Plan B Forum

The bottom line: Almost all of them are going to receive the same or much better coverage, and many of them are going to receive financial help to purchase it.

The truth is here.

and many of them are going to receive financial help to purchase it.

Money doesn't grow on trees. Where is it coming from?

oldr_n_wsr wrote: Money doesn't grow on trees.....

The reason this season is called 'Fall' is because it is when money leaves the government tree and the Healthcare Fairy puts it into the hands of the needy....

oldr--of course it costs money; money appropriated by congress when it passed the ACA. Does this surprise you somehow?

joe--I'd much rather see some of my taxes going to help the needy get access to healthcare than many of the other places the federal government sends tax dollars.

Big RR wrote:oldr--of course it costs money; money appropriated by congress when it passed the ACA. Does this surprise you somehow?

No it doesn't. But the $2500 savings that many/most of us were promised also has not materialized. Money may have been appropriated but it has to come from some new source. Where is that source? Oh wait, they took millions from medicaid and now they have many more enrolling in medicaid. Guess that portion of what's taken out of my paycheck will be heavier.
All I know, is somehow, somewhere I will be paying more and getting less. Seems everytime the gov gets involved I pay more and get less or nothing in return.
I can hardly wait for next year when the corporations get involved in this.

oldr--while you may be paying more, why do you think you will be getting less. Exactly what are you going to lose (other than money because you have to pay more) because of the ACA?

Compared to the rest of the 1st world you pay low taxes. But you also get very little.


yrs,
rubato

Big RR wrote:oldr--while you may be paying more, why do you think you will be getting less. Exactly what are you going to lose (other than money because you have to pay more) because of the ACA?

Guess it's just money.
But where's the $2500 savings that was promised also? Have heard very few stories of people saving money.

Well, we'll see on saving money; I never bought that part of the rhetoric, but we'll see.

But as for getting "less", I just don't see it. Indeed, I think most people will be getting more than they currently have, especially for catastrophic losses, but thankfully most of us will never need that coverage, just as most of us are not in danger of being bankrupted by spiraling medical costs because we enjoy fairly good health. But if we ever need it, we'll be happy we have it.

oldr_n_wsr wrote:

Big RR wrote:oldr--while you may be paying more, why do you think you will be getting less. Exactly what are you going to lose (other than money because you have to pay more) because of the ACA?

Guess it's just money.
But where's the $2500 savings that was promised also? Have heard very few stories of people saving money.

Where exactly was a $2500 savings promised? I don't recall that at all . . .

Guinevere wrote:

oldr_n_wsr wrote:

Big RR wrote:oldr--while you may be paying more, why do you think you will be getting less. Exactly what are you going to lose (other than money because you have to pay more) because of the ACA?

Guess it's just money.
But where's the $2500 savings that was promised also? Have heard very few stories of people saving money.

Where exactly was a $2500 savings promised? I don't recall that at all . . .

"I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."

In an Obama administration, we'll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.

SEN. OBAMA: Let me just finish, because this is an important policy point. We put in a catastrophic reinsurance plan that will help reduce those premiums for families by an average of about $2,500 per year.

all quotes from this article:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -premium-/

Oldr--except for the last quote, which appears to be a response in a debate to a particular question (and I don't have the time to read the whole transcript), he did say "up to $2500" a year, not a flat $2500 a year.

Second, many of us including myself (and possibly you as well?) now have savings of at least that because we can keep our adult children insured until age 26, something that savesa lot more than $2500 a year (even young adlts can't get much coverage for $200 a month, so there's one big area of savings).

I've (NY) had that for years now but have barely had to use and I end up paying for it.
My son is older than 26 and even before that he was covered under his hospital union plan (he has a very minimal outlay) and my daughter (24) is covered by her employer (an insurance agency) who picks up the whole tab.

Previously, my insurance plan had three options (and three different costs), employee only, employee and spouse, or family (employee, spouse and children). Now there are 2 options and two costs, employee only or family.

So I am stuck paying for family when before I had the "middle" option.

Big RR wrote:Oldr--except for the last quote, which appears to be a response in a debate to a particular question (and I don't have the time to read the whole transcript), he did say "up to $2500" a year, not a flat $2500 a year.

Those are also all quotes from before the administration had to run in circles to make the Republicans happy enough to vote for the bill.

Is that loss of the employee plus spouse coverage option related to the ACA? I wouldn't think so, but I don't know. My guess it is just easier bookkeeping for your employer to offer only two choices.

Mine still offers Employee+Spouse as well as a family option. Just did enrollment for the new year. Can't blame Obama for that one Oldr.

Whatever problems the Affordable Care Act may have -- and they have been greatly overblown -- one incontrovertible fact remains:

The Affordable Care Act is many orders of magnitude better than anything the Republicans have on offer.

The problem is simply stated: Millions of Americans do not have access to affordable health care.

The Republican answer to that problem is equally simply stated: Too bad for them.

Big RR wrote:Is that loss of the employee plus spouse coverage option related to the ACA? I wouldn't think so, but I don't know. My guess it is just easier bookkeeping for your employer to offer only two choices.

Since I haven't had any employer-provided insurance since 1984, I was always on my wife's plan (until I went on Medicare). She always had only 2 options: individual or family coverage--with no "in-between" for individual-plus-spouse-minus-children--even though for a lot of that time our two daughters were too old to be covered.

Econoline wrote:

Big RR wrote:Is that loss of the employee plus spouse coverage option related to the ACA? I wouldn't think so, but I don't know. My guess it is just easier bookkeeping for your employer to offer only two choices.

Since I haven't had any employer-provided insurance since 1984, I was always on my wife's plan (until I went on Medicare). She always had only 2 options: individual or family coverage--with no "in-between" for individual-plus-spouse-minus-children--even though for a lot of that time our two daughters were too old to be covered.

Pricing was the same for "married no children" and "married with 8 children"? Seems unlikely.

yrs,
rubato

You lot couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery could you?