their cost will be passed on to the insured, as it is now.

 

 To an employed person the cost is the substantial premium plus all the co-insurance if they choose to use their medical insurance. It will be much less for certain procedures if they go out of country.

 

Again with the mythology of how wonderful health insurance was before Obamacare. There was free cancer treatment?  OK, maybe, after  becoming unable to work, going on disability, going bankrupt, and all the collateral damage financially to the patient's family. 

[Mommy22alyns]

The cost to an uninsured person depends on their income. If they are indigent, they will receive free or subsidized care, depending on what they have and where they can go for treatment. The ER is not going to turn them away untreated either.Their cost will be passed on to the insured, as it is now.

 

 To an employed person the cost is the substantial premium plus all the co-insurance if they choose to use their medical insurance. It will be much less for certain procedures if they go out of country.

 

 

Maybe.  There will still be people whose states decline to expand Medicaid, who make too little even with subsidies to afford the insurance that's "required."   So then they have to get hit with increasing fines year by year...which they can ill afford, because they have NO money anyway!  There are a lot of people who are  hurting financially that will get hit even worse once this goes through.

[yinne]

Huh...you must make a lot of money?!

 

I plugged our numbers in and I was pleasantly surprised.  It is less than what we pay through DH's employer.  I'm not complaining about what we have though.  It's not that bad.

 

Hmm, no we don't.  If we did I would have found something better than the $7,000 deductible policy that we currently have.   

 

My frustration with the whole thing is that we are being asked to double our monthly premium for essentially worse coverage (higher deductible, higher copay, and higher out of pocket).   I realize that the new policies have more in them, but we will never use most of that, so there is no value to us.    Even when I play around with the numbers and get some government assistance, I am still paying more than I currently pay.   

[creekland]

I understand that the uninsured seek treatment in ERs. But ERs do not provide chemo and radiation. It's not the indigent that normally lack care, it's those in between. And unfortunately, people do get turned out for those things when they can't pay through some means, and don't have the means for a payment plan. Not all employer plans involve high premiums and co-pays. Some do, some don't but it still far cheaper (even if it's not cheap) to have insurance for when one does encounter a catastrophic situation. As I said previously, mine (employer based, small company) has gone down in the past few years, and the benefits are just as good as they were before. I know plenty in similar situations, and then some who are now paying more.

I'm glad your costs have gone down, but I can honestly say IRL I don't know of anyone whose employer costs have gone down for the same or better coverage.  Most have less coverage and have started to ask employees to cover some of it either monthly or through co-payments.  Others have the same with the employer eating the extra costs.  Still others have lost employer covered insurance (these have all been small businesses or gov't entities like our township).

 

Maybe it depends upon which state one is in...

[poppy]

Poppycock. Go to the major cancer treatment providers' webpages and find out reality.

 

MD Anderson alone treated over 45,000 people and wrote off $215million for those who had no insurance or were underinsured in 2011.

 

Drop in the bucket.

 

[Scarlett]

I should probably not even reply to this, but I have to.   We are a small American farm family and those that farm and/or understand farming know where I am coming from, those that don't , don't.

 

Yvonne

 

 

Lots of income, lots of expenses, modest net?  FWIW, I believe it is the AGI they are asking for. 

[Katy]

As I said upthread, it wasn't a federal requirement, but it was a local requirement in some areas of the country.

[Scarlett]

As I said upthread, it wasn't a federal requirement, but it was a local requirement in some areas of the country.

 

I have never heard of this. 

[Cricket]

Maybe. There will still be people whose states decline to expand Medicaid, who make too little even with subsidies to afford the insurance that's "required." So then they have to get hit with increasing fines year by year...which they can ill afford, because they have NO money anyway! There are a lot of people who are hurting financially that will get hit even worse once this goes through.

That calculator made no sense to me. Our state opted to expand Medicaid. The calculator said that if our state had not done that, we would be spending between over $13,000 to almost $20,000 for coverage per year. That's from 50% to over 70% of our income and we were not eligible for federal subsidies. Is that what is happening in states that didn't expand coverage?

[Scarlett]

 

I don't think so.  I think they want the annual income.

 

I input our numbers and the quote was far less than what the BCBS quoted the OP.  So I can only conclude they make more money.   None of my damn business if they do or don't and I wasn't trying to be insulting, but just saying I felt what was quoted to me was fair based on what we make.  It was not crazy and outrageous.

 

There is a lot of misinformation and exaggeration about the new healthcare stuff which is unfortunate.

 

 

In the FAQs portion of the link Cathy provided I found this---

 

Exchanges will calculate enrollees’ household incomes using Modified Adjusted Gross Income, or MAGI.

[QueenCat]

I'm glad your costs have gone down, but I can honestly say IRL I don't know of anyone whose employer costs have gone down for the same or better coverage.  Most have less coverage and have started to ask employees to cover some of it either monthly or through co-payments.  Others have the same with the employer eating the extra costs.  Still others have lost employer covered insurance (these have all been small businesses or gov't entities like our township).

 

Maybe it depends upon which state one is in...

 

I do think location does play a part in it.

[Scarlett]

Ah.  Interesting.

 

So maybe we'd get an even better deal because that would be less than what I entered.

 

All hypothetical because thankfully we do have insurance that isn't choking us financially.

 

 

I was trying to figure out if I have to count the child support I get.  I don't think I do.  But I also have no idea what our MAGI will be...job loss, new job, etc etc.

 

I am just trying not to worry about it at all until the exchanges open...not sure what will happen though because dh should have access to medical insurance at his job end of November....gotta wait and see what that cost will be.

[QueenCat]

As I said upthread, it wasn't a federal requirement, but it was a local requirement in some areas of the country.

 

Not in any of the states I've lived in.... dh's employers have always provided it but they were never required to.

[QueenCat]

That calculator made no sense to me. Our state opted to expand Medicaid. The calculator said that if our state had not done that, we would be spending between over $13,000 to almost $20,000 for coverage per year. That's from 50% to over 70% of our income and we were not eligible for federal subsidies. Is that what is happening in states that didn't expand coverage?

 

I think you have to scroll down to see the final total, and where subsidies come in to play. I calculated a variety of incomes and household sizes. Until I got over 90k, subsidies were covering at least some of the cost. Still too high for some but lower than some private options that currently exist.

[Mommy22alyns]

That calculator made no sense to me. Our state opted to expand Medicaid. The calculator said that if our state had not done that, we would be spending between over $13,000 to almost $20,000 for coverage per year. That's from 50% to over 70% of our income and we were not eligible for federal subsidies. Is that what is happening in states that didn't expand coverage?

 

 

That's pretty much what I got too.

[Pawz4me]

As I said upthread, it wasn't a federal requirement, but it was a local requirement in some areas of the country.

 

 

Could you post where this requirement exists (or existed)?  Truly I'm not being contentious, I'd just like to know.

[Cricket]

I think you have to scroll down to see the final total, and where subsidies come in to play. I calculated a variety of incomes and household sizes. Until I got over 90k, subsidies were covering at least some of the cost. Still too high for some but lower than some private options that currently exist.

It says "You will not be eligible for subsidies in the exchanges because your income is below 100% of the federal poverty level."

 

"You could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to: $0 (which covers 0% of the overall premium)"

 

So weird. Maybe this means we would qualify for Medicaid even if in a state that didn't expand coverage? That's the only thing I can figure.

[QueenCat]

It says "You will not be eligible for subsidies in the exchanges because your income is below 100% of the federal poverty level."

 

"You could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to: $0 (which covers 0% of the overall premium)"

 

So weird. Maybe this means we would qualify for Medicaid even if in a state that didn't expand coverage? That's the only thing I can figure.

 

I think it is because of Medicaid. I don't think the calculator is set up to deal with people who are states where Medicaid isn't being expanded, and will be using the exchange. I think it is giving out inaccurate info for you.....

[Katy]

Could you post where this requirement exists (or existed)?  Truly I'm not being contentious, I'd just like to know.

 

I spent about an hour googling, trying to find more comprehensive information on that, but I keep coming across ACA updates instead.  I'll ask a family member who used to work as a benefits consultant, I remember having a conversation about it with her when I got hired for that insurance job.

[PeacefulChaos]

http://www.advisory.com/Daily-Briefing/Resources/Primers/MedicaidMap

 

 

Here is a link that says what each state is doing so far in terms of Medicaid expansion.  

Ah... yes, ours is leaning toward not expanding.  Or however they worded it.  :P

 

I know, I kept expecting we'd hear a bit more about it as well, but we really haven't.  I think we'll hear more about it in the next couple of months.

 

Did you see the post a little further back that had the website where you can put in your income and family size, and it tells you how much you would probably get in subsidies?  That might give you some idea.  I found it to be pretty helpful; I hope it is accurate for what it told me.

I did the calculator and it was a bit ambiguous.  'if your state has decided to expand medicaid then....' and that was it.  :confused:  Unless I missed something... I just thought, wow, that does me no good!  :lol:

 

Since your kids qualify for Medicaid, you are likely going to qualify for subsidies for you and your dh. And yes, you must have it by January 1st. There have been public announcements about it for quite sometime.

 

I guess public announcements don't mean much when one doesn't have TV.  We have *a* tv, but we don't have cable, satellite, and the antenna doesn't even work.  I haven't seen anything about it anywhere else, so I assume everything was announced on television.

 

Yeah I've never heard of large companies being required to offer insurance.  They generally do, but I never thought it was a requirement.

 

DH's employer is one of the largest in our community.  They do *offer* insurance, but it's still really expensive.  Not as bad as some of our friends who pay $800-$1000/mo, but they wanted $600/mo, I think, the last time I looked at it (which was a couple of years ago).  That's just not possible for us. 

 

Around here (I've mentioned this before, in previous threads) all our health systems operate under one hospital's 'umbrella', so to speak.  Locally, we have ___ Community Hospital, and some of the doctors and such in town are _____ Family Medicine, ______ Internal Medicine, etc.  In the cities it's even better - in one direction we have the Medical College of ______, which includes everything from OBs (where I had my kids) to opthamology and dentistry, cancer to NICU follow ups.  Everything.  In the other direction it's the University of _____ with all the same stuff - I go to the urologist there.  Even when I went to the ER in another state, they had a similar system.

All of these places offer discounts.  They determine what percentage of everything I have to pay for based on our income.  Locally, I paid $100 total for an ER visit for a stuck kidney stone, including CT.  At one of the others, I qualify for 80% discount - at the other, 90%.  And I set up payment plans with them and paid $25-50/month on them until they were paid off.

From what I hear, that isn't the norm in most places - I wish it was.  Just seems like the easiest way to get everything done!  :)  And a lot cheaper than insurance (for me), too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, this last part is very conspiracy theory-ish and I wanted to ask some people who actually seem to KNOW about the healthcare stuff instead of just seeing a video on YouTube and believing everything it says... but (and it's embarrassing to even ask this) I have a family member who says that if we 'sign up for' ObamaCare (whatever that even MEANS), it includes a 'chip' that this person believes (and apparently some other right-wing, uber-religious people believe) is the 'mark of the beast'.  And that if people 'get' ObamaCare (whatever that means) then they will HAVE to get this 'chip' and that's how 'the end times will be here with the mark of the beast!!' 

I know that sounds insane.  FTR, I don't believe them.  But does anyone have any idea what the basis of this is?  I'd like to have the knowledge to refute this the next time it comes up, if need be. 

Thanks.  :P

[elegantlion]

In the FAQs portion of the link Cathy provided I found this---

 

Exchanges will calculate enrollees’ household incomes using Modified Adjusted Gross Income, or MAGI.

 

Just add a "C" to that, so you'll have Modified Adjusted Gross Income Crap.  :coolgleamA: Then they can claim it's all magic. 

[ktgrok]

I am still trying to figure out how this is going to "help" people who can't afford insurance.  What, they want to give tax rebates?  We don't have the money to spend to get it back at tax time!

 

It actually applies right away, and it credited against hte cost of the plan you are getting in the exchange. You only pay the discounted rate. You don't pay out, then get a refund later...you just pay the discounted rate. 

[AMJ]

Just received my info from Blue Cross Blue Shield my premium is jumping from $578 a month to $1,092 a month and going from a $7,000 deductible to a $8,000 deductible.   We are a self employed (small) farming family -- where in the world am I suppose to find an additional 500 a month to pay the premium -- and no, the insurance agent doesn't think we will qualify for any assistance.   

 

This is crazy -- do you realize that if you don't get insurance by March 31, 2014 you are out of luck until enrollment opens again on October 15, 2014 for the new year 2015.   The only way you can change your plan is if there is a marriage, divorce, birth, or adoption.   So if you get stuck with a rotten insurance company you are stuck for the year -- no changes.

 

I am sorry -- I am so frustrated right now -- I don't know what to do.    We don't do cable, satellite, netflix, data plan cell phones (much to the kids dismay, they would love I-phones), vacations, etc., because we try and be responsible with our money and our choices and we can't afford most of those things -- I can't afford the new and approved health care system -- where can I check out??

 

Yvonne in NE

 

It sounds more affordable to get rid of your insurance and become indigent for care.  Yes, you pay a $2000 fine each year you do that, but it's less than what it will cost you over the year.

 

I grew up on the family farm.  If family matters hadn't have lost it decades ago this sort of thing probably would have destroyed our ability to hang on to it.

 

[ScoutTN]

If Christian, look into health sharing ministries. We are part of Samaritans Ministries and have had absolutely no problems with it (3 claims so far, soon to be a 4th). Membership exempts folks from needing health insurance. These groups aren't insurance - they are more like co-ops, but again, we've found nothing but positive in our experience going back at least a decade (maybe more). Our monthly share is $370 and it covers everyone in the family. Regular check ups and anything under $300 isn't share-able, but anything (covered) over it is at 100%. Some things are not covered (mental health, vision, abortions, anything alcohol related, etc) so check into it carefully.

 

And again, it's only open to Christians...

 

 

These sometimes won't take anyone with serious prexisting conditions. We checked into it, but they wouldn't cover my DH who has a neuro-vascular condition that requires an MRI annually as part of a check-up.

[elegantlion]

These sometimes won't take anyone with serious prexisting conditions. We checked into it, but they wouldn't cover my DH who has a neuro-vascular condition that requires an MRI annually as part of a check-up.

 

When I looked into one, they wouldn't accept smokers. Say what you will about smoking, there are christians who do smoke (I don't, dh did). So, yes research what is covered carefully. 

[yinne]

Ok, this last part is very conspiracy theory-ish and I wanted to ask some people who actually seem to KNOW about the healthcare stuff instead of just seeing a video on YouTube and believing everything it says... but (and it's embarrassing to even ask this) I have a family member who says that if we 'sign up for' ObamaCare (whatever that even MEANS), it includes a 'chip' that this person believes (and apparently some other right-wing, uber-religious people believe) is the 'mark of the beast'.  And that if people 'get' ObamaCare (whatever that means) then they will HAVE to get this 'chip' and that's how 'the end times will be here with the mark of the beast!!' 

I know that sounds insane.  FTR, I don't believe them.  But does anyone have any idea what the basis of this is?  I'd like to have the knowledge to refute this the next time it comes up, if need be. 

Thanks.  :p

 

Not true -- there was a satire piece written in nationalreport.net and then it kind of took on a life of its own.   At one time there was a registry for medical devices that were implanted into people, but that never made it in the final bill.   There is also the CHIP program in the bill which is some type of program for children.    All those taken together have created the myth.

 

(I don't care for this bill at all, but I also don't like misinformation out there!)

 

Yvonne

 

[Murphy101]

I am solidly against the funding.

 

This act is not universal health care.

 

It takes the worst and most expensive aspects and practices of both insurance and beaucracy and combines to into a nightmare labyrinth for the general citizen to get lost in while those same federals who passed this mess (dem & rep) handily excluded themselves from getting caught in the maze.

[Moxie]

Our healthcare problem isn't going to be solved until we get rid of career politicians who have no clue what real life is like anymore. Term limits!! Term limits!! Term limits!!

[Pawz4me]

I spent about an hour googling, trying to find more comprehensive information on that, but I keep coming across ACA updates instead.  I'll ask a family member who used to work as a benefits consultant, I remember having a conversation about it with her when I got hired for that insurance job.

 

Thank you!  I tried searching and got nothing but ACA hits, too.

[ktgrok]

Thank you.  I tried it and it says a bunch of confusing stuff and does not address whether COBRA is considered insurance offered by the employer or not.  If it is, we are not eligible.  COBRA costs us big time per month and I don't know how long we can continue to pay.  I will have to research further.  

 

 

FYI, we were going to use Cobra, but called an insurance broker and got insurance FAR cheaper privately. It doesn't cover maternity, but right now that isn't an issue, and if it became an issue we'd do a homebirth and pay out of pocket anyway. Just a thought. 

[shanvan]

FYI, we were going to use Cobra, but called an insurance broker and got insurance FAR cheaper privately. It doesn't cover maternity, but right now that isn't an issue, and if it became an issue we'd do a homebirth and pay out of pocket anyway. Just a thought. 

We already tried and nothing comparable cheaper.  Everything Dh looked at was more expensive.

[NicAnn]

Ok. Can someone take pity on me and help me with this? I swear I'm a smart person, I just truly don't understand. I've never had health insurance before. I live in a state that's not expanding Medicaid, fwiw.

 

So if we have a family of 4 making $25000 a year, how much will I pay upfront? Will I pay for drs visits and copayment?