so much for affordable :rollseyes:


but wait there's more:
Not sure I believe this story (especially considering the source and no proof), there's no way the federal gov't could suspend your state's drivers license. But I saw stuff like this coming a mile away.

I'm sure it's probably a phishing email.


https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71

 

Where is this from? What state does the guy live in?

 

i linked his FB page. Like I said I don't really believe it. But first account I've seen on the costs.

Seems like he uses his FB page as a soap box against obamacare, so...

 

Assuming that pricing information is actually accurate, I am pretty convinced it would be the gross premiums and would not account for the available subsidies. His actual net expense would almost surely be much lower.

 

Yeah the story doesn't add up, as I have previously read that people within 400% of the poverty line will get assistance and/or the fines won't apply to them, which is $46,000 if he lives alone and greater if he doesn't (and his page says he is in a relationship).

His page also says he lives in the UK so I'm confused as to how he tried to sign up.

 

yeah. lots of holes in the story, yet it's getting picked up in numerous places.

although the fact that is now on Alex Jones says a lot...

 

Yeah as a 27 Year old with no health problems, It is looking like 150 dollars a month for just catastrophic coverage ($7000 deductible and they pay NOTHING till I reach the deductible). And the "silver" plans are running about $300 a month for me.

I'm sure I'll meet the criteria for assistance as my current taxable income is practically zero. But I really don't want to mooch off the government.

 

If you have no insurance now, it is your obligation as a dutiful comrade to buy insurance and receive the subsidy to help offset the risk of all the probable users that will sign up (i.e. those with pre-existing conditions that couldn't get coverage before).

 

Read more: Obamacare phones offered to health insurance buyers | The Daily Caller

 

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20...nclick_check=1

after reading this, then remember that the gov't is shut down because they didnt want to delay it for another year so they could get ducks in a row (remember they gave businesses a 1 year extension).

 

 

I'm extremely skeptical about many of the claims people are making at this point, but as it stands there will be a large segment of the population that pays more under Obamacare, but it really comes down to how much more. Some of that depends on how well each state implements their exchanges.

Then of course you have the Republican governed states that won't expand Medicaid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/he...w.html?hp&_r=0

So, basically the people who are working poor don't get anything in those states. If you're completely broke and don't work, you can get coverage. If you actually try to go out and work and make poverty wages for your trouble, you get nothing in those states. Great incentive.

 

Help me understand. Those government subsidies for the low income people that sign up on the exchanges are only through Medicaid?

 

Two groups of people get subsidies to help pay for their Obamacare. Congress and poor.

 

Meeting today with HR. Health care costs to go up 3-5% due to Obamacare. Other rate increases held back because of new higher deductible plans. Company picking up 75% vs. last years 90%.

Our 401k plan, which was 9%, has been scrapped. Now we get 3%, but only if we put in 5% ourselves.

I dislike our new bosses.

 

The low income healthcare coverage is an extension of Medicaid. The expansion allows people who are poor to acquire healthcare through Medicaid. The new program expands the level of coverage so that everyone up to 133% of the FPL (Federal Poverty Level) can acquire coverage through Medicaid. After that you have to go through the state exchanges and buy your own policy. This is still not particularly grandiose in scope because 133% of the FPL for an individual is is an income of $14,856 per year. Prior to this if you had no kids you couldn't get Medicaid coverage and there were variations state by state on what people with kids could get, now it's 133% across the board.

The federal government provides subsidies to the states to fund the program, but certain states have decided they won't do it.

 

So we are actually dealing with three different subsidies.

A) Expanded Medicaid for the indigent. Like, really indigent: less than 138% of Federal Poverty Level for 2014 which is $11,490 for a single individual. [I think I made more than that when I was 16 years old working part-time at a movie theater. How is it possible that adults are making that working full-time in 2013?]

B) Possible cost-sharing subsidies between the Federal government and the insurance companies for those between 100% and 250% of the FPL.

C) Possible tax credits for those between 100% to 400% of the FPL if they do not qualify for Medicaid and purchase through an exchange.

Pretty decent PDF one-pager from Kaiser Family Foundation

What the NYT article is describing is people below 100% FPL but above their state's Medicaid threshold, if those states have rejected the expanded Medicaid option.

 

The biggest overall cost increases will come from the added economic inefficiency of gov't bureaucracy, and additional anti-competitive regulations.

 

Well, the NYT is also describing adults who have no children, because Medicaid doesn't cover anyone in that category unless there are exigent circumstances. Essentially, if you have no kids and no disabilities, without this extension even if you make no dough you can't get Medicaid. That's a fairly large chunk of people.

When it comes to making very little money there are definitely areas of the country where you cannot get work, where people are lining up to get a job at Walmart like its the promised land. Nothing is particularly easy to classify as to why people cannot find work. There are so many different circumstances that force people into a low income category that it's tough to generalize and just say, "Hey, why can't you get a job?"

 

I'm not sure how competition was helping our situation prior to this. What competitive practices were keeping costs low in the healthcare sector prior to the ACA?

In addition, competition involved excluding people with pre-existing conditions from acquiring insurance and while financially this makes complete sense it's a morally bankrupt policy to support.