Atheistforums.com

Okay so let's talk about it!  There's a data sheet that I've found that gives an estimate of what the premiums will be like for those that do not have insurance linked here:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2013 ... t_home.cfm (http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2013/MarketplacePremiums/datasheet_home.cfm)

So my premiums for my state and county (w/ age taken into account) marked me at $180/month which is the lowest plan... and only covers 60% medical expenses w/ a deductible and co-pay for most procedures.  I have the option to opt-in to Employer coverage, but this year did not opt to do so as the cost per paycheck vs my medical expenses (which currently sit at a wonderful $0) is not worth it for me.

My employer insurance would cost about $55/month currently should I opt into it.  But, I'm not sure if ACT Compliance will jack up my employer insurance or not (I presume it will).  At $95 penalty for the first year for those that do NOT get coverage... I'll pay the fee personally.

I realize most of you will probably have Employer coverage... So let's see what people think and would like to do!

Up until 10 days ago I had military coverage, which was about $40/month. Now I have none. But I cant seem to get the vote to work...

Me neither -- working on it

edit:  Works now!

my state (Colorado) is not listed there. I have no insurance

I think it said $120 or something, but the site seemed kinda buggy.

Until they knock on my door telling me to get some, I am going to have to pass on that...

My state is not listed.  No insurance.

So who's going to pay the bill when those of you without insurance get sick? Or have an accident?

I'm on Medicare, but we buy my wife insurance.  It is currently $243 a month.  California is not listed either.  I expect from what I read that my wife's insurance will go up about $100.  Don't know for sure yet.  It is one of the cheaper insurance plans.

Before I got on Medicare, I bought a cheap plan for myself.  I found out from a medical office manager that I was paying an extra $35 a visit by using the insurance then if I just paid cash.  Started paying cash after that and dropped the insurance.  Not being able to afford another plan, I was without insurance.  Funny how I didn't feel guilty about it.  If you can't afford something you just do without.  If a hospital wouldn't treat me because I was without insurance, I guess I would have just died.  Or made them adsorb the costs.  But, if you don't have the money, you don't have the money.

all preventive care is now covered free. everyone should take advantage of that. get your check ups, your shots, etc.

some people may choose not to get insurance because "I never get sick" but you're not invincible. just because you haven't gotten sick yet, doesn't mean you won't get sick in the future.

you should get insurance so that if you get sick or in an accident you're covered. Also by getting yearly check ups, they may catch something early enough to help you.


such as catching high cholesterol BEFORE your heart attack.

I'm covered by medicare and will soon be on either medicaid or an insurance plan too once I see what my options are.

Quote from: "Jmpty"So who's going to pay the bill when those of you without insurance get sick? Or have an accident?

Hey, if your volunteering to buy me medical insurance I cant afford, I am all ears.

Mine would be $140/month.

Quote from: "wolf39us"At $95 penalty for the first year for those that do NOT get coverage... I'll pay the fee personally.

wolf39us,from where did you get the information about the $95 penalty?

Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"some people may choose not to get insurance because "I never get sick" but you're not invincible. just because you haven't gotten sick yet, doesn't mean you won't get sick in the future.

you should get insurance so that if you get sick or in an accident you're covered. Also by getting yearly check ups, they may catch something early enough to help you.


such as catching high cholesterol BEFORE your heart attack.

Indeed, I can get sick unknowingly and how unfortunate that would be for me.  Currently I am 350% above the national poverty level which means I'm a typical middle class white boy... = no government hand outs.

Aside from the occasional cold and 1 fever I've never been in need of a doctor.  My only medical problem right now is untreatable (deaf in one ear).  

There's insurance out there for all kinds of things that may or may not happen... Just because they can happen, doesn't mean I need to put $180/month + into medical insurance.

When I go see the dentist, I pull out my wallet and pay for the damn exam... Why, because it's CHEAPER than paying insurance monthly + paying a deductible + paying a co-pay for each visit!

Should I need something done I will pay for it myself.  Yes I'm aware some exams can cost thousands of dollars... But so does paying year after year for medical insurance that only goes up as I age... I'll save the money!

I pay about $400 a month for insurance through my employer that covers my husband and myself. I elected better-than-minimal coverage for the first time in my life because I anticipate medical issues in the next few years--I have shitty joints.
For minima coverage it would have been about $280.

I wish more information was widely available about this.  I know there is a lot of misinformation out there.

From what I understand, you need to be 450% over the poverty line, so Wolfus for instance, you would still qualify for some price reduction.

The more people opt in and participate, the more insurance companies will have to compete for YOUR business, and the more premiums will drop.

The more people the buy they hype that it will ultimately cost more will create a self fulfilling prophecy.

we currently pay almost 5 times more in health costs than other first world countries for the same services, with no better health outcomes.  If you want to help fix that, you need to pay into this.  If it costs more initially, the prices have a high potential to drop rapidly.  It's not fixed, it becomes a competitive market, which is good for everyone on the BUYING end.

QuoteI realize most of you will probably have Employer coverage... So let's see what people think and would like to do!

I just wanted to point out that this assumption was massively incorrect, and is incorrect nationwide as well.  That is why we need ACT. Most people who are employed do NOT get any health benefits through that job.  Less than half of employed people get insurance through their employers.  

//http://www.gallup.com/poll/152621/Fewer-Americans-Employer-Based-Health-Insurance.aspx

I think over 17% of non-elderly Americans are now completely uninsured? And that number, I know for sure, has steadily risen since the 1980's.  And this does not include underinsured people.

My mistake, I've never worked for an employer that didn't have health benefits... Except my first job at Shell

I live in capitalistic, socialism-hating Taiwan, and I'm under their government-run universal single-payer healthcare system.

QuoteI wish more information was widely available about this. I know there is a lot of misinformation out there.

www.healthcare.gov is our best resource for info.

Quote from: "Aroura33"we currently pay almost 5 times more in health costs than other first world countries for the same services, with no better health outcomes.  If you want to help fix that, you need to pay into this.  If it costs more initially, the prices have a high potential to drop rapidly.  It's not fixed, it becomes a competitive market, which is good for everyone on the BUYING end.

The thing is, the ACA does little to nothing to address the problem of the cost of health care.  It only addresses health insurance.

Health insurance is high because there's no regulation on Hospitals to control their prices.  You can't rely on market pressures because healthcare isn't a market.  A free market can only work when there is choice for the customer.  Someone who is in need of intensive care is not at liberty compare prices.  This is the one place I'd like to see a little bit of government control.  However, there is a wrong way to do it and I think this is one of them.  This isn't about affordable care, it's about lining the pockets of special interest groups.  Specifically, hospital execs and insurance companies.

its a start. insurance companies now have to compete with each other, combined with subsidies. they negotiate with the hospital on prices.


we need to do more. alot more. but its a start. and you can tell its a good thing by how hard the teabaggers are fighting it.

Okay this is kind of long, and may loose a lot of people as we got doctors talking to doctors, but it explains what is wrong with Obamacare and the health industry in general.
[youtube:3nkm553n]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd1I6DyVziY[/youtube:3nkm553n]
If you don't want to watch, I understand.  I'll try to summarize it for you.  Doctor Politician has bill to lower health care costs and make insurance affordable, no help from Democrats only Republicans.  Blah, blah, blah... Doctor I Don't Take Insurance only cash talks.  Explains how and why she can give more affordable care staying away from insurance companies.  Doctor Sees Ripoffs, then talks about how hospitals are in cahoots with the insurance companies to rip us off.  Doctor Sees Ripoffs talks about how he doesn't take insurance only cash and does most procedures for one tenth what the other hospitals charge.

A couple of the doctors talk about part of the reason for high costs is because of a requirement of Medicare where they cannot charge less then what they would get if Medicare was paying.  Therefore, the government is setting the minimum price for medical procedures.  Insurance companies also play in this game.

Bottom line, a big part of the reason medical costs are high, is because of government regulations and cost setting practices.  Evil libertarian thinkers would like to see health care costs go down by getting rid of useless and costly regulations.  But then if that was to happen, the Democrans could not come in and save the day for people looking at bankruptcy.   Watch the YouTube video and you will get a better idea of where I am coming from.

Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Okay this is kind of long, and may loose a lot of people as we got doctors talking to doctors, but it explains what is wrong with Obamacare and the health industry in general.
Writer posted a YouTube video (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd1I6DyVziY)
If you don't want to watch, I understand.  I'll try to summarize it for you.  Doctor Politician has bill to lower health care costs and make insurance affordable, no help from Democrats only Republicans.  Blah, blah, blah... Doctor I Don't Take Insurance only cash talks.  Explains how and why she can give more affordable care staying away from insurance companies.  Doctor Sees Ripoffs, then talks about how hospitals are in cahoots with the insurance companies to rip us off.  Doctor Sees Ripoffs talks about how he doesn't take insurance only cash and does most procedures for one tenth what the other hospitals charge.

A couple of the doctors talk about part of the reason for high costs is because of a requirement of Medicare where they cannot charge less then what they would get if Medicare was paying.  Therefore, the government is setting the minimum price for medical procedures.  Insurance companies also play in this game.

Bottom line, a big part of the reason medical costs are high, is because of government regulations and cost setting practices.  Evil libertarian thinkers would like to see health care costs go down by getting rid of useless and costly regulations.  But then if that was to happen, the Democrans could not come in and save the day for people looking at bankruptcy.   Watch the YouTube video and you will get a better idea of where I am coming from.

Yeah, these guys are real winners.

During the winter of 1943, the Lake County (Indiana) Medical Committee opposed the Wagner-Murray-Dingell Bill, proposed legislation that would provide government health care for most U.S. citizens. Also opposed to the bill was the conservative National Physicians Committee. The committee began a membership drive in February 1944. By May 1944, the AAPS claimed members from all 48 states.[2] In 1944, Time reported that the group's aim was the "defeat of any Government group medicine."[2] In 1966, the New York Times described AAPS as an "ultra-right-wing... political-economic rather than a medical group," and noted that some of its leaders were members of the John Birch Society.[7]

Positions[edit]

While it describes itself as "non-partisan",[8] AAPS is generally recognized as politically conservative.[7][9][10][11] According to Mother Jones, "despite the lab coats and the official-sounding name, the docs of the AAPS are hardly part of mainstream medical society. Think Glenn Beck with an MD."[11]

The organization opposes mandatory vaccination,[12] a single-payer healthcare system[13] and government intervention in healthcare.[11][14] The AAPS has characterized the effects of the Social Security Act of 1965, which established Medicare and Medicaid, as "evil" and "immoral",[15] and encouraged member physicians to boycott Medicare and Medicaid.[16] AAPS argues that individuals should purchase medical care directly from doctors, and that there is no right to medical care.[17] The organization requires its members to sign a "declaration of independence" pledging that they will not work with Medicare, Medicaid, or even private insurance companies.[11]
AAPS opposes mandated evidence-based medicine and practice guidelines, criticizing them as a usurpation of physician autonomy and a fascist merger of state and corporate power where the biggest stakeholder is the pharmaceutical industry.[18] Other procedures that AAPS opposes include abortion[19] and over-the-counter access to emergency contraception.[20] AAPS also opposes electronic medical records[11] as well as any "direct or de facto supervision or control over the practice of medicine by federal officers or employees."[21]
On Oct 25, 2008 the AAPS website published an editorial implying that Barack Obama was using Neuro-linguistic Programming, "a covert form of hypnosis", to coerce people to vote for him in his 2008 presidential campaign.[22]

Political activity[edit]

Gun control[edit]

In 1996, Dr Miguel A. Faria, Jr., a retired neurosurgeon and former Clinical Professor of Surgery (Neurosurgery, ret.) at Mercer University School of Medicine as well as founding editor of Medical Sentinel, the AAPS's journal, was involved in a gun control debate regarding the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC). Faria and other critics felt the NCIPC's program on gun violence was biased against gun owners, and was part of a 'public health' political strategy by gun control advocates. They testified before a US House Subcommittee on Appropriations to that effect.[23][24][25] Faria wanted to defund the NCIPC entirely.[26][27] The CDC was forbidden by Congress to use taxpayers' money for gun control research and from participating in lobbying activities.[28][29]
Faria left AAPS in 2002 to pursue other interests.[30] He was subsequently appointed by the administration of President George W. Bush to oversee the NCIPC as member of the grant review committee of the CDC, which he did until 2005.[31] He is the World Affairs editor of Surgical Neurology International.[32] Dr. Jane Orient remains the Executive Director of AAPS.[33]

Legal activity[edit]

Social Security

In 1975, AAPS went to court to block enforcement of a new Social Security amendment that would monitor the treatment given Medicare and Medicaid patients.[34]

AAPS v. Hillary Clinton

With several other groups, AAPS filed a lawsuit in 1993 against Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala over closed-door meetings related to the 1993 Clinton health care plan. The AAPS sued to gain access to the list of members of President Clinton's health care taskforce. Judge Royce C. Lamberth found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded $285,864 to the AAPS for legal costs; Lamberth also harshly criticized the Clinton administration and Clinton aide Ira Magaziner in his ruling.[35] Subsequently, a federal appeals court overturned the award and the initial findings on the basis that Magaziner and the administration had not acted in bad faith.[36]

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act[edit]

The AAPS was involved in litigation against Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), arguing that it violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by allowing government access to certain medical data without a warrant.[37] (Title II of HIPAA, known as the Administrative Simplification (AS) provisions, requires the establishment of national standards for electronic health care transactions and national identifiers for providers, health insurance plans, and employers, and is intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the US's health care system by encouraging the widespread use of electronic data interchange in the health care system.)

Seizure of Rush Limbaugh's medical records[edit]

In 2004, AAPS filed a brief on behalf of conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh in Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal, opposing the seizure of his medical files in an investigation of drug charges for Limbaugh's alleged misuse of prescription drugs. The AAPS stated the seizure was a violation of state law and that 'It is not a crime for a patient to be in pain and repeatedly seek relief, and doctors should not be turned against patients they tried to help.'"[6][38]
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

On March 26, 2010 AAPS filed suit to invalidate the new health care bill.[39]

Other cases[edit]

In 2006 the group criticised what it called sham peer review, claiming it was a device used to punish whistleblowers.[40] The next year, AAPS helped appeal the conviction of Virginia internist William Hurwitz, who was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison for prescribing excessive quantities of narcotic drugs after 16 former patients testified against him.[41] Hurwitz was granted a retrial in 2006, and his 25-year prison sentence was reduced to 4 years and 9 months.[42]

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons[edit]

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPandS), until 2003 named the Medical Sentinel,[30][43] is the journal of the association. Its mission statement includes "... a commitment to publishing scholarly articles in defense of the practice of private medicine, the pursuit of integrity in medical research ... Political correctness, dogmatism and orthodoxy will be challenged with logical reasoning, valid data and the scientific method." The publication policy of the journal states that articles are subject to a double-blind peer-review process.[44]

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not listed in major academic literature databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed[45] nor the Web of Science.[46] The U.S. National Library of Medicine declined repeated requests from AAPS to index the journal, citing unspecified concerns.[1] Articles and commentaries published in the journal have argued a number of non-mainstream or scientifically discredited claims,[1] including:
that human activity has not contributed to climate change, and that global warming will be beneficial and thus not a cause for concern;[47][48]
that HIV does not cause AIDS;[49][50]
that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.[51]

A series of articles by pro-life authors published in the journal argued for a link between abortion and breast cancer.[52][53] Such a link has been rejected by the scientific community, including the U.S. National Cancer Institute,[54] the American Cancer Society,[55] and the World Health Organization,[56] among other major medical bodies.[57]

A 2003 paper published in the journal, claiming that vaccination was harmful, was criticized for poor methodology, lack of scientific rigor, and outright errors by the World Health Organization[58] and the American Academy of Pediatrics.[59] A National Public Radio piece mentioned inaccurate information published in the Journal and said: "The journal itself is not considered a leading publication, as it's put out by an advocacy group that opposes most government involvement in medical care."[60]

The Journal has also published articles advocating politically and socially conservative policy positions[citation needed], including:
that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional;[61]
that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution;[62]
that "anchor babies" are valuable to undocumented immigrants, particularly if the babies are disabled.[1]

Quackwatch lists JPandS as an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical.[63] An editorial in Chemical & Engineering News described JPandS as a "purveyor of utter nonsense."[64] Investigative journalist Brian Deer wrote that the journal is the "house magazine of a right-wing American fringe group [AAPS]" and "is barely credible as an independent forum."[65]

Leprosy error[edit]

In a 2005 article published in the Journal, Madeleine Cosman argued that illegal immigrants were carriers of disease, and that immigrants and "anchor babies" were launching a "stealthy assault on [American] medicine."[66] In the article, Cosman claimed that "Suddenly, in the past 3 years America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy" because of illegal aliens.[66] The journal's leprosy claim was cited and repeated by Lou Dobbs as evidence of the dangers of illegal immigration.[60][67]

However, publicly available statistics show that the 7,000 cases of leprosy occurred during the past 30 years, not the past three as Cosman claimed.[68] James L. Krahenbuhl, director of the U.S. government's leprosy program, stated that there had been no significant increase in leprosy cases, and that "It [leprosy] is not a public health problem—that's the bottom line."[67] National Public Radio reported that the Journal article "had footnotes that did not readily support allegations linking a recent rise in leprosy rates to illegal immigrants."[60] The article's erroneous leprosy claim was pointed out by 60 Minutes,[69] National Public Radio,[60] and the New York Times[67] but has not been corrected by the Journal

Looking at Jmpty's list, I figure the AAPS are batting about .500.  Not bad.  

The fact remains, there are physicians able to give health care for about 10% of what is usually charged.  The hospitals are working with insurance companies to get as much money as possible out of the health care consumers.  And the Democans are ignoring the ripoff.  

It doesn't matter if this group is rightwing or leftwing.  If they have workable ideas, why are those ideas rejected?  It might be that if those ideas were enacted into law, some rich 1%ers might not be able to get as much money as they wanted.  Better to just poison the well so they can be ignored.

There could be a much better health care bill than the Obamacare bill.  Which only addresses the concerns of the large insurance companies.  But, the Republicrats won't allow any real changes that cause the 1%ers to not be able to run their scams on the American people.  For that is the American way!

Typically, I won't trust information or commentary from any right-wing source on this issue. Based purely on ideology, they oppose the idea of government involvement in anything, let alone healthcare, and will utter any lie or twist any facts to support their cause.

Atheon, I used to feel the same way about left-wing sources.  Then I started studying the far left pundits, like Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader.  I then realized they wanted the same things as the far right-wing pundits.  A government which serves the poor and middle class people, and not the government we have which just serves the rich.  Much of the left-wing just give us rhetoric over substance.  While preaching against the rich, they lie in bed with them.

For instance, regulations.  We don't need more regulations, we need the regulations we have impartially enforced.  As it is now, companies which pay off the politicians get by with what they want and the companies who don't get inspections which are nit-picky.  Often driving them out of business while the other company, which pays off the politicians, are as bad if not worse in actually complying with regulations.  

A good idea is a good idea.  And it doesn't make it any less or more so if it comes from Corky or Einstein.  Break out of the mold which the left-wing or right-wing pundits want to shove us in, and consider all ideas on there own merit.  Don't get caught up in the idea that you have to be "for us or you are against us," type of mentality.

NHS here.  But I am thinking of taking out a private dental plan.

Quote from: "Shiranu"Hey, if your volunteering to buy me medical insurance I cant afford, I am all ears.

This is what puzzled me.

If the problem is that people can't afford health insurance...
...how can the solution be "force them to buy health insurance" and if not fine them money they still don't have.

It's similar to the logic behind overdraft fees at a bank, which Louis C.K. hilariously commented on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0rSXjVuJVg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0rSXjVuJVg)

Obamacare is designed to make the rich, richer.  How you might wonder how when Obamacare only allows 20% vice the current 40% for administrative costs?  The answer is simple.  Hell if I can see it, it has to be simple.
(//http://changehealth.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/graph.png)

The most current chart I could find on types of health insurance Americans have is a little old, 2007, but I think it is still essentially correct.

About 27% of Americans have Medicare/Medicaid/Other Public Insurance.  About 53% have Employer supplied insurance.There are about 15% of the American people Uninsured. Private Non-Group insurance is currently used by only 5% of the American people.  Still awake?  =D>

With Obamacare, the 15% who are currently Uninsured will be forced to buy Private Non-Group insurance.  So, the Private Non-Group insurance companies will get about 300% more business.

So, if Company Scam-you is now getting in say $10 million a month, paying out $6 million in benefits, they have $4 million for administrative costs.  Let's say they actually use $3 million to run the company and they have $1 million left over in profit.  Profit goes to the stock holders and the executives.

Under Obamacare, they are expecting to get about $40 million a month, paying out $32 million in benefits and now have $8 million for administrative costs.  But, since Obamacare now has the clinics and hospitals doing much of the work for the insurance companies and advertising costs will be down, they still only need about $3 million or let's say $4 million to run the company.  Leaving $4 million in profit for the stockholders and executives.

Obviously, I don't have all of the statistics which I would really need to prove this.  But, you can bet the insurance companies and those writing Obamacare law do.

The Republicans are only pretending to fight this.  The same way the bankers pretended to fight the Federal Reserve act.  Both parties want Obamacare, because the rich want it.

For 30 years I had zero insurance then found out this year I qualified for 100% coverage at the VA.
I do need to check if I need to fiddle with the ACA or not..

Good question AllPurposeAtheist.  From my scanning of the bill, it seems the individual states are required to educate the public.  So, you need to check with the state which you live in for consumer information about how it effects you.  Good luck with that.

Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"With Obamacare, the 15% who are currently Uninsured will be forced to buy Private Non-Group insurance.

Or, since the penalty is less than the insurance premium, pay the penalty.

It will also result in many people who now buy insurance privately (non-government, non-employer) to pay less for premiums.  (If my wife currently had private insurance, her premiums under ACA would drop at least 75%.)

Back to the OP, I'm using the VA for medical care, so my cost is fairly minimal.  I'm on medicare, with a supplemental policy, so that's where the VA is getting paid for my care.

My wife is currently unemployed and not old enough for Medicare, so unless she finds a job that includes medical coverage, we have the choice of paying the penalty (she has no coverage now) or paying about 4 times as much for minimal coverage.  In a few years she'll be on Medicare, so that will solve that.

Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"For 30 years I had zero insurance then found out this year I qualified for 100% coverage at the VA.
I do need to check if I need to fiddle with the ACA or not..

Go to http://www.va.gov/health/aca/ (http://www.va.gov/health/aca/) and read #2.  You don't have to do anything.  The first paragraph after #3 explains it.  (You should have gotten that notice in the mail about 2 weeks ago.)

The penalty goes up after the first year.

Quote from: "Colanth"It will also result in many people who now buy insurance privately (non-government, non-employer) to pay less for premiums.  (If my wife currently had private insurance, her premiums under ACA would drop at least 75%.)

They drop for older people and vastly go up for the 27-35's

Colanth wrote in part:

QuoteOr, since the penalty is less than the insurance premium, pay the penalty.

It will also result in many people who now buy insurance privately (non-government, non-employer) to pay less for premiums. (If my wife currently had private insurance, her premiums under ACA would drop at least 75%.)

What does that have to do with the insurance executives and stockholders making more money with Obamacare then without it?  Also, besides the ability to stay out of jail, what do those paying the penalty get?

I'm not against universal healthcare coverage.  I am against a program which only makes the rich, richer.

I have Medicare with the remainder paid by Tricare (military retiree).  My wife uses Tricare at Walter Reed.

It would seem to be a simple thing to provide health care for the entire country this way.

Frank

Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"Good question AllPurposeAtheist.  From my scanning of the bill, it seems the individual states are required to educate the public.  So, you need to check with the state which you live in for consumer information about how it effects you.  Good luck with that.

HAHA! I live in Ohio where John Boehner is regularly elected, John Kasich is governor and rubes control both houses of congress. Obama won the state both elections though.
Oh what am I saying? Ohio rubes LOVE Obamacare! :-k

Quote from: "wolf39us"

Quote from: "Colanth"It will also result in many people who now buy insurance privately (non-government, non-employer) to pay less for premiums.  (If my wife currently had private insurance, her premiums under ACA would drop at least 75%.)

They drop for older people and vastly go up for the 27-35's

This is just untrue.  Though it also varies from state to state.

My brother is 34, and gets no health insurance through his employer (a trucking company). He has looked at the cost of purchasing health insurance on his own, and it is FAR more than what he will be able to get it for under ACT.  Before act, he's looking at about $375+ a month.  Now, he'll be able to get it for about $125.  And he makes quite a lot of money, too, after 12 years as a long-haul-trucker.  He's about 400% above poverty level.

One of the things I have been reading is that many younger incorrectly people think their health insurance will go up, but this is misinformation being spread by the right, and they are doing a better job of MIS-informing most of America than the government is doing about correctly informing us about ACT.  It's so freaking annoying!

According to healthcare.gov I'd be looking at $185/month for barebones and I'm at 300% above poverty level.  I'm 27 and have 0 health issues (non-smoker)

Quote from: "wolf39us"At $95 penalty for the first year for those that do NOT get coverage.

The fee is $95 minimum or 1% of household income, so the penalty could run much higher.

QuoteI'll pay the fee personally.

Why would you opt out?  It's a very bad financial and healthcare decision.

Quote from: "aileron"

Quote from: "wolf39us"At $95 penalty for the first year for those that do NOT get coverage.

The fee is $95 minimum or 1% of household income, so the penalty could run much higher.

QuoteI'll pay the fee personally.

Why would you opt out?  It's a very bad financial and healthcare decision.

Well let's see... Financially if I was to pay a fine of 1% my income I'd be looking at $270 (still no biggy).  Insurance according to the gov site is $180/month on barebones insurance... That's $270 vs $2,160.  

Bad idea financially?  I think not!

I also don't have renters insurance... can something happen to my house and shit hit the fan?  Sure!  I'll take my chances though :p


Forgot to add...  If I come down with something, they can't reject for pre-existing conditions.  I'll call them during the ambulance ride :-)

Quote from: "wolf39us"Well let's see... Financially if I was to pay a fine of 1% my income I'd be looking at $270 (still no biggy).  Insurance according to the gov site is $180/month on barebones insurance... That's $270 vs $2,160.

...You wrote earlier:

QuoteMy employer insurance would cost about $55/month currently should I opt into it

So the choice is really between paying $270 a year for nothing or paying $660 a year for medical insurance.

QuoteBad idea financially?  I think not!

It's a horrible financial and healthcare decision.  The $390 a year you would pocket comes nowhere near the risk mitigation a health care policy provides.  

QuoteI also don't have renters insurance... can something happen to my house and shit hit the fan?  Sure!  I'll take my chances though :p

First of all, there's an upper limit to how much you will lose without a renter's policy.  Without a healthcare policy, the sky's the limit.  One serious car accident could leave you a million in debt and darken your economic outlook for life.  Even a comparatively minor injury such as a broken arm can cost $10k-$15k.

Second, and more importantly, your healthcare is worth more than all the crap a renter's policy would cover.  

QuoteForgot to add...  If I come down with something, they can't reject for pre-existing conditions.  I'll call them during the ambulance ride :-)

It doesn't work that way.  Even though insurers cannot refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions, in the event of an accident or serious illness by the time you're eligible after signing up for a policy (usually 30 days) you've already racked up the majority of your healthcare costs.

Quote from: "wolf39us"

Quote from: "aileron"

Quote from: "wolf39us"At $95 penalty for the first year for those that do NOT get coverage.

The fee is $95 minimum or 1% of household income, so the penalty could run much higher.

QuoteI'll pay the fee personally.

Why would you opt out?  It's a very bad financial and healthcare decision.

Well let's see... Financially if I was to pay a fine of 1% my income I'd be looking at $270 (still no biggy).  Insurance according to the gov site is $180/month on barebones insurance... That's $270 vs $2,160.  

Bad idea financially?  I think not!

I also don't have renters insurance... can something happen to my house and shit hit the fan?  Sure!  I'll take my chances though :p


Forgot to add...  If I come down with something, they can't reject for pre-existing conditions.  I'll call them during the ambulance ride :-)

Why on EARTH would you not take your employers $55 a month health insurance coverage?

Certainly, if you are comparing that to the ACT prices, yes, it goes up, but you don't need the ACT one, you can GET health insurance through your employer for what one nice dinner out costs!  Makes no sense, I don't get it at all.

For the millions of people who are unemployed, underemployed, or employed without health benefits, ACT drastically, and I do mean DRASTICALLY reduces the monthly cost of health insurance.  For most young people, too, it will go down 50% or more, when compared to buying it on the open market.  
Getting it through your employer and comparing that price is apples and oranges.
And as I understand it, all studies show that prices will continue to drop for some years after this takes effect, as the market becomes more competitive.

Opting out of health insurance when you have it available to you for what many would kill for is just...it boggles my mind.  You are in good health now, just wait.  That won't last forever, and you are risking everything on being young and healthy forever.  I got very very sick out of the blue at age 28.  The bills I racked up, the misery I went through, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. But hey, it's your life.

wolf39us, I pretty much agree with Aroura33 and aileron pretty much.  Unexpected healthcare costs are the number one reason for bankruptcy.  Unexpected means out of the blue, who would have ever guessed, I didn't have a clue, what the hell is this really happening, and however else you want to think of a big unpleasant surprise.  I had planned to work until they took my dead body out of the factory I worked at, then I became too sick to work.  Point being, things don't always go as planned.

Aroura33 wrote in part.

QuoteAnd as I understand it, all studies show that prices will continue to drop for some years after this takes effect, as the market becomes more competitive.

With all due respects, "all studies" is another way of saying, "the experts best guesses are."  I'll believe it when I see it.  I've seen too many experts hump the pooch in my day to entirely trust them.  Especially when they are making projections for political reasons.

Funny, I was involved in a pretty bad car wreck once where the passenger door landed in the drivers seat with me driving. I was fairly certain I was dying, but in a strange twist I survived, but received a broken jaw in 3 places, one being a compound fracture and in the ambulance I never once thought to call healthcare.gov or the toll free number to enroll. Of course that was around 1985, but still...even had it been yesterday I seriously doubt the guy in the ambulance could have understood me saying 'ahh obanacar.. ah fogot oo sin uhh...'
Think about it Wolf.. Shit happening is pretty unpredictable ..

It's $55/month NOW.  I'd like to see the numbers later!  

Obviously due to the fact that my employer provides insurance I would not qualify for ACT anyway.  If I was to work for a company that didn't provide insurance, I probably would also be making less money at a less than skilled position.  I'd like to see where these numbers start coming down.

The only way this ACT works is by making the youngest and healthiest among us BUY insurance so as to subsidize everybody else.  The whole medical system is corrupt and overpriced... Why the fuck does it cost $19,000 for the average hospital stay (IN THE USA)?  Nope, No Thanks.

If I start having problems I'll hit that insurance.  Until then, I'll pay out of pocket and save the rest.

How many people here (especially those who have opinions on this) have read the act?  I've only read parts of it, and some parts I liked and some parts I didn't.  I know that many congress critters didn't read it at all, and Pelosi said that the bill had to be passed in order to find out what is in it.

Of course, according to JP, since I said there were parts I didn't like that makes me racist.

I don't get it.

If it's such a bad idea, why did the Republicans propose it?  "Obamacare" is "Romneycare."  It is exactly the same program Republicans proposed.  The individual mandate came from the Heritage Foundation (a right-wing "think" tank) which now bitterly opposes that individual mandate.

As with everything else, the Republicans hate everything Obama supports.  I don't believe it's too early to begin the treason trials.

Frank

With what procedures cost and visits and meds, I think low payments with co-pays are pointless. I think the entire system should be sliding scale. I've been hearing about the "lowest" payments and for me even that is too much.

Quote from: "FrankDK"I don't get it.

If it's such a bad idea, why did the Republicans propose it?  "Obamacare" is "Romneycare."  It is exactly the same program Republicans proposed.  The individual mandate came from the Heritage Foundation (a right-wing "think" tank) which now bitterly opposes that individual mandate.

It might be that when the Republicans proposed it, it was during the Clinton Administration, done with tongue in cheek as a reaction to Hillary's single payer proposal.  It was a stupid proposal and so obviously pro corporation that it was bound to fail, but it was something they could point to and say, "See, the Democrats won't compromise."  No Democrat back then considered it as anything other than a political monkey wrench to destroy Hillary's agenda.

But Obama decided to show what deceitful hypocrites the Republicans really are by turning the tables and proposing the same bill back to them, which of course they are now obligated to oppose, either because they knew it was a joke when it was their bill, or just because it's now being pushed through by Democrats.

Great strategy for Obama who makes the Republicans look like jerks.  Except that Americans end up with Obamacare, rather than class A single payer system.

Quote from: "FrankDK"I don't get it.

If it's such a bad idea, why did the Republicans propose it?  "Obamacare" is "Romneycare."  It is exactly the same program Republicans proposed.  The individual mandate came from the Heritage Foundation (a right-wing "think" tank) which now bitterly opposes that individual mandate.

As with everything else, the Republicans hate everything Obama supports.  I don't believe it's too early to begin the treason trials.

Frank

Right on. It is a bad idea. And Obama's mistake was to start with the minimum his base would accept, thinking that the GOP would go for it. Instead, they knocked it down. Obama should have started by demanding way much more, like a single payer. In fact, that's what he should do in the present impasse. Just say, "Fine, let's repeal Obamacare, and now I want the single payer. If not, I'll veto everything until I run out of office." IOW, go crazy by going to the far left. That's the only way to deal with the radicals on the right. By bending backward to please the GOP he has unwittingly emboldened the radicals on the other side. I don't know if it is too late for a complete 180[sup:2tt2pk4k]0[/sup:2tt2pk4k] turn around in the strategy, but it would be a pleasant surprise if he did.

wolf39us wrote in part:

QuoteWhy the fuck does it cost $19,000 for the average hospital stay (IN THE USA)? Nope, No Thanks.

One of the thing which I dislike about Obamacare is that it doesn't really address the high costs of healthcare.

FrankDK wrote in part:

QuoteIf it's such a bad idea, why did the Republicans propose it? "Obamacare" is "Romneycare." It is exactly the same program Republicans proposed.

As I explained in a previous post, the insurance companies are going to make money with it.  The monied masters are finally letting it though.  The parties are just playing their roles in keeping the public docile while the oligarchy gets more entrenched.

Brian37 wrote in part:

QuoteI've been hearing about the "lowest" payments and for me even that is too much.I've been hearing about the "lowest" payments and for me even that is too much.

We can't expect real low payments as long as the oligarchy can take more for themselves.  Only the rhetoric has changed in Washington with Obama as President.  No real changes will occur as long as the monied elite have their way.

SGOS wrote in part:

Quoteeither because they knew it was a joke when it was their bill, or just because it's now being pushed through by Democrats.

Politics as usual, to keep us in the dark as to who is really running our country.

More lies from the GOP:


Conservatives Already Lying About Obamacare Enrollee Chad Henderson (//http://www.mediaite.com/online/shock-and-awful-conservatives-already-lying-about-obamacare-enrollee-chad-henderson/)

Quote from: "Jason_Harvestdancer"How many people here (especially those who have opinions on this) have read the act?  I've only read parts of it, and some parts I liked and some parts I didn't.  I know that many congress critters didn't read it at all, and Pelosi said that the bill had to be passed in order to find out what is in it.

Of course, according to JP, since I said there were parts I didn't like that makes me racist.

I've read quite a bit of it, the parts that interest me are the employer penalties and how those are calculated.  Depending on whether or not your employee's premiums are above/below a certain percentage (something employers do not have complete information on) the penalty can swing.

Of course, I opposed it entirely (as well as RomneyCare) primarily for philosophical reasons, but also practically because it doesn't address any of the actual problems.

...such as pharmaceutical patents on drugs that they re-engineer slightly or rebrand and market as a brand new drug with a brand new patent and a brand new high price tag... that health care consumers don't pay attention to... they just take what they're prescribed.

...such as addressing the disconnection between health care consumers and health care costs.  The mentality should not be "umm here's my card" it should be "what are the costs of this test and do I need it?"  Ignorance in health care consumption driven by the middle-man of insurance companies is one of the primary reasons health care costs have steadily gone up unchecked.  Consumers check them... insurance companies don't.

...it does nothing to look at why doctors are practicing defensive medicine and over-prescribing antibiotics to avoid legal abuses.

...provide insurance for everyone.  Doesn't even do that.  It turns the inefficient federal government into an inefficient health insurance provider (not a healthcare provider).

At worst it's an immoral abomination.
At best it's another government bureaucracy that misses the mark.

I'm 29.  Nonsmoker.  My premiums now are a little over 100$ a month through private insurance and it gives me everything that I want in a customized plan that includes only the things I choose.  I checked what my premium would be online using the calculator they have...  it would be $236.42 per month because it covers tons of shit that It doesn't need to.