People complainign their insurance is going up with the ACA

[BoberFett]

Sometimes The Onion is more factual than actual news outlets.

www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/

 

[werepossum]

I love when the conservative pricks on this board try to dishonestly conflate two issues.

The $94k level is the point at which you stop getting free government money to buy health insurance. I like how entitled people such as yourself think that the government not giving you free money is the same as raising your taxes. Moocher.

I'm not sure here if you're just having a brain fart or intentionally dishonestly conflating two issues. His point is clearly that his employer may drop health insurance or cut back to the minimum requirements to avoid paying the "Cadillac" plan tax. That has absolutely nothing to do with subsidized premiums, unless you feel that all money belongs to government and by not taking it/allowing his employer to provide it, government was giving him free money.

Personally I think we'll see a lot more threats of dropping or cutting back coverage than actually doing so. Employers don't provide such benefits because they love their employees (nor should they) but because they think it's necessary to attract and hold the kind of employees they need and want. A convenient person/party/program to blame doesn't change this equation, although it certainly may be a driving factor if other forces have changed this equation.

 

[Svnla]

Yup, those figures quoted are for the second-lowest silver plan, taken directly from the ACA. The interesting thing about the tax credit is by setting a "no more than" amount it doesn't matter what your underlying cost of insurance is. For example, take my home state of Nevada. The insurance rates in Clark County (Vegas) are considerably lower than in Carson City. That's partly because there are more providers in Vegas but also because the local hospital in Carson is the single most expensive hospital in the country. But, under the tax credit program it doesn't matter whether I live in Vegas or Carson, if my income id 150% FPL I'm going to pay 3% for my premium. It also doesn't matter how old I am, so a 64 year old at 200% FPL pays the same as a 26 year old at 200% FPL. That's the magic of the chart I provided: it's universal (except for Hawaii and Alaska, which have different FPL measures). It doesn't matter if you live in Rochester or Cour D'Alene, if you're 21 or 61, the chart is the same.

I use this calculator from Kaiser = http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

For a single person of 27 years old, with $25K salary, non smoker, no dependent and the results for the three states around my area for silver plan are:

Texas, Lousiana, and Arkansas = $1,729 per year (after subsidize and credit from government) or $144.08 per month. The calculator also stated about the $1,729 and I quote ""which equals 6.92% of your household income and covers 56% of the overall premium".

About the same ballpark figure as the NPR/Nightly Business Report number ($125 per month) as I said previously.

None of that less than $100 per month as you claimed.

On a side note, from CNN:

People who are in this country without authorization are exempted.

So no penalty for them ILLEGALS and they don't have to pay for insurance yet if they get sick, the hospitals must treat them? <mind blows>

 

[werepossum]

Sometimes The Onion is more factual than actual news outlets.

www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/

LOL That is freakin' inspired!

 

[poofyhairguy]

I'm a conservative and I can see the value of single payer. That said, I'd much prefer a tiered approach to single payer in the U.S.

This is the middle ground for me on single payer is a tiered approach. If you are a productive member of society you get access to better health care - perhaps not way better, but you might be allowed access to a larger subset of tests, equipment, and procedures... If you are truly disabled and unable to be productive that would also apply. If you are the typical welfare lifer, you get basic access. Perhaps there would be only two or three tiers of access based on your income level.

That quite frankly is the only way to get conservatives to start liking single payer. I know the progressives would flip out because they feel health care is a right, and are all about equal access. That said, at some point someone needs to be realistic that there are members of our society that work hard, produce and are generally zero drag on gov't services and are indeed paying more than their fair share to provide services to others that are in need.

And leave the fucking rich out of it. They are always going to have access to the best health care their money can buy regardless of what system is forced upon us. This is about the poor, the working poor, and the middle class.

All of this. Without tiers its simply un-American.

And the funny part is that the tiered system is happening under Obamacare.

Tier 1 - Cash paying patients getting world class care from concierge doctors in private practices outside of Obamacare

Tier 2 - Private insurance patients getting decent care from their doctors at private practices and nicer medical facilities in the old medical system

Tier 3 - Medicaid (and in some cases Medicare) patients getting crappy care and long wait times at larger medical facilities or ERs (as only they can make money on such low reimbursement coverages through pumping up the patient volume) in Obama's system

The half-truth is that everyone will be covered, the full truth is some of the "coverage" will be worse to make it happen.

 

[palehorse]

I love when the conservative pricks on this board try to dishonestly conflate two issues.

The $94k level is the point at which you stop getting free government money to buy health insurance. I like how entitled people such as yourself think that the government not giving you free money is the same as raising your taxes. Moocher.

And you're failing to grasp the concept of cause-and-effect.

IF the ACA causes my employer to drop coverage, and the direct effect is a 5% loss of my income, then you're g'damn right I'm going to blame Obama and the rest of the ACA supporters for that loss!

It may as well be a 5% tax on my income that the government is (IMO unconstitutionally) handing over to private insurance companies.

Like I said above, we'll revisit this topic if/when that happens...

Edit: "free government money"? LOLWUT?! Did you really just write those words? 😵 That simple three word phrase effectively sums up your entire misguided philosophy... well done!

 

[sactoking]

I use this calculator from Kaiser = http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

For a single person of 27 years old, with $25K salary, non smoker, no dependent and the results for the three states around my area for silver plan are:

Texas, Lousiana, and Arkansas = $1,729 per year (after subsidize and credit from government) or $144.08 per month. The calculator also stated about the $1,729 and I quote ""which equals 6.92% of your household income and covers 56% of the overall premium".

About the same ballpark figure as the NPR/Nightly Business Report number ($125 per month) as I said previously.

None of that less than $100 per month as you claimed.

On a side note, from CNN:



So no penalty for them ILLEGALS and they don't have to pay for insurance yet if they get sick, the hospitals must treat them? <mind blows>

EDITED- Mea culpa. I wasn't keeping the rows straight when reading the tax credit chart. It's 200% FPL at 6.3%, not 250% FPL at 6.3%. That (obviously) changes the calculation and my numbers were wrong.